[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 4, 1995
.1104 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Order. We're continuing the meeting of Tuesday.
Mr. Abbot, our colleagues from the Bloc have a few things to put together. Are you prepared to start questioning?
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Not yet. I'm sure Mr. Anawak must have some good questions.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): From the Liberal side, are you prepared to start your questioning now? There will not be a presentation; it was done the other day. This is a continuation of our meeting of Tuesday.
.1105
Mr. Anawak (Nunatsiaq): I thought it would be Reform that would have all the questions.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): They have.
Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): There is a question I didn't have time to put to you the other day when I asked four or five questions in a row to which you provided good answers.
The Auditor General asks for more control over money; I asked several questions in the House concerning the fact that some communities refused to have StatsCan census takers on their reserve. We know of course that in most cases, the amount of money depends on the size of the reserve. It is quite normal that if there are 5,000 people on a reserve and 50 on another they won't receive the same amount of money.
When a reserve denies access to Statistics Canada's census takers, what control mechanisms are there to check that the money has been well spent?
I'm not calling into question the way band councils spend the money, but I know that some bands - which I will not name - have a tendancy not to declare people who died in the course of the year and to double the number of babies in the band. They refuse access to Statistics Canada's census takers. Do you have a way to monitor on an annual basis how money has been spent?
[English]
Mr. Alan S. Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs): I think it's important to distinguish between the information from Statistics Canada and that of our own Indian registry.
There is a fair bit of information that is quite important for us in terms of numbers. A lot of our form obviously depends on enumeration, but our formulas and our allocations are dependent more upon the information we get from our Indian registry than from the StatsCan census.
We maintain an Indian register that is updated on an ongoing basis, as opposed to the periodic calculation by StatsCan. In fact, our totals are more relevant and more up to date, and, thanks to an improved relationship between StatsCan and ourselves, they too acknowledge this.
On both pages 1 and 266 of the very recently produced publication Profile of Canada's Aboriginal Population, which I think came out earlier this calendar year, reference is made as to why there is a difference in the two counts. This is in fact the first time such reference has been made to this fact.
So the counts that are important for us, the counts that determine the amount of money that will flow, are not dependent on StatsCan figures, but upon our own.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Mr. Abbott, do you have questions for the witnesses now?
Mr. Abbott: Yes, I do.
On vote 5, operating expenses, Indian and Inuit Affairs Program, I notice the transportation and communication numbers have increased at a very substantial rate. I wonder if you could give us an idea as to why that might be the case.
Mr. Williams: In vote 5, we spend roughly $197 million. Is that the figure you're alluding to?
Mr. Abbott: The figure I have in front of me is in vote 5...yes, that is correct.
.1110
Mr. Williams: Why I was hesitating is I was trying to understand the comment about increasing. The previous year was $209 million. Now it's $197 million. So it has gone down.
Mr. Abbott: Okay. But I'm going down to the detail now, where under transportation and communication I believe the number has increased from $18 million plus to $20 million plus. I was wondering if there was some reason why transportation and communication would have increased that much in one year over the other.
Mr. Williams: I don't have any specifics for you now, but I can certainly look into it.
Mr. Abbott: I'd appreciate that.
Mr. Williams: No problem at all.
Mr. Abbott: The other one is that in the same column, in the same area, there's an item for other subsidies or payments. Again, that has increased even more. That's increased just under $3 million. I wonder if you could provide us with details on that as well.
Mr. Williams: That would be a reflection of court awards, write-offs of loans, those kinds of things, and then the cost to clean up the books in terms of outstanding loans - any that have been outstanding for a long period and for which there's no likelihood of collection we would have written off - and claims that would have been settled. That would have been the cause for those.
Mr. Abbott: These loans: what would their origin have been?
Mr. Williams: They would likely have been of two kinds, and then they go back ten or fifteen years. The department used to be very heavily involved in Indian economic development loans, for example. We are now, of course, more or less out of that business as aboriginal capital corporations take them on. But over the years, historically, there would have been loans that would have been given and that now as we go through them and try to update them would be written off.
Even when we write them off, I should point out, they're not forgiven. There is still an onus on us to collect. But to reflect more accurately the likelihood of collection on the books, we would write them off.
Mr. Abbott: The department attempting to collect a loan: help me understand the comparison between a commercial supplier doing some work on a reserve, one who is having some difficulty collecting and maybe getting rather straight-armed with the thing.... Does the department have more power to collect than the individual contractor who has chosen to do work under those circumstances?
Mr. Williams: No, as a matter of fact, the opposite is true. When first nations themselves contract with any supplier, using funding they have, the government is not a party to that transaction. That transaction is between two business entities. We do not intervene and will not intervene. That's clearly our position.
Mr. Abbott: What I'm trying to drive at here is does the department have any more teeth? From time to time I have in my constituency suppliers who will come to me and say, I am having difficulty collecting. These people are basically saying, if we get around to it, we'll see you some time. I have no recourse, these non-aboriginal suppliers are saying to me.
