Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2011

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have many, many questions, and I do not know whether we're going to be able to get to them or not, but let me say that this occasion is one of the most frustrating and disappointing times of a parliamentarian's existence. I came on this committee in 2004 when the report was registered. At that time, dealing with education alone, it said the first nations would take 15 years to get caught up to an acceptable standard. We come back three or four years later and it says it might be 20 years. Now it may be 25 years. We are regressing. There is no progress. That is clearly not acceptable. With the greatest of respect, both positively and negatively we're getting a broken record--we have the same problem, we have the same problem, we have the same problem.

I know we have to make commitments; we have to make changes. The thing is, the results are not there. The bottom line is that we do not have the results. We need results. We have to have a sense of direction going forward. I would hope that when we move collaboratively with our witnesses here we can take a look at some serious recommendations. One of my colleagues has mentioned them. And of course I heard the statement from our witnesses: it's money. We maybe need more funding to deal with it, too.

Let me read from a statement. In 2004 the Auditor General reported that there was a “significant gap in educational achievement, measured by secondary school graduation rates.” It goes on and on. In the 2011 follow-up audit, the Auditor General stated that they launched a new educational initiative in 2008. They compared the formula they had used with the formula used by several provinces, with the finding that per student funding was similar. Well, funding is similar in areas outside first nations and they're having success. Inside first nations, with the same amount of funding, we don't have success. We must have answers that give us a clear direction.

Mr. Campbell, I know you've worked on this follow-up for a long time. I'm sure you share the frustration that a number of members of this committee and certainly most Canadians face, in addition to first nations representatives themselves.

Where do we need to go, sir, to get a clear movement out of government to bring all these partners together? We now have a joint action plan that is brought forward with cooperation between the minister and the assembly of chiefs. Is that a good first start? We need a road map here, sir. I'm simply not seeing one that's going to give us definitive results. What are your thoughts?

[Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the question.

Yes, I do share your frustration. I've been here many, many times on this issue, and on those issues in different departments.

I think the people we deal with in government share that frustration. They may not articulate it in the same way that an independent audit office might at this table, but I'm encouraged by that, Mr. Chair. We are not having the arguments on values with the federal officials at all, and I think today you heard Mr. Wernick call for better tools. They need better tools. I firmly believe they want to go in the direction that we're talking about.

Of the four issues that we've mentioned as things that need to be fundamentally addressed, I would like to make the point that they go together. You can't solve this by simply legislating everything. The legislation needs to be related to something, and part of what needs to be done in all of those cases are service levels.

Mr. Wernick talked about providing finances to first nations and they're doing the best they can. Well, it's almost like asking “How long is a piece of string?” They're doing the best they can with the funding they get. Without a target and without these service levels saying this is what we're supposed to be doing and this is the funding to do it, everyone remains unsatisfied. No one's satisfied, and the member asking the question isn't satisfied. We're not satisfied. I don't think the bureaucrats are satisfied either. You need all four of those things.

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

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Wernick, can you give me some hope, sir? I know you're working hard on this file. Please don't take any personal offence to my comments, because I know it's an unbelievably difficult challenge. Can you give us some area of optimism that we can possibly achieve some definitive results moving forward?

[Michael Wernick]

Thank you for the question, and yes, I'm very optimistic. I wouldn't come into work every day if I weren't. I think there are some things in the context of the next couple of years that are encouraging.

The first is--and I hate to sound as though I'm sucking up to the Auditor General--I think this is a very good road map, and I agree entirely with Ronnie's comment that all four pieces fit together. The legislation can provide the standards. It can create bodies like school boards. It can stabilize funding so people can plan and so on. So all of the pieces can give you some comfort, I think, that results would improve if we went down that road.

The other encouraging sign in my tenure, which is only four or five years, is that there's been a massive increase in the engagement of provinces. They used to sit back and...with all due respect, the attitude was that they're Indians so they're a federal problem. That is just not happening anymore. They're all willing to engage, to put their people and sometimes their money and their experts on the table. That's very encouraging. It's the private sector, universities, foundations, and all kinds of people. I get a call every month from somebody saying they want to get involved and asking who they should talk to and how they can help.

I think that through mobilizing multiple partners around this and hopefully keeping this a relatively non-partisan issue, this Parliament really can make historic breakthroughs.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you, both.

Next is Monsieur Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to talk about education because I believe education is a good foundation for progress and structure.

Recommendations were made by the Auditor General and by the members of this committee in the previous reports, particularly that of 2004. Is it possible to provide more details on the issues? Why were the results of the education action plan's implementation so unsatisfactory?

