[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 2, 1995
.1113 
[English]
The Chairman: We will call the meeting to order. I would like to say welcome to all of the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We will be beginning our review of estimates, which we anticipate will take the meetings this week in addition to more meetings in the weeks to come.
We are fortunate today to have with us from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Alan Williams, assistant deputy minister of corporate services, and Bill Austin, director general, financial branch of corporate services. We will begin the meeting today by hearing the presentation of the department on the main estimates.
After that, we will proceed in our usual fashion: 10 minutes of questions from the Bloc, 10 minutes from Reform, 10 minutes from the Liberals, and then five minutes for each individual member, to at least begin the process of estimates.
Thank you to the department officials for coming to spend some time with us. You may feel free to proceed when you are ready to go, and we'd be happy to hear from you.
Mr. Alan S. Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a great pleasure for Bill Austin and me to be here. We hope we'll be able to give you an instructive overview as to the estimates for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. We'd certainly be more than happy obviously to answer any questions you have afterwards and in continuing sessions as well. I think that copies of my presentation have been distributed, so that should make it easier for people to follow and take notes if they wish to.
.1115
In terms of what I'll be covering, I'll first try to give you a contextual perspective on our estimates so that you'll be able to understand some of the key drivers that result in our budgets. As well, I'll try to take you into some of the discussions and results from the program review exercises that have recently been concluded. Then I'll focus on the estimates for the upcoming year. I'll first give you an overview not just of our department's funding but funding from all government departments, so that you get a broad perspective.
I'll then zero in on our department's estimates, not only giving you an outline as to the major expenditures but also giving you a sense of some of the key results and operational performance targets that we have for our areas of expenditure. I'll spend a fair bit of time at the end talking about accountability, how that's changing, how that's evolving, and a little bit of insight into our departmental structure and the resources we're consuming.
Turning first then to the contextual perspective, there are over 1.2 million aboriginal people in the country, composed of Indian, Inuit and Métis. Our department in particular focuses in the main on status Indians on reserve, who comprise about 27% of the population, and the Inuit who live essentially in the Northwest Territories, Northern Quebec and Labrador.
In terms of their distribution, we're talking about a client base that's widely distributed across the country. There are approximately 608 first nations; there are 88 tribal councils, 15 Inuit communities, 2 territorial governments and, of course, the whole of Canada's northern population for which our minister has accountability. Not only are they widely distributed but many of them are not near any central service area.
You can see that a little bit under 40% are in urban areas, which we define as reserves within 50 kilometres of service centres that have roads they can access at all times. Also, 40% are in rural areas that would be between 50 and 350 kilometres from the nearest service centre. Nearly 22% are in remote areas, over 350 kilometres away. As well, there as those who have no permanent year-round access to the reserves.
So this logistical situation poses significant issues both in terms of costs of getting materials to the first nations and, obviously, trying to develop an economic base when you are in fairly remote areas.
It's crucial to understand that our client base is growing at a rate nearly two and a half times that of the non-native population. As you can see, this is significant in that it puts pressure on most of our funding areas, which we'll be talking about throughout the course of the day. Not only is the growth greater by two and a half times, but if you look at the population distribution by age, you'll note that it's also a much younger population. Over one-third of the on-reserve population is less than 15 years of age, whereas for non-native the same figures would be one out of every five. Two-thirds are less than 30 years of age, as opposed to 43%.
What does that mean? These demographic statistics really impact on three major areas. The younger population, not surprisingly, drives up our school costs. More children mean the need for more schools and more seats in the schools. As the younger population turns 18, 19 or 20, and they get married and live on their own, the pressure rises again for more houses.
.1120
Finally, as new families form, the pressure for social assistance escalates dramatically. So you'll see as we go through the presentation how in fact the education and housing and social needs are really tremendous pressures that we're trying to cope with even in this time of fiscal restraint.
Let me turn briefly now to the focus of the program review. Our program review resulted, in essence, in the conclusion that what we're doing is what we should be doing. The business we have been pursuing is that which this government ought to be pursuing. You'll note as we go through the detailed costs later on that a large part of our responsibility involves providing for first nations on reserves the basic services the provinces provide to Canadians living off reserves - exactly the same kind of services.
Secondly, the goal or objective of trying to achieve self-government - clearly that's the business we ought to be in. There are a great number of claims, both specific and comprehensive, that need to be addressed. Finally, from the Indian Act there are statutory responsibilities that our minister must abide by. We are in that business for as long as the Indian Act is structured the way it is.
Given that we are in the right business, then, the decisions that came out reflect an attempt at balancing these realities with the current fiscal climate. As a result, the following conclusions were arrived at.
For our main basic services, for the Indian programming funding that we'll be talking about, our growth is going to be moderated to 6% in 1995-96 and 3% in the following two years. It's widely recognized that we were one of the departments, if not the only department, to have received an increase. I think the increase reflects a decision to attempt to balance the very difficult fiscal climate with the fact that the needs of the first nations members are very, very severe. I think ministers, in making these decisions, tried to moderate and limit the growth while recognizing that so much still has to be done.
In the northern program, as you'll see later on, there will be cuts in expenditures of about $15 million over three years. In addition, the northern program is going to be asked to review its regulatory regimes in an effort to try to obtain increased revenue generation from its activities in the north.
These decisions, when you apply them to our department, work. Basically the 6% you will see will allow us to try to provide the basic education and social services as best we can. It reflects the fact that our population is growing and hence any more severe restriction would have undoubtedly resulted in much more severe social and economic difficulties for the first nations. Notwithstanding our growth, there are significant commitments in the red book the department is going to have to address, and it's going to have to address them from within the figures that in fact were given to us, within the six, three and three envelope.
Finally, we will be focusing a great deal of our time on continuing our policy to devolve to first nations increased responsibility and to devolve programs in the north as well.
Turning now to expenditures government-wide, the amount of funding that's provided to first nations is approximately a little bit more than 5% of total government expenditures. If you look at the change over time, you will see that historically governments since the mid-1980s have in fact continued to provide increased funding to first nations at nearly 9%. Even if you discount for inflation, the growth has been positive in the order of about 5%.
.1125
So governments have historically quite correctly recognized the need to try to provide increased funding to address the needs of the first nations.
If you look at the allocations government-wide, the federal funding to first nations essentially comes from twelve departments. The Department of Indian Affairs itself provides about three-fourths of all the money, and another 15% or 16% comes from Health. CMHC provides $300 million, and Human Resources and Industry are involved in other major initiatives. I'll just give you some sense of what some of these funding initiatives are for the other government departments. Then I'll come back and talk in more detail about our own.
