[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 18, 1996
.1105 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
I apologize for the delay. This meeting is a continuation of Tuesday's meeting, where every member had an opportunity to ask questions to clarify certain items of the presentation. We had an excellent presentation.
Today, ideally, we will complete the work. I like to set goals, but it doesn't mean we are obligated to meet them only because they have been set. When we complete this work, I want to be able to say that every member had a complete opportunity to participate and nobody was rushed.
Today, rather than interrupt parties who are questioning, we will do three twenty-minute sessions, one for each of the parties. If there is a need for a second round then we will certainly permit it. Hopefully, we can ask our questions in twenty minutes. It seems to be the indication. There is no specific order. Who wants to start?
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): My first question concerns the item entitled ``Litigation Support'' which can be found on pages 18 and 22.
On page 18, it is mentioned that $2,9 million are provided for litigation support. I do not find this amount very impressive for litigation support, and I would like to know what percentage of such amount is devoted to test case funding.
.1110
What would you do in the case of a litigation opposing a First Nation to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? Would you finance that First Nation to help it sue the department? Anyone could see in such funding an alleged conflict of interests.
Any First Nation who intends to sue your department might find itself in the position of being told that there is no money for that type of action, though funds might be available if it were a test case. I would like to know how would your legal advisers deal with a situation where the department is being sued.
On page 24, we have a pie chart which shows $678 million for social assistance and $53 million for economic development. I have a feeling that if we could reverse those figures by spending $678 million for economic development instead of $53 million, we might need only $50 million for social assistance.
Could you explain why such a small amount is provided for economic development? You will find those figures on page 24 of the Estimates. I would like to know why there is such a large amount for social assistance and such a small amount for economic development.
I hope that some efforts will be made to reverse that trend. I also wish we can meet here in two or three years from now and see $650 to $678 million provided for economic development instead of social assistance. We would then have actually addressed the problem of welfare on reserves.
Let's now move to page 27 where aboriginal groups residing off a land base are dealt with.
I see that the federal government is prepared to share the costs of enumeration with the provinces. Do you have any idea of what amount the federal government would be ready to spend to help the provinces in that matter? Do you expect that provinces will accept to share those costs with you?
My last question refers to pages 110, 111 and 123 which deal with capital projects and Indian programming. In my opinion, pages 111 and 123 and inconsistent.
I refer you to the item entitled Indian and Inuit Programming, on page 110. In the column for 1995-96, that is for the fiscal year which ended last March 31, we find $425.72 million, and for 1996-97, that is for the fiscal year beginning last April 1, we can see $527.226 million.
Then, we find a list of all capital projects followed by a list of all education facilities projects.
If we move to page 123, in the column for 1996-97, we can see, for all the projects that you just listed, an amount of $213 million, and at item ``Other capital expenditures'', $313 million. There are no explanations. If we add up those figures, we get the $527 million which appears on page 110.
Could you tell me what these $313 million include? You gave us an excellent presentation, but maybe I should talk with Ron Duhamel to get more details. For me, $313 million is a fairly huge amount of money.
Could you provide us with some tables where we could find a list of all those other capital expenditures which are included in those $313 million.
.1115
Perhaps my questions were highly technical, but they should fit right in your field since you are public servants.
[English]
Mr. John Sinclair (Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs): I would like to respond to Mr. Bachand's first two questions with respect to litigation support.
By way of background, under the rules in which all program departments work, the Department of Justice is the litigator for the Government of Canada. But when you go to litigation, there is the necessity for a fair amount of research. Historic research is done, in our case, because most of our litigation relates to issues that have had a long-standing concern and relate to decisions made by Indian agents and other people over a number of decades. There are also certain levels of legal research. Basically, each department of the federal Crown is responsible for what we call those research and documentation costs.
What you see in there, Mr. Bachand, is money for the group of researchers and legal advisers who help put our cases together, which are then litigated by Department of Justice people. In some cases we hire agents, if it's a very precise kind of litigation or the Department of Justice doesn't have the person with the right experience in the right place at the right time, because it has only so many regional offices.
We manage all of the preparation of the casework with the Department of Justice, and what you're seeing is the staff and the historical and legal research work that support those cases. At any time we may have between 75 and 100 cases in either discovery, actual trial, or out of court settlement.
Federal court rules over the last number of years make it incumbent on us to have fully documented cases and to have shared that documentation with the plaintiffs. We're usually in the role of being the defendant. We have that amount of money, and given that Indian Affairs is one of the larger litigating departments with a number of different kinds of cases, we set up a separate unit to manage that and to manage that relationship with our Department of Justice colleagues.
There is also a certain amount of money in there for what we call the test case funding program. We do not finance or give assistance to first nations at trial level, obviously because there could be a conflict of interest. We would not want someone to say ``We didn't have enough funding from the federal government'', or ``It withdrew the funding so we couldn't make the right case''. If they're going to sue us then they put their own resources to work.
At the appeal level, there may be some cases that raise questions of law that we would like to see clarified because they impact on how we work in lands in trust services in our northern program. So on a selected number of cases we will provide assistance, although it's not that much. It's not a big program, but it certainly at least helps that first nation pursue an appeal. Out of that, with respect to such cases as Sparrow or Guerin, you get case law that then informs the conduct of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
We do not fund first nations, apart from a few at appeal level, and that's usually not the lion's share of the appeal. We have to document our cases and prepare them so a lawyer can litigate them. We manage that at a very high corporate level through a litigation committee, because obviously those are important issues and we want to make sure we're doing the right thing. In a nutshell, that's what we do on litigation support.
The Chairman: Excuse me for interrupting.
At this point I will seek unanimous consent to call all the votes together. This means that when we get to the voting stage we will have had an opportunity to question and debate on all the votes. Do I have unanimous consent?
Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): I have a point of clarification. Do you mean we're going to have one vote for all of the votes, or one vote for each vote?
.1120
The Chairman: We'll have separate votes, unless the committee agrees to do it in one. But that's not what we're doing at this stage. At this stage we're really putting all the issues on the table for discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I rise on a point of order. What motion are we going to vote on? Is it the motion on the Main Estimates?
The Chairman: Yes, on votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, 35, 40, 45 and 50. Then we will have to report to the House.
Mr. Bachand: What are the consequences of that vote? For instance, if next week, I rummage through that document and find some outsanding point about which I would like to question the Minister, are they going to tell me that since I agreed to the motion I cannot debate the issue again?
The Chairman: Do we have an opportunity to ask questions when we report to the House?
The Clerk of the Committee: After the tabling, everything is over.
The Chairman: That is why I told you at the beginning that I would give you all the time you need. We can ask any question or clarification we want. For now, I am just seeking your unanimous consent so that the debate can bear on all the votes simultaneously. Thus, when comes the time to vote, nobody will tell that vote 5 or any other vote was not debated. My aim is to call all the votes together.
[English]
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: I have a further point of clarification. If I want to make a motion in respect of any of these votes, does this prevent me?
The Chairman: No. This is merely putting it on the table, so when we come to voting no one can say a certain issue was excluded that he or she wanted to debate. This opens the door to debating and questioning everything. It's a formality, like having a motion on the floor.
Mr. Duncan: But why do we need this formality if that's what we're going to do anyway?
