Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 24th, 2011

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

What about the first nations communities having extensive reporting commitments?

By the way, as to my earlier question, I hope that the changeover in personnel is solved now, that that it's not the reason we're not addressing.... You mentioned that things were falling into the cracks because of a change of personnel?

[Michael Wernick]

No, I just meant that the turnover rate in the federal bureaucracy—not just my department—means that people change jobs roughly every three years. So people are coming in and going out, and it's important that they pick up the torch from their predecessor as quickly as possible and learn what their obligations and expectations are. So we try to create the tools to allow that to happen as fast as possible.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Bateman.

Now, Mr. Caron, please.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to the questions I asked last week about mould. Could you tell me what has been done since the Auditor General's last report? This question is specifically for Ms. Woods and Mr. Stewart. Based on your answers, aside from wanting to form a committee in order to develop a strategy, what you have done is distribute fliers and literature. In doing so, you were hoping that people could solve their problems by themselves.

I am worried about something in the Auditor General's report. And I quote: “Mould contamination, liable to cause respiratory illnesses, continues despite a strategy being implemented”. So there was a strategy already in place. It stresses that “the three federal organizations had not allocated additional funding to address mould as a result of the strategy, had not determined the magnitude of the problem... Moreover, because the organizations had not developed performance indicators, they did not know whether the strategy was making a difference.” So it doesn't look like there was an accountability process or evaluation of results.

Could you tell me whether the strategy currently in place and the steps you want to take will be coordinated? Could you also describe the steps? If the department coordinates this, I would like Mr. Wernick to answer that question. If not, I would like an answer from Mr. Stewart and Ms. Woods.

[Michael Wernick]

That is a good question.

We always agree to coordinate efforts in other departments. When an issue comes up, we bring our colleagues together. It has nothing to do with passing the responsibility onto others.

That said, I think that specific measures can fall under other organizations, including Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Health Canada. I am not sure if that fully answers your question. We accept the responsibility to convene, coordinate and sometimes push people, but at the end of the day, it is up to the department or agency to deliver the goods.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

You talked about what you have been doing since last June. Are you planning other steps to deal with the fundamental issue of public health? You talked about developing a strategy. How will you be able to set up mechanisms to evaluate results? According to the Auditor General, it seems that there are none.

[Shelagh Jane Woods, Director General, Primary Health Care and Public Health Directorate, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Department of Health]

That's a good question. Thank you.

We are currently implementing a strategy. At Health Canada, we are working with the communities. The idea is not that

—you have to solve it yourself.

Environmental and public health officers from Health Canada have a responsibility to educate people, to give them advice and to support their efforts to keep mould under control.

We continue to work with our partners in assessing our efforts. It is true that we have not dedicated additional funds, but each of us has had funds available to do some of the work we've done. For example, Health Canada has invested money in the development of the documents and the tools and the kinds of things I talked to you about last time. So while we didn't have additional funds, we have continued to spend, and we do continue to work with our partners and the Assembly of First Nations, but much more importantly, with the communities themselves, on our efforts.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Wiersema also wished to comment on the question, Mr. Caron.

[John Wiersema]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the member raised a very important question.

Mould in housing is a serious health issue, and it is getting more serious out there.

In my view, it is much more complicated than having

information sessions or educating aboriginals. It's very closely connected to overcrowding in houses. So if the Government of Canada and aboriginal people are going to work together seriously to deal with the problem of mould in housing, which is a serious health issue, a great deal more than information sessions is going to be required. We've got to deal with the housing shortage. This is an important problem that needs creative, thoughtful solutions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Wiersema.

Now, Mr. Dreeshen, go ahead please.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And welcome to our guests.

Mr. Wernick, I'd like to start my questions with you. Last week, we talked about the educational reform measures that have taken place in the kindergarten to grade 12 area, and we discussed the national panel on education, the joint action plan. Earlier today, you talked about the educational tripartite agreements as well as the educational partnership programs, which are part of the reforming first nations education initiatives. And I suppose, even on a broader basis, we could go back to what Madam Fraser said in her report, that the current funding mechanism and delivery model used to fund post-secondary education does not ensure that eligible students have equitable access to post-secondary education funding.

I wonder if you could elaborate on what you're doing with respect to ensuring that first nations students have access to post-secondary education.

[Michael Wernick]

I think this builds on a couple of other questions where I could not give you an assurance, as accounting officer, that the funds allocated for post-secondary actually are spent on post-secondary education, because they go into block funding agreements. First nations actually have some flexibility to choose what they spend the funds on, and that's deliberate. There's nothing wrong with that, as I say, but it does mean that we cannot trace every dollar through to the end use on students. There are communities receiving dollars for post-secondary education that don't spend them on post-secondary students in exactly the proportion they got them in, if at all. They make tough choices at the community level. I don't intend to be critical in any way.

So, no, we cannot guarantee that those resources end up in the hands of students. I think what the Auditor General underlined, and I would concur with it, is that the current delivery model is problematic. There are 450 points of delivery; it's run through band governments. I'm not being critical of them. They try to do their best and they do wonderful work in many communities to get their students ready, but they're doing all the leg work. There are some very painful choices about which kids are going to get supported each year.