Funding from Health - nearly $1 billion - essentially goes to three main areas: non-insured health benefits of about $560 million; a national native alcohol and drug abuse program, for about $53 million; environmental health and surveillance hospital services and management services supply the next $360-some million.
In terms of CMHC, funding essentially provides on-reserve non-profit housing and there is also a residential rehabilitation assistance program. Off-reserve, there is a rural native housing and urban native housing program.
Human Resources Development, essentially under the CAEDS program, which is a program we'll talk about a little bit later, administers the program through the Pathways program, along with Industry Canada in business development and Indian Affairs in community planning. The three of us contribute to that, and Human Resources Development's contribution is about $200 million for skills development and training while Industry Canada provides about $50 million.
There are also smaller amounts provided by the Solicitor General for policing, Canadian Heritage for funding aboriginal friendship centres, and Fisheries and Oceans for management of fishery programs.
So those are the major areas of allocation of the $6.2 billion from the other government departments. We'll talk in detail about our own department now.
First let me try to reconcile the $4.5 billion that we provide to aboriginal programs. If you look at our main estimates, you'll see that it's about $5.2 billion in budgetary figures. That's because in addition to the moneys we flow to the aboriginal people, which consume the $4.533 billion, we would add on the northern program expenditures that go to northerners who are not aboriginal. Also a good part of our administrative budget was excluded from aboriginal expenditures. So when you add those together, you get up to our budget estimates of $5.262 billion.
Over the last decade, you can see there has been significant growth in the program. Our program essentially has four components to it. By far the biggest part of it is the Indian and Inuit affairs program, which consumes three-fourths of our budget. The Ontario total transfer payment of about $1.2 billion consumes about 25%. Then there are two relatively small components, the northern affairs, which is about $150 million or 3%, and our very small and continually dwindling administration program of about $43 million or 1%.
The growth over this period of time was about 8%. In this particular period of time, as we've said, you'll see that the growth for the department in the Indian program is being restricted to 6%, significantly down from 8%, with continued reductions over the next two years.
Now I'll give you a little bit more detail on our budget for the upcoming year. You will note that the basic services consume more than half our funding, and these of course are the basic services that are comparable to those statutorily mandated for provincial and municipal governments. So that's our equivalent to on-reserve first nations to what provinces provide to Canadians off-reserve.
In addition, there are other services that are not the basic kind of services and have less funding pressure attached to them. I'll be talking about those specifically afterwards.
Our claims are a separate pot of money, which you can see is comprehensive and specific, and it reflects roughly $344 million and about 6% of the budget. Beyond that there are smaller amounts, as I've just indicated, with about 3,200-and-some people in the department now trying to deliver our mandate.
.1130
If we look now at our main services, what I'll try to do is to give you an overview on why each of the main areas has risen, component area by component area. So let's move to basic services, which consume 55% of our budget. You can see that's essentially composed of social, elementary and secondary expenditures, our schools and infrastructure, and local and self-government.
In social, the increase of about 9.7% reflects an expected relatively small increase in the price escalation factor of about 1.2%, with a volume of about 8.5%. That volume is rather high, but it reflects, when we do our projection models, slightly under 8% of increased social dependency based on the number of recipients who are expected to need social over the next period.
Elementary and secondary education is going with about 6.8%; again, a very small price, an estimated increase of about 0.6%...but a 6.2% expected increase in the enrolment of students in the school system.
In schools and infrastructure, that goes to about 8%. That's essentially based on a very small price escalator, but it is basically increases for operations and maintenance to maintain the increased infrastructure - buildings - we have.
Finally, local and self-government, the band support and tribal council funding, the cost of that service, the first nations managing the programs, about a 6% increase; again, a very small price...estimated increase, but an increase in volume based on increased programs they'll be taking over and demand for more people being on the programs.
The next slide is designed to give you, again, just a quick overview so you can see the kinds of escalations in these four main areas that have occurred over the past ten years or so. What is very significant to note here is that in these areas we are forced to match the price increases provinces will provide off reserve. So notwithstanding our 6% limitation this year or 3% in future years, we have no option but to meet those same price increases, thereby avoiding any potential charter challenges.
So what does that mean? What it means is that if increases in these areas, when we combine these prices with our volume requirements, go much beyond 6%, we will have to cut into the other programs in order to net out at the figures that in fact we have been mandated to live within, the 6.3%, 3% and 3%. I think what we're going to find is that problems...not so much in 1995-96; there's a challenge even in 1995-96, but as you go to 1996-97 and 1997-98, when you are restricted to 3% growth, it clearly won't take much of a change in price or volume to have these kinds of escalators going well beyond 3%. That will force us, in the other areas we'll be talking about, to look for potential cuts in order to make sure we come in on-side.
Let's just go into a little more depth in some of these major funding areas. We fund $1.1 billion for education. About three-fourths of that goes to elementary and secondary, and it includes about $8 million to cover the cost of about 73 cultural centres. Post-secondary education is about $260 million and about 25% of the pie of education costs.
What's been the result of this increased funding in areas? Well, in elementary and secondary it's been fairly positive. You can see the number of registered Indian students has continually risen. We certainly view this as a very constructive and positive indicator. The enrolment rate is high and staying high.
What's equally promising is that we have noticed there is a very significant increase on the retention rate. Once children are entering the school system, they're staying longer in the school system.
.1135
In 1980 we had on average about 1 in every 5 students staying within the school system. Now we have nearly 4 in 5. Once they come in, they stay in. This isn't scientific, but from our records it's a clear, constructive and positive indicator.
In terms of post-secondary education, again there is good news. From the early 1980s, when we had 4,400 students entering post-secondary.... If memory serves me right, as you entered into the 1970s there were about 800 students. Today we are up to 23,000, and hopefully will be going even higher in the coming years. Again, this is very constructive and very positive.
What's also important to note with regard to post-secondary education is that our research has shown that when a student moves from having less than a high school education to actually having a university degree, the labour force participation more than doubles, from 38% to 87%.
So there is no question that this can be seen and should be seen as an investment.
Having said that, it's also fair to say that there's much still to be accomplished. If you look at this chart, you can see that, for Canadians at large, 62% have more than a high school education, whereas it is half of that for aboriginal people.
Also, only 14% of Canadians have less than grade 9, whereas for aboriginals it's up at 37%.
So notwithstanding the gains, a fair bit of progress still has to be made.
