Public Accounts Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see you again, Ms. Fraser. You and I, of course, have met on other committees, and it will be no surprise to you that I want to talk about the treaty land entitlement.

I think you lay out a good case in paragraph 4.49 around the fact that treaty obligations in Canada were incurred more than a century ago and that Canada has reiterated that it will fulfill its commitments. People who are listening in may not be aware of the long-standing obligation and, of course, ongoing failure to meet those treaty obligations. And you certainly point out in the report that there has been some progress, but I still think, as you also point out, that there are some significant deficiencies.

In one of the items you point out in your “Why it's important”, you talk about the fact that these lands can have an impact on the social and economic development opportunities for first nations. I don't know if your review took into account the scope of the economic and social impacts. I don't know if that's possible to do.

[Sheila Fraser]

We didn't specifically do a study on that. In the report we mention a couple of cases of first nations that had reported to us where either a delay in transferring the land to reserve status had a negative impact on them or where we give an example--Onion Lake in Saskatchewan---where the transfer had helped them get clean drinking water. We have cases, but we haven't done a more exhaustive study of that.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I know that one of the cases you also cited was where the band had been able to move ahead and invest in some tourism opportunities and what not. I think, given the significant poverty that is still present in many first nations communities, it's unfortunate that we're not able to quantify the lack of direction. I understand that's probably outside the purview of your department, but I think it's a clear statement that we continue to talk about the need for economic development as an answer to poverty reduction, and yet some of the mechanisms that are in place that could contribute to economic development move exceedingly slowly at times.

In your observations and recommendations, under paragraph 4.21 you talk about the fact that there are numerous examples of data being received from the Manitoba region that are inaccurate or incomplete. A thread throughout this report is that in some cases Saskatchewan seems to have much better systems in place and yet Manitoba seems to be seriously deficient in many places. I wonder if you could expand on the kinds of inaccuracies in the data being received and whether or not there are some apparent reasons for that inaccuracy.

[Sheila Fraser]

I know we had difficulty getting exact information about land that was owing, lands that had been selected, the acreage involved, and the status of things in general.

We do note in the report, as you mentioned several times, that we are particularly concerned about the Manitoba region. Their management processes are, I would say, different from those in the Saskatchewan region. There is even a different attitude. We mentioned third party interests. Saskatchewan will work with first nations and a third party to try to resolve issues, whereas Manitoba does not. It seems to be taking a more restrictive view of their responsibilities. Manitoba's attitude seems to be that because it isn't in the agreement, they don't have to do it. Well, it's not in the agreement for Saskatchewan either, so there's a different philosophy of management.

It extends even to the record-keeping, the tracking. We noted in our previous audit that Manitoba was significantly behind in transferring land, and there is still a significant amount--I think it's some 650,000 acres--that still needs to be transferred to reserve status in the province of Manitoba.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I think it's a troubling comment.

We have a national department, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. I acknowledge that it has regions across the country, but it's very troubling that there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to share information between the Manitoba region and the Saskatchewan region, a region where they have made significant progress and have put some systems in place. Have you observed any mechanism in place to do that?

[Sheila Fraser]

We did not observe that. That would probably be a good question to query the department on. It is unfortunate, but in many departments we do see these differences in approach in the different regions across the country.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I wanted to touch on paragraph 4.26, which again talks about Manitoba. They're talking about average processing times of close to seven years for phases two and three. Some of these selections were taking over a decade. Can you comment on why that's happening?

[Sheila Fraser]

Some of the problems can be due simply to the process. The process is not a very rapid one. The department has taken some measures to try to improve. For example, previously an environmental assessment was required every two years, so because of the delay times they would end up going longer than two years and would then have to do another assessment. As well, there is the issue of third parties that they have to resolve.

One of the reasons we put this in is that although they have been successful in transferring a fairly significant number of acres, for which we gave them satisfactory progress, going forward it's going to be more difficult. The parcels of land will probably be smaller, and on average these land selections have been in the works, as we said, for up to seven years. Going forward, it will be difficult. That's why Manitoba in particular really has to fix its management processes and have better information about the land and the acreage that has been selected, and analyze where they're at.

We mention in paragraph 4.25 that although Saskatchewan does not analyze the information, it at least captures it, but Manitoba doesn't even capture that information.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Saxton, for seven minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for once again appearing before the committee.

I read reports in the newspaper today that there were some frowns on the faces of our friends in the media because your report didn't contain any horror stories. I know that's a good thing. It's refreshing to see that progress has been made with regard to your previous reports. Some concerns still remain, as my honourable colleagues have pointed out, but on the whole I think these departments can be commended for taking your recommendations seriously and producing some good results.

I've heard some of the opposition members, however, misrepresent chapter 2 and question the quality of those appointed to various positions. I want to focus my questions on the qualifications surrounding appointments. I must say that the new website brings a lot of clarity to this process.

