Public Accounts Committee on March 20th, 2023

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Is that detailed in your departmental plan?

[Valerie Gideon]

As I've said, we will follow up with the specific page number, but we have, under departmental result 6, reference to specific infrastructure—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I've gone through it. It's not there, I'll tell you right now.

The fact that you showed up to the meeting and aren't aware of that.... I guess I should say it's not surprising, but it is disappointing.

[Valerie Gideon]

I'm actually just referring you to the target that we set for the first nation infrastructure fund, which you noted is of particular interest to the committee.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm talking about the department plans, which are tabled in the House of Commons and lay out your targets for the year to justify the funding ask to Parliament.

The minister sat here and lectured us, saying, “Well, I hope you will vote for the budget.” This document backs up the money you're asking for, and 44% of what you have put in here has not set targets. You have result indicators. They're not part of this—

[Valerie Gideon]

Part of the rationale—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Let me finish, please, Madam.

Without targets set, it's to be decided next year or to be decided at a later time. It's not acceptable.

Will the money for the 112 projects be fully funded out of the estimates process for the main estimates? Will they be expressly funded for this year?

[Valerie Gideon]

To explain with respect to the indicators, we are working with partners on specific infrastructure reform strategies and the development of indicators—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We're talking about separate things here.

The departmental plans lay out your departmental priorities for the year. These plans back up and justify the spending ask for the estimates from parliamentarians.

I am asking specifically why they're not noted for the 112 in the infrastructure or the other items from the Auditor General's report.

[Gina Wilson]

Maybe I'll take a stab at that one.

It is not actually 112 projects anymore. It is now 58 projects that are not funded. That's $82 million. There is not a specific line item for those particular 58 projects. There is a broader line item for infrastructure; there is a line item for structural mitigation, and so on, but it's not specific to those particular projects.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I've gone through each of the departmental indicators. I really cannot find any that relate back directly to this damning Auditor General's report. I would think that the report is so bad—so bad that the minister had to show up—that they might be reflected as departmental priorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 30 seconds.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a very quick question for Ms. Gideon.

In the last meeting, you said, “We need to have funding specifically dedicated to the recommendations in the report.” Do the estimates provide that funding, specifically dedicated to the recommendations in the report?

It's the money your department is asking for in the main estimates that just—

[Valerie Gideon]

We have funding that was secured in 2019 and 2020 over a multi-year period for structural mitigation, for capacity enhancement, for the FireSmart and fire protection areas, and for the first nation infrastructure fund—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You're fully funded, then.

[Valerie Gideon]

Those will all assist in addressing aspects of the recommendations.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Are you fully funded to accomplish those recommendations?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley. We'll have to come back to this.

Turning now to Mr. Dong, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

First of all, I want to ask Ms. Gideon if she needs more time to answer the question that my colleague just asked.

[Valerie Gideon]

I think what we were indicating is that we have indicators that speak to outcomes, although we are, in the MRAP, as Joanne mentioned earlier, indicating that we will be doing further work with partners.

For example, as she mentioned, we have the percentage of evacuees who have been returned to their community within three months. The result in 2021-22 was 97.9%.

We have the percentage of longer-term evacuees who have been returned home or have a scheduled date within two years of their evacuation. The percentage was 77.5% in 2021-22.

I want to briefly mention that on the health emergency side, we also have the percentage of first nations with all-hazards emergency plans that have a health component, and we have the percentage of first nations that are served by emergency management and health coordinators as well.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

That's great.

I understand that the first nations and Inuit health branch of Health Canada became a part of Indigenous Services Canada when the department was divided into two.

What role did that play in helping the department respond to the COVID pandemic, for example? Does it help the department work with first nations to better prepare their response to emergency events, such as hurricanes, floods and wildfires?

[Valerie Gideon]

Absolutely, it does. Even before the pandemic in 2019, for the first time we were included with respect to accessing health emergency funding, which enabled us to put health emergency coordinators across all of the regions, which we did not have before. In fact, just prior to the pandemic, we were able to bring them all together, and I attended that meeting. We talked about the importance, for example, of mental wellness supports during all hazard and disaster emergencies, which had never happened before.

When the pandemic happened, we had a much more integrated model of emergency management than existed previously, when the first nations and Inuit health branch was part of Health Canada and we had Indigenous and Northern Affairs as a separate department.

Throughout COVID, we were able to take a much more holistic look at community needs, so we didn't treat it just as a public health emergency. We also looked at food security, infrastructure requirements and security. We were able to bridge the gap and be really one federal voice at the table with other partners like Public Safety and the Public Health Agency of Canada, supporting indigenous communities. It was absolutely much more effective, a much more efficient response mechanism than if we had been in two separate departments. Our relationship with the health portfolio was not weakened as a result of that. I know that it was something that people were concerned about, but that did not happen.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Did that decision help the department to be better prepared for natural disasters, given that climate events are happening quite frequently in the last two decades compared to the past? Would you say that the decision to divide the two departments is going to put us in a stronger position to respond to those events?

[Valerie Gideon]

I would absolutely say so. In fact, last spring we were able to include health emergencies in the emergency management assistance program terms and conditions. Health-related emergency costs are now eligible under the EMAT program, which was not the case before. That is one concrete example.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

The work on the multilateral agreements is setting a new path of getting indigenous communities to the table, where decisions are being made. Could you please tell us how you got the B.C. trilateral agreement ready and the next steps of that agreement?