Let me turn briefly to social assistance. You can see here that we're expending over $1 billion. The majority goes for basic social assistance, with again a bit more than a third going towards child and family care services and adult care.
In terms of social assistance dependency rates, we're continuing to have to address a major concern and issue here. The number of people who are dependent on social assistance has not dropped. We're still talking about roughly 45% of the on-reserve population being dependent upon social assistance.
Unemployment rates are over 30%.
So there's a significant area here that the government still has to try to address with first nations.
On a constructive note, we are continuing to make good progress in setting up child and family services agencies. From about 36 in 1988-89, we have about 55 in 1993-94, and we expect there will be another 50 or so by the year 2000.
As you may recall, in 1989 the cabinet directed us to increase the number of child services agencies by withdrawing federal support for services provided to Indians living off reserves. That is essentially being completed. In three provinces some are currently provided off reserve: Nova Scotia has a small amount, less than $100,000; Ontario, which has a 1965 agreement; and British Columbia, in which discussions are currently under way. Of course, we're still pursuing isolated communities in Manitoba. So this is being fairly constructive and fairly positive.
The third major area of our expenditure has to be in our schools, infrastructure and housing program. We're talking about three-quarters of a billion dollars, half of which essentially goes to our basic capital, in which I would include schools, roads, and water and sewer systems.
There is $137 million provided for housing. We'll talk about housing a fair bit in a moment.
Then there are the operation and maintenance costs to maintain the facilities.
There has been a lot of constructive progress. This slide reflects the fact that from the early 1980s there has been dramatic improvement in putting in water and sewer systems. Now 9 out of every 10 homes of course have water coming into them, and nearly 90% have sewage as well. This has been very constructive.
However, I can't overemphasize the housing shortfall that currently exists. As you can see, right now there is a 35,000 gap between the need and the available housing. This does not even reflect the fact that of these 35,000 housing...I would say only about half of it would be what we would call at acceptable standards.
.1140
We try to produce about 4,000 new houses a year and renovate roughly the same amount. But with the family formations and with the difficulties with the existing housing policy, this is a problem that is not going away. I know it's one the minister is very concerned about.
Another aspect of housing has to do with overcrowding. This again is just to tell you that when you look at the housing shortage and the amount of overcrowding, you can see it's a very significant problem, especially when you compare it with the conditions non-native people live in off the reserves.
Let me now move to the next section, where we talk about the other services. These total a little more than half a billion dollars and are not comparable with those provided to Canadians off reserve, hence we don't have the escalation pressures in these areas we do in the other areas we've just finished discussing.
In post-secondary education, the government is committing $260 million. This is an increase of about $34 million since last year. This includes a $20 million commitment that was in the red book and that the government has addressed. It's a very significant and positive increase.
That having been said, there's no question there is still a great deal of need. Need undoubtedly exceeds the demand. It's in the hands of the first nations to try to use the money to its best availability in allocating this out to the students and trying to get students to take on jobs to try to earn more money and to try to balance this need as best is possible.
About housing, I've already talked briefly about it. This amount has remained relatively fixed since the early 1980s. The minister, along with Minister Dingwall, is seriously looking at options. There have been considerable discussions on it with the Assembly of First Nations and with aboriginal leaders across the country. The objective is to try to address this in a fiscally responsible way. This is clearly the challenge at a time when there is little or no new money: how does one address the serious shortfalls in the program?
About economic development, this is an area of special concern to the minister. As you may be aware, he has asked first nations to re-examine the funding we provide in economic development to see if in fact these funds are being best utilized.
In our particular department's case, most of the funds go out to what we call community economic development organizations, or CEDOs. About $44 million of the $50 million goes out to that kind of activity.
The question he's posed to the first nations is whether or not they feel this is the best utilization of those funds or whether they can think of how better to lever or address the economic concerns first nations might have. These discussions are continuing during this time and we hope to get some feedback by the end of this month. Without question, one of the key things we're going to focus on is accountability, again, making sure we have ample evidence to show that the funds that are being provided to first nations in this area are being effectively utilized.
On lands and trust services, these are funds that are used to fulfil the legal obligations the government has in matters respecting the Indians and their lands. We are looking at new and creative ways to transfer jurisdiction to first nations stemming from legislative changes in lands, trusts, forestry, the Indian Act, and so on, and how to increase the participation of first nations in the management of the lands and trust services functions.
You may be aware the minister again has asked first nations to see if there are any short-term non-controversial types of amendments or changes that could be quickly introduced to the Indian Act to get rid of some of the archaic and paternalistic initiatives in there. He's hoping to get some creative ideas that wouldn't have any opposition.
.1145
This is not to take away from the major thrust, which is clearly to operate under an inherent right policy and program. But while waiting for that to unfold, if there are things that could be done expeditiously with the support of first nations, I don't think he wants to leave any stone unturned.
The corporate direction box is an ever-dwindling box that in fact reflects the management within the department. Actually, we'll be talking about that in more detail a bit later.
Finally, the cultural centres are just separated out here, but that again is actually funded through our education program in 73 cultural centres across the country.
The third big area of our funding relates to claims, both specific and comprehensive. In terms of our claims, most of the comprehensive claims would go for things like the TFN claim, the Cree-Naskapi claim, and the Inuvialuit claim. We have about eight or nine major claim areas that total about $200 million and the big increase from last year to this year in terms of comprehensive claims was certainly in the TFN increase.
An hon. member: What's the TFN?
Mr. Williams: It's the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut.
The other main area is the specific claims. This consumed about $136 million. About $70 million of that is devoted to our processing the hundreds of specific claims we have within the system, trying to get as many of these through the system as we can. About $40 million also relates to the Saskatchewan TLE initiative, with some smaller funds towards research and for O and M.
We also provide funding for native claimants to allow them to do some upfront research in terms of claims and provide some support through litigation to address certain specific analyses of legal cases that might be coming through the system.
In terms of the north, by far the big expenditure in the north is in the form of the financing arrangements with the territorial governments. Those consume the vast majority of the costs, with about $150 million left for the northern program in general.
In terms of the northern program, as I said, through the program review, it is going to be asked to cut $15 million over the next 3 years, about $5 million in 5 or 6 years, $7 million in 6 or 7 years, and nearly $3 million in 7 or 8 years. This will be achieved largely by reducing some economic development agreements, cutting back in some grants and contributions, and really reducing some of the operational requirements in terms of basic travel and purchasing and the overhead kinds of functions that departments consume.
