Evidence of meeting #60 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I'm going to ask my colleague, Chris Rainer, to respond.
9:40 a.m.
Director General, Education Branch, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
In answer to your question, it's a mix of health services, of social services, and of education products.
In my realm in the education world, if you have a child with special education needs and the services aren't being provided, as Paul was saying before, it's to get out of the game of pointing the finger—whether it's the province or us—and it's to get the money into the hands, get that service to the student, and then we sort out whether it is a provincial obligation or a federal obligation.
We've had...in terms of transportation issues for children with some special education needs, in terms of some behaviour assistance for students, and certainly for direct health services as well. I don't have the breakdown of each of those categories, but it's been a good mix, from what I understand, of each of those three.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Those are the initial payments. Is there recovery on them, or is there potential for recovery on any of those?
9:40 a.m.
Director General, Education Branch, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
There have been a mix of cases. The money is there to get the money and direct delivery. If we find that special education services should have been provided by the province, then we work that out with them to replenish the services that were provided for.
One of the principles is that we do try to use the available sources of funding that are there for the intended purposes. In the case of special education, the release was there to use a special education allotment under education to provide those services immediately, and then we sort out afterwards if there was a need to recoup funding from the provincial services or not.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a quick question to finish on the specific claims.
The Auditor General, in the fall 2016 report, mentioned that there was a decrease in the research funding for the specific claims. Does this request for an additional $20 million restore that decrease?
9:40 a.m.
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
No, it did not.
9:40 a.m.
Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
No, it does not.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Okay.
I want to go back to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, because I did ask a very specific question from the outset with respect to whether or not the department recognizes the authority of the tribunal to order the government to do something to to stop doing something. You responded to that question by saying, “We respect”, which is not an answer to my question really, so I want to come back to that because that's an important aspect.
One of the things the tribunal asked you to do in January 2016, in its first ruling, is to adopt a broad definition of Jordan's principle. You mentioned that there are 4,900 kids that benefited from funding recently. On what basis was that determined? Is it determined on a new definition that you have? The tribunal said again on Friday that discrimination continues. Does the department recognize the authority? It's a clear question.
I know the interpretation that you have is that you're respecting what you've been asked to do. That's not the question. I'm asking a very specific question. Do you recognize the authority of the tribunal to order the government to do something or stop discriminating?
9:45 a.m.
Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I'm going to repeat my answer, Mr. Saganash, with all due respect, and say that we are respecting the tribunal. I think there are issues we have to acknowledge in terms of what actually the tribunal will come out with in terms of jurisdictional responsibilities as one of many issues, whereby it's not necessarily a clear-cut answer, to be fair, in terms of responding to your question. I think it's more a matter of respect than the issue of authority, depending upon the jurisdictional issues, based on the confederation nature of our country, as just one of various elements in terms of trying to respond to your question on authority versus respect.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you.
I'm going to now ask the committee a question. The estimates scheduled in our agenda are to continue until 10:15 a.m. Is it the will of the committee to continue the questioning or to move on to other business?
9:45 a.m.
An hon. member
Continue.
9:45 a.m.
An hon. member
Move on.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
We have a situation where we don't have consensus.
You can make a motion to continue or to end the questioning.
Don.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Chair, we do have two hours. We did have an original schedule, which was an hour and a half. Although Mr. Saganash recognized the regular appearance of the witness, I don't know that it's so regular that we don't have enormous benefit by having this opportunity to discuss the supplementary estimates. I think we have an enormous amount to gain from continuing the conversation. I'm not sure that our committee business will consume more than half an hour, so we certainly would be very disappointed and we'll vote against the motion.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
I understand that I made an error. Apparently this type of motion is a dilatory one and debate is not allowed. Therefore, we're going to call the vote.
It's a tie.
I vote with the government, with the Liberal Party. I vote in favour of the motion.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I understand there are conventions around how the chair would vote, as opposed to with the government, when you have a request to continue the business. I would ask the clerk to interpret whether there is convention that would direct your vote at this time.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, if I may clarify, I was actually distracted.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I was voting with the government. I do apologize, but I was distracted while the vote was going on.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
I'm going to call a short break as I review the documents and precedents. I'll come back to you in a minute.
Pursuant to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 20, page 1053, and I will quote directly, “The Chair is not bound to give reasons for his or her vote and is free to vote either way.” That's in paragraph 3. Therefore, I understand your point of view and have cited the reference. The vote has occurred. It has been carried.
I want to sincerely thank the department for coming in. I appreciate your time and willingness to participate.
I'll suspend the meeting, and we will resume in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