I'm just doing the comparison between their position in being able to collect and the position of the department in being able to collect. In other words, realistically, are these write-offs collectible?
Mr. Williams: The collectibles we're talking about.... These are very often to individuals; those kinds of things. We are not involved with band funds as such. So we would go through the standard process that most private sector organizations would go through to try to collect. But if the person's deceased or you can't locate the person or the person is bankrupt, we would have the same limitations as anybody else.
What we have found, however, is that aboriginal corporations themselves are in a better position. That's why over the last few years we have been devolving our loan portfolios to aboriginal capital corporations. They themselves have been the ones giving the loans and collecting back, and they have been more successful than we have been, because of their proximity and their ability to collect...rather than us.
.1115
Mr. Abbott: For purposes of clarifying in my own mind, would the activity to collect these funds from individuals who owe them to the department be as energetic as the collection of a student loan?
Mr. Williams: I don't know how energetic the collection of a student loan is, but we would go to more than reasonable lengths to try to get back the taxpayers' money without any question.
Mr. Abbott: So is there any way that you, being a person charged with the responsibility of seeing that taxpayers' dollars are well spent, would be able to provide us, in the same way that you're going to provide us with information under transportation and communication, with some kind of sense of or exactly what has gone on under this other subsidies or payments.
Mr. Williams: Absolutely. I'd be happy to.
Mr. Abbott: I'm happy to note under professional and special services that the number has gone down from $42.5 million to $40.9 million, but it still strikes me as being a fairly high number. Why is so much spent on professional and special services?
Mr. Williams: The vast majority, half of it at least, goes to what I would call engineering and architectural services to support our capital structure. We use a lot of services, obviously, to vet the building plans. We have a $750 million capital program, and a lot of those contracts are done, both with Public Works and other organizations, to ensure that the building plans are up to structure. We monitor and approve them. That in essence is the big chunk of our professional services.
Mr. Abbott: I see. Now, under other subsidies and payments, in 1994-95, the amounts are $17,461,000, but there aren't any particulars provided for those amounts in the estimates. Could you provide those particulars?
Mr. Williams: Sure, that's no problem.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Mr. Abbott, I would like to mention that although in principle we agreed to 20 minutes, you don't have to do it all in one. We'll come back if you want.
Mr. Abbott: I'd appreciate that. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): You have eight minutes consumed.
Mr. Abbott: Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): On the government side, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two sets of questions, one around the post-secondary education.
Government put another $20 million into that program for post-secondary. One of my questions would be, did that pick up the backlog of students? I wonder also about the number of students we intend to support under the post-secondary education in 1995-96, and do we see a levelling off or reduction in post-secondary funding for the future?
Mr. Chairman, I have a problem. I have a long distance call that just came in. If somebody else has a question.... I'll come back in a minute, but I have to take that call.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Do you have information to give based on what he just addressed?
Mr. Williams: Yes. Should I wait until he returns or...?
Mr. Murphy: Would you like somebody else to go ahead of me?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Do you want to be here for the answer?
Mr. Murphy: Yes.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Does anyone else from the government side have a question? Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): I think you were showing in the summary you presented the other day under claims, $345 million...I guess that was what you were indicating there.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. DeVillers: How is that figure arrived at? What process did you go through to come up with that?
Mr. Williams: The claims figure is by and large a compilation of both comprehensive and specific claims.
On the specific claims front, these are claims where there has been a legal verification that there has been some contravention of a treaty position that has to be remedied. We have a hundred of these in the system, and we're doing our best to try to resolve these as quickly as possible by expediting a number of cases through the system. We spend about $136 million solving specific claims of this kind. The big part of it, about $70 million, would be the kind of individual cases that I've just indicated to you.
The next big component would be the funding related to the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement, which is in the order of about $44 million or $45 million. Then there are much small pots for research and that ilk.
.1120
Those are the two main parts of specific claims.
The other main component of the $200 million is the comprehensive claims. There we have about seven or eight major claims, in particular the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut comprehensive claim, which accounts for about $90 million, the Cree-Naskapi one, about $40 million, and the Inuvialuit one, about $20 million. Those are the three big ones. So you have the comprehensive claims and the specific claims. Those account for the bulk of the funding.
Mr. DeVillers: That figure doesn't include the other potential claims that are -
Mr. Williams: Not potential claims.
Mr. DeVillers: - not yet in negotiation; potential claims.
Mr. Williams: That's correct.
Mr. DeVillers: Those are still liabilities that would -
Mr. Williams: Potential liabilities; that's right.
Mr. DeVillers: - have to be funded later on.
My other question deals with the capital expenditures; what process is used to arrive at that and what the particulars are.
Mr. Williams: The capital program is one that is not based on any requirement to escalate year by year, as our basic services programs are. So it is limited to a large extent by the fiscal framework. In fact, it has been as a result of the fiscal climate being relatively stable over the last few years. You will get some operations and maintenance escalation to maintain new buildings as they are built, but the basic amount we provide for infrastructure, for housing, for roads, for the main educational facilities, has remained relatively constant.