Those, then, are the major components of the program. Now I want to switch a little bit and talk about devolution and accountability. This chart here is designed to indicate that when you talk about Indian Affairs it is important to note that $8 out of every $10 we are appropriated are really managed by first nations themselves. They're the ones who are provided with the funds and they are the ones who make the decisions. Final accountability still rests with the minister because these first nations for the most part are under the Indian Act, but the day-to-day management and administration is provided under the devolution program to first nations.
What the devolution program means is that as you flow more programs to them, this has been seen to result in increased costs. Part of it is due to the fact that you don't have the economies of scale you had before. When the government runs something, whether it does it well or not, obviously it has the economies of scale. So as you delegate something or devolve something out to 600 first nations, the order of magnitude is not there and some of the fixed costs obviously result in increased costs. That would be one reason that costs escalate as you devolve.
.1150
The other reason is a very positive one. As, in fact, you do transfer education, for example, you find that more kids are going to school. This drives up the cost, but frankly, it's what you want to see happening: the first nations running their own school systems, developing school curricula and programs that are obviously more culturally sensitive and that meet the first nations needs more directly. This is a clear reason why the retention rate has been increased so positively over the past ten years or so.
The accountability regimes that are in place in the department are very complex and differ greatly depending on the capacity of the first nation. In most government departments, when you flow funds to a third party, either you do it through grants that have no terms or conditions associated with them or you have contribution agreements that have rigorous, detailed lists of terms and conditions.
In our particular case, we have tried to recognize that, in flowing funds to 600 first nations, you've got a wide disparity in terms of ability and competence, and we try to marry the funding arrangement with the capacity of the first nation. So for the first nations that lack good strong managerial skills, good strong financial competence, you might continue to flow various programs where you're very concerned about each and every dollar through contribution agreements, where there's a detailed requirement to account for every dollar spent. We will certainly do this, for instance, in some of the major capital programs where we're concerned about specific dollars.
As first nations develop more competence, we move on to what we call flexible transfer agreements. The key difference here is that, rather than focusing on dollars, you focus on results, on product. This has two positive dimensions.
From our perspective, because we don't have to audit each and every dollar, it's one of the major reasons why the department has been able to reduce its personnel component.
From the first nation's standpoint, it builds in a very positive incentive. If they can deliver the product for less than what would be formula amounts to do certain things, then they're allowed to use those funds to address other needs. For instance, if we fund a first nation $100,000 and we expect three houses to be built, we don't care if they spend $96,298 or $102,419 on the expenditures. What we insist upon is that the houses be built in accordance with the building code, in order for us to flow the funds in accordance with an approved and agreed-upon schedule. It gives them a much greater capacity to focus on what we want them to focus on, delivering the product at the end.
Some first nations that are even more advanced can move in what we call alternate funding arrangements, which in a sense is a kind of block fund. It gives the first nation, first of all, the ability to move money between one program area and another. Secondly, it is far less restrictive in terms of detailed program requirements.
Even on a flexible transfer payment, we might in a particular capital area, or in social assistance, be specific as to the kind of program they have to deliver. As you move to alternative funding arrangements, the first nation has shown itself to be capable of managing its funding well and therefore will be given less rigorous reporting requirements in terms of how in fact it is using the funds. There still would be products at the end that they would be accountable for, but they've got increased flexibility in how to design the programs themselves.
Also - and this is very positive - we will sign alternate funding arrangements for more than one year. We try to sign them for up to five years. This is very beneficial, especially to first nations in their dealing with private sector institutions. More and more banking institutions are now seeing themselves willing to take the security of the AFA in providing to first nations funding that otherwise and heretofore had been non-existent.
Schools are now being built using the collateral, if you want, of the AFA funding flow to the private sector banking institutions, treating the first nation on a level playing field, not requiring the government's guarantee but basically working with first nations as equal partners in the deal.
.1155
Finally, in terms of fiscal transfer arrangements, we are certainly continuing to look at evolving our funding arrangement, looking at ways that strengthen accountability while at the same time giving the first nation more scope and flexibility to undertake its responsibilities. There are models and pilots that are now going on in different parts of the country that are examining different kinds of community-based transfer payments mechanisms.
In terms of grants, some of the funding to first nations goes to grants - not a great deal - especially for their band support and tribal ouncil funding area, if you wish, their public service. We provide most of that funding on a grant-like basis. We're not really interested in details; for example, how many people they hired, or whether they hired three people at one salary or five at another. So that's really the essence of the grant-type of payment structure.
As you move from left to right on the scale, obviously there are some cases where you can totally remove people from the Indian Act. There are obviously cases - Sechelt is one, James Bay is another - where in fact under new legislation first nations are removed from the Indian Act. The new legislation will prescribe the accountability regime, the funding flows and the reporting requirements.
Finally, comprehensive claims straddle the statute-Constitution area. It's obviously discretionary, but of course, once signed, the provisions are entrenched under section 35 of the Constitution.
The accountability regime is an evolving one, a difficult one. We and first nations are continually working at this regime to try to strengthen it.
There have been some very promising developments in terms of progress made by first nations; for example, in the area of audits. Over the last year or two we have tried to be more rigorous and vigilant in getting audits in. For instance, back in 1991-92, at the end of October, we would have had, say, 70% of the audits in. Well, this past year in the same timeframe we had about 90% of them in.
So by continuous monitoring, by the increased competence of first nation band and council leadership and their taking a stronger interest in this, there are clear indications that the accountability of first nations back to the Crown as well as first nations back to themselves is increasing. It's fair to say that there's still a lot of work to be done. The indebtedness situation is a serious one, one which in fact we're very much aware of. We're trying to address it in many ways and we can talk about this later if you so desire. First nations themselves are taking increased steps to try to address indebtedness situations early on before they become too significant a problem.
I want to now talk about the expenditure trends. You'll note that since the early and mid-1980s, the department's size has gone down while expenditures have risen; I've talked a fair bit about this.
We have in fact reduced our full-time equivalent component. Most of that, about 70% of that reduction is due to devolving programs to first nations, so as they take over schools we no longer need the people to do it. As they take over social assistance, we no longer need the social workers. About 30% of that reduction is due just to efficiencies, streamlining and creative and innovative practices undertaken within the department to try to do the job better with fewer people.
The costs have risen, as I say, to some extent because devolution costs more money, to a large extent because governments have in fact provided more money for things such as social...and for resolving claims areas. So those would be the main reasons for the increase in the expenditure trends.
I should just make a brief note on overhead. On this slide I've tried to articulate our overhead. From our multi-billion dollar program we have an overhead of $129 million.
