Public Accounts Committee on April 27th, 2026

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

My next question is in regard to the emergency management in first nations communities audit. The evacuation service standards are lacking in some of the jurisdictions. I'm concerned because there is a rise in the frequency and severity of wildfires and floods. What changes have been done since the 2022 audit?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I'll let my colleagues speak to that in more detail, but there has been some change in recognition that there weren't adequate standards in place. We do have interim standards for culturally relative delivery of emergency management services to first nations on reserve. Basically, they take in the main areas of emergency management: prevention, preparedness, recovery and the aftermath.

With any organization with which Indigenous Services Canada does business regarding emergency management, there are specific things we expect to be in place. For example, when there's an emergency under way in a jurisdiction, the province usually has a coordinating table where the Ministry of Natural Resources, Health and others participate. Whoever we fund must be a participant.

Likewise, on recovery, there will be a standard to say that, if you've done business with us in emergency management, as a part of your obligation, you have to participate in the aftercare and the hot wash after emergency management to see what we could do better and what we could learn.

I'll pause there and turn it over to Jen, who can give you some more detail.

[Jennifer Wheatley]

Specifically to your questions around standards, one of the things we're doing with all first nations partners, provinces and large service providers like the Canadian Red Cross is building service standards into the multilateral agreements.

We have active multilateral agreement tables in all provinces with the goal of having these agreements done by the spring of 2027. In fact, we anticipate signing the first couple in the upcoming weeks. That will clarify service standards, recognizing, though, that 2027, if you're going to be the last jurisdiction to sign, is a long way away.

As the deputy mentioned, another related area is doing the hot washes and the lessons learned. For example, following the devastating fire season in Manitoba for first nations in 2025, we brought together all partners—first nations, the Canadian Red Cross, the province, ourselves and Public Safety—to do an in-depth review of what worked and what didn't work. That will inform standards in how we collaborate and coordinate going forward.

I think that's a good practice that the OAG flagged as needed, and that will inform service standards and ensure that we continue to learn lessons in real time in order to effect greater change going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. That is the time, Ms. Yip.

Mr. Lemire, you have two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Kitchi meegwetch.

Ms. Kovacevic, an APTN report noted that 60% of the value of IT service contracts awarded to indigenous businesses, which totalled $1 billion, went to companies in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. However, the Ottawa–Gatineau region accounts for only 2.8% of Canada's indigenous population. This means that 60% of the contracts were awarded to 2.8% of the population.

There are many examples, including Adirondack, which claims that its management staff are members of the Native Alliance of Quebec, an organization that is not fully recognized by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. Adirondack has received over $400 million in contracts for IT services from Shared Services Canada. This company is listed in your registry of indigenous businesses. It has a total of four employees. However, Meredith Egan, the director of this firm, also owns the AIM Group, which is not an indigenous company, and these two companies are located at the same address and share the same facilities.

In short, my question is this. What concrete steps do you take to verify that indigenous businesses are actually indigenous businesses? How is it possible that this company, which is clearly set up solely to secure contracts reserved for indigenous businesses, has managed to secure $400 million in contracts, subcontract them to non-indigenous businesses, and still pocket a significant portion of the profits?

This is a compelling example that illustrates why I believe an independent public inquiry into IT contracts, including those reserved for indigenous peoples, is necessary.

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I cannot comment on this specific contract right now, because I need to look into it first. I'll be able to comment on it after the meeting.

Regarding your question about whether we take steps to verify that contractors are legitimate businesses, the answer is yes, absolutely. That is our responsibility. The rules require that 51% of the control of an indigenous company be held by an indigenous person and that 33% of the work required for the contract be performed by indigenous employees. That is what we verify. We verify this at the start of the contract, during the contract, and after the contract is awarded.

I don't have the details for that particular contract, but I'd be happy to look into it after today's meeting.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

We would also be happy if you did that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Up next, we have Mr. Morin.

It's nice to have you at the committee. You have the floor for five minutes, please.

