I think there are attempts to supervise what moneys are used for and what the objectives of transfers are. This is a balance between the autonomy of the aboriginal governments—the first nations governments for the most part—for their own activities.... We work through contribution agreements, by and large, and we try to get reporting for what the money is used for. Hence, the web of reporting, which is in itself a problem.
On supervision, it's a matter of degree in terms of seeking assurances that certain things are done. There's a very substantial remedial plan in place on water to ensure that inspections take place, capacity is there, and there isn't a regulatory gap, which is often a problem. The laws of general application stop at the border of the first nations community.
I don't know why it wasn't done earlier, but there is work under way on water.
Building capacity for those governments to exercise government-like functions is part of the way forward. It was a problem for the Government of Ontario to know what was going on in Walkerton, or for the Government of Saskatchewan to deal with Prince Albert. Authorities are delegated down to lower levels of government. They have accountabilities to their own electors for what they do. What we have to do is a kind of oversight to try to make sure the systems are in place. But we cannot micromanage more than 600 communities on everything they do with every dollar. That's not the whole point. The point is for those communities to maximize control over their own socio-economic destinies.