.1200
You can see that our departmental expenditures can be divided into the grants and contributions. By far, the biggest amount of funds go to first nations. There's loan funding, in particular for claims areas. There's a little bit of major capital that we ourselves in fact would undertake as project managers.
Most of the capital would in fact be provided to first nations under grants and contributions, but there is still the isolated case where we undertake an initiative.
Finally there is the balance of the operating expenditures, about $350 million. Part of it is devoted to actually delivering programs. Up north, for instance, we have 70 to 80 people still involved in the Yukon forestry programs. We have people involved in claims negotiations and in running different programs.
The balance that is not directed towards program service delivery is about $130 million. That includes all the overhead, the costs associated with my time, Bill's time, the time of the deputy's officers and even the directors general. That can truly be construed as overhead not allocable to a particular activity.
It's useful and constructive to know that as resources have been going up, the overhead as a percentage has in fact been decreasing. Right now, of our total budget, only about 2.5% is in fact allocated to overhead. It's a figure we're proud of, and we're always looking at ways to decrease it even more.
So, Mr. Chairman, I've tried to provide an initial overview of the nature of our expenditures and how they're being used. I'd certainly be more than pleased to try to answer any questions you and your committee now have. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your initial presentation. We'll move on to questions.
Monsieur Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I commend you, Mr. Williams, on your presentation. You have given us a very general and very accurate overview of the current situation. But I have some questions and you might want to take notes because I have a number of them and I would like you to answer them all.
First of all, I have a question on the participation of Native people to the department's fiscal planning. These are issues that are often raised with the First Nations. Has there been a consultation with the First Nations on this budget? I don't mean by that that we should break the secrecy around budget preparation, but when the department is developing its projections... By the way, I offer you my congratulations since your department is the only one to have succeeded in getting a budget increase. In the present context, this is all quite interesting, but the needs are tremendous.
So my first question is on the extent of the First Nations involvement in your budget's preparation. In my many travels, I often listen to Métis and non-status Indians. What share of the budget goes to these people? What does the department do for them? I seem to hear that the major part of the budget goes to the reserves and that provincial governments are often asked to look after the non-status Indians and the Métis. So, I would like to have an overview of the way this budget is distributed between Indians living on reserve, Indians off reserve and Métis.
You had a slide on post-secondary education. Once again, in one of my travels, I saw how great the need was in that area, even if I recognize that some effort has been done this year to increase the budget from 14 million to 34 million dollars in that area. I would like to have some assurance that no young natives in Canada will be told this year that there is no money available for them to attend a post-secondary institution. Is this amount of 34 million dollars sufficient to give such a reassurance to all Native people? Also, I think it is not acceptable to tell some natives that they cannot go to school, especially since we know it is the only way to break the circle of poverty in which they live. Is this increase from 14 to 34 million dollars sufficient for us to say that there will be no young people who will be told that they cannot go to school this year?
In terms of housing, I would like you to confirm the data on one of your slides. As far as I know, the budget for housing is frozen at a level of 138 million dollars. According to my statistics, that represents 3,600 units while we would probably need twice that many. Living conditions in these units are unacceptable. So as a consequence, I have a question to ask on this issue. Is the Minister polishing up his housing policy? Everybody in Canada is waiting for it.
.1205
When I learn by polishing up is that obviously Public Works Canada will be involved, as will be the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation which is also quietly giving up its role as provider of grants and money for housing.
As you have told yourself, there are difficulties. In some reserves, sometimes, two or three generations live in the same house. It seems to me that there should be some effort made on this. I would like to know what is the current status of the housing policy.
In terms of aboriginal self-sufficiency, a crucial principle that you brought forward, we often hear about the budget increases at Indian Affairs. On the other hand, there are a number of other programs in other departments which are decreasing and shrinking. I mentioned CMHC. I could also mention health. Last year, the budget for health was $81 million and the budget for mental health has been increased to $342 million.
By the way, here is an interesting bit of statistics. Eighty-seven million dollars out of this new money will be used to teach managers how to manage this new money. In my opinion, that is unacceptable. That money will not be used for direct health care. It will all go for management costs. Managers have already been told that they would receive $200 million or $250 million this year; but out of that amount, $80 million would be used to teach them how to manage that money. To me, this is unacceptable.
We have the same situation with the Department of Industry, which is now saying that there will be cuts each year, even if we know that money allocated to aboriginals for administration and business brings in revenues... That means that that money has a positive impact and that it brings back revenues to the Crown.
Finally, would it not be relevant to bring back to Indian Affairs all those programs that are implemented here and there in all these other departments? I don't know if that solution is feasible, since we are told that the budget for Indian Affairs is increasing while the budgets for other departments' programs are cut. I'm not sure if, at the bottom line, the aboriginals are getting more money from all departments.
That's all, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: The department will have five minutes to answer the questions, and in the event that you don't make it through them all you will have to...when it is your turn later. So you have about five minutes to answer what you can.
Mr. Williams: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
You have asked five questions I think. I will try to answer them.
[English]
With respect to financial planning, we do obviously have to adhere to the budget secrecy information that goes on. So it is clear that our clients, in the same way as other Canadians, would not have been informed about the results of the budget prematurely.
Having said that, the normal way we do business on a day in, day out basis, and how we develop our figures, is by working and consulting with first nations in our regional offices to get as good a handle as we can on what the needs of first nations are. It is these figures that in fact eventually roll up into our budget estimates that we take to the centre, so that when we are making our presentations to ministers, we are trying as best we can to reflect the needs of first nations, taking into account the fiscal realties as well.
I want to note something in terms of financial planning. We have been talking about the front end. I want to just move to the back end a little bit and again reflect the fact that more and more first nations are trying to strengthen their financial planning capacity within the first nations themselves, addressing deficits earlier, hiring more capable, more skilled financial planning advisers, setting up audit committees within the first nations. They are taking a lot of steps to strengthen the financial capacity.
We are now trying to launch an organization that would involve aboriginal financial people to increase their training and their skills. I know that really wasn't part of your question, but I think it is important to note in terms of financial planning that there are constructive steps taken.
In terms of Métis and non-status, you were correct in that the Department of Indian Affairs' budget is directed under the Indian Act to status Indians and to Inuit. Those first nation members who may live off reserve, who are non-status, the Métis, right now would be addressed through provincial funding.
.1210
About post-secondary education, this is, as you yourselves have said, a very crucial and major area. All the funding in essence right now is delivered in the hands of first nation members themselves. Therefore the number of students who attend from any first nation is as a result of the decisions they make. They make the decisions on whether someone attends or doesn't attend, and if someone is to attend, how much money he or she is provided.