Historically what we would do now is by and large allocate moneys out to the regions based on proportions very similar to those provided in the year before. So at least we make sure there are no losers in the system.
Within each region there are minor variations to allocation methodologies that really look at the needs within each community and try to priorize the most urgent kinds of health and safety initiatives. So whereas years ago we might have had some money to build on community buildings, say, very little if any money goes to that now. Now most of our funding would go to water and sewer systems, where there are health and safety risks, or building schools. Those would be the two main components. It is needs driven, based on a priority system that has been developed.
Mr. DeVillers: In your presentation, under ``Program Review Decisions'', you have a comment dealing with the achievement of self-government. Are any funds being allocated for that process, and where do they appear in the estimates?
Mr. Williams: Until the last few years you would have found in the community funding part of our estimates, money, for instance, for community-based self-government, in the order of about $9 million. You would also find moneys for Sechelt and James Bay, which are self-government agreements that have been enacted. So you would find those in our grants and contributions related to self-government in that section in the estimates. That is where it is right now.
Mr. DeVillers: These estimates forecast are allocations for this fiscal period. What figure would that be?
Mr. Williams: The figures haven't changed. They remain the same.
Mr. Anawak: This may have already been covered, but I was just wondering about capital expenditures. When capital projects are being done in the reserves, what percentage of the money, the amount of capital funding, will stay in the reserve through a company that may do work on that? What percentage of that business will have aboriginal participation? Is there a guideline or a preferential system whereby you can get a company to operate, or you can give a company a contract even if they are not necessarily the lowest but because they may have some aboriginal participation, whether it is in building schools or other infrastructures within the reserve?
.1125
Mr. Williams: As we discussed on Tuesday, about $8 out of every $10 that we're appropriated by Parliament is provided to first nations for them to undertake the work on their own. In our capital program, virtually all of our capital dollars are undertaken by the first nations themselves. So that decision as to who gets the contract to build a road or to build a school is in fact the first nation's decision.
We are aware that in many cases the skills aren't there and much of the money in fact cannot go to first nations. What we are trying to do to address that, in government-wide procurement policies and also in our own department, is to try to do things to get first nations to be better aware of what procurement opportunities are so they can build up their skills inventory and be in a better position to access some of these moneys that are out there.
I think a major challenge facing aboriginal communities is to develop economic skills so that this money that is out there can go to them as opposed to other non-native organizations and contractors.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I have here a very interesting document which is a kind of pro forma budget for the coming years and I'm particularly referring to table 15 of Outlook on Priorities and Expenditures. I don't know if you have this document, but I would like to discuss three aspects of table number 2 for the next two fiscal years. As we know, the budget is indexed. For this year, up to six percent and for the next two following years, three percent. I would like to put some questions concerning claims.
My colleague asked a question concerning this year, but if we look at last year, this year and the next two years, we realize that there is a peak for this year. You said that amounts were for comprehensive and specific claims.
I would like to know if the numbers in the budget dictate the level of claims that can be entertained or if they reflect the number of negotiations for this year, next year and the year after that. That's my first question concerning claims. So why do we have 345 for this year, 309 for last year and 300 for next year. Are these numbers chosen on the basis of land claim negotiations that have been undertaken or do we start by setting a number in the budget?
Secondly, on the same table, as far as the programs for the North are concerned, we can see there is a phasing out due to winding down of two important programs, economic development agreements and the Arctic Environment Strategy. Is this due to the transfer of powers to Nunavut in 1999? In other words, will the winding down of these programs accelerate as this region gets more and more autonomy?
My last question deals with transfer to the territories and is on the same table. I suppose that when we talk about territories, we talk about the Northwest and the Yukon. In the case of these two territories, are we seeing that peak for this year and a decrease for the following years?
.1130
Does this table mean that as far as services are concerned, with the implementation of the different agreements on self-government, there will be a direct devolution to the aboriginal government and therefore withdrawal on the part of the federal government?
[English]
Mr. Williams: The charts in the table are basically dictated by the recent budget. The six, three and three target is a target for the Indian programming area, keeping claims separate. The claims figures are based essentially on our current best estimates as to what's there and what's coming down the road. There is obviously a very close and important working relationship between ourselves and our negotiators, between cabinet and between the Department of Finance, so that as we begin to consider other claims, especially in the comprehensive claims area, before we enter into it there are detailed discussions on mandate and availability of funds in order to look ahead and project ahead and make sure there are sufficient funds in the fiscal framework to accommodate them.
With specific claims, it's not as problematical, because the numbers are of course much smaller and you have flexibility to conclude claims in one year versus another. You have a little bit more flexibility.
So the numbers, by and large, are dictated by the budget. The claims component, which is separate from the six, three and three, is one for which we have to nevertheless work in very close cooperation with the finance department so there are no surprises and we don't start entering into claims for which we later find out that there's no money in the fiscal framework.
