Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 25th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), the committee is meeting today to undertake a study on “Report 8: Emergency Management in First Nations Communities—Indigenous Services Canada”, of the 2022 reports 5 to 8 of the Auditor General of Canada, referred to the committee on Tuesday, November 15.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses. From the Office of the Auditor General, we have Karen Hogan, Auditor General of Canada; Glenn Wheeler, principal; and Doreen Deveen, director. From the Department of Indigenous Services, we have Gina Wilson, deputy minister; Valerie Gideon, associate deputy minister; Joanne Wilkinson, senior assistant deputy minister, regional operations, by video conference; and Kenza El Bied, director general, by video conference.

Ms. Hogan, you have the floor for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Karen Hogan, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General]

Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our report on emergency management in first nations communities, which was tabled in the House of Commons on November 15, 2022.

I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. Joining me today are Glenn Wheeler and Doreen Deveen, who led this audit.

Emergencies such as floods and wildfires are happening more often and with greater intensity across Canada. These emergencies disproportionately affect many first nations communities because of their relative remoteness and socio-economic circumstances.

Over the last 13 years, more than 1,300 emergencies have occurred in first nations communities, causing more than 130,000 people to be evacuated and displaced. Echoing our 2013 audit in this area, we concluded that Indigenous Services Canada had not provided first nations communities with the support they needed to manage natural emergencies. Over the last 4 years, the department has spent about $828 million on emergency management for first nations communities.

We found that the department’s actions were more reactive than preventative. Although first nations communities had identified many infrastructure projects to mitigate the impact of emergencies, the department had a backlog of 112 of these projects that it had approved but not funded.

Indigenous Services Canada was spending 3.5 times more money on responding to and recovering from emergencies than on supporting communities to prepare for and mitigate impacts. According to Public Safety Canada, for every $1 invested in preparedness and mitigation, $6 can be saved in emergency response and recovery costs.

Despite our 2013 recommendation, Indigenous Services Canada still had not identified which first nations communities most needed support to increase their capacity to prepare for emergencies. If the department identified these communities, it could target investments accordingly. For example, building culverts and dikes to prevent seasonal floods would help minimize the impact on people and reduce the cost of responding to and recovering from emergencies. Until the department shifts its focus to prevention and invests in infrastructure, communities are likely to continue experiencing greater effects from emergencies.

We also found that capacity needs of first nations were not identified. For example, although the department provided funding to first nations for about 190 full-time or part-time emergency management coordinators, it did not know how many more were needed for first nations to have the capacity to manage emergencies.

Since 2009, 268 communities have been evacuated, some more than once. While the majority of these evacuations lasted less than a month, 90 were more than three months long, and some lasted multiple years. One has been ongoing for over 10 years.

Indigenous Services Canada did not ensure that emergency services were culturally appropriate and comparable to services provided in municipalities of similar size and circumstances. The department did not define comparable services. It also did not consistently monitor the services provided to first nations communities by provinces and other service providers.

In 2011, at the end of her mandate as Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser summed up her impression of the government's actions after 10 years of audits and related recommendations on first nations issues with the word “unacceptable”. Five years later, my predecessor, Michael Ferguson, used the words “beyond unacceptable”.

We are now into decades of audits of programs and government commitments that have repeatedly failed to effectively serve Canada's indigenous peoples. It is clear to me that strong words are not driving change. Concrete actions are needed to address these long-standing issues, and government needs to be held accountable.

Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We are pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you.

We will now go to Ms. Wilson for five minutes.

[Gina Wilson, Deputy Minister, Department of Indigenous Services]

Kwey kakina.

Hello. Ullukkut. Tansi.

Thank you for having me. Before we begin, I want to acknowledge that we are on the land of my ancestors, my relatives, and we gather in the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Meegwetch. Thank you for inviting me to appear, and the team here with me, before the House Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I am grateful to the committee for taking an in-depth look at the report of the Auditor General of Canada on managing emergencies in first nations communities. I'd like to thank the Auditor General and the staff for this detailed report.

We agree with the seven recommendations in the report, and Indigenous Services Canada is committed to acting on each recommendation with a detailed plan.

The work we are doing with first nations partners to address the critical gaps that exist in emergency management in fact closely aligns with the recommendations outlined in the Auditor General's report.

Our work is guided by two key principles: first nations must have input into their own emergency management planning and response. And they must be full and equal partners in decisions that affect their own communities.

Our shared focus is prevention. We are developing emergency management plans and multilateral service agreements with first nations that clearly establish the protocols, roles, responsibilities, and funding for the various partners within emergency management governance structures.

An example is the tripartite memorandum of understanding on emergency management that we signed in 2019 with British Columbia, the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit. This memorandum of understanding has proven to be effective. In February 2022, Indigenous Services Canada approved an additional $5.7 million for the 2022-23 fiscal year to the First Nations' Emergency Services Society through the emergency management assistance program.

We've also been making significant investments in infrastructure to mitigate the impact of emergencies in first nation communities. Since 2016, and as of June 30, 2022, ISC has invested $121.1 million, excluding operating expenses, to support 103 structural mitigation projects, 50 of which are now completed. These projects will benefit 107 communities serving approximately 116,000 people. ISC has also invested in additional first nation emergency management coordinators across Canada who help communities prepare for and respond to emergency events in a culturally relevant manner.

Regarding our support role in emergency preparations and response, I would like to highlight our work with first nations and partners regarding potential flooding along the James Bay and Hudson Bay coasts, including Kashechewan First Nation. Since 2016, ISC has supported an annual precautionary evacuation of Kashechewan First Nation. Since 2020, we've supported Kashechewan and Fort Albany first nations on the land initiative, where residents can temporarily move to higher ground on their traditional lands.