There is no doubt there are still some children out there, some students, who want to attend school and who perhaps aren't being provided with the funding. I couldn't guarantee there are no such cases. But recognizing the fiscal limitations, what we have tried to do, at least, is to put the money in the hands of the first nations that are in the strongest position to make those allocation decisions themselves. So we are not predetermining it.
About housing, I can certainly assure the member our minister is in the final drawing stages of a policy he hopes to bring to his cabinet colleagues shortly, with his colleague Mr. Dingwall, on this issue. It is still going to be difficult. I wouldn't want to mislead the members. It is one thing to try to address a problem when you have open-ended funding available to you. It is certainly another....
Nevertheless, we are trying to put in place modalities and structures that will allow for more private sector participation, which would ensure homes once built are more properly maintained; which would allow for more housing to be built. We will try to build in incentives. The challenge will be to do it in a more restrictive fiscal climate.
About self-sufficiency, I am obviously not knowledgeable enough about the costs and parameters and allocations that are provided to other departments. I will echo your comment. I know in Industry Canada they have done studies that show every dollar invested has resulted in a $1.20 return. So there have been very positive results from their business interventions.
We certainly pride ourselves in our department to make sure that little money is being devoted to administrative burden, that most of it is going out directly to the first nations. We will continue to do our best to make sure that is the trend.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Grubel.
Mr. Grubel (Capilano - Howe Sound): Mr. Williams, I also wish to compliment you on a really brilliant presentation of the basic thing. I would just like to raise four questions again. If you will forgive me, I would like to put them together. Otherwise I won't get them out.
The first one concerns the size of the grants per capita on a native reserve. I have heard figures of something up to $10,000 to $15,000, some people say maybe even $20,000, per capita. If we have a family of three, if it were $15,000, it would be $45,000 for a family - and no income tax is being paid on this. The average income of a Canadian working in manufacturing - this is the mean - is only $30,000. So I have heard very distinguished people of the present government say if this is the case, if this is the amount of money spent per capita, why are the natives so poor?
The second question I have is about social assistance. Social assistance is clearly a huge expenditure. Ovide Mercredi told me in a private conversation that he and I can agree on one thing, and it is that welfare must go.
I listened the other day to Mike Cardinal, the minister of the welfare department in Alberta. He told a story to the audience that he grew up in a community of sixty people. Everybody had a job. Alcoholism and all of the current problems of children born out of wedlock, violence, and all those things were relatively minor. In his own lifetime he observed that since welfare was made generously available in his own community, all of those problems developed. He believes it is a direct result of the social assistance spending.
.1215
What programs does your department have to deal with this problem of getting rid of social assistance, as these leaders have indicated would be desirable?
You may have to answer this third question in writing. What is the cost of government per person in the northern territories? I've heard some horrendous figures and I would like to have those verified.
Finally, my constituents always tell me that we're spending almost $300 million or more on claims, and they wonder - I wonder along with them - where the hell all that money is going. Is it all going to lawyers? Is it all going on business-class air fare? I once sat in business class.
An hon. member: We were watching from the back.
Mr. Grubel: No, I fly five hours at a stretch, and I'm doing that....
I wonder if there's a breakdown on how this $300 million is spent.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity.
Mr. Williams: Thank you. Let me try to answer the questions as best I can. In terms of grants per capita, there is periodically a number floated that's easy to calculate. You take all our money and divide by about 300,000 first nations members. You get $14,000 or something like that. You could make the argument to multiply by three or four, but that's an awful lot of money.
In reality, that's not how the money flows. The very big chunk of the money goes for capital, infrastructure, tuition and those kinds of things.
You can't take one number, divide it by the other and then say that is the amount of money a first nation member would have to live on. It doesn't work that way in terms of practical reality.
I don't know how that compares to non-natives. I guess you could take the Canadian budget and divide that by 25 million or 28 million and see what the comparison is.
The point is in terms of how the money is used, I tried to articulate.... We have $300 million going to claims. That doesn't go to individuals. That's a separate thing. You've got $1 billion in social and child welfare agencies that you're setting up.
It's not as though you or I, as a first nation member on a reserve, would get this money in our hands, that we'd have it as a disposable income. The amount of capital is three-quarters of a billion dollars. Again, those moneys don't go to individuals' pockets. I think it would be misleading to take a numerator and denominator and simply say that allocation can go to each individual, because in fact that's not how the money is expended.
Mr. Grubel: You see, a certain proportion of the $30,000 that a one-income earner family earns in a manufacturing job is going as taxes to the government to provide all of those things you say should not be counted.
Of course, the fact is that even if they're not paying any taxes on it, they would still be left with an amount of disposable income that is strictly comparable to the average in Canada, and that means that others who are below the average would be much poorer. So the question is still a great puzzle to me.
How can I answer my constituents and the Canadian public generally? How come these people are so poor? I suspect the answer, which I expected you to give, is that it simply costs so much more to live in these remote areas. Why are you not giving me that answer?
.1220
Mr. Williams: There's no question that living in remote-access locations does increase the cost, absolutely. I was trying to address the question of grants per capita and why you can't simply divide one number by the other.
It's also important to note that if you look at the figures on the incomes for native people, then not only is half of that for non-native, but also over the last decade or so they have stayed the same or gone down, while for the average Canadian they've gone up.
When you balance all these facts, the only observation I would make is that the moneys that are being provided are (a) being accountably used and (b) trying to address a group of people who, at least from where I sit, are much more severely in need than the average Canadian is.
Mr. Grubel: Well, I hope that next year when you make a presentation like this you'll have one of your research staff look at an answer to the question I have asked, because it would be very good for your public relations and image if we could have an answer that justifies this, other than saying, ``Well, it is all being blown on wasteful administration and so on'', which I think is one of the answers. I'm after the truth and I would like to understand as much, and that's why I raised this question.
Mr. Williams: To answer quickly, in terms of social assistance, there is no question that we share your view that we prefer there to be little or much less social assistance. The reality is that our program mirrors the responsibilities that provinces have off reserve. So that's the simple reality, that we have to provide on reserve what is provided off reserve.
Are there more creative ways of better utilizing those funds? There is no question that there are things that can be considered.
We had the situation in Premier McKenna's province where they're trying new things, and we too are trying to look at options.
Part of the consultations going on in economic development right now, which I mentioned earlier, was to see whether or not first nations can see some utility in levering their social assistance money into job creations and joint ventures and those kinds of things. So we hope to see some constructive things come out of those discussions. Housing as well: if we can take people who are on unemployment and use them as a means of reducing the incremental costs for building houses, that would be very constructive. These are some of the ideas we're now looking at.
