Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

It was mentioned earlier that $90,000 to $100,000 per child is being spent. Could you give us an idea of where that money is going?

[Michael Wernick]

What I meant by that, and Ms. Johnston will clarify this for me, is that of the kinds of care that an agency can provide, such as foster care, support in the family, and taking them out and putting them in care, by far the most expensive is putting them in care. According to our evaluations, it runs around $90,000 to $100,000 per child, whereas the prevention services run closer to $20,000 to $25,000 per kid. So it's kind of a truism that an ounce of prevention is a lot cheaper than the remedy.

Child protection is always a choice by the agency: do you intervene early or do you intervene later? You want to leave the kid with the family, because of all the reasons I was talking about earlier, but if you leave it too late to intervene, then tragedy can occur. It's a very tough job for the agencies.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

In my previous life before politics, I was in banking, so I'm interested in numbers and figures. It's my understanding with regard to the funding model that it was put in place in 1988. Is that correct? Can you explain that model to us?

[Michael Wernick]

Yes. As Ms. Cram indicated, we now basically live in two worlds, the world of the tripartites and the world of the provinces, on the to-do list. Perhaps Ms. Johnston can clarify.

[Odette Johnston]

In terms of the previous funding formula, directive 20-1, that was based on a percentage of children in care. It provided a base operation for the agencies. There were some specific amounts provided for prevention. We supported salaries, a board of directors, and audit insurance.

The other portion of that was maintenance. The maintenance costs, however, have been a reimbursement of actual costs. There hasn't been much flexibility in that old formula to move the funds around so they can react to needs.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, how much more time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Two minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Can you let us know how much the cost of the program has gone up since 1988 and whether the services have also increased in that time as well?

[Michael Wernick]

I had some of the financials in my opening statement. We can push it back earlier if you want. It has basically grown 250% in about a decade. We can go back to earlier years, if you like. We're now in the $500 million range, roughly speaking.

The number of kids would have gone up simply because there are a lot more kids. The measure that we would keep an eye on is the percentage of children who end up in care or end up in placements. There are simply more aboriginal kids every year because of the baby boom effect.

In terms of the services, as the report and our own evaluation indicate, we went a very long time where the services were not complete. They didn't have a lot of prevention services and those kinds of tools. Almost every province renovated child protection in either the 1980s or 1990s. We're catching up to that.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Before we go to the second round, I want to clarify something, Mr. Wernick, or perhaps Mrs. Cram.

It seems to me we're dealing with the symptom, the 5% of the aboriginal children who are in protective custody, which is eight times greater than for the non-aboriginal population. I want to say how troubling this whole thing is for me as a member of Parliament and a Canadian. It's certainly one of conscience. I don't think it's a partisan issue, but it's a very troubling issue, and you're dealing in a very Byzantine, elaborate framework. It's a provincial jurisdiction, federally funded, and then we have a situation where with most major bands it's administered by the local band. So I can see it's a very tough issue to try to deal with.

But then again I have a memo in front of me here about how in the last five weeks five teens from a small aboriginal community on the east coast, Eskasoni, and one man in a neighbourhood aboriginal community committed suicide. They were drug-related deaths. They're estimating that half the people under 30 on that reservation are drug users. It just seems to me that we're dealing with a massive policy failure, a failure of a monumental proportion.

You've been a deputy now, Mr. Wernick, for two and a half years. Congratulations. You're probably the longest-serving deputy of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the last 25 years.

Do you see anything out there, any policy, any movement that might give us parliamentarians hope that things will be improving? I'm not seeing it.

[Michael Wernick]

It's very difficult to be objective or scientific about that. Bad things happen to kids in families in non-aboriginal Canada as well, and as I said, running child protection agencies is tough everywhere, from downtown Hamilton to first nations communities. They do it in many first nations communities in socio-economic conditions of poverty and so on that are very challenging. If I talk about that too much, somebody on the committee is going to accuse me of blaming the victims and blaming the communities.

