Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 28th, 2013

[Michael Wernick]

That the Government of Canada has provided $320 million for this purpose.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

And the Government of Canada doesn't have any records of where that money is spent?

[Michael Wernick]

You'd have to ask each band council what they do with that fund. That is the problem that was identified in the Auditor General's report of May 2011, which I commend to every member of this committee as the best diagnostic of what's wrong with services to first nations. She called clearly for a legislative basis for key services and for effective local service organizations. We don't have that in education.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Switching to skills training, which is another form of education, you've announced some money for skills training. What are the main features of that new first nations job fund? Who is eligible to participate, and how?

[Michael Wernick]

What we have on first nations reserves is passive welfare of a 1970s model—cheque writing by band councils. There is no case management. There are no diversion services in which people are assessed for what they need in order to be job-ready. There's no real partnership with post-secondary institutions or the private sector. There's nothing that's effective. It's a passive welfare system and it's a trap for young adults.

The reform that the government announced in the last year is to catch up to what every province in Canada has done over the last 10 years, which is to add active case management to assess people's needs and divert them and channel them to the services; to say you aren't getting a cheque unless you're involved in some kind of skills or upgrading or training program; and to deal with whatever the issue of the individual is, which might be child care needs, literacy training, or specific training for a specific occupation.

What we have finally been able to do is to bring in all of the skills of my colleagues at the employment and skills development department, formerly HRSDC, who never dealt with an on-reserve clientele but who are now rolling out the program to an on-reserve clientele. We're in the very first six months of that reform. I would hope to have a lot of progress for you in the next year. Projects will be rolling out that have been developed in partnership with tribal councils and first nations. Chiefs and tribal councils are extremely excited about the opportunity to turn away...young adults in particular. The focus in the first wave is 18- to 24-year-old young adults.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll turn now to Mr. Seeback for the next round of questions.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Michael, I want to go back to talk a little more about specific claims. For whatever reason, it's an area that I'm quite interested in.

If I remember correctly, both you and the minister were saying that about 300 active claims right now are going through. Are the numbers actually changing? Were there 400 the year before, or, with the cases that are coming in and the cases that are going out, are we staying at around the same number year over year?

[Michael Wernick]

The short answer is that the numbers change virtually every day—which drove my staff crazy in trying to get ready for questions at today's appearance.

We have 320 in progress, either at legal assessment... I'll come back to that in a second, if you don't mind. We have about 180 at active negotiation. Some of them will get settled next week, I think, so the numbers do fluctuate.

What we have done, if any committee members are interested, is put a dashboard on the website in which you can look up the inventory. The statistics I just read to you are from the website. You can look up by province and even by specific file. There's information on all of the active claims on the website.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Okay.

One of things that happened was the five-year mandated review. What has been the outcome of that review?

[Michael Wernick]

One of the main features of the reform of 2007 was to create a tribunal with binding powers. We never had that before. If the government lawyers or the first nations lawyers think they have a good case, they'll take their chances at the tribunal or they'll decide to negotiate. The existence of the tribunal has sped up negotiations immensely, because people—including government lawyers—have to really be serious about how good their case is. We're seeing more settlements, actually. There are only about 40 to 45 cases filed at the tribunal, which is there as a recourse if you really think you have a good case. I don't think the tribunal has actually made any significant awards yet. It's still chewing through its initial caseload. It is essentially like a court, and has the characteristics of a court.

We're coming up to the statutory review of the creation of the tribunal. As you know, it's a common device to put it into a piece of legislation that after five years Parliament should review the act. I think you will have ample opportunity to engage in that in the early part of next year, if I remember my timing.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

What would you say is the average processing time for a case that ends up at the tribunal? Do you have any numbers on that?

[Michael Wernick]

Part of the problem the reform addressed was that claims had been languishing for many years. They were basically driven by the lawyers and there wasn't a really big incentive to settle. The actual, let's call them, alleged breaches.... A specific claim is a breach of a lawful duty by the government, so either improper handling of land or improper handling of moneys. It's a fairly clear test of what you would want to find. Many of them happened in the early development of the country when railways were built, military bases expanded, canals and bridges were built, and land was taken off reserve improperly. Other cases are about the management of oil and gas moneys, for example. So the actual source or fact base can go back a very long way, and, in fact, other disputes we're trying to resolve are from, as you know, even before Confederation.

They had been sitting in some cases for more than 10 years. I don't have the exact statistics for you, but I can tell you that since 2007 there's been a massive acceleration. In many cases we've sped up our judgment and determination about the legal case, and we've made a lot of offers to first nations saying, “Okay—close enough—this is what we're offering as a settlement”. You get different reactions. Some first nations are happy to get that offer and some of them are disappointed. It does become a negotiating kind of dynamic.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Bevington, we'll turn to you for the next question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

Let's go back to the devolution agreement for a minute. Two first nations governments in the Northwest Territories have come out with strong statements against the proposed regulatory reforms. The Gwich'in and the Tlicho governments have both said no to the creation of a super-board.

Is it government's intention to move ahead with a legislative change that would bring about a single land and water board in the Northwest Territories?

[Michael Wernick]

I think, as the minister said, notice was given on the ways and means, and you'll be seeing the bill within a matter of days or certainly before Christmas. That's up to the House leaders, of course. You'll have ample opportunity to debate that bill.

We are crafting it to respond to the regulatory reform initiative the government launched some time ago. The bill will contain implementation of the devolution agreement and implementation of some of the regulatory changes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So you're creating an omnibus bill—that's what you're doing?

[Michael Wernick]

No, it's a bill that deals with the issues we have in the Northwest Territories. The two are so inextricably related that it makes more sense to deal with the change in the Northwest Territories with one study by Parliament.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

How would a single regulatory board be inextricably related to a devolution implementation agreement? I don't need you to answer that. I think it's pretty evident that's what you're going to do, and that's fine.

I'm sure that's going to cause a lot of difficulty with people in the north. The devolution implementation agreement has been well received by many of the first nations and they have accepted it, and now we're going to layer onto that the regulatory changes that this government is proposing, which are not accepted by the first nations.

How do you see that as a road to success?

[Michael Wernick]

I think you as a committee and Parliament will have an opportunity to see all of the changes affecting the Northwest Territories at one time, and you can make a judgment as a committee on how to handle the legislation.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay.

Now going back to the contaminated sites issue, have you projected further ahead the total cost of these projects?

[Michael Wernick]

We go back from time to time for a renewal of funding for both north of 60° and south of 60°, so we have provisioning many years in advance. I'm happy to table it with you. We also have on the Internet—it's a recurrent theme—the current inventory of projects we're working on. We're slowly but surely completing many and working actively on others, and some still lie in the future. The contaminated sites program criteria are very clear. They're out on the Internet. They're out there for everybody to see. We try to operate on a risk basis, dealing with those that are the most dangerous to human health first, and we're making considerable progress on those. But it is going to take some time. And there are a lot of them south of 60° as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Do you have any more questions? You have another minute, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

No, I'm fine, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Very good.

Mr. Genest-Jourdain, we'll turn to you.