Mr. Grubel: I have heard that whenever first nations receive their funds unrestricted, the first thing that goes is welfare. Can you verify this assertion?
Mr. Williams: First nations have no option but to ensure that social assistance is paid to their first nation members who require it. Without any question, we will not do anything to jeopardize their ability to pay those funds. People have to have money in order to eat and to clothe themselves. So I would hope that the first money they get is allocated to those people who need it. We hope that we provide sufficient funds for them to do that, without any question.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): Alan, thank you for your presentation. It was well done.
On the seriousness of the indebtedness of the first nations, do you have any numbers and the terms of that indebtedness? I would also ask what DIAND is doing about the problem and how functionally you assist bands to deal with that problem of indebtedness. Finally, how is the indebtedness that a first nation is undergoing to affect the commitment to self-government?
Mr. Williams: Thank you very much.
Let me try to put indebtedness into perspective.
There is an indebtedness problem. We just concluded an audit, and we have, thankfully, put in place some fairly sophisticated systems that allow us to monitor this very easily.
As a department we have said that we will treat anything over 8% as a deficit as a serious indebtedness problem, which is roughly equivalent to one month's worth of funding. So if a first nation finds itself in debt to the extent that it cannot pay its bills within one month, we deem that to be a problem. Less than that and we're far less concerned.
.1225
Right now about one in five first nation members has a debt problem of that order of magnitude. That's fairly serious. I don't know how different it is from non-native communities off reserve, but certainly that's something we're trying to address.
When this situation arises, in our funding arrangements we have over the last few years dramatically strengthened what we call our remedial action clauses. It entitles us, as a department, to take logical, reasoned steps to try to address this as soon as we know it.
For instance, once we get the audit report that shows this, we would obviously start some initial discussions with the chief and council to try to ascertain the reasons and causes behind it. If it's something that can be fixed because of a one-time blip - a business perhaps went under and they hadn't expected it - and you can address it more quickly, that's fine. If it's more serious, then we might require them to prepare a financial management plan, get expert financial help, and devise cashflows that will allow them over a reasonable period to get out of this deficit situation. A lot of it depends, of course, on what the causes are.
We have worked hard with first nations to try to get these financial management plans in place. The statistics we looked at.... For instance, when we were looking at the 1992-93 audit situation, we would have seen back this summer that in cases of those first nations that needed a financial management plan, only two-thirds had them in place. If you were to look at the situation now, you would say it's well over 80%.
So we're trying to educate our own staff as well as the chief and council about the importance of getting this corrected early on. Because of our information systems, we now know exactly, coast to coast, at a glance, what's happening in each first nation, and now we can intervene more expeditiously than we could in the past.
We have tried to do a number of things to address the situation. Internally, as I say, now that we have the system capacity to know exactly what's going on, it makes it a lot easier for us to intervene and address the situation more rapidly. We have worked with the society of chartered accountants and the first nations and have produced a new year-end audit guide. All first nations now have to follow it, and do follow it, in preparing their audits. So again, we're getting a more professional kind of audit information in.
We have spent a fair bit of time and money on training courses, both for our own staff, to educate them and do case studies, and to set in place training programs for first nations, trying to get them and their financial advisers to understand what's expected of them.
Finally, as a global thing, we are trying to strengthen the funding arrangements themselves dramatically, working on tighter accountability regimes, both back to the Crown and to the first nations themselves. We have worked with the Auditor General in looking at accountability, for instance. We have agreed together that the funding arrangements in terms of accountability are going to focus on three main aspects. One is disclosure, one is transparency, and one is redress mechanism. As we enter into new mechanisms and new funding arrangements year over year, these three areas will be strengthened. Whether a first nation puts in place by-laws to make it clearer doesn't matter. But we will be looking at examples to attest to these three parameters being strengthened within each community.
Mr. Murphy: The one on self-government.
Mr. Williams: I would say self-government perhaps is more an answer to the problem than one that would exacerbate the problem. Clearly you need a requisite degree of financial and managerial strengths. But moving a first nation into self-government, where it takes control over its affairs, with the right regimes I think can be an answer to eliminate the excess indebtedness in future by forcing them internally to find other mechanisms to solve the problems.
.1230
Mr. Murphy: Thank you.
Mr. Bonin (Nickel Belt): First I'd like to make a comment and caution you about the simplistic approach to comparison of revenues for individuals on reserve or off reserve, because things have to be factored in.
Off reserve we have a debt of over $500 billion, and the provinces have debts and the municipalities have debts. But we have an infrastructure. When you build an infrastructure of things we take for granted, such as roads and food and distance education and correspondence courses - we can go on for two hours. I would really caution you on the dangers of simplifying such a complex situation as purchasing and establishing infrastructure. A lot of the cost that goes to aboriginal peoples is to try to catch up, which is a ridiculous statement because they're so far behind our infrastructure that they will never catch up.
My question relates to economic development. In northern Ontario we are developing an economic strategy for all of northern Ontario and there is an aboriginal component. We're having a conference at the end of June. It's a very important thing for us, but I'm sure the same applies across the country.
I'm interested in the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy. I'd like to know what effects the budget had on that strategy and what jobs and economic growth are created by this strategy. How are we creating wealth for participants? Maybe you can talk about the problems of that strategy.
Mr. Williams: First of all, in terms of the simplicity of per capita, maybe that's one reason we don't use the figure.
In terms of economic development, the minister is being very aggressive in this area. Let me talk a little bit about some of the things he's doing, including what's happening with CAEDS.
You ought to be aware that in February, at his direction, we launched a major economic development symposium, a 3-day symposium that was held in Fredericton. We attracted over 125 aboriginal leaders, economic development leaders, and senior bankers in the private sector to come and discuss what the impediments are to accessing capital on reserve.
I'm pleased to indicate that we're in the final stages of structuring six different task forces that will report back to the minister, we hope in about six months' time. They will look at how to remove these impediments, how to upgrade the skills, how to look at innovative taxation options, how to look at the merits of whether an aboriginal banking institution is appropriate or not, and how to look at regulations and their impediments.
So in terms of trying to address economic development, this initiative, which combines private sector and government and aboriginal leaders from across the country, I think can have a dramatic impact on future policy direction and innovation down the road.