In terms of the northern program, the Arctic environmental protection strategy program was designed for five years or so. It will sunset as planned. So it wasn't a question of us undertaking any more drastic cuts to the program. It is planned to sunset in a year or two, and that is in fact when it will be sunsetting.
In terms of the funding for the territorial governments, those payments of $1.2 billion, approximately, are based on a transfer payment formula, which is essentially arrived at by negotiations between the governments and the Department of Finance, based on a complex series of input variables. In fact, for page 5-6, the figure will likely not increase but will remain the same as in page 4-5, and will decrease slightly thereafter. But these discussions are basically concluded by the Department of Finance. In fact, it's our hope and expectation that this program will in fact shift over to the Department of Finance's estimates next year, as opposed to being reflected in ours. It more closely reflects the typical type of transfer payment that you have from one government to the other, for which the Department of Finance is accountable.
Mr. Abbott: I'd like the record to show that I have a smile on my face when I'm asking you this question. Would you agree with me that when ordinary Canadian taxpayers hear a person in your position talking about a complex series of input variables with respect to the expenditure $1.2 billion, and we don't know where it's going, they would have some concern? It's just that an awful lot of the terminology that is common to people in your position is terminology that raises some concern on the part of the poor, beleaguered taxpayer. When they see $1.2 billion going somewhere, they're not really sure where, and they'd like to know that someone perhaps in my position would be able to follow it through. I say that in good humour, but nonetheless I'm trying to make a point.
Mr. Williams: Let me clarify that because we do know exactly where those funds are going. Those funds are transfer payments to the territorial governments to allow the governments in the territories to provide provincial-like services to Canadians living in the north, the same way provinces would provide. We're talking about health, medical care, social services, education, the exact same functions that provinces provide. That is exactly where they go, and certainly you can be provided with an analysis of exactly the amount of funds that are provided in each of these areas.
.1135
The formula, though, is not a simple one. Allocating moneys out to government, of course, isn't all that simple, but it is designed to reflect the economic base within the north and its revenue-generating capacity. I'm sure Canadians living in the north can be provided with a level of service comparable to that of our Canadians south of the 60th parallel.
Mr. Abbott: Of course, there's some question in the minds of some of us as to whether that is achievable or even desirable.
Mr. Anawak: We need more money.
Mr. Abbott: Now, going to page 2-6, detail of spending authorities, item L-30, loans to first nations and British Columbia for the purpose of supporting their participation in the B.C. Treaty Commission process, I believe that's $19 million. Do we understand what the terms of repayment of the loans are? In other words, why is this classified or discussed or categorized as being a loan as opposed to a grant?
Mr. Williams: Because it will be collected back from the final payment. It's designed to allow the first nations to conduct the necessary research into the legitimacy of their loan, but it's understood that from the final payment and from the claim, that loan would be collected back.
Mr. Abbott: Okay. But aren't there other fairly substantial amounts of money that are also being provided for this process, in your estimates here? I'm just quickly trying to look them up, but it seems to me that on page 2-109, Canada's contribution to the B.C. Treaty Commission process operating costs is $2.1 million. There's another contribution of $4.7 million. Do we have any detail of where all these dollars are going? That is a very, very substantial amount of money.
Mr. Williams: Yes, we do. It's important to distinguish who is receiving the money. The loans we talked about are going to the first nations themselves and would be recouped from the claims settlement they eventually achieve.
The contributions you're talking about here go to the commission itself to run the commission - the commissioners, the travel, the analysis - and to support their ongoing work as opposed to the recipient's work. So that's where those moneys are going. There's certainly a sound basis for them and we can certainly provide you with a breakdown of the kind of expenditures for salaries, for travel, for research. That's in essence where those funds are going.
Mr. Abbott: That would be very helpful, because it would also be interesting as a B.C. resident to know the federal contribution to these expenditures versus the British Columbia contribution to these expenditures.
But it does raise the question that our member from Fraser Valley West raised in the House on May 2. You won't have the details to this, but just as a matter of principle and concept, I wonder if you could....
Asking the minister, he said that since 1991, $4.6 million has been granted to the Siksika First Nation in Alberta to negotiate a self-government agreement. We now learn in this document that they have dropped out of the process so it could pursue negotiations from a direction beyond the mandate of the current federal policy. In fact, we now learn there's no federal policy, which was his editorial comment, of course.
``Can the minister tell the House if there's any recourse to recoup this $4.6 million?'' In other words, the real question my colleague's question raises is how tight the control is. If $4.6 million in that particular instance was forwarded in the expectation that they were going to be preparing themselves for a treaty process and they then decide to drop out, do we know that the $4.6 million has been accounted for? Undoubtedly some of it would have been spent, but what happened to the remainder? Do we know the answer to that question? Could you provide us the answer to that question?
Mr. Williams: Let me first put it in a broader context and then I'll get down to specifics.
Most of our budget, as we talked about on Tuesday, is funded through grants and contributions with specific terms of conditions. So the money that would flow to Siksika, as it would to any other organization, is conditional upon certain products being delivered and certain research being undertaken. In the case of their self-government analysis, that did take place. Unfortunately, even though the research is conducted and the proposals are prepared and the products are brought forward, often they're not acceptable to the government.
