Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 24th, 2011

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You talked about the legislative base you need. For example, you talked about the legislation dealing with the quality of drinking water. On the legislative side, does the department need anything else?

[Michael Wernick]

From the areas brought up in the Auditor General’s report, the two main topics are drinking water and elementary and secondary education. I feel that, if Parliament can pass legislation dealing with those two areas, the results will definitely be different.

Governance is another major topic. I think that, if we can strengthen the capacity and accountability of aboriginal governments and institutions, we might get better results. Aboriginal institutions and governments are the front line for delivering services and results to the community. Their financial transparency needs to be improved. Perhaps an electoral reform is also needed because the electoral system is not really up to date.

I think what can help us and what will certainly help communities is if Parliament can get to grips with governance matters.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to go back to the role of our Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Mr. Wiersema, you suggested that we ask the government to take steps in order to meet the objectives set in your report.

Mr. Wernick, or Mr. Wiersema, is there anything else you could add to what our report should include in order to encourage the government to provide the necessary tools?

[John Wiersema]

Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.

As I've indicated, these problems that aboriginals are dealing with on first nations reserves are very serious; they're urgent. What I think we need is a fundamental change in the approach to dealing with them, in addition to dealing with the four structural impediments that we've identified in the report. In order to avoid a possible time bomb, I think we need urgent action and a clear path forward.

So as I've indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, if this committee were to request from government some clarity as to how it intends to proceed in dealing with this very serious matter, as I consider it to be, then both this committee and Michael and I in our capacity as auditors could use that as a basis for holding government to account.

A former chair of this committee used to call the public accounts committee the accountability committee, and I believe that what we need here is a basis for this committee to be able to hold government to account for dealing with these serious matters on a go-forward basis in order to avoid that time bomb.

[Michael Wernick]

We are all for that. We have no objection to providing the committee and Parliament with information about the results. I hope we will have enough time to do the work needed to move matters forward.

But I think it is a good idea to check once in a while with the government and the department on how things stand. It is about priorities in relation to other priorities, which is a political issue. It has to do with other potential investments and other potential legislative priorities, and so on. It is also about relative priorities. That is what you have to deal with, as political decision makers.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Now Mr. Hayes, please.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wernick, I think you mentioned last week that the answers to the issues identified in the Auditor General's report are not only about more money. I'm hearing today, and we heard last week, that there are structural impediments and that the number one priority should be governance. I'm almost confused about what we should be trying to prioritize or where we should be going first.

Do we tackle all four of the structural impediments, or is there a specific structural impediment that we should tackle first? Where do we put our resources, if we as a government had to choose and prioritize the single most important issue that we should be dealing with as it relates to this report?

[Michael Wernick]

I appreciate the question and I don't want to sound evasive, but it's really for the government to decide its relative priorities. There are lots of things it can spend finite resources on. This is one and there are others; and cabinets and ministers of finance have a tough job in choosing relative priorities.

I think all I was trying to convey, and I do this with the greatest of respect for parliamentarians, is that funding without the structural reforms will only lead to temporary gains. I'm not saying it's not worth doing and that if the Minister of Finance were to give me $100 million—which isn't very likely any time soon—I could get some results out of it in terms of building things or moving programs along.

All I was trying to convey is that, if you want those changes to last and to be enduring, we have to get to some of the issues Madam Fraser has raised.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Wiersema, you indicated that you would like to respond to this as well.

[John Wiersema]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just very briefly, I believe that if the government were to focus on one of the four structural impediments at the expense of the others, and not deal with the others, that would be a significant missed opportunity. I think these very much do need to be addressed as a package, because these need to work together well.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I have a follow-up question. Last week you suggested that economic development and attachment to the labour market were central to ensuring the well-being of first nations. Could you please elaborate on some of the activities under way to promote aboriginal economic participation?

[Michael Wernick]

Yes, thank you for the question.