As the chapter points out, there are some very tough social conditions in a lot of communities that lead to problems with families and problems for kids. So some of these issues are going to require much more systemic approaches to dealing with aboriginal poverty, and that requires a lot of public policy tools, many of which are in my department, I accept, but they are also going to have to work with other public policy tools. The thing that will probably make the biggest difference is economic development and participation in the labour market. The more people finish high school, get into the labour market, and participate in Canadian economic life, the better things will get. You can see two communities a hundred miles apart, and I could give you a couple of examples in your own area where one community is trending up and another is not, and it largely has to do with economic opportunities that are there, the engagement of local....

I keep going back to Madam Fraser's report on that, which I think is one of the best pieces of work on this subject there is. I'm not just sucking up to the Auditor General because she's sitting there. I really think it's a very good diagnostic.

It's deeply troubling to me to see the economic downturn, because we were seeing some real progress on participation and resource development, mining projects and so on. I would argue--this is not a partisan comment--that there were some very useful tools and skills and apprenticeships and training. We were starting to see some real results in getting aboriginal people into the labour force, and the downturn is going to slow that down.

I am optimistic that we can make progress. The problem has to be broken into its parts. We're talking about child protection today. I'm getting advice from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on education any day now. We were talking at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development about water and so on.

All I can do as the deputy head is try to attack each of these problems under the direction of you as parliamentarians and ministers. I am optimistic--or I wouldn't be in this job--that we can make headway. They are the kinds of problems that can be attacked, and I'm not trying to avoid responsibility in saying it's really beyond any one institution to do it. We need the private sector, we need provinces, and we need a lot of local involvement and engagement. The last thing we can do as INAC officials in Ottawa is to come to a community and say, here, we have the solution. As in any area of economic, social, community development, the community is the source really of the leadership.

I'm sorry to go on, but you did ask.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the second round. I'll have to shorten this to four minutes each instead of the normal five.

Ms. Ratansi.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

Because time is short, I'm going to ask very speedy questions and you will have to write them down.

There was a statement that INAC took $5 billion appropriated by Parliament, out of which you have given us a $0.5 billion analysis of what is going toward programs. What's happening to the other $4.5 billion?

Second, aboriginal communities have historically faced poor socio-economic conditions. Studies link poverty, inadequate housing, and caregiver substance abuse to a higher substantial incidence of child neglect, especially in the aboriginal communities. What steps has INAC taken to alleviate poverty and substance abuse and provide adequate social housing? There was a UBC study linking fungi to native health woes. That's really critical because of the Eskasoni question there.

I was told that Health Canada provides free prescription drugs without any control, and substance abuse is taking place due to free prescription drugs. Why is that possible? What have you done, in conjunction with Health Canada, to ensure that this is manageable?

I'll stop here because I have other questions as well.

[Michael Wernick]

I hope I can deal with them fairly quickly.

The department will spend about $7 billion this year on a variety of things. The report on plans and priorities and the performance report, which Mr. Christopherson was referring to, set that all out. If you want to pursue specific questions, we'll happily do that.

The biggest cost drivers are the programs that Ms. Cram is responsible for: K to 12 education, post-secondary education, income assistance, child protection, and what we call community infrastructure, which is what other people call capital in communities. The other big areas are negotiation and settlement of land claims. We provide services to first nations people such as a basic land registry, vital statistics, and stuff like that.

I'm happy to take any questions on that.

On the last question, I'm not trying to duck the issue, but it's a Health Canada program and really should go to the accounting officer of Health Canada, in terms of controls on--

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

You can't have silos, and I think that's our biggest problem. As members of the public accounts committee, we sit here, scratch our heads, and pull our hair out, as Mr. Christopherson was doing, saying we are all responsible. What can we do?

As far as value for money, if I'm investing $7 billion of taxpayers' money and you give me these answers, I get a little concerned. Who is responsible? Who is ducking? How are we working toward the benefit of the people who are most vulnerable?