The Chairman: This is to assure that the committee recognizes that you are debating all of these issues, so when we come to a vote no one will raise a point of order and say, ``You're asking for a vote on something we didn't debate''. This gives everybody the opportunity to debate everything.
Mr. Duncan: If I deny unanimous consent...?
The Chairman: We'll do them one at a time. We'll do rounds and you can question them and we'll be here for month.
Mr. Duncan: We won't if people don't question.
The Chairman: Oh, yes, we will.
Mr. Duncan: My concern is that this is sending a message that there has been a full debate when in actual fact there can't be a full debate because many of these funds end up totally out of the federal government's control once the money is passed to other authorities to spend. There's no way you can have a comprehensive analysis.
I don't even know how the department can budget when it has so little control over the spending of some of these moneys. I don't want to give unanimous consent to the fact that there has been a full debate when there can't possibly be a full debate.
The Chairman: You will be giving unanimous consent that every question you wish to ask will be recorded because you will have agreed that we can ask any question on the whole report. I don't see any problem there.
We will go to a vote on each one individually, and if you still have concerns at that time, I will recognize you.
Mr. Duncan: But my point is that's going to happen anyway.
The Chairman: That's right. But in Ottawa you go through the formalities and establish that this gets on the record.
Mr. Duncan: So you're saying this is always the way we've done it, so this is the way we're going to do it today.
The Chairman: I don't think we've done it like this before, but it's the same as saying we'll debate a motion but we won't put it on the table.
This unanimous consent puts the motion on the table, and then we're at least questioning and go on record. A debate is relative to an issue that is on the table. If we want to put the questions on the table one at a time and question only one issue at a time, that's the result of not getting unanimous consent.
I'll give you twenty minutes in the first round for questions on anything. I think it's a lot more efficient.
Mr. Duncan: Just to wrap it up, my unanimous consent allows us to debate generically and then vote one vote at a time.
The Chairman: That's right. That's all it does.
Mr. Duncan: There's no more or no less. Okay, that's fair enough.
.1125
The Chairman: I have unanimous consent?
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of information. Do we have these motions? I see here votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, 35, 40, 45, 50. Do I have them somewhere? Where are they? What are they?
The Chairman: Ms Fisher, would you please take the floor and explain it to them?
The Clerk: Yes. You'll see each vote listed in part II. Do you have an extract of part II of the estimates? Each vote is listed. It gives the title of the program and the global amount for that particular vote.
Perhaps I could explain by drawing a parallel with the main estimates and a piece of legislation. When you consider legislation, you usually stand the first clause of the bill because that's the title. Then the chairman calls clause 2, which is the global clause, and anything in the bill can be discussed. Once discussions are over, you go to clauses 3 and 4, and you have to go through the bill one clause at a time.
The main estimates are similar. Each vote is like a clause in the bill and can be considered separately. So we could have a meeting on, for example, votes 10 and 15 on a particular day, and your questions would be limited to those particular votes. Then we could go on to another vote on another day.
If we have unanimous consent to consider all the votes together, then members can ask questions on any particular vote. At the end, when the committee has decided to report on the estimates, each vote will be called separately and you agree to each vote one by one. You don't give a global agreement to all of them, just as in the bill you would say: shall clause 2 carry, shall clause 3 carry, etc.
The Chairman: We have the full team of ADMs and specialists from every department. It would be a shame to restrict ourselves to just one issue. Then the others are waiting around for their turn to come. Do I have unanimous consent? I do. Thank you.
Mr. Horner.
Mr. Al Horner (Director, Indian Programming and Funding Allocation, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada): I'd like to address your comment regarding the relative expenditures made by our department in support of first nations, in particular relating to your social assistance and economic development expenditures.
It's important to understand that the department, in respect of first nations communities, delivers services in the same way that the provinces do to the remaining citizens in their provinces. This is particularly relevant to social assistance. Our department, by government policy, is in the business of providing social assistance to people living on reserve - first nations people - comparable to the social assistance rates provided by the provinces to their citizens.
So in effect we parallel the rate structures within the provinces. That is the authority under which the department operates.
If a person in a first nations community is eligible for social assistance, then we will pay him a rate commensurate to what he would receive if he was living off reserve. So we are very much driven by the demand that exists on reserve.
The fact that the amount is so large troubles departmental officials, but it troubles our minister even more. On more than one occasion he has expressed a concern that he would like to make a real difference, much as you have suggested, in terms of how we turn this situation around where people are not in a position of being able to be profitably employed and in terms of all the other social issues that come with that.
While it's true, as you indicate, that we have an amount of money that seems relatively small - the $55 million available in economic development - it's important to remember we're not the only player within the government having a potential impact on employment, economic development. Key players I would refer you to are Industry, Agriculture Canada and Human Resource Development. They play very significant roles in terms of economic development.
.1130
One of the things I have noticed and I've remarked upon since our minister has been running our department and providing overall policy direction is that I think he believes change has to be achieved in a number of different ways. It is not to be achieved by simply directly flowing money for economic development but by getting at issues on more than one tangent.
Clearly, one big role we play and we think makes a difference is the provision of education funding, both at the elementary and secondary levels and in particular at the post-secondary level. At the post-secondary level we're putting in roughly $269 million, supporting somewhere in the order of 27,000 students attending post-secondary education.
Our studies have indicated that if people are able to attend post-secondary education it's a good investment. It's a good investment in the same way it's a good investment for non-aboriginals. The information we have been able to get from Statistics Canada suggests a person who attends university is far more likely to be able to obtain a job than he would have been if he didn't have a university education. This information also indicates that not only do they get a job, but they are in fact much more likely to be able to achieve a higher income level.
So these things reflect a commitment by the government to try to make a different. We believe that, if we give them the right tools, they'll be in a position not only to make a difference in the reserve community but to participate in Canadian society as a whole. This is one angle we've been looking at.
There are other areas the department has been looking at. In particular, the minister has been trying to act on the government's commitment in the red book to create opportunities and to look at how they can improve aboriginal access to capital. So we've been participating in and supporting the activities of the national aboriginal task force group. In fact, the last time we came here the chair indicated they had just received copies of the pre-final report. I believe this was probably for your comment, and I think this is an important initiative that may end up making a real difference once everybody's had an opportunity to discuss it.
This whole exercise is leading to a major forum where the minister is going to participate with other federal ministers, with the National Aboriginal Financing Task Force, and with other industry and aboriginal leaders in discussions on the contents of this report. They'll discuss where they should go from there in order to act on a number of key areas fundamental to moving ahead in economic development.
To mention a couple of other areas where we think we're making a difference, last year the department initiated a housing demonstration initiative. This initiative continues in 1996-97. The idea here is to try to work with first nations to make a real difference in terms of improving housing. Also closely linked with this, we're asking first nations coming forward with housing plans how they want to deal with their housing. We are asking that they also look very carefully at how they can link the planned housing activities with economic development opportunities associated with that.
We think there are real possibilities here if people plan for the long term and think this through. I believe there are many first nations who are in fact very seriously interested in doing so. I think at the last count we had roughly 160 proposals from first nations and in 1995-96 we had approved roughly 37 of those for funding of approximately $10 million. In 1996-97 we're prepared to put in $20 million to further this work.
