Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2006

[Paul LeBlanc]

That leaves nearly $5.9 billion.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Let's say there is $6 billion left.

How do you ensure that the $6 billion... How do things work? I would like a concrete example. Take a community that wants to build a school because its population is growing by 3.5 or 4 per cent a year. It predicts that there will be 75 children between the ages of 7 and 12 by 2010. How does the community negotiate with you and plan to expand the school it already has or build one if it needs to?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Our regional officials are working hand in hand with these communities every day of the week. They want to develop a strategic plan for each community. The department, for its part, will develop a strategic plan for the region. This happens year after year, over several years. A community is funded through an envelope which generally includes two types of funding: first, funding for everyday costs such as schools, heating schools, salaries, water treatment plant operations, etc.; second, there's also funding for major projects such as building a new school or a new water treatment plant. This planning and sharing of information enables us to know what a community's needs will be four or five years down the road.

Our officials do the planning. They base their work on population, availability of resources, and so on, and a long-term capital plan is put into place which allows officials to anticipate the need in terms of new schools. First, needs are assessed, a population analysis is done and the current profitability of buildings is assessed, and then, an investment calendar for on-reserve schools is determined, be it in Quebec, New Brunswick or in British Columbia. This is an ongoing process. Once in a while, priorities overlap, because it is possible that the building of a school takes a backseat to meeting the needs of children or to pay for daily expenses in the area of education.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

What is the relationship like between your department and the health department as far as healthcare needs of communities are concerned? Is there an envelope for that? If so, I haven't seen it. For instance, do you make requests of the Department of Health by indicating that the suicide, diabetes or tuberculosis rates in native communities is three times higher than in the general population? Are there any agreements in place? Are they negotiated at a political level? How does all this work?

[Paul LeBlanc]

The answer is no. We do work with the Department of Health, but that department has its own direct relationship with first nations and invest its own money with first nation communities. We do share information, and there is cooperation between the two departments, but we do not have access to health department funds.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

So the Department of Health manages long or short-term healthcare facilities and informs you of what is happening.

[Paul LeBlanc]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay, you'll have to keep the other 62.

We have a few other issues to deal with at this meeting, Committee, so I'm going to Mr. Albrecht and then we're going to go to Mr. Merasty.

Then we're going to thank the department for their time. We have more questions in the future, and hopefully some time in the future we'll be able to bring those forward.

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I have one quick question. On page 9 you indicate the different sections of the estimates, and the one is titled “Cooperative relationships”. I'm wondering, is there any level of cooperation, financially, with NGOs that might be working in some of these areas, church groups, etc., to provide any services at all? Is that a possibility?

[Paul LeBlanc]

There are third-party organizations that play a role and that are involved. I hesitate, I don't want to mislead in terms of the strict answer in regard to funding in this context. If you may, I'd like to perhaps review our files and get an answer to you, unless any of my colleagues have a....

[Warren Johnson]

If I could, Mr. Chairman, I think we'd need to do a more complete analysis. There are examples, but how frequent they would be--

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

That's fine. I don't need an answer today. I wasn't trying for that. As I saw that heading, I wondered if there were some examples where we may use either private or charitable groups that would work alongside us.

[Warren Johnson]

CESO is one example; it's part of our professional institutional development. CESO maintains a service that first nations can access in terms of working on internal governance and capacity issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Merasty, one question.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Are there plans to address early learning and child care on reserve, and where is the ECEP head start review? There are statements made that they're a duplication and they are not.

[Paul LeBlanc]

Cabinet mandated INAC a year or so ago, perhaps a little more, to work with, I believe, five departments and agencies to examine this issue of overlap and duplication, to find ways to eliminate it if there is overlap and duplication. And even if there is not overlap and duplication, strictly speaking, would there be a way to harmonize these five authorities and these five delivery agents to come together to simplify life for the first nations who receive these contributions? The simple notion is, if you harmonize these authorities and you put it in one envelope, you get more discretion at the user's end, you get an ability to have more discretion with the money, and, theoretically, to make the same amount go further if you can't achieve bigger amounts.

So that work is ongoing; the review is ongoing. INAC is still mandated to lead among the federal departments the review and development of options in order to bring these together in a way that doesn't compromise the legitimacy of any component. It's not to relegate one to a more junior position than another, not to change those relative priorities, but to be able to have more streamlined delivery and so have economies of scale, put more money in the actual priority, and simplify the life for the ultimate users of those multiple programs. That work is still ongoing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. I really do appreciate, being new in this committee, hearing how the department functions and how you're addressing the needs of first nations. Thank you very much.

I'd ask the committee members if they would stay and we'd just go through the subcommittee report. And we have one motion.

The subcommittee met this morning and reviewed the information that was compiled by Mary Hurley with regard to the priorities that were set by the committee members. After reviewing those priorities, the obvious number one priority was first nations education. The second was aboriginal housing. The third was health. The fourth was aboriginal women and children, then violence and poverty, and then aboriginal children and care.

The recommendation from the subcommittee was that we would deal with a study on education of aboriginal people and we would hear from national aboriginal organizations on this matter. It was decided that the first meeting would be a briefing meeting with the department. So that's the recommendation. Are there any comments on that?

Before we confirm that as a resolution, we should wait for the minister to speak to us about that priority. I think he has indicated that it was his priority.

Mr. Bruinooge, is that correct?

So that's where we'll go. Are there any questions on that?

Then we'll move to a notice of motion from Madam Neville and it's to do with the “Walking Arm in Arm”. This was tabled in the 38th Parliament, and there is a response from the minister on the tabling. Is that correct? Speaking to the motion now, Madam Neville, do you want to...?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Just very briefly, Mr. Chair.

I don't think I have to speak to the importance of this issue. I think everybody around the table knows this issue. The aboriginal affairs committee last year did an extensive study of the whole matter of matrimonial real property. I think they heard, if I counted correctly, from 37 witnesses. It was an extensive report and cited many reports. Also, the Senate did a report on it, and there have been many other private studies on it. So I'm recommending that this report be resubmitted to the government, tabled in the House for a response from the government, and see where we move forward on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

If I could just speak to Madam Neville's notice of motion, in light of the fact that the government did respond, I think the process has yielded its result. The committee made a study and the government issued a response. I think that for us as a committee to put this forward again is a duplication of the government processes that we've seen occur over the last year. So I just believe that perhaps this isn't the right motion at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Just in case people haven't noticed, there was a change in government. I think it would be valuable to have a response from the current government, because we don't know if their response would be the same. Since so much work was done on this, I think it would be valuable to hear, because it has such a huge impact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The only thing I would caution, from what Mr. Bruinooge has said, is.... How far do you take this: that every study or recommendation to a minister by a former government has to be resubmitted to a new government?That doesn't happen.

I think Mr. Bruinooge's—

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Just to that, Mr. Chair, I think it would be a good thing to let the minister have an opportunity to present his positions. The minister is coming before the committee. The committee members will have the opportunity to ask questions relating to his positions initially. In putting this forward at this time, I and I think others on the government side believe we may be perhaps pre-empting the position of the minister. I would ask that we take some time with this and hear what he has to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

It has been tabled already to the government, and I think it's important that those questions be asked of the minister—where it's at and what the response of this new government is to that report—but the report doesn't have to be tabled again.

Mr. Lévesque.