[Michael Wernick]

That's a very good question. I entirely agree that education is a basic problem that has to be addressed, or rather the basic solution. Education is the basis of social progress, economic progress and better governance for the communities. I believe the government has acknowledged that. It made a commitment in the last throne speech and in the last budget.

As we cannot impose any solutions, we have established a mechanism for the Assembly of First Nations. An expert panel is currently travelling and will submit its report and recommendations to the minister and national chief before Christmas. That will at least lay the groundwork to enable parliamentarians and other individuals to commit to courses of action. I hope the report will contain quite specific recommendations. It is not our report; it's an entirely independent exercise.

In the meantime, we have pursued partnership programs. We have made investments in schools. We are developing agreements where we can, with local school boards and education authorities.

One of the issues is--and people don't like to talk about this--the small size of the communities. You're talking about first nations with a median size of 410 people. That means half of them are smaller than 400, with fewer than 200 adults. Without school boards, without structures that bring people together on a geographic basis

like the school boards in the provinces

to share some of the resources, it's very difficult for the best-meaning teachers and principals in a small community to get the kinds of results, no matter how much money is put into those kinds of situations. I don't want to be misinterpreted--financing and stable, predictable funding are certainly part of the solution, but without the other structural pieces, I wouldn't expect a big gain in results.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you.

I have no doubt about the work you're doing. However, we can see from the report that funding may not be the central aspect of the problem.

I have reservations about the findings outlined in the report where they are linked to the former recommendations. According to the latter, the idea was to develop a plan by consulting the first nations. In your response, you mentioned the size of the reserves and of the communities, which are smaller. Perhaps they are in a position to work with the provinces to put forward solutions. If the auditor is providing a good road map, as you said earlier, why, after a number of attempts, have we not managed to find a solution with the cooperation of those communities?

[Michael Wernick]

We've found solutions locally and regionally. I could cite a number of examples of progress made across a region, a first nation and even a province, such as New Brunswick or British Columbia. However, a national solution would require the engagement of all regional coalitions and the Assembly of First Nations. It is really difficult to achieve a consensus on specific measures. I believe we can readily agree on the diagnosis, but not on the specific solutions.

There are a lot of different views out there on what should be done and how to do it. If you follow what's happened with legislation affecting first nations over the last 10 or 15 years, you will see that none of them have been easy. They have always been controversial and they always require a decision by Parliament: are we prepared to move with this despite the fact that not everybody is happy about it? And that's going to be the case when we bring forward legislation about education or water or any of the other pieces the government has in mind for this Parliament.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

The time has expired. Thank you both.

The next speaker is Mr. Aspin.

You have the floor, sir.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

And welcome to the presenters.

The AG's report focuses on a number of different areas. My question is relative to the area of water quality. The report identifies a need for legislative standards for both water and waste water systems on reserves. As you are all aware, we have a bill that addresses this concern, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act.

Mr. Campbell, could you enlighten me with your comments as to why this is so important?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Certainly, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question.

It is very important, and I would say that when I first started auditing in this area—far too many years ago—the federal government was of the view that it was not really its responsibility but it was helping out where it could. Things have come a long way in that regard. They have a long way to go.

But the quality of water is such a fundamental, basic thing that we all just expect to have every day. I saw something in the Ottawa Citizen: shock and horror that some part of the city had a boil water advisory and it made the front page of the newspaper. Well, that happens every day in first nations communities. It happens all the time. It's a normal part of what they have to face.

When we did our last audit, 75% of the systems were at high risk or medium risk in first nations communities. Now that number is 50%, so it is progress, but there is a long way to go.

What I would say about the legislation is that when it comes into place, that'll be a great step forward. It needs regulations. But then if I go back to the four pillars, it also needs funding. And when we did the audit, that was unclear. The legislation would get passed, then there would be regulations, and then it would be rolled out wherever it was possible to roll it out. But I think we need to have clearer service standards than that.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

Could you outline for me possibly what the status of this water quality legislation is to date?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I'll let one of the others deal with that.

[Michael Wernick]

That's aimed at me.

Thank you for the question.

The government has made a commitment to bring back a bill on the issue of water and waste water standards. I don't know exactly when the minister and the House leader will agree on introduction. We're expecting it to be fairly soon.

In the meantime, we're taking advantage of the hearings that were held in the Senate on the previous version of the bill and trying to discuss with some of the first nations organizations whether we can improve the bill, address some of the concerns they raised, and make it more palatable to them, and hopefully it'll go forward.

I think it's part of that piece that if you have clarity of roles and responsibilities and you know what the standards are, then you know what the engineers have to build to and you know how to train the operators and the inspectors. It just keeps holding everything together. What is holding it together now are funding agreements, and that puts me and my department in the position that if something is going wrong with the operation or construction of a water facility on reserve, my sanction is to take away the funding from the community. How does that work?

