Public Accounts Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Terry Sewell]

I can look into that, sir.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Okay.

We need to know these things, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Just to formalize that, Mr. Sewell, could you table the terms of that agreement with the committee clerk within two weeks?

[Terry Sewell]

Yes.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I'm looking at page 3 of what we found among the main points. It reads:

Despite repeated commitments to do so, INAC has not taken action to address the findings of a required review of the Agreement’s economic measures carried out in 2001.

Who's going to respond to that? Why have no actions been taken, despite repeated commitments to do so?

[Michael Wernick]

I may be corrected by Mr. Sewell, but there has been work on the economic development issues. The parties agreed to put off comprehensive study—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I would like to go back again, Mr. Wernick, to the point made by the Auditor General that despite repeated commitments you have taken no action. Why? Who is not doing the job? Is it a commitment that the job is going to get done?

[Michael Wernick]

It's because these are joint activities. Yes, the work will be done.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Do you have a timeframe?

[Michael Wernick]

This fiscal year.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

This is a public commitment, different from the repeated commitments that I presume were made in private. Here is a public commitment. You're saying you're going to get it done this year. Is that correct?

[Michael Wernick]

We have mutually agreed with the Inuvialuit that the best way to go at this was by the communities. We will first look at each of the six communities—their strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. Then we will sit down with the Inuvialuit and jointly decide on the next step.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I'm going to quote the next chapter of the Auditor General's report:

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, as the federal lead, has taken no action to ensure that progress toward achieving the principles of the Agreement is monitored. In fact, officials stated that they do not view this as the Department’s responsibility.

Do you consider yourselves to be the lead department in dealing with this first nation?

[Michael Wernick]

The principles of the agreement are—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

No, my question was, do you consider yourself to be the lead department?

[Michael Wernick]

You put many things in your question, Mr. Williams.

The principles of the agreement are objectives of all the parties to the agreement, and we share them with the other parties. We consider ourselves the lead federal department for making sure that the federal government's part of the agreement is implemented.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Then there's yourselves, the Government of the Northwest Territories—

[Michael Wernick]

And the Inuvialuit.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Right. There are those three parties. You are the federal government's lead department.

You've taken no action to ensure that the progress towards achieving the principles of the agreement are monitored. Why not?

[Michael Wernick]

I don't accept the characterization. We have a respectful disagreement with the Auditor General about the principles. The principles are joint objectives of all three parties. They're not enforceable federal obligations, like land transfers. They are high level, they are set out in the report, and we share those objectives and aspirations with the other parties of the agreement. We have undertaken to measure our activity to demonstrate that we're making progress towards those long-term objectives.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Campbell, do you have a respectful disagreement with the department?

[Ronnie Campbell]

I wasn't aware that I did, but I guess I do now. In all our audit reports we reach an agreement on the facts with the department, and we get it signed off before we table. I was actually of the view that the department's response to paragraph 3.85 was encouraging. I thought it was a step forward.

In November 2003 the Auditor General tabled a report that dealt with similar issues. The department took the view that they had a fundamental disagreement with us. In their view, you measure progress through measuring implementation of the individual objectives, rather than by looking at the overall goals of the agreement. At that point, we had a fundamental disagreement.

When we got the department's response to this report, we were encouraged. I think it reflected a step forward. The department was saying that it accepts the recommendation and that it will propose performance indicators with a view to monitoring its progress.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Let me interject here, Mr. Campbell.

You have stated in your report that there are long-term objectives and principles set out in the agreement, economic development and so on. Presumably we need to monitor this to find out whether we're going down the road at all, and if so, whether we're going down the right road. But it's not being done. Am I correct in saying that it's not being done, Mr. Campbell? Is that what you're saying here--“...no action to ensure that progress towards achieving the principles of the agreement is monitored”? Nothing is being done?

[Ronnie Campbell]

That was correct at the time of the audit.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Let me ask the department, if nothing is being done to ensure that the commitments of this agreement are being met, Mr. Wernick, why not? If not your department, then who should be doing it?