.1135
There are a couple of other things I'd like to expand on, if I may. Yesterday the minister announced a youth initiative, which parallels the government's broad announcement in terms of youth initiatives. This is linked to trying to make a difference in terms of preparing young first nations people to move from the education system and get them ready for a job. That announcement related to an additional $10 million for three different program components. So I think we're trying to address this issue on a broad front.
In that regard, I've tried to elaborate on a number of areas where we're trying to make a difference to that large social assistance bill. I don't think there's any quick guarantee. I think the idea is to come back in a couple of years and see where we are.
In terms of your other issue on capital, and construction of this table, I should point out to you that we're guided by the construction of this table in terms of consistency from part III estimates from one department to the other. In this case, the construction of the table is done in such a way that we are only required to specifically list any capital project that is in excess of $1 million.
So any project that would have been less than $1 million would have been accumulated in that $300-odd million you were referring to. I agree it's a substantial amount of money, but with that amount are specific projects that have been negotiated, first nation by first nation. This is not some large pot for which there is no use. There are specific uses for each of these particular dollars.
Mr. Brent Di Bartolo (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): If I could add to that, Mr. Chairman, in my presentation on Tuesday I noted that we had budgeted $157 million for housing projects. All of those projects would be under the $1 million threshold and would therefore form part of the $313 million.
[Translation]
Mr. Scott Serson (Deputy Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada): Mr. Bachand asked some questions about the last paragraph on page 27.
Mr. Bachand: Yes, you are right.
Mr. Serson: Please have a look at the first two lines? The Aboriginal groups residing off a land base fall outside DIAND's mandate, but they too will be involved in self-government negociations... [Inaudible - Editor] It is the Federal Interlocutor for Métis, Mrs. McLellan, who leads that process. It comes under the responsibility of the Privy Council.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I draw your attention to this document, which is handwritten ``part II''. The first page gives you the number of the vote and what issue it addresses. You'll see that some, instead of having a number for a vote, have an ``s''. Those are statutory, and although we can debate them, we can't change them here.
Mr. Duncan, you have twenty minutes.
Mr. Serson: If you wish, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Di Bartolo could take two minutes to explain the vote structure.
The Chairman: We have a minute and a half before Mr. Duncan's time.
Mr. Di Bartolo: Okay. I'll do it in a minute and a half.
Appropriations from Parliament are based on programs. They're not to departments. So each department is divided up into a number of programs as approved by Treasury Board, and appropriations are provided to each program. For those programs where grants and contributions in total exceed $5 million, there is a separate vote for them. For those programs where capital exceeds $5 million, there is a separate vote for them. There are also separate votes for specific loan programs.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is divided into three programs: the administration program, the Indian and Inuit program, and the northern affairs program. There's also the Canadian Polar Commission. Each of those has the votes within them, as I described. Votes are controlled by Parliament. Departments are not allowed to transfer appropriations from one vote to another without subsequent parliamentary approval.
.1140
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: Under the grants and contributions section, we have direct payments from the Government of Canada to native and non-native individuals living on reserves. These payments could be done through local authorities - with some kind of agreement, obviously. Has any thought been given to transferring that delivery mechanism within the department? I know it's not a strictly financial item, but it would have financial implications.
Mr. Serson: Are you referring to a specific set of grants and contributions?
Mr. Duncan: Yes. Within grants and contributions, it's social assistance payments to individuals, Indians, Inuit and non-Indians residing on Indian reserves.
Mr. Serson: Allan, do you want to answer that question?
Mr. Di Bartolo: Perhaps I could provide a general overview from, again, a presentation we provided on Tuesday. We indicated that over 82% of the Indian and Inuit programming was actually administered by the bands themselves through contributions arrangements. So the grants and contributions you are specifically referring to would be contributions made to first nations and Indian bands for them to deliver those programs.
Mr. Duncan: I understand that, but it's still a duplication of other local authorities in many instances.
Mr. Horner: Just building off of my colleague here, the point is, the large proportion of the department's expenditures have already been devolved directly to first nations organizations. In respect of social assistance, by and large that program has actually been managed either through tribal council organizations or first nations organizations.
There are some instances where the department may have difficulty ever getting rid of some of them. It's in relationship to some communities where they're very small and don't have the particular depth to be able to take on this program. In my understanding, only a small handful of communities are in that position.
In addition, we have a situation in Ontario where in terms of social assistance, we're working under a 1965 agreement signed with the Province of Ontario. They are administrating social assistance to the first nations organizations. So the funding would go via the province to the first nations communities. Where that particular agreement will end up is a good question and is one that may have to be looked at as this particular province comes to terms with how it wishes to change its social assistance and whether or not they want to revisit this particular arrangement.
So we may have to take another look at this particular agreement at some point. That may provide an opportunity for alternative service delivery.
Mr. Duncan: Just so you're clear where I'm coming from, I am aware of the department's own audit of, I believe, January 1995. Until the department insists on the Auditor General having a mandate for spending, particularly in this grants and contributions area, I believe there is a problem. These are what I suggest, on as broad a basis as possible, would likely assist in that whole accountability function.
.1145
About the next line, for grants to individuals or organizations to protect Indian and Inuit children, individuals and families living on Indian reserves, the word ``protect'' is a very vague description. What will this expenditure protect for? Are we talking about drug education? Are we talking about community education, public health? What are we talking about?
Mr. Serson: Mr. Duncan, the term ``protect'' in child welfare agencies is a term of art. It means to take the child into protection. In other words, the child is no longer deemed by child welfare authorities to be safe in the home.
Allan, do you want to expand on that?
Mr. Horner: Basically we have a program that provides funding for child and family services. It's akin to the provinces, which operate such agencies off reserve.
The allocation of responsibilities is that we provide funding to the first nations child and family services agencies. These agencies are mandated by the provinces. The province essentially monitors the agencies for their ability to fulfil the function under provincial legislation. So these child and family services agencies that we fund are acting under a mandate similar and comparable to that of non-aboriginal child and family service agencies.
Mr. Duncan: So it is a well-defined term. It might be helpful to clarify that, because I think the average reader of the estimates would not pick that up. I certainly didn't.
Mr. Serson: We would probably reflect in these agencies the legislation of the province the agency is in.
Mr. Horner: Absolutely.
Mr. Duncan: On the next item there, grants to the Miawpukek Indian Band to support designated programs, that item has shown up consistently for several years now, but there is no description in the estimates of what it really is. What is this? Why is this band specified and others are not?
Mr. John Rayner (Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs): Mr. Chairman, the Miawpukek band is also known as the Conne River band. It's a band in Newfoundland. That grant was established when.... It was the first reserve and band created in the province of Newfoundland. Treasury Board had a special arrangement with us, and it is reflected in the estimates as a grant. It's a unique situation, and it comes through that way.
Mr. Duncan: Thank you for the explanation. Once I heard ``Conne River'' I understood.
On the next item, grants to representative status Indian organizations to support their administration, essentially the government, the department, is determining what is a representative Indian organization. You have to in order to provide this funding, and in most instances it's essentially the single source of funding of those organizations.
.1150
I guess this is not an arm's length type of arrangement. Is there thought to de-politicizing this by phasing that item out? There's no indication of that whatsoever.
Mr. Horner: Are you referring to the funding that is provided to the first nations?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, I'm referring to all those organizations that fit under that category.
Mr. Horner: This funding is provided to national and provincial organizations. It has largely been provided, on an historical basis, to support the activities of organizations to represent the views of first nations in those particular regions or on a national basis.
