Publication Search

I'm sorry, Madame Gill, but we are over time.

The chair is back.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing. It's always a pleasure to have you here.

Minister, a few hours ago, the AFN came out against Bill C-21. Will you be supporting the AFN's call for amendments to be made?

Will you be advocating for the AFN's position at the cabinet table?

Just on a different topic, the estimates show that almost 93% of executive-level employees in your department received a performance bonus in the 2021-22 fiscal year. According to an Order Paper question, the criteria included individual results for executives rather than having bonuses based on how well the department performs.

According to the criteria, it seems they're based on the individual's results. I'm not sure how many organizations work that way. Should they not be based on the department's success rather than on an individual's success?

However, these are personal requirements, not departmental requirements. Is that correct?

It says here in this Order Paper question that “Individual performance pay holds executives accountable for individual results and is not related to Departmental Results, which measure organizational goals.”

The department is still not meeting its goals, so should we not be shifting those performance criteria?

Okay. I want to move back to the minister, because I know my time is short here.

Minister, unfortunately, we don't have the indigenous services minister here. It's the third-largest department, with 10% of overall government spending. It's actually almost doubled its spending in the last year. It's unfortunate that she wasn't able to be here.

I want to ask you about some of the information here in the estimates, specifically around what the Auditor General came out with a few weeks ago regarding funding for mitigation and adaptation and specifically indigenous-led projects that would help give indigenous communities a fighting chance to stay on their land in the event of extreme weather occurrences.

It says here in the estimates that there's about $12 million. Has that been spent? Has any been spent, and are you expecting more than just $12 million? If you're talking about bridges, dikes and culverts, that's barely enough to address the problem.

I'm speaking about Minister Hajdu's, but given the fact that her numbers are so big—

Exactly. I think that's what the Auditor General pointed out.

There are 112 infrastructure projects that would deal with adaptation and mitigation that are not being approved. In fact, it's a 6:1 savings. You can save six dollars for every dollar invested in adaptation and mitigation. That, again, goes to my question—

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to the Auditor General and her team for the testimony today.

I want to pick up on some of the testimony I heard on Friday at public accounts.

In terms of responsibility for the funding, I believe the deputy minister from Indigenous Services talked about Parliament approving the funding. In my understanding, shouldn't it be the deputy minister building budget proposals for the minister to then approve? Shouldn't the minister champion that funding and then submit those budget proposals?

It seems by your report that the money is, in fact, there.

If you're looking at the $790,000 you talked about in your report and the fact that not one management agreement was signed, to me that shows that the money is there. Is there anything here that is giving you some confidence, even a little, that things will change by the time the next report comes out, after you or another auditor general looks through this again?

The status quo is clearly not working.

Looking at the data from page 9—I'll give Gary Vidal a bit of credit for this—and at the 112 eligible but not funded projects, the number in the report is about $290 million, but you bring it up to $358 million, as some of the projects had not been assigned a value yet. That's about a 1:6 ratio of savings. This is rough math, but it could have contributed to over $2 billion in savings had the government looked at ways to mitigate and add that to climate change rather than its current method of evacuation, relocation and rebuilding—that repeating cycle.