At this committee we've looked at new accountability measures of the internal audit committees. We've looked into getting these up and running, and it's my understanding that they will be meeting their deadlines for the most part. Am I correct that people serving on these committees will be appointments, Auditor General?

[Sheila Fraser]

That is correct, yes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Can you describe the qualification requirements for the internal audit committees and any other position requiring qualifications that comes to mind?

[Sheila Fraser]

I would like to start, Mr. Chair, by saying I too was pleased to see that there was a columnist who actually reported on a positive story, and I think it's important that Canadians know that things do improve and do change.

Unfortunately, I don't have the qualifications of the internal audit committee members. I probably should know that, but I would say that in the report we looked at the process. We found certainly at the Immigration and Refugee Board, and I would say the others as well, that there was a statement of qualifications required. There was a process in place to ensure that people were vetted through interviews. At the Immigration and Refugee Board, there's a written exam that they have to pass.

We certainly saw evidence at the board that all of that documentation was in the file. But we did not go and assess the qualifications of the people. That really is the responsibility and the prerogative of the minister and Governor in Council, and it would be inappropriate, I believe, for us to do that. We ensure that there is a system in place, and if we see evidence that the system is being respected, then I think one can assume that the people who are appointed are qualified for the positions that they hold.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

On page 25, your recommendation from November 2006 is mentioned, and I quote: “The Privy Council Office should ensure that it appropriately advises and trains full-time Governor in Council appointees about their expected standards of conduct as holders of public office.” Can you describe for the committee how this recommendation has been addressed?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, I can. We are very pleased to see that there has been a great deal of improvement made in that regard.

There is training given to all new GIC appointees that is fairly extensive. They told us as well that they were very pleased with the training they received. They felt that it was comprehensive, appropriate, and relevant to the positions. This certainly was an issue. Some of the longer-serving members on this committee will certainly remember that this issue came up in some of our perhaps less positive audits in the past, where GIC appointees basically received no training.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Can you describe some of the steps that were taken to comply with this recommendation, to ensure that GIC appointees are appropriately briefed on the conduct expected of them?

[Sheila Fraser]

The School of Public Service, with the Privy Council Office, has set in place quite an extensive formal training program. There are, as well, briefings by the Privy Council Office to the individual appointees. I believe as well that if it's the question of crown corporations or different organizations, they would supplement that with specific training relative to the organization.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I have no more questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Saxton.

I have a comment and a couple of questions, Ms. Fraser.

First of all, I do want to comment on your status update on Passport Canada. I've been a member of Parliament in a city in a province that does not have a passport office. I can say that although this agency did have some problems a couple of years ago, the service has been really good. It's tremendous to see that, and everything you say in the report is what I see and what our staff sees on the ground. I want to congratulate the accounting officer of that agency and the staff who work there.

There has been quite a turnaround in that agency. Would you not agree with me?

[Sheila Fraser]

Absolutely. I think Passport Canada deserves a lot of credit for what they have done. The actions that they have taken were very extensive. This was only done within the last couple of years.

I'm sure the chair will recall that they came before this committee with an action plan, which was quite detailed. They have implemented that, and we certainly see that they took that situation in 2006-07 seriously and are trying to avoid that it be repeated this year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ms. Fraser, I want to talk to you about the appointments process. You've answered a few of Ms. Crombie's questions and Mr. Saxton's questions. There is an advertised process. They do go through a process, and it would be totally improper or unfair of me to comment on whether the final applicants are qualified or not.

But when I look at the list—and you talked in paragraph 2.63 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board—I see two or three former Conservative MPs, two or three former Conservative MLAs, presidents of riding associations, fundraisers, and the names go on. There seems to be a common pedigree here. Would it not be fair if that was mentioned in the criteria in the application? Because that doesn't reflect itself any of this application process.

[Sheila Fraser]

We did not look specifically at that. I would think that political affiliation should not be a criterion for appointment, but on the other hand, if someone has a known political affiliation, I don't believe that should disqualify them either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Now, on that topic, we have this situation. It was enacted a little more than two years ago under the Accountability Act. There was the provision for a Public Appointments Commission. This was all going to be done on an open, transparent basis. Everything was going to be done on merit. That was the legislation. It was done after a legislative committee that went on for months.

It was good. I think it was a very positive development. I think you will agree with me on that point, but it's my understanding, Ms. Fraser--and you can correct me if I'm wrong--that the law is not being followed. Am I correct in that assertion?

[Sheila Fraser]

That is correct. In 2006, the government proposed someone to chair that commission. That was not approved by one of the standing committees of the House. The three other members of the commission who were appointed at that point resigned. Since that time, there have been no appointments. No one has been appointed to the commission. The commission is not functioning.