We believe this funding is essential. The federal government gets good measure for this funding in that when we need to consult on major policy initiatives, it allows us an opportunity to have a vehicle by which we can bounce off policy initiatives and seek its input, and therefore be able to ultimately provide a better product when a policy is announced by the federal government.
I'm not aware at this moment of any intention to substantially alter the method by which this funding is provided on an annual basis to allow the first nations to represent the views of their people.
Mr. Duncan: It's a very difficult area in which to measure value for money. I know that some groups are in favour and others aren't from time to time. It's very politicized, and I guess that's my point. That's not the kind of question I would expect you to be able to respond to.
Mr. Serson: After seven months on the job, Mr. Duncan, I want to add one element. I think there is a legitimate cost effect on this issue. Where we don't have these regional organizations or a national organization, it becomes very difficult to end. I imagine in some cases it would be more expensive to consult widely with the first nations we have to deal with. So in some cases we're seeking this kind of arrangement in regions where we don't have it because it just makes it easier for us to bounce ideas off them.
Mr. Duncan: I agree with that statement, but I'm saying the federal government has always filled that role by providing that funding; therefore there has never been an opportunity for a representative organization to be there that was developed by the natives themselves. It's a demand push instead of the other way around. That's a political philosophy and not something you can respond to. But it does lead me to question the expense. I wanted to get that on the record.
In terms of these contributions that relate to the claims section, I believe we have about $40 million over three lines there - the contribution to native claimants for the preparation and submission of claims.
Mr. Serson: Do you have a page number?
.1155
Mr. Duncan: That's appendix 2, chapter 12, page 7. It shows the contribution to native claimants for the preparation and submission of claims. One line shows contributions to the beneficiaries and various implementing bodies for the purpose of implementing comprehensive land claim settlements. A further item shows contributions to Indians, Inuit, Indian bands, tribal councils, etc. They are all very similar expenditures. I guess there must be a rationale for separating them.
This is obviously a lot of money, and these moneys are leading to an awful lot of litigation. In some cases, other interests end up in court defending themselves, one way or another, from some of these claims without the benefit of government assistance - financial, legal and so on. So this item is of great concern in the public domain politically. How on earth does the department, under its current policy, arrive at what this number should be?
Mr. Sinclair: There are actually two kinds of expenditures. They're broken out here in some ways - at least two of the three - for historical artifacts.
The line that shows a contribution to native claimants for the preparation and submission of claims is primarily an amount of money that's worked out in a series of work plans for aboriginal groups who believe they have what we would call comprehensive claims. So it's a case of doing historical research to prepare them to submit an historical occupancy and use study and a number of other things.
I'm working from my part IIs here. The other one that shows contributions to Indians, Inuit, Indian bands, etc., for development of native claims is for specific claims. It is for very different situations and it is usually used when we're talking about wrongful alienation or surrender of land, or when the land was surrendered appropriately but the first nation never received the money because the people who bought the land went bust in the depression, and all sorts of things like that. I would like to stay with that for a minute and address Mr. Duncan's further question.
In limited cases, some of that research on specific claims may indirectly result in litigation if, for example, a first nation discovers, on the basis of its research, it has a very complicated situation and doesn't think it can be negotiated. If that's the case, at that point we provide no further research assistance. If the first nation is going to litigate, it takes its chances.
Mr. Duncan: That's on the $3.7 million - one of the smaller items.
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, that's right.
If I could just go back to the other point to clarify, the contributions to the beneficiaries, or the various implementing bodies, relate to the institutions of public governance that we've established with respect to the northern claims. These are wildlife management boards. We are involved in the funding of those operations because they are providing services of various sorts in conjunction with the territorial governments that weren't there before. That's an implementation of existing land claims that have been approved by Parliament, so it's a very different kind of expenditure from the other two, which, you're right, Mr. Duncan, are basically research oriented.
.1200
Mr. Duncan: That being the case, there must be somewhere else in the estimates where other funds are allocated for litigation. Am I correct?
Mr. Sinclair: No. We don't fund native litigation, except for very limited test case funding at appeal. Those contributions are not aimed at litigation. The band comes to us, Mr. Duncan, and says, we want money because we think we have you dead to rights and we're going to litigate you. We say, sorry, you go the litigation route. If a band comes to us and says, we believe, under your specific claims policy, we have a problem here, there's an illegal surrender and we have been denied justice and value for money for, in some cases, decades, then we work out a work plan and they do their research. In some rare cases - I think it's under 5% - at some point the band in negotiation says, we're not getting anywhere, we're going to litigate. But there are not many instances of it.
The Chairman: Thank you. We're over the twenty minutes. There's a good explanation of claims between pages 18 and 22.
We will go to the government side for twenty minutes. As I said before, opposition and government sides will be allocated more time if they need it. I've asked the vice-chair, as whip of the government side, to manage his twenty minutes amongst his colleagues.
The floor is yours.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad you said that if a twenty-minute round wasn't long enough for the government side we might get a little more.
The Chairman: You can have as much time as you need.
Mr. Finlay: It might be at least equal.
The Chairman: The first round is twenty minutes.
Mrs. Cowling (Dauphin - Swan River): I'm here on behalf of Elijah Harper. Mr. Harper raised a question on Tuesday, I believe, about self-government in Manitoba. I'm a Manitoban myself, so I'm quite interested in that.
On page 24 I believe it indicates $38.4 million is set aside for self-government. My first question is how many of those dollars will be available for the dismantling process and moving on to self-government in Manitoba? I believe Ms Serafini indicated she would bring forward to this committee the mandate on self-government in Manitoba. I'm hoping she has that for us today and perhaps we could have it tabled for this meeting.
Ms Shirley Serafini (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs): On the second thing, in fact I signed a letter to Mr. Harper this morning and a copy should have been tabled with the clerk. I do have copies here. There is a copy of the statement of work for Mr. McIntyre, as well as a letter I had sent to Grand Chief Fontaine at the beginning of April announcing Mr. McIntyre's appointment as executive negotiator. The mandate clearly points out that Mr. McIntyre is responsible for conducting, directing, and coordinating all phases of the negotiations on Manitoba's dismantling. It is not limited to one particular area such as education. It's the whole dismantling agreement.
So that is available through the clerk. We'll make sure you have copies.
About funding, for this year we are still in discussions with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs on the full level of funding. We've been discussing work plans and budgets with them. At this point partial funding has been provided; $1.6 million has been allocated for two particular areas. One is the cost of the ten first nations representatives who are working within the federal government to get experience that will be helpful when Manitoba first nations take on a number of these responsibility areas. Then a work plan and funding have been worked out for the education area.
.1205
There are ongoing discussions in a number of areas: project management, communications consultation, and what we call fast-track items - capital, fire and emergency, child and family services.
Last year, when we had dealt with all of those, the total budget was $5 million for Manitoba dismantling.
Mrs. Cowling: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak (Nunatsiaq): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In part II it says ``Payments to Canada Post Corporation, $13,105,000''. I suspect that's for the food mail program.
Mr. Di Bartolo: Yes.
Mr. Anawak: A press release by the Minister of Indian Affairs came out stating that the food subsidy was going to be capped at $15.6 million. Somewhere along the way we seem to have lost $2.5 million.