What I was trying to get across is that if we want to get to some of the social conditions in many communities, if people don't have some connection to an economy within the reserve or a connection with the broader economy, you're not likely to get very good results over time. This isn't a new thought. Other people have pursued it, and there are a number of first nation leaders who can advocate for it much more eloquently than I can.

Government realized a number of years ago, out of audits and evaluations, that we had a lot of 1970s and 1980s programs that weren't really catching up with the new economy. So we did start a consultation and engagement with first nations people—which again goes to Ms. Duncan's question. We did a lot of work with the national advisory board, which has some very talented people on it from first nations, Inuit, and Métis areas. We put together a framework on economic development, which was released in 2009 and basically gives you the four pillars, a road map, and a basis for engagement. It's on the Internet.

We have been able to make modest investments in some tools. We've been able to experiment with loan guarantee and loan loss kinds of programs.

We have something called the strategic partnerships initiative now, which tries to deal with the problem of shopping around multiple departments, a problem that some first nations have and which makes it very slow to seize opportunities.

The land management regime is certainly a big one, because the land base is a big part of the economic assets of a first nation. So moving more nations into first nations will be a big part of this.

We have business development programs. I'm not going to say they're the best programs in the Government of Canada, but they do some good with particular communities. And we've done at least 44 projects in the area of resource and energy development, because that's really going to be the opportunity for a number of first nations. There is economic activity near many, many first nations. So we have a lot of confidence that if we can get that connection....

And my colleagues at Human Resources and Skills Development, who have all the literacy training and skills development tool kits, have made huge investments in the aboriginal labour force over the last five or six years.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We'll go to Mr. Byrne now, please. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to just follow up on the previous question I asked of the witnesses appearing before us.

Mr. Wernick, you provided as fulsome an answer as you could, understanding that all of the necessary legislative requirements have not been completed in the cabinet process yet. You did list to us a particular interest of the department, that of coming forward with legislation on education, water quality, and some other issues.

I'll move now to Mr. Wiersema. Based on your findings in previous audits, could you provide the committee with a catalogue of the legislation that would be necessary and helpful to actually resolving many of the systemic issues facing first nations on reserve?

[John Wiersema]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.

I'll turn to Mr. Campbell to help me out here in a moment.

Mr. Wernick has already talked about legislation for water standards.

For each of the areas we examined in this audit—including housing, education, family services, water, and others—I would have to go back and ask if each were supported by strong legislation clearly defining the federal role and what the federal government were hoping to achieve. Were service standards set out? I'd have to do that detailed analysis of whether or not that legislative base were there for each one of those things, in defining roles and responsibilities and service standards. And for each area where they're not, what this audit is calling for is that those areas be set out clearly in federal legislation.

Ronnie, is there anything you can...?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a few thoughts, very briefly. I think any legislation—and I'm sure Mr. Wernick would agree—would require first nations support and involvement. Legislating in this area is not easy, and that would be one of the things you should look for. Are first nations onboard with whatever comes forward?

Mr. Wiersema talked about service levels. I think that's one of the biggest things that's missing: is the government setting out what it intends to do and what it intends to supply? That's hugely important.

We keep talking about capacity, so any time you're looking at legislation coming forward, make sure the capacity is built in. I recall auditing child and family services when first nations agency social workers were the most junior people around. And you probably could argue that they should be the most experienced social workers, dealing with the types of issues they're dealing with. But the agencies couldn't keep them. They couldn't compete with provincial salaries, so those young people would come out of school and work for a couple of years and then go on to better paying jobs. I think that's hugely important for you to look at too.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wernick, one of the criteria or indicators that you use in assessing the overall standard of living of first nations living on reserve is the United Nations health.... I have forgotten the specific name of the index, but it's one that has actually shown a very positive, favourable result for Canada and Canadians as a whole, but has not shown equally as positive a track record for first nations.

Does the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development intend to continue to use that criterion, that United Nations index, and will it continue to make sure that information is made public? Is that information condensed? Is it formulated on a macro capacity or is it done on a first-nation-by-first-nation basis?

[Michael Wernick]

I really appreciate the question. I'll go over it very quickly.