.1140
While it would be nice to have all of our allocations for self-government proposals result in positive conclusions, that clearly isn't going to be the case. When it isn't, it's not a question of money not being properly accounted for; it is, rather, the result of its being unacceptable to the government in terms of existing policy. Therefore, if a first nation exceeds that authority, obviously it's not something we can bring to a positive conclusion. So that would have been the case.
Recognizing the fact that there's a limit, the minister has in fact come down fairly strongly in demanding product or terminating funding to many of these organizations. So he's been much more rigorous in ensuring that there's a limit to how long he will continue to flow funds without there being acceptable results, and if it drags on too long, then he's not prepared to continue funding.
Mr. Abbott: As a matter of interest, would it be a lot of work for you to provide the details about that particular $4.6 million?
Mr. Williams: No. We certainly could let you know what happened on that.
Mr. Abbott: My last question concerns page 2-95. I wonder if you could provide us with the numbers of students at the schools in Saskatchewan. That would be for future reference, but also I wonder if you could comment on the fact that Saskatchewan seems to be particularly unique in the amounts that were previously approved and that are currently approved. There have been some very substantial increases there and it seems to be particularly unique to Saskatchewan. I wonder if you have any sense of why that might be.
Mr. Williams: Saskatchewan is unique from a funding standpoint in that a Saskatchewan treaty land entitlement agreement was concluded a couple of years ago. That is a major, comprehensive specific claims initiative that will generate a lot of activity and a lot of funding to that province, as opposed to individual first nations that we address on a specific claim basis singly. So that comprehensiveness will result over the next ten years or so in a fair bit of funding being injected by both the federal and provincial governments. That's what is unique to them.
We can certainly supply you with the numbers of students that are at the different schools.
Mr. Abbott: Near the bottom of the page you have new schools. It says ``New school, Fond du Lac school, Island Lake school'', which were added, but then you come up taking Pelican Lake from the figure of 2,800 to 6,877; Hatchet Lake, 3,340 up to 8,773.
These increases over what had previously been approved appear on the surface to be excessive. I don't know if you'd agree with that as an adjective to be used here, but obviously it does raise the question, doesn't it?
Mr. Williams: Very often the approved total cost at the beginning might have been based on initial class B or class C estimates, and as one gets into the development, often the land, the construction site, is more costly and we would just update our cost based on that. Sometimes also there might be a revision in the sense that students from a particular reserve who might have been going to a provincial school, now that a new school has been built, have changed, and now they want to go to the school being built on the reserve, which would sometimes double or even triple the number of students coming on, which obviously calls for a large school structure. So that's also why sometimes you see the cost being larger than what was initially forecast.
Mr. Abbott: It's just that these costs are so substantially larger that they raise a question, and I think that we -
Mr. Williams: Sure. I'd be happy to give you an analysis as to what happened on those two.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Now, on the government side, first we'll hear the answer to Mr. Murphy's question, followed by Mr. Anawak and Mr. Bertrand.
Mr. Williams: The question dealt with post-secondary education. Our assessment is that the $20 million that was allocated funded approximately 2,500 additional students. We would expect to have about 25,000 in the school system this year. We'll know that, of course, when we get our year-end figures.
.1145
Important again to note is that the determination of who goes to a school or who doesn't is made by the first nations themselves. They can take the same fixed amount of money and send more children to school by giving each a lesser amount or requiring them to make up the difference on their own. So that's their decision.
We do not have a firm count on backlog, frankly, because it's pretty hard to get any solid count. In going to first nations, you can basically have an unlimited number of students who may want to go whether they're eligible or not eligible. I would say that undoubtedly there are - this amount of money, while very substantial, probably doesn't address the full need, but there is a limit to the budget, and what we're trying to do with first nations is get them to be more rigorous, which they are doing.
The first nations are taking good control over the amount of money, and you see things, for instance, like more contributing on their own. You see a limit - that if they don't pass with high enough grades, they're no longer funded, so there are these incentives to make sure that those that are deserving go and those that don't aren't funded.
I would not expect a downturn in the number of students; perhaps to the contrary. With the push towards self-government and higher education levels in the elementary and secondary school systems and the higher retention rate that we talked about last time - about 80% now - on a very positive note you're going to find more and more students going through the system and wanting to be better educated to serve their communities in various capacities. I think, in a way, it's promising that more are going to be demanding it. The challenge will be trying to reconcile that with the fiscal limitations.
Mr. Murphy: Are some of the reserves and first nations looking at some partnership kinds of dealings with regard to post-secondary - you know, mining companies or whatever putting up moneys for the future of the individual coming back to work with the company, and things like that?