Mr. Rayner: In our reference levels a year ago, we had $13.1 million for food mail. We allocated overprogramming money from elsewhere in the budget to bring it up to $17 million. We went into the cabinet system and got approval to maintain the level of funding at $15.6 million, which is an increase over our reference levels of $13.1 million.
The increase above $15.6 million to $17.1 million was a debt to Canada Post that remained from the previous fiscal year. The objective of that expenditure was to maintain the postal rates at the level. We have managed to succeed in that objective over the past two years and for the current year.
Mr. Anawak: Nevertheless, it says here $13.1 million, even though we used $17 million last year and the press release said $15.6 million.
Mr. Rayner: The explanation is that, in the reference levels here, when these estimates were put together $13.1 million was in that boat. By an internal decision within the department, we have allocated additional money from other programs to make it up to $15.6 million, which is the basis of the government's announcement.
Mr. Finlay: On page 18 of part B there is a chart at the bottom about these activities with regard to specific claims. If you look at 1995-96 and 1997-98, they maintain a fairly even level, but suddenly in 1997 for the specific claims you are projecting only $78 million.
Is this a guess? How do we do that when we're not there? Might not a specific claim arise at any time?
Mr. Sinclair: I believe I responded, at least in part, to that question on Tuesday.
A number of things are going on there, including the fact that in specific claims for 1997-98 Saskatchewan treaty land entitlement pay-outs declined.
We have come off three very busy years. In terms of the specific claims, I think we had over 35 settlements in each of those years.
What I said the other day - and this is an estimate - is that if you take the non-treaty land entitlement claims, there are a number of specific claims. I sense that there is going to be a levelling off of the settlements. That's just a case of taking a look at the mix of what's in research, what's on the table, how quickly some of these things are going, etc.
I believe Mr. Harper also asked questions about the Manitoba treaty land entitlement process. Until you have a deal, you don't have anything you can even estimate. A year from now some of this cashflow might look different, but that's really the guesstimate part of it.
.1210
The other thing I'd said, Mr. Finlay, is, for example, that all of those comprehensive claim agreements on page 18 are statutory in effect. Those are locked in. So specific claims on a few areas where you really take a look at it and figure who's ready to settle and what it might come into might change a year from now.
Mr. Finlay: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. In your guesstimate for 1998-99, you're building in a little....
Mr. Sinclair: Yes. We had one big bow wave. From 1991 to 1995 there was an extraordinary level of activity. I don't think you can maintain that, but there are more claims and different kinds of claims coming in so you can see it building up again. It's just a case of seeing how that's going to work through the system.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you very much. I do apologize because my next question goes back to the question Mr. Bachand asked. I didn't record the answer. I might have been trying to do something else at the time. I apologize. On page 123, under capital projects, the second last line on the page, Mr. Bachand asked about the $313 million that appears in 1996-97 but not anywhere else in that...or wasn't estimated or whatever it is.
Mr. Di Bartolo: Yes, perhaps I could explain that. The format for part III of the estimates, government-wide, asks departments to list all capital projects that individually are in excess of $1 million -
Mr. Finlay: Yes, you mentioned that.
Mr. Di Bartolo: - so the listings in part III here are just those projects over $1 million. The $313 million in other projects comprises projects smaller than $1 million, some flexibility for projects that have not yet been formally decided on and, as I mentioned earlier, $157 million we plan on spending for housing.
Mr. Finlay: On page 136, the B.C. Treaty Commission is one of those things Mr. Duncan is very interested in. I am too. Looking at the bottom of the page at ``Canada's contribution to the British Columbia Treaty Commission for operating costs'', we see that those costs more than doubled this year. It's the same for the next year. And as for ``contribution to the British Columbia treaty commissioners for the purpose of supporting First Nations' participation'', I presume it doesn't appear before this because they really just got started in 1995-96.
Mr. Sinclair: I would like to respond to that, sir. Mr. Chairman, operating costs for the BCTC relate to the activities of the five commissioners and the staff. This reflects the fact that we started the commission matter and started taking what were called ``statements of intent'' at the end of 1994-95. That went on well into 1995-96.
The response was extraordinary so there was a lot of travel and a lot of registration of all of those statements of intent, because part of the function of the BCTC is to have a transparent and arm's length recording of all of the activities. I think that's been mentioned to this committee through previous testimony by John Watson from our B.C. region.
In terms of the contribution for purposes of supporting, that is an artifact of how we reported. That money is in fact for a band or first nation in B.C. that is negotiating a comprehensive claim and a self-government arrangement at the same time. Those contributions are to help them do their research for the self-government part of it. They then take a loan against a future settlement in terms of preparing themselves for the negotiation of the claim, which is a land base and resource management, etc.
Whether it's a loan or a grant, this money is flowed through the BCTC to the first nation. The two governments don't actually make that transfer of money. It is done through the arm's length role of the BCTC.
Mr. Finlay: What is the contribution of the B.C. government? Is it 50-50?
.1215
Mr. Sinclair: On this operation, we pay 60% and they pay 40%.
Mr. Finlay: It's 60-40. Thank you.
At the middle of page 134, just to go back a page, it indicates contributions of the governments of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and other recipients in relation to the arctic environmental strategy, which is dear to my heart. I note it was nearly $8 million in 1993-94 and nearly $13 million in 1994-95. It has been reduced significantly or drastically or whatever to $3.9 million. What is the explanation for that reduction?
Mr. Rayner: Yes, Mr. Finlay, the funds for the arctic environmental strategy came from funding from the Green Plan, which was a global fund set up a number of years ago by the previous government. In that plan there were expenditures stretched out over time. It was scheduled to sunset in this current fiscal year, and that indicates the pattern of expenditures of the five-year plan - which became a six-year plan - to spend funding on the arctic environmental strategy. At the end of this fiscal year those funds will sunset, and at the present time there is no indication of whether or not there will be additional funds in this area.
Mr. Finlay: Since we've just agreed to create an arctic council not two or three weeks ago, do you have any idea where the money is going to come from to maintain the progress that has been made thus far?
Mr. Rayner: Yes, Mr. Finlay. I am working internally in the department to find ways in which we can reallocate some funding to preserve the essential parts of the arctic environmental strategy, which is part of our contribution to the international effort known as the arctic environmental protection strategy. I can't give you the details of that today, but we recognize that there is a problem. We have probably six to eight months to fix it, and we're working internally in the department to do that.
Mr. Finlay: That's encouraging, Mr. Rayner. Thank you.
I have another question if I can find what I'm looking for. In part II.... Well, it appears in the first document to the estimates, but it's in chapter 12-3. This is similar to my last question, really, in that the Canadian Polar Commission was being maintained at about $1 billion per year, but I notice it's been reduced for 1996-97, or that the projection is the reduction in program expenditures. It seems to me that this too is an area in which we shouldn't be doing less, we should be doing more.
Mr. Rayner: Mr. Finlay, as part of our program review, phase 1, all departments including the Canadian Polar Commission were subjected to a cut in administrative expenditures. What you're seeing there from 1995-96 to 1996-97 is the reduction in the northern program, and the same was applied to the Canadian Polar Commission. There were cuts of 5%, 10% and 15%, and that reflects the second year of reduction in that program.
