Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2017

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thanks again, Madam Chair.

I want to get back to my last question for the minister, and Paul, you gave a technical response to my question, because the officials who were cross-examined again in that Canadian Human Rights Tribunal advised very clearly that any funds allocated for Jordan's principle that remain unspent at the end of the fiscal year will not be returned to the fund. That was pretty clear, and you responded that it's technically true, unless you re-profile the funds.

Can you give the committee, first, a clear explanation of how that works and if at the end of that re-profiling the fund will remain for Jordan's principle commitments?

[Paul Thoppil]

Thank you very much, Mr. Saganash, for the question.

Technically it's an exercise that we do across all programs with defined purposes, and Jordan's principle is an example of that. Over the course of the fiscal year we examine the degree of expenditures associated with the budget allotment, and then, depending upon the degree of usage, we will engage with the central agencies and make a request for re-profiling some months before the end of the fiscal year to ensure that the dedicated pot is used for its intended purposes in future years.

That requires a justification process, and when they approve that—which usually requires the Minister of Finance's approval—then you see related to that a frozen allotment, as was noted in response to a previous question by a member of the committee, and then it gets reallocated. What tends to happen is that when the public accounts get published, you will sometimes notice huge amounts of lapses, which are due to the frozen allotments that have forced those lapses. But what the public accounts lapses don't indicate is the re-profiles that have transpired to keep that money going.

When you look at the gross lapse in the public accounts, you have to understand that there are two aspects to it. There is the planned lapse, and then there is the actual net lapse for which spending did not go. For example, last year the gross lapse for the department was $900 million, but then when you start taking into account all those re-profiled amounts, the net amount was actually $900,000.

That's just a technical response to your question about ensuring that dedicated pots of money are always managed to ensure that they are available in future years for their intended purposes.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Okay, that's pretty clear.

I would like to go back to the other question that I wanted to ask the minister and will now ask Ms. Laurendeau.

I often hear the minister say she engages with the first nations, Inuit and Métis. The two or three people who were cross-examined in the case that was referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal all seemed to say that the government does not have a definition of “engagement”. Is that the case?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

That word is used in various places, but not necessarily in a policy. In French, the term mobilisation is used most often. It is a way of taking the pulse of a community in order to know exactly what its needs are. It is more than merely a consultation. A consultation can often be done in writing. The term “engagement” is a bit broader and includes conversation and discussion, and lets us know exactly what the specific needs of a community, group or independent government are.

The definition of “engagement” is “meaningful conversation” on specific needs in a particular area.

That is what we did in the preliminary inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. We are using this approach more and more. You have probably heard that we are currently conducting various engagement exercises, in both northern and southern Canada. It is a more inclusive and complete approach that requires the presence of two partners and back and forth discussion between them.

You surely noted as well the Prime Minister's statement that there will be an exercise to set the priorities with the various groups. That is a type of engagement. The goal is to find out what the needs are so as to determine the order of priorities and the action that needs to be taken.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

If I understood what the Prime Minister said, he committed to a new relationship with indigenous peoples based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Precisely.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

He said this is a priority. The Declaration includes the concept of free, informed, and prior consent.

In your opinion, or based on what was said earlier, is your engagement similar to the concept found in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

A very short answer of 30 seconds.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if our engagement is consistent with the requirements of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Yes, we do consider our commitment to be consistent with the requirements of the Declaration.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Okay.

That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

We're now moving the questioning to MP—

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Did I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have 12 seconds.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Let us look at this engagement from a policy point of view. What policy direction is given to follow through on this type of engagement? Does the minister tell the department what to do, or does the department tell the the minister what to do and how to do it?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I think it would be better to ask the minister that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Okay, we're moving on to MP Rusnak.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm probably going to sound like a broken record over the next couple of months, as my broken rib, thanks to my Conservative colleagues, heals up. I've never had one before. If I grimace, it's because of my rib situation.

Having said that, I'm no doctor and I'm no financial expert. However, I was looking at page 2, the operating expenses versus the total budgetary expenses for 2016-17, and it's close to 10% for the operating expenditures of the department.

In relation to other departments, is that about equal? I know departments differ, but for a comparable department to the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, would that be consistent in terms of operating expenditures and, I would imagine, for offices, employees, and other such things? Is that consistent among like departments in government?

[Paul Thoppil]

Thank you very much for the question.

With vote 1, operating expenditures, it's not in fact all for the department's purposes; it's also for monies for contaminated sites and residential schools.

With regard to the actual portion of the operating expenditures of the billion dollars allocated, $500 million is for the department's salaries and its own expenditures. That $500 million, as a percentage of the total budgetary expenditures, comes to around 7%. As the minister noted, if you use a benchmark of other departments and organizations of a comparable size, where the figure is around 15%, we believe that we measure very favourably in that regard.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I've been hearing a lot of frustration from communities about the speed at which the department makes decisions. Is that a resourcing issue from not having enough staff to make decisions for communities in a timely manner, or is it something else within the department? Timing is the concern with the communities. They makes applications, or they go through processes....

Another aspect of this is that the processes are cumbersome, and more cumbersome than with other federal agencies, for example FedNor. I know that a lot of first nations in my riding deal often with FedNor. They much prefer to deal with FedNor than with the bureaucracy at INAC.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I have a couple of things to say on that. I think the department is more than adequately resourced. We are able to face what is required to be done.

One of the things that traditionally or sometimes created a bit of pressure in our allocating of resources was when within a year some of the money was provided to the department per se, particularly on big ticket items such as vote 10. Last year, with the budget of 2016, there was a tremendous effort made by the central agencies to give us access to that money much earlier in the year, which allowed us in turn to fan it out more quickly to first nations and to amend the contribution agreements more quickly to be able to give them the security of the funding they would be getting, particularly on infrastructure. I'm happy to say that, as of today, we're close to having 98% of all the funding already committed to the communities, and they know exactly what they're going to be getting.

A lot of efforts have been made in that direction. Is it perfect? The discussion on a new fiscal relationship may open up doors to make it even more efficient down the road, but I am proud to say that we've made improvements in that respect. In previous years, sometimes we would get the bulk of the money only in the supplementary (C)s, which would have been today. If you look at the supplementary (C)s of this year compared to the year before, you see that it's really for the things that would have emerged during the year, as opposed to being a big chunk of the money that we were promised in the previous budget.

So the central agencies—Finance and Treasury Board—I think should be commended for that.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm told by Madam Chair that I have two minutes left. I've agreed to share them with my colleague from la belle province.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Rusnak.

I will continue in the same vein as my colleague and go back to the perspective at 50,000 feet above the Supplementary Estimates, as presented on page 2 and in other documents.

Today is February 23 and the end of the fiscal year is approaching. Of the total estimates of $9.5 billion presented, can you give me an update on expenditures to date or to the end of January? How do the expenditures thus far relate to the budget?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

We are very far along.

There is quite a rigorous process in the department. Every month, we review with the management team where we are at in terms of expenditures. This is an important exercise, especially considering that a large amount is allocated to infrastructure under vote 10. We regularly track progress on projects. If some projects are delayed or postponed to next year, we make sure that those funds go to something that we may not have been able to start this year but that is ready to begin.

I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that, by year end, we will have spent all the funds we were supposed to allocate.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have 10 seconds.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Is there a potential surplus?