Another recent example is hurricane Fiona in September. First nation chiefs and leaders in the Atlantic region played a key role in assessing the immediate needs of citizens and determining the assistance needed, and were already preparing in advance of the storm. Their dedication ensured the health and safety of affected communities.

In addition, Indigenous Services Canada mobilized an emergency management team and stayed in active communication with all parties involved, resulting in a coordinated and appropriate response and assistance.

We have continued to work closely with the communities to develop and provide recovery support and assistance.

Overall, our continued priority is to ensure the health, safety and well-being of first nations and address the gaps that exist in emergency management.

I’d like to thank all of our partners for working with us.

I thank the committee for inviting us here today.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you, Ms. Wilson.

I'd like to welcome Mr. Vidal and Mr. Gaheer to committee today.

We are now ready to begin our first round for six minutes.

Mr. Vidal, go ahead.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

It's Mr. McCauley.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Okay.

Mr. McCauley, go ahead.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for filling in as chair.

AG Hogan, thanks for this report. I didn't think it could get worse than the Veterans Affairs report, but here you go.

I want to start with the AG's comments, both present and past. In 2011, Sheila Fraser, after 10 years of audits and ignored recommendations, said the results were unacceptable. Mr. Ferguson follows up five years later and says it's “beyond unacceptable”. Then the current AG says, “We are now into decades of audits of programs and government commitments that have repeatedly failed to effectively serve Canada's indigenous peoples.”

I have the 2013 report here. Every single recommendation was agreed upon by Indigenous Affairs—as it was called at the time. We have audit after audit and recommendation after recommendation that are blown off by the department, with decades of failure to serve our indigenous people. Yet the department repeatedly just says, “We agree with the recommendations.”

I have two questions, and I'm going to be very blunt here.

Why should anyone on this committee, the Auditor General, and anyone in Canada believe Indigenous Services when they say they agree and they're going to act on it?

As a follow-up question, why should I or anyone else in this room as an MP not immediately head up to the House, stand in the gallery and demand that every manager involved in this file be immediately terminated for this absolute, abject, seemingly wilful negligence?

This is low-hanging fruit and decades of failure—again, agreed, agreed, agreed. How do we get past this? Why should we not be calling for the dismissal of everyone who has been attached to these horrific results?

[Gina Wilson]

Is there a question there, sir?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I had two questions.

Why should we believe Indigenous Services when you say that you agree to these, when departments agreed in the past and have done nothing?

Again, why should we not be in the House of Commons demanding dismissal and termination for everyone involved in this negligence, this seemingly purposeful, wilful negligence on this file?

[Gina Wilson]

I believe that is directed at me, Madam Chair, so I will make an attempt to respond to that.

I would take some exception to the words about having “blown off” those recommendations or that we have completely ignored them. As deputy head and primary accounting officer, I would say that we've managed all of our programs well, our terms and conditions set out by Treasury Board, with balanced budgets.

Can we do better? Yes, and the Auditor General has given us seven recommendations that help move us forward, and I thank her for that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I appreciate that. I know that you say what you kind of have to say, but this is like three audits in a row that are just damning, wherein the department says, “yes, we agree”, and then goes off on their way and does not deliver on what they agreed upon. What are the consequences for the last nine years since the last report for the bureaucrats and the management involved on this file for this failure?

I'm going to disagree with you. I don't believe that there have been.... I don't think that in any way you can look at this and say, “yes, we've accomplished a lot” or “yes, we're serving the people”.

[Gina Wilson]

Madam Chair, I am hoping through this particular meeting that we can demonstrate that we have in fact made progress. Through our deliberations and the responses we'll give, we will hope to prove to you differently, that in fact we are managing this as well as we can at this point in time, Madam Chair.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Last year, 95% of the executive level and above in management in Indigenous Services received bonuses totalling $3.3 million. Do you believe it is warranted to be rewarding what—I'm going to repeat—is such abject failure?

[Gina Wilson]

Performance bonuses are not in my realm to talk about, Madam Chair. I would leave that to Treasury Board and others who make those decisions. That is beyond my decision.

Thank you.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm going to answer that for you. I think the answer is no.

We're spending more—and it has been identified repeatedly—on recovery than on being proactive. Who is making the decision to prioritize the reactive rather than the proactive in the mitigation? Whose decision is that?

[Gina Wilson]

I agree, actually, that we need to shift from that response. I agree that we need to make this shift in Canada more broadly and in the first nation emergency management world, and I want us all to put our attention, our focus and our efforts towards mitigation and preparedness. I—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Whose decision would it be to do that? It seems like a no-brainer. It's been identified. Who needs to say “this is what we're doing”?

[Gina Wilson]

I don't think, actually.... This concept of communities and countries and municipalities, all parties, actually, wanting to move increasingly toward mitigation and preparedness is not a new concept, certainly not—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Please, I'm looking for an answer. Who needs to make this decision to say “focus on the mitigation and not the cleanup”? It has been identified in this report. For some nations, for 10 years now we've been going through this.

[Gina Wilson]

All jurisdictions need to make that particular recommendation. All EM experts—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Does your department have no say in that?

[Gina Wilson]

We have a say in that, and all emergency management experts in fact do repeat that message: that we need to be focusing more on mitigation and preparedness.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

What is it going to take to get your department to focus on that?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Could we have a short answer, please?