Mr. Finlay: I suspected that was the answer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: There will be another round of five minutes afterwards, and it will start with the government side. You therefore have nine minutes left.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): You may have answered the question, but I'm interested in process and the development of our native people. When the social assistance is transferred, if I understand you correctly, it's transferred to the band, which then allocates to individuals and/or families. Do they have the ability - and I use the Conne River Band as an example - to say this funding will be used to encourage training, or to work on the housing so its people can become better carpenters and use their own workforce to do that, or for fish farming or whatever it may be? Do they have to make direct payments or can they design it in a way that will help motivate the situation for training or whatever?
.1220
Mr. Horner: The department has the authority to approve specific projects whereby a first nation, if it wishes, can submit a proposal to use some of the social assistance money for such projects as training in business, to help supplement the funding in that area. The way it's done is a project has to be submitted to the department and we have to have a description of what the project is intended to achieve.
The participation of people who are on social assistance, for instance, would have to be voluntary. We don't have workfare as such, so if social assistance people are willing to take advantage of an opportunity the first nation is organizing that will give them work skills, then we would be prepared to look at that. The name of that program is the work opportunity program.
Mr. Murphy: I stayed particularly away from ``workfare'', because we have to find another name that is more palatable, encouraging, motivational and those kinds of things. As a federal government, we're not saying to the individuals that there's workfare, but can the band talk that way? Can the band say ``We'd like to get a project going on the reserve itself and we want you to work on that project''?
Mr. Horner: Our authority has to be consistent with the authorities under which the provinces are operating, and as I understand the situation in Canada, we don't have workfare. Our authority, the work opportunity program, is structured on a voluntary basis.
Mr. Murphy: I see. I visited Conne River and thought I saw something quite different. Maybe I'm wrong.
Mr. Di Bartolo: Maybe I could add to that. We are in fact moving, though, in conjunction with first nations, to introduce different types of funding arrangements that will allow individual bands or first nations more flexibility in the use of the total package of funds provided to them, providing that minimum standards are met in the various areas.
Mr. Horner: I just might add that we're looking at a number of projects in the Ontario region. We're encouraging first nations to look at more ways to convert the SA more directly to work-related types of opportunities. These private projects are under development at this time, but we're certainly working as closely as we can with first nations to try to address the types of issues that both you and the member of the opposition have raised.
Mr. Murphy: It's creativity for the bands; that's all I'm talking about.
Thank you.
The Chairman: That's it for the government side? Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand: I have a last short question on something which is more closely related to your mandate, that is the Administration Program. There are some figures on page 58 of the French version - page 52 in English - about which I have some queries. They are related to the corporate administration, to the department officials, if I am not mistaken. I guess that all those people who are appearing before us today are included in those budgets.
We can see a certain ceiling or stagnation in the executive direction spendings. At the corporate policy level, I note that the Minister is much more involved in politics this year than last year, and last year, a little bit more than before, as shown by this budget which went from $11 to $14 million. I have some queries about that.
.1225
Could you tell us what is the overall percentage of aboriginal people who are presently employed anywhere within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
Secondly, could you tell us, for each budgetary item, how many people are senior officials, how many employees are affected to corporate policy and to corporate services?
Finally, I would like to have some details about the Mohawk-Canada Round Table. We are told that at times it works, at times not. It comes under the budgetary item entitled "Corporate Policy". I would like to know what is being financed through that item and if you are satisfied with the results.
[English]
Mr. Serson: Unless anybody feels they have the details, I think we're going to have to get back to you with a written reply tabled with the clerk or whatever you'd like, Mr. Chair. I don't think we have those details here with us.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Concerning the percentage of aboriginal people working within the department, do you have an overall figure for those three budgetary items?
[English]
Mr. Serson: It's 20% department-wide.
[Translation]
For those three, I don't know.
Mr. Bachand: It must be less.
Mr. Serson: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Bachand, even if you will get that answer only later, will you still be prepared to vote on the appropriations today?
Mr. Bachand: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Duncan, you have approximately five minutes.
Mr. Duncan: That will be all I need.
My first and only question relates to Canada Post. I realize you talked about it previously, but I just want a clarification. There was more than one department at one time funding this program?
Mr. Serson: The food mail?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, the food mail. As I understand it, this is now the only department funding that program. I'd just like a clarification on when that changed.
Mr. Rayner: When this program came out of Canada Post and became a separate program, the original funding was from the Department of Transport, the Department of Health and Welfare, and this department. The Department of Health and Welfare contributed $500,000 in the last fiscal year, but this fiscal year there is no further funding from that department; it's all from this department.
Mr. Duncan: The funding from the Department of Indian Affairs stayed the same, so in actuality it displays a reduction.
Mr. Rayner: What I was explaining is that in our reference levels we had $13.1 million, and that's what you see here. Through internal reallocation in the department we have found an additional amount of money to bring it up to $15.6 million, and the announcement of the continuation of the program was made a few months ago.
Mr. Duncan: Thank you.
As we discussed, what I would like to do at this time is to move on, because my motions would come at the time of the votes, wouldn't they?
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Duncan. I will ask the committee if they agree that we adopt the vote and report to the House. If the committee agrees, then we will move on to the votes.
Mr. Duncan has requested that we pull votes 10, 15, and 45, which I will do. If anyone has possible amendments or anything other to do on any of the votes, we can pull them. In the meantime, we will vote on all the others and we will come back to 10, 15, and 45 and deal with them. Is this agreeable to the committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you. Therefore, I ask if it's the pleasure of the committee to adopt the votes and report to the House.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
.1230
INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
- Department
- Administration Program
- Indian and Inuit Affairs Program
Vote L20 - Loans to native claimants $22,763,000
Vote L25 - Loans to Yukon Elders $790,000
Vote L30 - Loans to First Nations in British Columbia for the purpose of supporting their participation in the British Columbia Treaty Commission process $15,400,000
- Northern Affairs Program
Vote 40 - Grants and contributions $51,222,000
- Canadian Polar Commission
Votes 1, 5, L20 to 40 inclusive, and 50 agreed to
The Chairman: We're back to vote 10. Mr. Duncan.
- Indian and Inuit Affairs Program
Mr. Duncan: I move that vote 10 be negatived, and I'll call for debate on this.
The Chairman: You wish to express your concerns about vote 10?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, I have two very short statements I'd like to make.
The Chairman: Please make your comments.
Mr. Duncan: On vote 10, my rationale is that no funding should be forwarded from the department until the recipient can demonstrate that adequate management systems and certified accounting practices are in place and operational to ensure government-supplied funds are spent responsibly and are accounted for, and additionally, that there be an official response to the Auditor General's mention in volume II, chapter 3 - I assume that's the AG's report of last year - in which he requested that corrective action be taken concerning on-reserve capital projects and facilities management. Those are my two rationales for wanting to negative this.
The Chairman: Mr. Duncan, I see this as an amendment. I'm prepared to accept it as an amendment, which the committee will be asked to vote on. The way I understand your explanation is you don't disagree with the amounts, but you are requesting they be withheld until things are explained. Correct?
Mr. Duncan: No, I can't read into it that I don't disagree with the amounts. There's no possible way to know whether there's any soundness to those amounts until and unless all those things are done. Then it requires a track record of a year. So no, you can't quite come to that conclusion.
The Chairman: Am I correct in interpreting, therefore, that you are requesting that the committee vote against the motion, based on the comments you've made?