In terms of CAEDS itself, we also have worked very closely with our partners in that. To answer the first part of your question, the budget had no direct impact in terms of our economic development allocation, but it did have an impact in terms of Industry Canada's. I think their program was cut by something in the order of 25% for the moment. As far as I'm aware, so far it has not touched the HRD component in terms of skills development, but I believe they are only now going through their program review and it's too soon to tell whether that will be impacted.
The three of us have acknowledged that there are current problems in the systems. We have done an evaluation and the AG has as well. Perhaps the major observations are that there's a myriad of program delivery mechanisms out there, which I would say undoubtedly can be more effectively streamlined, with a different board and different structure. So that's one thing the three of us are working on together to try to do.
Secondly, it's been acknowledged that we don't have the requisite accountability information on results. You talked about jobs. We should know more about exactly the kinds of jobs and share those best practices so that people can learn from one part of the country to the other. We have some from our department, but it's anecdotal.
.1235
We know that, for instance, there are over 500 officers employed in 386 CEDO organizations, and we know that they lever money and they enter into joint ventures, but we don't have enough hard data. Industry Canada can quote you the thousands of jobs they've created and the fact that $1 invested returns to the Crown $1.20. So they are in a better position than we are at the present time, but we're gaining.
Finally, I think Human Resources Development is in the process of reviewing their program. So our intent is to streamline, increase the accountability, and increase the effectiveness of the dollars in the CAEDS program in general.
[Translation]
Mr. Bonin: I had another question.
[English]
It will be very short and it needs to be answered.
[Translation]
I would like to know what the timeframe is for your project. Is it a one-year or a five-year project? Will there be results before the next budget?
Mr. Williams: We have to submit a document to the Cabinet, perhaps in October this year.
Mr. Bonin: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
The Chairman: Before we lose quorum, we have a draft motion here authorizing that the Sub-Committee on Aboriginal Education - it's composed of five members - be authorized to travel to various locations. If we could have a motion moving that before we....
An hon. member: So moved.
The Chairman: Any discussion?
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Caron (Jonquière): In terms of Aboriginal claims, your Department is using some funds to support representation from different nations. At the same time, there are some agreements signed, like the one for Yukon, in which the Department has to pay some money to First Nations. For the Yukon agreement, the amount would be $16 million. Does the Department think that as these agreements are signed and money is given to different people, these payments in fact reduce the funds that could be given to other nations who are still negotiating? In other words, could it hamper the efforts of other nations to bring up their claims?
Mr. Williams: As I mentioned, we have a separate division entitled Claims and the funding for this category is distinct from the others. So, even if there is an increase in claims, other Aboriginals needs are not affected.
[English]
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development recently completed a review of CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We received witnesses from across the country on different reserves. We heard that there are problems with drinking water and sewage facilities. Would that fit under schools and infrastructure, under the basic services? How much money is allocated? What's the department doing in that regard?
Mr. Williams: Yes, we have undertaken a joint review with Health Canada to examine the water and sewer situation on first nations. We are in the process right now of vetting that information, and where we in fact find areas that need redressing, those adjustments would have to come from our capital budget. We do now have roughly $350 million devoted to water and sewer infrastructure, and that's where that would have to come from. So it would facilitate our priorization in these incidents, and the source would be our capital budget, by and large.
.1240
Mr. DeVillers: So it's out of basic services out of the capital budget.
Mr. Williams: Basic service is part of our schools infrastructure.
Mr. DeVillers: Okay. This would come separate and apart and out of a special capital budget.
Mr. Williams: Not a special capital budget, but our own department. We would get to reallocate from within that. A great deal of our funding right now is, in essence, going for that. This would just allow us to make sure we're placing the priority in the right places. If certain water and sewer needs urgently come up, it will allow us to move that locale up to a higher priority and fund it more urgently.
Mr. DeVillers: That's the same budget that would provide transportation for ferries to reserves on islands and things of that nature. Is that the same capital budget?
Mr. Williams: That's right.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): The government's cancellation of the Green Plan would have some effect on sewers and water. Sewers and water have been funded for the last two or three years on reserves by significant contributions from the Green Plan. That accounts for some of the increase in sewer and water activity that's taken place.
So, in a sense, in relation to the question I'm about to ask, perhaps you could respond to what the cancellation of the Green Plan might mean in this sense.
But my question relates to this capital funding in another way. Neither you nor your written presentation deals with the disabled on reserves. Bands generally have responsibility for responding to the needs of disabled people on reserves, but, again, they have to do that out of this small package they have labelled ``capital''. If they have needs that require additional housing because of an increased youth population moving into the employment area or if they have needs for additional facilities for elders on reserves, then it's always the needs of the disabled that have to wait another year until these other band priorities are dealt with.
When a band requires a ramp to be built up to the building that Canada Post leases, the band is responsible to build the ramp. If they don't have the money to do it, the ramp doesn't get built. If a sidewalk in front of the band office or community hall is required in order to assist people in wheelchairs to get to public functions, and the band's priorities are somewhere else, the sidewalk doesn't get build.
Can I ask you, in addressing that question, to commit yourselves to looking at the needs of disabled more seriously? Perhaps some specific, earmarked funding could be provided for this purpose, much like the Green Plan did with sewer and water, to ensure that certain projects that otherwise wouldn't have been build, would in fact get done.
Mr. Williams: In terms of the Green Plan, we are very fortunate in that the incremental funds in the order of $40 million to $50 million to $60 million a year in Green Plan funding have in fact been incorporated into our A base. That is in fact being built in, and we will not lose that simply because the Green Plan fund terminates as a separate program in another year or two.
So to that extent, our water and sewer resources are somewhat protected. As for the disabled, I share your concern absolutely in terms of the importance of it. There is a government-wide initiative on providing access for disabled people on the reserve as well.
We allocate about $1 million for those special kinds of initiatives and monitor projects within each part of the country. It may not be sufficient, but it's an amount that we're trying to best utilize to address the situation. In addition, we are working with our technical people as new schools come up for building. Anything that would require access or facilities for the disabled is now being incorporated into the front-end design plans, allowing us to build it in at that time.
In terms of redress, we have some pot of money, not a great deal, that we're trying to best utilize to try to address the key concerns you have raised.
The Chairman: Any further questions? I hear none.
.1245
We will have another round Thursday. I believe that's the current intention. Then probably we'll canvass the issue again to see whether probably one last meeting will be necessary.
I want to thank the officials very sincerely for their excellent preparation...the materials you've provided for us, your willingness to assist the committee in its deliberations. We always appreciate your assistance. Thanks for coming out.
Thanks to the members for helping us out.
I'll now adjourn the committee until Thursday.