It's not that we use the UN Human Development Index, used by others to compare countries. Somebody had the bright idea about 15 years ago to ask if we could do an index that would compare first nations and other communities, so we have developed—and this is well before my time—something called the Community Well-Being Index, which is the same idea. Pick three, four, or five different numbers, run them through an index, and you will get a sense of the relative states of communities, and if you do it more than once you will start to see whether communities are trending up or trending down.

We have the 2006 data on the Internet, and they would have been the basis for the comparisons that were done. We fully intend to pursue one with the 2011 census data, which we haven't got from Statistics Canada yet, because they've just been in the field, but we hope to be able to do that. Then you're going to have some interesting trend lines for the people who like to crunch numbers and do the analysis.

What it lets you do is precisely that kind of community-by-community comparison. If we find two communities 50 miles apart, one trending up, the other trending down, we can start asking why. What are the factors and conditions? It gives the policy analysts and policy wonks a lot to work with. It gives evaluators a lot to work with. We have the resources secured to do that, and we fully intend it to be available to Canadians and parliamentarians as a way of evaluating progress in this area.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne. That is your time now.

We will go to Ms. Bateman, please.

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

That you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Wiersema.

Clearly this report was a nice pinnacle for a wonderful

Auditor General.

at the end of her career, and there are many pieces in that. I'm trying to knit together the structural impediment piece, and I'm just curious about the following, sir. The Government of Canada spends all sorts of time, effort, energy, resources, both human and financial—you name it—on the negotiation of land claims and self-government agreements. There has been some discussion today on those agreements.

After years of effort, we have about 25 agreements in place, plus or minus. Should we continue on this path?

[John Wiersema]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the government has made good progress on negotiating and implementing comprehensive land claim agreements. Whether or not the government wishes to pursue that course of action ultimately is a policy question for the government, but there are longstanding issues that first nations communities are dealing with, which have their origins in treaty rights and so on.

Progress on implementing land claim agreements is a good thing, and I think the Office of the Auditor General would support that; but, ultimately, that is a policy decision.

Ronnie, is there anything you want to add?

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

Fair enough.

Now, Mr. Wernick, what is being done to ensure that all parts of your department understand and fulfill their obligations under the agreements? I understand the land claim agreements that are in existence have multiple responsibilities.

[Michael Wernick]

I think I went over a little bit of this ground last week, so if I'm being repetitive, forgive me.

I think part of it was being aware of the obligations, because we tended to have one agreement after another roll in, and people were not fully aware... especially with a lot of staff turnover in departments. So we've created a database. It does sound like process. I know there are people who think these are process answers, but they're actually fairly important in terms of accountability, in knowing what the obligations are and who has them. Some of them are very specific and finite—a land transaction or whatever—and some of them are more in terms of the spirit and intent of the agreements, the kinds of issues that were raised in an earlier question.

We have tried to establish very clear guidelines telling people who join these middle management jobs or line jobs that this is what they should expect in the area of claims obligations. We have provided training for about 1,500 or 1,600 federal officials on this. We're working with provinces to make sure there isn't a lot of back and forth on whether it's a federal thing or a provincial thing. And we have a database that tells people very quickly where the treaties are and what the rights and assertions are of aboriginal groups in the area.

So I think these will all help, and we have created mechanisms that bring very senior people in the departments together to deal with problems quickly. I think one of the frustrations that was expressed was that it would just take so long to work its way up the chain in the department and back. Issues were often dealt with once people were aware of them, but we had to speed up the turnover time. We now have committees at the assistant deputy minister level, and I've got deputy minister contacts I can raise the issues with, and I do. Generally, when issues are raised with other departments, the departments do spring into action and see what they can do to resolve them. So I think we have some momentum in this area. It's not enough; we haven't completely dealt with it.

I'd like to take a few seconds to say emphatically that we think the communities that have modern agreements are doing better than the ones that don't—and there's a cost to the country of leaving land claims sitting there unresolved as well, which has to be taken into account.