What we need is a much clearer sense of who's responsible for what, including the department—it's not an offloading issue—so that everybody knows their part of delivering this service.

We think that standards legislation will anchor further improvements in quality on reserve.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I'd like to ask a question to Mr. Wernick.

Could you briefly outline what kind of investment has been made in water quality to date?

[Michael Wernick]

I probably could get you more precise numbers. The investments have been significant, and to be fair they go back to about the 2003 budget. The current government made further investments in the 2006 budget, and it renewed some again I think in 2009. We also benefited from further resources that were available in the stimulus package, Canada's economic action plan, so between us and Health Canada, we're running at about $400 million a year. It would be well north of $2 billion in the last six or seven years. I'd be happy to provide a financial table on that.

The government's view was that was part of it, but if you don't train the operators and have the regular oversight and governance, some of that investment won't deliver the results you want. So there has been a parallel investment in monitoring, testing, training, all of those sorts of things, and the last year has seen a lot of clarity around the state of infrastructure. The department commissioned a very thorough engineering assessment of every single facility on every single reserve. That was released in July. It's on the Internet for everybody to see. It's not an entirely pretty picture, but it tells you exactly where we can start and where we can make investments that will have the biggest return.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thanks very much.

It's over to Mr. Byrne.

You have the floor, sir.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll address my first question to Mr. Campbell.

As senior audit captain, I've been involved in this for quite some time. I'm not going to drag you into a place you don't want to go, but the language Mr. Wiersema has used seems pretty clear that the jurisdictional issue between federal and provincial governments is a key in terms of providing solutions. You've noted very, very well that capacity and capacity-building is a key and fundamental aspect to getting these services efficiently and effectively into first nations communities, and that capacity is very tough to develop, especially when they're small communities or not-so-rich communities.

Mr. Campbell, would you feel that the provincial government, with its expertise in school boards, hospital boards, providing social services within that jurisdiction, would be very helpful to getting these services in place on first nations reserves?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the question.

The member mentioned jurisdiction, and certainly in Canada the expertise in many of these areas does lie within provincial jurisdictions. However, there is another very, very important jurisdiction, and that's first nations jurisdiction. We do mention in the report that this is not easy, and I'm sure Mr. Wernick will tell you in much more detail than I can about how difficult it is, because you have to get first nations to the table. They are concerned about their jurisdiction and they don't want to become wards of the provinces. That's an important factor.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

That's a very good point, getting the three corners to the triangle, the three parties.... It's not to suggest that this is a new concept, because in 2003 there was a process that began to get the three parties to the table. It concluded successfully I think in 2005, with the development and signing of the Kelowna accord. For the first time, the provinces took a very, very specific proactive role in a solution, both on and off reserve, and they were prepared to actually participate.

Mr. Wernick, my question now goes to you. Given the fact that we had a process six years ago—it began eight years ago and was completed six years go, in intent—would first nations on reserve be better off today based on criterion and indicators if the Kelowna accord had been implemented in 2005-06?

[Michael Wernick]

That's a very speculative question. I'll take a stab at it, much to my peril, no doubt.

I worked very intensely on the Kelowna accord, as you may recall—I was serving in the cabinet office for Prime Minister Martin—and I know a fair bit about the process that led up to it. It was an important achievement at the time. I don't want this to sound partisan, but the Kelowna accord did not commit a penny of provincial money. It was agreement by provinces that the federal government should spend money, and that's what provinces tend to do when they get together. I don't want that to be read out of context. I think people went to the table with a great deal of sincerity about solutions, and they identified some priorities.

Had your party been—

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

But offering a non-monetary value such as expertise and capacity building seemed to be on the table at the time, which is what—

[Michael Wernick]

There was nothing specific on the table, other than good intentions. I think what would have happened in that world, had you been re-elected in 2006, is that the minister and the department would have been asked to go and talk to provinces about implementation. The implementation route would have been precisely the one we've been following for the last few years, which is to sit down with the Government of Saskatchewan and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and work out what's appropriate in that jurisdiction. We're looking at docking with provincial services, which are different across the country, and meeting comparability with provincial norms, which are different across the country. The education curriculum in Newfoundland is not the same as the education curriculum in Quebec.

We would have been going down a route of tripartite arrangements, which is the route we're looking at now. I think what I've seen since 2005 is a rapid increase in the willingness of provinces either to put their money where their mouth is or to put their services and their experts on the table. This is a very encouraging sign.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Would you as a participant in the original Kelowna say that some of the things that are happening today, some of the positive things that you note that Indian and Northern Affairs are doing in a tripartite way, were in play in 2003, 2004, and 2005? Would that be fair to say?