Mr. Duncan: You make a good point about whether it's an amendment or not. Can I get the clerk's clarification on whether that would comprise an amendment?
The Chairman: The interpretation - and please correct me if I misrepresent - is that I've called for the question and you have made the comment you have made. Therefore voting against this motion would indicate there is support for the comments you have made and voting for it would mean this committee approves of that -
Mr. Duncan: Voting....
The Chairman: Voting in favour of -
Mr. Duncan: Of my motion?
The Chairman: - vote 10. Now, if you prefer that your statement be accepted as an amendment, I'm prepared to vote on that if you present it as an amendment. We amend it, we pass it, or we negative it. Those are the three options we have.
Mr. Duncan: I moved to negative it. So I'm a little confused.
Mr. Anawak: There's already a motion to accept vote 10.
The Chairman: That's right. You either offer an amendment -
Mr. Anawak: So you'd have to vote against it in order to negative it.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Duncan: So everything I said consisted of debate.
The Chairman: That's right, and it's on record.
Mr. Duncan: So there really is no such thing as a proper format to allow a motion to negative it.
.1235
The Chairman: Yes. You vote against it.
Mr. Duncan: Okay.
The Chairman: A majority vote.
Are we prepared for the vote?
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand, on vote 10.
Mr. Bachand: I wonder if we still need the officials to pursue that debate. After all, it is largely a matter of politics. Those people are here to answer our specific questions. I wonder if it is a current practice to vote on highly political matters in front of department officials.
Secondly, for the sake of transparency and to help us to understand better the issue, let me tell you that I have much respect for what John said. I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss it openly to see the ins and outs of his motion. I don't know yet if I will vote in favour or against it. For now, I would like to have some clarifications, and I ask the same thing for the end of the debate. You will agree with me that from the moment we strive for transparency and openness throughout a debate, it becomes possible to vote with enlightened minds. In other words, transparency is nothing to prevent us from being efficient.
I leave it to your judgment. If there are no more questions for the department officials, we could thank them for their appearance and then pursue our debate on political issues. We will take all the time we need to clarify that issue before voting. I would not like that the Liberals and the Block Québécois reject the Reformist proposal based only on what John said. I really wish to appreciate the soundness of his comments.
The Chairman: I am in total agreement with you, and the Committe actually wants to give everyone an opportunity to go that way. If I understood well your suggestion, we could now thank our witnesses for their participation.
Mr. Bachand: Yes, unless someone still has some specific question on certain items of the budget. We have to discuss political issues and we do not have to hold that discussion in front of senior officials.
The Chairman: I think we had enough time for questionning. Let me express you my sincere thanks.
[English]
Thank you very much for your contribution. It was enlightening and you answered the questions, even one we had forgotten that we had asked. You volunteered to answer it. Thank you very much.
We'll suspend for two minutes, please.
.1238
.1239
The Chairman: Order.
We are on vote 10.
Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: I'm reacting to what my colleague Mr. Duncan said. I don't think there is any problem with wanting to improve where Mr. Duncan was going. I don't really have a problem with where he was trying to go, but wouldn't it be better to put it in the form of an amendment? We know that if it goes forward we're going to vote for that particular piece, but if he puts in an amendment then we might have to consider what the improvements might be to the way it's carried out.
.1240
The Chairman: I will reflect to you the interpretation of the clerk, which I agree with, and if you don't, let me know. What I would normally call an amendment would be a change to the motion.
The proceedings here normally are, if you don't agree with an amount you put in a motion to reduce that amount, you get a majority vote and that becomes the main motion. It's another way, I think, of saying an amendment, but this is the way we proceed here. In vote 10, if there's any amount that you want reduced, you would have to put it as a motion and get the agreement of others. There's no provision for amendments as saying until such thing happens...that type of stuff. We are looking at estimates. This is the interpretation. I've learned something and I agree with it. Please tell me if that creates a problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I wonder if the Committee is entitled to modify those figures.
The Chairman: We can reduce them.
Mr. Bachand: Is the department bound by our recommendations or is our role merely consultative?
The Chairman: We can make recommendations to the House of Commons which will be asked to vote on them. There must be a separate vote for each amount that you want to reduce.
[English]
Mr. Duncan: I don't think I'm fully comprehending what the problem is. What I said would essentially reduce it by the full amount.
The Chairman: So you would vote to negative it. You would vote against that estimate completely. If a majority of you vote to negative, we will recommend to the House that it be withdrawn.
Mr. Duncan: On the other hand, it is calling for a delay until certain things are put in place. It is in a sense an amendment. I'm caught on my own logic.
The Chairman: Our responsibility here is more to look at amounts and, if we disagree with the amounts, to reduce them. The process is another thing.
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Duncan raises a point that I think this committee would agree is something we should be aware of; that is, if I understand your question, what has the ministry done to ensure that the concerns of the Auditor General are going to be met? I think we can do that if that's what we wish to do.
Here we're being asked to deal with an amount for expenditures, some of which have been ongoing. They may or may not be spent well, but those people who are negotiating feel it's the amount that's needed. I'm prepared to grant that. I'm also prepared to say that if we want look at the other and ask, we can do it.
The Chairman: Any member can ask anything; he doesn't have to be a member of this committee.
Mr. Anawak: Basically what you're saying is that this is not the time to improve the delivery system.
The Chairman: That's right. We are here to look at the amounts.
Mr. Anawak: But arising from that, when do we have the time to try to put improvements into the delivery of this?
The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.
.1245
Mr. Duncan: I think I have another avenue in mind here too. The audit done by the department's own branch that does those on this area of funding indicates the department was breaking some of its own policies. It was inflating some project spending or capital spending in order to finance other things that were slipping through the cracks, or that kind of thing. This is a major concern to me, obviously. My alternate way of addressing this through a motion, given what I've learned through this process, would be to suggest a specific amount that would be reduced, in the order of 15%, and I'll figure out the numbers. That would be my motion. But all of that overbudgeting and subsidy in order to create funds to pay off sloppiness and indebtedness would be my logic for making that.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Duncan: Do I have time to do that? Can I do that?
The Chairman: What you can do today is present a motion to reduce it by a certain amount. If you say 15%, that will be the motion and we will vote on it. If it carries, then we vote on vote 10 with that being part of it. If your motion is defeated, then we move to vote 10 and we vote. The other avenue for us is to present this as an item for this committee to address in a future meeting and invite the witnesses we need to deal with it. You have two options.
Mr. Duncan: My choice would be a third one, which would be to do both.
The Chairman: Therefore, are you presenting a motion to reduce that amount?
Mr. Duncan: Yes. I understood I couldn't use a percent. I understood I had to specify a dollar amount.
The Chairman: So you're calculating the amount?
Mr. Duncan: That's the only thing that's preventing me from making a motion right now, but the numbers here are in transit.
The Chairman: It won't take that long; we'll wait for it. While we're waiting, would you have similar problems with votes 15 and 45?
Mr. Duncan: Votes 10 and 15. We could deal with vote 45 it you'd like to do that.
The Chairman: All right. I'll withdraw my call for the vote on vote 10.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Does everyone know what is included in vote 10? The amount is $3,5 million, isn't it? It will be reduced by an amount that is being calculated at present. This $3,5 million figure appears on page 3-5 of Part II of the Estimates. Am I right?
[English]
The Chairman: I think the motion will want to reduce the total amount.