Just so you know, if you finish in your five minutes, I do allow the witnesses to finish up their answers, so you can use your time completely, and then it goes to the witnesses, but you can't interrupt them when they're answering. Your time will end then.

I turn the floor over to you.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for our friends at Indigenous Services Canada. How much of this Auditor General's report goes into developing the departmental plan for the next year and three years?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

It's significant. Obviously, the gaps in the targets that the Auditor General has discovered weigh heavily on me as a deputy minister. I feel the same frustration that all of you are expressing today.

Obviously, we're stewards of public money. It is absolutely a part of what we're spending on and what results will we get. Let's be honest with the target that we think we can achieve in the year ahead. We'll be looking over that, and all of us will be held to account in our performance agreements on whatever it is that we decide is important. The Auditor General's report is very important.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

As a former chief, I know that these documents, like departmental plans, exist. Now that I'm a member of Parliament, I go through them in a lot more detail since I am responsible as the shadow minister for this area.

It struck me that—if I were looking at this through my “chief lens”—the KPIs seem very copied and pasted. If you go to “Table 2: Indigenous Peoples are mentally well” of the departmental plan, you see that the actual results are 50.5% for 2022-23, 50.5% for 2023-24, 50.5% for 2024-25 and that the next target is 55%. The new indicator for off reserve is 55% as well. Those are vastly different populations, but the numbers are the same.

To me, it speaks to almost neglect that these are copied and pasted numbers with no actual, real thought process behind them. When you go to the footnotes on these things, you see that the results are from the 2015 first nations regional health survey up until 2020. You're actually taking results and saying that they're from these last three fiscal years, but they are really from 10 years ago. How do you explain that to chiefs?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I'm not sure about that actual KPI, but my friend here might be able to address it.

I think part of it is that mental wellness and mental health is an area in which the department spends probably over $1 billion per year between our mental wellness programming and our non-insured health benefits. It's important that, even if we don't have a good indicator and good data, which is frequently the case.... You, having been a chief, know that a lot of this data is subject to OCAP: to who owns it, to whether we can access it and to whether it is disaggregated so that it actually has an indigenous component.

Sometimes I think—and I'm speaking of something I don't really know; I'm speculating here—for lack of a better indicator, we take the data that we have. It's definitely not an afterthought or a cut-and-paste. It's probably the best we have, but it is our duty to actually look at that, to say what we need and to work with partners to make sure we have a system of inputs that make sense going forward.

I'm not sure, Candice, if you want to speak to that at all.

[Candice St-Aubin, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Partnerships, Department of Indigenous Services]

I would say exactly what you were referencing. I think you mentioned this in your earlier interventions. We are actively looking at those indicators gathered across all our programming, that full suite of socio-economic determinants of health to reduce...because we're using generalized amounts, as you referenced—the 2015 to 2020 indicator—to fine-tune it. This is because it's very general in a space where there's a lack of data.

We continue to address it through governance spending. I think we spent approximately $178 million over the past several years to increase data governance within communities, first nations, Inuit and Métis because it is so unique and distinct.

In the departmental plan—this is something for going forward—we're trying to find a way to reduce the number of KPIs and make them more real to the communities in which we serve.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Another KPI that I wanted to ask about in conjunction with the one above it is this one: “Percentage of requests for overnight residence in Indigenous Services Canada funded shelters by women, children, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people that are met”. It goes from 62% of those requesting shelters to 100% for this year. That's great. Let's tackle 100% of all cases. That's our goal.

However, the one above it says, “Percentage of...women who report being a victim of intimate partner violence in the previous 12 months”. In the prior year it was 16.9%, and you want to take it down to 16%.

Why is that not zero when the other one is 100%? We're going to take it down to zero. Why is this one only 0.9% less?

How do you justify one with so much detail that you want it to be 100% perfect, but with the other one, when it comes to domestic violence, you're only going to take it down by 0.9%? How do you determine these KPIs?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I'm not sure that I have a great response to that, although I would say that it's hard. You're looking at data that are self-declarations. It's somebody saying something. Even if you have a target, you know what the data sources are and what, realistically, you're going to be able to get.