Mr. Williams: Absolutely. There's a lot of initiative there that they're undertaking - much, much more partnering going on; many more incentives being built-in. We in the department too have what we call an aboriginal workforce participation initiative, where we in fact are also trying to work with the private sector, using our regional offices as a base, to make them aware of the skills, of the availability of first nations members, so that really is a very positive thing. We are going to try to do more of that ourselves to make the private sector aware of the potential. Absolutely.
Mr. Murphy: One of the things that we said in the red book was that the aboriginal system of education is not working very well in providing the skills that our aboriginal youth need to get into the labour markets. One of the things we're noticing on our subcommittee is the high drop-out rates. Is the department looking at any ways or means that are trying to address that issue with first nations people?
Maybe I'll give you a second question. It's also as a result of the red book. We made a platform there that we would establish an aboriginal educational institute, and I'm just wondering if that's still on and where the resources would come from for such an institute.
Mr. Williams: In terms of trying to minimize or trying to get a better flavour for the high drop-out rate, frankly, we're looking forward to the results of your study. I think that will be a big help to us to better understand it.
The one thing we are trying to do is work more closely with the chief and council to understand why that's occurring from reserve to reserve. It's not always the same reason. But by devolving more of this to the first nations, by getting language courses into the schools, by making it more culturally sensitive, I think we're showing an improvement. Maybe it's not as good as we would like and maybe we need more information, which, as I say, hopefully we can get from you, but our sense is that the key is making first nations accountable for delivery of their own education to their own students, and making sure family gets involved. The more local you can move the accountability, the better the retention rate is going to be. But, as I say, we'd look forward to your recommendations to help us.
.1150
In terms of the education institute, we have just done some preliminary work on that by looking at what's going on in the United States and other jurisdictions. We are conscious of the cost limitations, but at this stage, I think we're really more at the stage of assembling information before coming out with any concrete proposals or even cost estimates. We're not that far advanced yet.
Mr. Murphy: It's still on the -
Mr. Williams: The minister doesn't let any of the red book commitments fall off the table.
Mr. Anawak: I was reading the media clippings. They say that more than one out of five Indian reserves in Canada has inadequate water and sewage systems that threaten the health of residents. To me that says we have to spend the necessary funding in order to ensure we don't have to spend more on health care. I would like to know how far along we are with whatever we're doing to try to do to deal with this issue.
The other question I have arises out of a question raised earlier. Could you tell us for the record - I know the issue, but maybe the other members don't. Is it correct that any money used by aboriginal groups, whether they're Inuit, or Indian - I don't know about the Métis - to negotiate land claims is all repayable. Of course, we can make a loan out of a settlement, but any money used to negotiate is repayable to the government.
Mr. Williams: Yes. Let me talk initially on your question about water and sewer. Last summer we had an emergency situation at Pukatawagan in Manitoba. The minister visited and, within a matter of I think two or three days, injected some funds to address the situation there, but he came away very clearly with a direction to us to try to get a better handle on the situation.
We've been working diligently with Health Canada to try to put together a report on the current situation, reserve by reserve, factually correct, with both Health Canada and ourselves and the first nation council with the information. A draft report has been prepared and it's now being vetted by each community. What I hope to get from that is, frankly, a better attestation about what the real situation is so that we do know where there's a legitimate health and safety issue.
Because a first nation doesn't have a modern water system does not necessarily mean there's a health risk. Sometimes the most economical way is to truck water in. The water is clean and it's acceptable.
So we have to get a better handle on exactly what the situation is and address the health situation first.
We spend about $170 million in this area on an annual basis, and we have used a good portion of the government's infrastructure program to buttress this by again doing more water and sewer and roads - those kinds of health and safety issues. I share your observation that it is a very serious concern. We are trying to do the best we can with the money we have by priorization and making sure the priority list is as factual as it can be.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Thank you very much. The Liberal Party has had its 20 minutes. The Bloc Quebecois is now entitled to eigth minutes.
Mr. Caron (Jonquière): I had a look at your documents and I'm studying the question of funding for aboriginal communities. My question is a follow-up on Mr. Anawak's. I realize that many expenses are made in the field of education, health and infrastructure.
.1155
These would be expenditures that would have to be made anyway even if it was not for aboriginal communities. They would have to be made for any Canadian. Has the department ever thought of presenting these in a clearer way, listing expenditures that are different from those made for all Canadians. Aboriginal people are Canadian citizens, they are entitled to services and expenditures that are specific to aboriginal communities with specific cultural differences and claims.
I'm thinking particularly of expenditures for claims. Of course, if there were no claims there would be no expenditures.
Would the department have numbers that would give us an idea of the magnitude of the expenditures? We hear about five billion dollars, maybe $4.2 billion of these would be spent anyway for isolated communities and schools. Has the department even done anything like that?
I know that it is dangerous to do anything of this kind, because there is a question of judgement passed for each vote. If it could be done, however, we would be able to answer those people who say that in Canada we spend five billion dollars on aboriginal people. We could tell them that these monies would be spent anyways because we are dealing here with Canadian citizens.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Thank you very much. What you've indicated to me is that we probably have to do a better job of that next year when we prepare estimates for your review.