Mr. Duncan: No, just vote 10 by 15%, vote 15 by 15%.
The Chairman: Of the total amount?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, the total amount in that line.
The Chairman: All right.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I wish that point will be clarified. Vote 10 is for capital expenditures of $3.5 million, isn't it? Vote 15 is for grants and contributions of $3.661 billion. Is it the right one?
[English]
You want to reduce that by 15%, both of them?
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
Mr. Bachand: And you'll explain the rationale for that afterwards?
Mr. Duncan: I already did explain.
Mr. Bachand: You did? Sorry about that.
Mr. Duncan: It's been a very confusing day. It's because of two things. One is the AG's report, and he has no mandate for band-level spending, and the other is the department's own internal audit, which has now come out through freedom of information. It indicates major sloppiness and policy actually not followed on some of the spending. This is a spur to make them tighten it up.
.1250
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Those are the rationales for reducing the vote by 15 percent. Did the Auditor general recommend that it be cut by 15 percent? Where does that percentage come from? That's what I want to know.
[English]
Mr. Duncan: No, that number is my number. It's picked out of the air. It's an assumption because scrutiny from the AG is somewhat lacking and because sloppiness has been identified. I could have used 10%, I could have used 20%, but 15% just seems....
Mr. Bachand: You picked it out of the air.
Mr. Duncan: I picked it out of the air.
Mr. Anawak: [Inaudible - Editor] nothing to correct the situation.
The Chairman: He is entitled to present a motion with a figure. As soon as we get it, we'll vote on it.
I offered to withdraw my call for the vote and deal with vote 45. Are you prepared to deal with 45, just voting and that's it? Or are you going to be presenting?
Mr. Duncan: No, I have a motion.
The Chairman: Then we'll stay with vote 10.
Mr. Duncan: It has the amount in it. It's already done.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): There's no magic in 15%. Just pick a round figure.
The Chairman: That way, Mr. Duncan, we can deal with votes 10 and 45.
Oh, you have the figure for vote 45. We can deal with all three in the same way because you'll have the specific amount.
Mr. Duncan: That's right. I have the specific amount.
The Chairman: I don't want to change to vote 45 and then be bogged down for an hour.
Mr. Duncan: No, there's nothing to bog down.
The Chairman: I will recall my call for the vote on 10, and I call for the vote on 45. Are you ready for the vote on vote 45?
Mr. Duncan: We're going to get bogged down this way. Let's just -
The Chairman: We don't want to do that. I withdraw my call for the vote on 45, and I call the vote on 10. Are we prepared for the vote?
Mr. Duncan: I move that vote 10, which is - I guess I have to specify what the existing line is - $3.528 million for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be reduced by $530,000. You have already heard my logic.
The Chairman: Have we had sufficient debate on that?
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
The Chairman: Keep in mind that the option is yours to address this issue as a committee after you've completed this and invite whatever witnesses this committee decides.
Mr. Duncan: If I were to make a motion, or somebody were to -
The Chairman: That will come after this meeting, next meeting.
Mr. Duncan: - and it was agreed to, it doesn't necessarily follow. Okay, fair enough.
The Chairman: Are we ready for the vote on the amendment calling to reduce the amount?
Mr. Duncan: I'm in favour -
The Chairman: Of your amendment.
Mr. Duncan: Yes. Can I ask for it to be recorded?
The Chairman: We will have a recorded vote on the amendment.
Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 1
The Chairman: On the main motion, shall vote 10 carry?
.1255
Vote 10 agreed to
Vote 15 - Grants and contributions $3,661,845,000
Mr. Duncan: I move that vote 15 of $3,661,845,000 to Indian Affairs and Northern Development be reduced by $550 million.
The Chairman: Have we had sufficient debate on this?
Mr. Duncan: Can we have a recorded vote on that one too, please, and on the main motion?
Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 1
The Chairman: Shall vote 15, minus the amount of $2,746,383,750 voted in interim supply, carry?
Vote 15 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 1
- Northern Affairs Program
The Chairman: Shall vote 45, less the amount of $3,276,250 voted in interim supply, carry?
Mr. Duncan: I'd like to make a motion at this time. I move that vote 45, in the amount of $13,105,000 for Indian Affairs and Northern Development less $3,276,250, be reduced by $1,400,000.
The Chairman: Have we had sufficient debate on this issue?
Mr. Duncan: We have had no debate. The only thing I'll say to it is that this is a unique program that's grown up over the years. It consists of a subsidy that many people have questioned. There's no question that over time this subsidy will and must be phased out. At least, that's my point of view.
The Chairman: That's your rationale for reducing it.
Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I have something to say on that issue, because I have already submitted a motion to the House to denounce the high price of food in the North. My collegue is aware of that. I even travelled to the North a number of times. When I go there, I always take note of the prices of food and I compare them with those in Montreal when I come back.
Presently, the prices of food in the North are generally probably twice as high as the ones we pay here in Ottawa or in Montreal. Moreover, those prices are paid by people who earn half of what we earn.
You will realize that in that context, there is an aspect of Mr. Duncan's proposal on which I agree : the government's contributions are not consistent enough. Nevertheless, I couldn't accept that from now on this amount be reduced by $3 million and that the price of milk, which is already twice has high as the one we pay here, be increased once more because that grant was withdrawn... You will understand why I insisted that my opposition to that motion be put on the record.
I will surely remain interested in that matter. Some problems comes from transporters who make excessive benefits at the expense of poor people who are residing there. I will continue to debate that question and to fight against those who carry primary goods at golden prices and who make profits to the detriment of those poor people.
.1300
It is not in my philosophy to cut grants to people who already pay too much for their basic goods while they are poorer than us. In such a context, I will of course vote against Mr. Duncan's amendment.
The Chairman: Let me tell you that I fully agree with your comments. I invite you to recommend that this issue be reviewed by this committee. I actually believe that much can be done to improve the lot of those people.
I admit that grants based on prices are actually grants which favour the rich, since the poor cannot afford to pay the prices asked. For my part, I intend to recommend that food be given directly to children in schools.
This may be a solution and I encourage you to suggest it to the Committee.
[English]
Mr. Duncan: I have a point of clarification. I realize I've probably already had my debate.
The Chairman: That's okay. That's good.
Mr. Duncan: My colleague Mr. Bachand referred to my motion as being a $3-million reduction. The $3 million is the moneys already forwarded. The motion is for $1.4 million.
Your suggestion that the committee might want to look at this issue resonates with me. This is because whenever there are subsidies there are dislocations, and some strange things have happened over time. I've had some discussion and debate with some people who seem to be familiar with this topic, and the committee might be useful. It might be a useful project.
The Chairman: We could even invite the transporters to testify.
Are we prepared for the vote on the motion to reduce?
Mr. Duncan: Could that be recorded, please?
The Chairman: A recorded vote has been requested and granted.
Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 1
The Chairman: Shall vote 45, less the amount of $3.276 million voted in interim supply, carry?
Vote 45 agreed to
The Chairman: Shall I report the main estimates to the House as the first report of the committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Are there any other comments on the estimates?
Mr. Anawak: I just wonder when we might get a chance to put forward the agenda items to discuss these particular issues that we just discussed.
The Chairman: That opportunity will be offered at every future meeting that we have, hopefully at the next one.
This meeting stands adjourned.