For something as sensitive as women who report violence, you can imagine that it's probably not something that's easy or transparent.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

[Inaudible—Editor] the department perspective—you're going to take it down to zero and not down by 0.9%?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I can't speak to that target. I'm absolutely happy to follow up, look at it in more detail and give you a more robust response. I'm caught a little flat-footed here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

We're going now to Mr. McKinnon, please, for the last five minutes with these witnesses.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to go back to empowerment.

In all of these programs, we have billions of dollars from this large, overall organization. We have to get them out to where they belong. The people involved on the ground don't necessarily have the feedback to say that they're not getting it.

I know that we who are not in indigenous communities count on our cities, towns and provincial and territorial governments to do this.

Is there any way that we can build in some mechanisms to give people on the ground more feedback and opportunity to say that this is not working or this needs to be working better?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

Yes, for sure. There's always room to grow and have that dialogue.

I would say that a lot of that is under way. When we develop programs, they're co-developed. You've heard the term, obviously. That includes co-developing what we're doing, the monitoring and whether it's actually working for the people we serve. We're involving the partners.

We are trying to set up systems here so they can ultimately be transferred, because the goal of many is for self-government and autonomy. People have a vested interest in telling Indigenous Services Canada how to do things differently and how to do things better.

There are all kinds of tables with national indigenous organizations. My regional colleague could tell you about the tables they sit at with leadership in the regions to go over the contribution agreements. When they sign a contribution agreement, it's for something. There are reporting indicators. That's a two-way dialogue. There are reciprocal conversations.

There are all kinds of mechanisms where that's happening.

To your point, who actually looks at it at some point in time and aggregates it against the outcomes and targets that we've set? Is there a correlation? Do we need to adjust? I would say that's where the sustained attention maybe could be improved, so that we could be more deliberate about what we are doing and the conversations we're having, which happen from coast to coast and all over the place at the high level and low level. That can actually inform the targets we set and results we desire.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I think these are very good points.

This is top-down stuff. I'm more interested at this point in hearing about bottom-up mechanisms. For example, if I have problems in my city—they're not clearing the roads—I phone my city councillor. I don't wait until some big organization comes back and says....

What I'm looking for is some opportunity to empower the people on the ground to feed back into the system where things are not working or where things could be working better.

[Michelle Kovacevic]

Yes, I think we should ask the recipients of these services how they want to be involved, and to whom they want to speak.

Maybe I'll turn to my colleagues, who work more closely with leadership.

Do you have any ideas for the member?

[Jennifer Wheatley]

One thing we've tried to do through reorganizing, as the deputy mentioned, is create a single window for service and transfer excellence in every region. Part of that excellence is making sure we're at tables with our partners. The tables vary by region, respecting how leadership wants to organize in each region. For example, in Alberta, we have a health co-management table. The region has leadership that represents Alberta at the table. This informs health priorities in that region—where the money is going—and, to your point, identifies where the system is not working for them and where we could do better. B.C. has similar tables when it comes to emergency management and other areas.

We need to be responsive to how first nations leadership wants to organize and be absolutely open to receiving their feedback on what isn't working, what their priorities are and how we need to do better. Our new organizational design, which makes sure there's one DG, senior executive or ADM for every region, will allow us to hear that message and take it back in a more organized fashion than before.

[Candice St-Aubin]

If I may add to that, we are also ensuring that we're talking to all distinctions. We follow the same process in the north, which, as you know, has a unique and different set of circumstances. There is an Inuit-specific set of tables in which we engage the leadership, certainly, and also the service providers and community members. That also includes youth and elders because, again, it's about a range of voices among those who are directly receiving or delivering the programs for their own citizens and community.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That is the time, I'm afraid, Mr. McKinnon.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for their testimony and participation in relation to the “Follow-up on Programs for First Nations” report from the 2025 fall reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

I'm going to excuse the witnesses now. I'm going to suspend this meeting for one minute.