When I made the presentation on Tuesday...you will notice in the presentation on page 22 that I tried to categorize the different expenditures in different ways. The closest I can come right now to your observation is to suggest that certainly the top component, what I call the basic services, are without any question very provincial-like; we're providing on reserves the services that provinces or municipalities provide off reserve. So that would provide the basic elementary, secondary, social, and the capital structures. Without any question, that clearly can be compared to the non-Canadian services that one would get from a province.
Below the line, you see other kinds of services that in fact are more unique to first nations' members, that are either mandatory because of the statutory provisions in the Indian Act, or from government policy in major areas such as post-secondary education and housing.
But certainly the top component, as well as the claims that are in the third section, are ones that compare exactly with what you've mentioned.
Finally, the last $1.2 billion would again be comparable, because those are exactly the same kind of services that are provided through the territorial governments up North that provinces provide below the 60th parallel.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I have three small questions to put. The Friends of the Nisga'a made the first page of the Globe and Mail this morning. You answered my colleague from the Reform Party but, as far as I know, the money for negotiation of the claims is not loaned, according to the book to the Treaty Commission. I think the situation is different.
I would like you to confirm this because negotiations were undertaken before it was decided to establish a commission in British Columbia. Which means that they would not have received the money and that these amounts would not be found under vote L20 but under vote L30. I would like you to confirm this.
As far as Davis Inlet is concerned, there are enormous problems there. On page 2-19 we learn that a sum of money is provided for a technical study to assess the new site.
Would this new site be the one in Shango Bay? Secondly, what stage are these studies at and where is the whole matter at? Are we satisfied with the new site? Is there new funding for moving expenses and relocation to this new site as the minister promised?
.1200
My last question concerns the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. I don't remember what the original budget was, but I'm told that the budget is now $70 million. Could you tell us what the original budget was and what the expenditures are as of today?
[English]
Mr. Williams: The funding for the Nisga'a - the first question - would be part of the funding we would provide under self-government; as part of the standard self-government negotiations process that we would undertake.
About Davis Inlet, at present the minister is...we have in fact injected a fair bit of money over the past year to try to improve the situation. Right now over twenty reports have been provided to the minister based on the statement of political commitment of February 25, 1994. We are currently reviewing those reports. I think the minister plans to respond to that in the near future. Those studies are now being examined.
About the royal commission funding, I think that is being handled out of the Privy Council Office, so it's not part of our funding whatsoever.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Everyone is at twenty minutes. Because we don't need a quorum, if we have a unanimous show of hands that no motions will be presented, we will continue and if anyone has other things to do they will be leaving confident that no motion will be presented on the table.
Do I have a show of hands that no motions will be presented?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Unanimous. If we don't have a quorum, that's fine. We will continue for as long as you need.
Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: Thank you. I appreciate that very much.
As a general question, coming back to this role of the member of Parliament having a responsibility to the taxpayer...how can you ensure there is an authentication or some way of accurately tracking the expenditure of public funds within the departmental mandate when I'm given the impression that there is not, at the expenditure level, the band level, necessarily a full disclosure. There isn't a full democratic process at the expenditure level.
Mr. Williams: We talked a fair bit about this on Tuesday. The reality is that we have a very complex - unnecessarily complex - accountability regime within the department. We have many different ways of flowing funds depending on the management capacity of the particular first nation. Where they are less advanced, we will flow funds in such a way that every dollar has to be accounted for, as well as the results. We have very rigorous reporting requirements.
Where we have clear evidence of a stronger management capacity, we will focus our attention not so much on accounting dollar for dollar, because with our experience we know what an approximate right amount is, but on making sure the right product was delivered. I think I gave the same example on Tuesday. If we're flowing $100,000 to build three houses, we will focus on whether the houses were built in accordance with the code, but whether they spent $102,000 or $98,000 wouldn't materially bother us. If they spent more, they would have to find the money themselves. If they spent less, they can use it for other first nation priorities.
Our funding arrangements are rigorously controlled. In fact, we have within the government the most sophisticated transfer payment system in the government. It allows us to track each and every term and condition for each transfer payment we make, to make sure reports and products that are required are given to us before we release additional funds.
We are not where we want to be. We're always trying to improve it. But as a general statement, I think we know where the funds are going. We know what's being done with the funds. Where we find that there's lack of compliance with the terms and conditions, we have clearly specified remedial action steps that allow us to go in and do what we have to do to safeguard the taxpayers' money and at the same time assure that the first nation is getting the benefit of the fund that we're flowing to them.
.1205
Mr. Abbott: Where was the mix-up with the Métis organization that was audited and under some question?
Mr. Williams: I don't know because, again, we are not accountable for the Métis. I wouldn't have particulars on that.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): We'll go on to Mr. Bachand and we'll come back if you need to. Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question on native education. As you know, we are travelling and getting a lot of information on different systems. In some of the school districts we have visited, we've noticed that some of the school boards will use some funds coming from the operating budgets to fund capital expenditures. They would use some of their operating funds, for instance, to build a library. In your experience, is that kind of thing common practice?