I look at the problems the Auditor General has listed and there are about six. The actions you have taken do not even address them. There are no outcome indicators. There's limited assurance that services by first nations comply with provincial legislation. They do not know whether INAC's program makes any difference in the lives of children. There are no roles and responsibilities. And as I was looking to your response, it didn't.... I'm a consultant by trade, so this is what I do. I'm getting a little concerned, because we can't sit here and not know what to do as the next step. We're not blaming the bureaucrats, but we have to work together.

So what would you say is the return on investment of the $7 billion? With all these moneys you're talking about, why do we still have this problem?

[Michael Wernick]

Well, let me try the first part of the question, and I'm going to try to get Ms. Fraser to comment on it as well.

Parliament has set this up so that money is appropriated through departments with accountable and answerable ministers and accounting officers. That, inevitably, leads to a problem when more than one department is in the same area, whether it's rural development, aboriginal affairs, science, or international affairs. Accountability is a challenge, and Ms. Fraser has far more experience with it than I do.

I'm accountable for what INAC does and am answerable to my minister. We try very hard to work with partners. It's really up to the central agencies of government, the cabinet office, the Treasury Board, and so on, to keep an eye on all the pieces and to try to find government-wide reporting of results.

The biggest players in aboriginal policy are INAC; Health Canada, which does health; CMHC, which does housing; and HRSD, which does skills and employment. But there are 30 other federal departments involved in aboriginal policy or programs. So it is a challenge, I agree entirely.

I'm trying to remember if there's something else I can help you with.

On social housing, most of it is done by CMHC. We do about half of it, largely involving getting the service lots with water and sewer hookups, and so on, and we do some housing programs, but increasingly it's done through CMHC. We work on the ground with CMHC in every region to try to make sure that the two programs land in communities in a coherent way, and we'll do the same with the budget stimulus measures.

Substance abuse is something that Health Canada is alive to and dealing with. I'd be stepping outside my knowledge, as well as my accountability, if I tried to comment on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wernick.

Mr. Kramp, four minutes.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just building on your point about the other departments, how often does your department liaise with the other departments to try to come up with an effective solution, working together, rather than simply everybody going off on their own direction here?

[Michael Wernick]

I would say daily. It would depend on the issue and what the structures are.

You probably would call it bureaucracy, but we have a lot of committees, depending on the issue. We work very closely with Health Canada on child issues and health and family services issues. There are committees where people get together, depending on what the issue is. If it's economic development, we're heavily involved with agencies like Western Economic Diversification, ACOA, and so on.

I have a group, which I call my “foreign ministry”, of people who do nothing but chase other departments and try to work with them. Some of the arrangements are formal memoranda of understanding and some of them are just personal contacts. In every region of the country, for about 20 years, there's been something called the federal council, where the most senior person in each department gets together with all of their colleagues. They do that on at least a monthly basis, and we're part of that.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Okay, thank you. I get the gist of that.

I share the frustration, and quite frankly the anger, that a number of people around this table and quite frankly all Canadians have when we have a disadvantaged sector of our society and we just don't seem to have a long-term solution. We keep going back to the well, back to the well, back to the well, but we just don't see the light at the end of the tunnel giving us something that we can clearly define as the answer.

Of course, I'm not sure it's that easy. We all know it's just not that easy. We have all of these competing jurisdictions, regretfully—the provinces, the band councils, and all of the departments.

It's deeply disappointing to see that we are not making really, really strong and effective progress. Is it just budgetary? Is it policy? Where does the real problem lie? Is it the fact that we can't communicate effectively or we're not putting in enough money?

If you had to find that magic bullet, what would be your first priority to solve this problem?

[Michael Wernick]

Are you talking about aboriginal poverty or child protection?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I'm talking about the topic of the Auditor General's report here, basically, child welfare.

[Michael Wernick]

On child welfare, my solution would be to take the Alberta response model and apply it in every province over the next few years.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Okay, thank you.

I recognize that you have the tripartite agreement with Alberta and that you're working with Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.

What's the state of the negotiations with the other provinces? Are they moving towards that? Has there been any activity from your department, or is it at the ministerial level?