I think there's actually a fair bit of money on the table, which, if it went through a single entity directly to students and their families, would get better results, but that's a very controversial position. Not all first nations groups would agree with that, which goes back to one of the earlier questions. If you want perfect consensus and first nations support for some of these reforms, we might be waiting a while. You're going to have to make decisions as legislators as to how much support is good enough in order to advance.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I think that comes back to the impediments Mr. Wiersema was speaking of earlier. You talked about the clarity of service levels—so that's one aspect of it—and the legislative base that we discussed earlier and, of course, the appropriate funding mechanisms. Those are being addressed, but you still have to get down to the final part, which is to look at the service delivery and see what is going to take place there.

I wonder, Mr. Wiersema, if you have any comments on that, and also if we could maybe expand it somewhat into the reporting requirements of federal organizations so that people do have some idea of what is taking place with the money that is being spent.

[John Wiersema]

Mr. Chairman, I do not have a great deal to add to what has already been said, except to say that I agree with the member. It's all four elements; it's the legislative base, the service levels or standards and the outcomes the government is trying to achieve, the funding mechanism, and the capacity of the first nations themselves to deliver it. All of those have to work together to advance the lot of first nations on reserves.

With respect to the reporting burden, I think you've heard Mr. Wernick talk a little bit about that. A lot of it is driven off the funding mechanisms the government has chosen to use, the contribution agreements. A lot of this reporting is required by these contribution agreements. As the government moves to multi-year funding and funding to a broader group of communities, the reporting requirements might be lessened, but I still think the core issue is, as Mr. Wernick has indicated, that the government is excessively dependent on contribution agreements as a vehicle for funding.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Wernick, can you perhaps give us a little bit of an idea of what has been done to help streamline some of those reporting requirements?

[Michael Wernick]

What I found about reporting requirements is that, if you mow the lawn, the grass comes back. There are all kinds of people asking for data. They can be Treasury Board analysts who want to know about something. There can be a flap in Parliament, with all due respect, about an issue like fire protection, and people want to know about it, and the only way to know is to go and ask for data from first nations about what's going on. We don't have a lot of other sources to use, other than the census, which only comes around every five years. Our way to get information on what's going on out there is often to ask for reports to be sent to us. Sometimes, if you send money, you attach reporting conditions and so on.

There's lots of pull for more data, more reports. You have to really lean against it and say, “What do you need it for? Who's going to read it? What are you going to do with it?” and create some checks and balances to stop that.

I have taken one of my very senior people with a lot of field experience and put him full time on the issue of reporting burden. I told him, “Don't mow the grass; tell me where the roots are; what can we do to stop this proliferation of reports?” We've gone deep into the plumbing of our data collection instruments and where this comes from. I think we are making a lot of headway on that and we've stopped the growth of reporting requirements and have started to prune things, asking whether anybody is going to read something and what they are going to do with it. We ask, would it make a difference, would it help parliamentarians, would it help Canadians understand what's going on here?

Over the next year for sure, I think we'll see a dramatic drop in the number of reports, but I concur entirely with the observation of Mr. Wiersema. That's great. It really takes some of the load off administrators in band governments, but it's because we have very few other ways to get information that we do so much of that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, thank you.

And thank you to all of our members here today.

I would like at this time to take a very brief period and allow Mr. Wernick and Mr. Wiersema an opportunity for brief closing statements, should they wish. Please feel free to do that, but I can understand why that might not be necessary with the exhausting responses you've given us over this last couple of sessions.

You have the floor, Mr. Wernick.

[Michael Wernick]

Thank you.

I really just want to express my appreciation to members of the committee. An invitation to the public accounts committee isn't always the most welcome thing that officials and colleagues receive. I really do appreciate the seriousness of the engagement. As members of other committees and of your party caucuses, I hope some of this will be part of your engagement as parliamentarians in the months and years to come.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Wiersema.

[John Wiersema]

Mr. Chairman, I would echo what Mr. Wernick said, and I'd go one step further. I would congratulate members of this committee for the quality of their questions and interventions. I believe the committee is starting to get an appreciation of the complexity of the challenge that's facing us when it comes to aboriginals on reserves.

I believe the situation is serious. It's urgent, and I ask this committee to weigh in, underscoring the seriousness and the need for action on this file, so that we don't miss the opportunity to improve the situation for the current generation of children out there.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I thank all of our guests for coming here and giving their time and their expertise. Might I say, with these committee hearings being televised, I think it's an opportunity for the public to understand the complexity of the problems that are before the Government of Canada, let alone the first nations files and all the departmental officials involved.

I suppose the one common assessment that has come from all of this, of course, is that there is no single solution. It's going to require all of the partners, as has been stated many times. It's going to require first nations, and it's going to require both the federal and provincial governments, and both legislative and departmental organizations pulling together.

I would like to say that your input to this committee has truly been informative. I certainly appreciate the comments and the support of the Auditor General on this. I can tell you as well that the Auditor General has given us some perspectives that I think are demanding, quite frankly. They've created a sense of urgency before this committee that we have a responsibility to bring to Parliament.

In closing, might I just say, Mr. Wiersema, that this could potentially be the last time you are before this committee on this topic alone—let's put it that way. But with your report, you have clearly enhanced the accountability within Canada and the institutions. You have the respect of all the committee members here today. I can tell you that we appreciate your candid approach to this. Thankfully, I think we're very proud and pleased to live in such a democracy where we can be forthright and honest and bring answers forward, and deal with them in a democratic fashion, both from government and from opposition members working together trying to find a solution.

So thank you very kindly.

The meeting is adjourned.