Mr. Williams: Within the government system there are very rigorous rules that surround capital. We will not basically allow capital to be used for O and M at all. If in fact there are excess O and M funds, then we can, by moving funds from one vote to the other, allow those funds, should they not be needed, to be used for capital.
That is not a common occurrence. Usually our operations and maintenance funds are of such a different order of magnitude than those funds needed for capital that you couldn't easily transfer one from the other and hope to build a school because you have some money for operations and maintenance.
Also, the risk in doing that is if a first nation does that on their own, then they may in future lack the operations and maintenance funds to maintain that building that was built with excess or surplus funds. It's not a common occurrence within the government capital structure.
Mr. Bachand: Thank you.
Mr. Abbott: Coming back to the broad question we were just dealing with, would you say that you have a universal confidence on the part of the Indian bands? Where you're saying that an Indian band that doesn't have a democratically accountable organization, and perhaps in your judgment is one that requires more monitoring, would you say there's a blanket acceptance on the part of those bands that you guys have things under control?
Mr. Williams: A couple of comments. The accountability for the funds rests with the first nation, not with us. I think it's important to say that it's our expectation that the first nations have control over it as opposed to us, and the process is set up such that we hope that happens.
We hold the elected chief and council accountable both to the government and to their constituency in terms of providing a redress mechanism and transparency of all the information.
Our funding arrangements are set up in a way that we hope ensures that happens. Without question, it doesn't happen all the time. We have one out of five first nations that are in debt.
Fiscal management is probably no better or no worse than outside Indian reserves. We don't have a perfect world, but what we do have are processes and arrangements that at least allow us to intervene and help where in fact we see things going a little bit out of kilter.
Mr. Abbott: But Mr. Anawak read something from the clippings - and we're always aware of the various stories that bubble to the surface from time to time about individuals in specific band situations that are pretty unhappy, or whatever the case may be. I'm just trying to canvass you on whether, in your judgment, there is a broad acceptance of the fact that the department is protecting the individual person in that band.
.1210
Mr. Williams: I think there's a continuing improving understanding in first nations of what they themselves have to do in order to be accountable to their constituencies. As the level of education improves, the first nations themselves are demanding more from their elected government, in the same way as Canadians demand more from theirs in terms of accountability.
So in general I would say there's an improving understanding and recognition of what the Indian governments have to do and have to provide to their constituency to satisfy them. That varies from community to community also, by the way.
Mr. Anawak: I was just going to make a remark on your description of democracy.
On the issue of accountability, it's sort of like a block funding to the reserve and the reserve has to determine how they're going to expend that, just as we have with the territorial government under the funding agreement. The band determines how best to spend that amount of money and how they want to account for it to the Government of Canada, while at the same time realizing that...
I'll use an example of how I see democracy, or the freedom. When a member of the Reform Party does a survey in his riding to determine how many people are against the gun control bill and finds that 66% of them are for the gun control bill and decides to vote against the gun control bill anyway, that's democracy.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Out of order.
Has your point been made?
Mr. Abbott: I think he's made his point, Mr. Chairman.
Because I am a substitute, I really wish to reserve a right for my colleagues to be able to call further witnesses, because I don't want me to be the final be-all and end-all.
On page 2-108, $25,646,000 is accounted for under ``Contribution to the beneficiaries and various implementing bodies for the purpose of implementing comprehensive land claim settlements''. Those are some really nice words, but I wonder if you can flesh them out for us so we will be able to understand what this $25 million is all about.
Mr. Williams: Certainly. I'd be pleased to.
In virtually all the comprehensive claims agreements, you're dealing with trying to regularize the rights of first nations. Virtually all of the agreements contain the need to establish various boards: resource management boards, water management boards, harvesting boards, boards that allow them to be more involved in decision-making that deals with lands and resources, with fisheries, with all of the elements that affect our lives. These funds are basically here to fund those boards and those institutions in order to facilitate their involvement in wildlife management, all the kinds of activities that I just enunciated. So that's where those funds go.
Mr. Abbott: I'm just a bit confused, because I was under the impression that under self-government there wouldn't be this kind of specific allocation by the department, that these would be funds that would be coming in and funding these various organizations in a different way.
Mr. Williams: It's important to note that we're talking here about claims, as opposed to self-government. These are comprehensive claims. We're not talking here about self-government agreements. When the claim is settled, there's usually a cash component, a land and resource management component, as part of it. In most of those claims you will see the requirement to establish different co-management institutions or boards whereby the aboriginal groups participate in decision-making over lands and resources and minerals and all those things. The costs for establishing and maintaining those boards are reflected in here.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): I think you're slipping a bit off the purpose of our meeting.
Mr. Abbott: Not really. We are talking about the $24 million.
.1215
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Thank you.
I think we'll adjourn. There will be occasion to call witnesses when we look at the outlook papers, which will probably be in June. The opportunity is there.
Is there anything else for the good of the cause?
Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.