Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of March 4, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:35 p.m. to study on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
TOPIC: Role, mandate and programs of INAC
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I welcome you to our second briefing this week, which we hope will assist our new members, and some of us older ones, too, in familiarizing us with the background and the need to grapple with the issues of our constituency, the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. This evening's briefing will be on the role, mandate and programs of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC.
I will introduce the senators: Senator Sibbeston, deputy chair of this committee, from the Northwest Territories; Senator Brazeau from Quebec; Senator Lang from the Yukon; Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick; Senator Dyck from Saskatchewan; Senator Raine from British Columbia; and Senator Peterson from British Columbia.
Tonight we have five witnesses whose will assist us in shedding light on the workings of the department. I hope I have them in order of seniority or greatness, but if not, I apologise. They are Daniel Watson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction; Christine Cram, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships; Fred Caron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians; Danielle Labonté, Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch; and Christopher Duschenes, Executive Director, Inuit Relations Secretariat.
I welcome you here. We are pleased to see the numbers and the level of competence that the department has sent. We look forward to your presentations. After you have made your presentations, I hope you will be prepared to answer some questions from our senators. Mr. Watson, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Daniel Watson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be here this evening. When I saw you name all your colleagues from memory, I feared that I would be asked to do the same. I am glad that I was not.
[English]
As the chair mentioned, we would like to talk to you about the department mandate and the key initiatives that we are working with today. Yesterday, you had a briefing from some of our colleagues on some of the demographic issues and statistical questions of interest in this field. Today, we will focus on the department structures and our initiatives.
The deck in front of you is entitled ``INAC's Mandate.'' Our mandate is to work together to make Canada a better place for Aboriginal people and northern people in communities.
I will be talking about those aspects of the mandate that relate to Aboriginal people, and my colleague, Ms. Labonté, will be speaking to the northern component of our mandate, which is a critical part of our work as well.
People ask this key question: What does INAC do for First Nations, Metis and Inuit people? If you look at the Constitution, section 91.24, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over lands and lands reserved for Indians. The principal instrument, although not the only one, that the Government of Canada has for fulfilling that mandate is through INAC. We do not do the work alone in this area in working on the special relationship that the Crown has with Aboriginal people. We do it with 34 government departments and agencies that, together, deliver over 360 Aboriginal programs and services. In a sense, it is a team effort that involves many other organizations and a broad range of programs.
If that number of 360 seems like a great deal, sometimes I remind people that they should see how many programs and services the Government of Canada has for non-Aboriginal people. Therefore, it is not, perhaps, as enormous a number as it might seem.
We work in a number of ways within the existing structures in government to develop a better and stronger relationship with Aboriginal people. We work, for example, in the area of governance legislation. In the past, we have done legislation such as the First Nations Land Management Act and some others. We support First Nations governance capacity, an issue that gets raised regularly from players across the country; we settle grievances, some of which are more recent, some of which are long-standing; and, we enhance the federal-provincial relationship, which is something that is increasingly important in this area, as Canadians expect results from all different levels of government in addressing many of the issues that we face.
In order to do this, we must talk about the structure of the department itself. Without getting into the details of organization charts and so on, I would like to talk about some of the key areas in the department. My colleague to my right is responsible for education and social development programs and partnerships. I will talk more about these later. They are akin to the services that many provinces would provide to their residents.
One group, not represented here this evening, deals with treaties and Aboriginal governments. That group is responsible for the carriage of the negotiations that are happening in many parts of this country.
Lands and economic development are another set of responsibilities that we have in a division of the department that helps do land management under the Indian Act and, linking to that, deals with many of the economic development issues that are important in many of the conversations we have across the country.
We have a resolution and individual affairs group that is working on many of the reconciliation issues that are important to all Canadians and, certainly, to the department. It deals with the individual trust issues that arise out of the responsibilities from the Indian Act.
We have a regional operations group as a decentralized department, perhaps more decentralized than the majority of other federal departments, with a presence in just about every corner of the country. In addition, we have a regional operations group that is tasked with being present in different regions across the country and playing a role directly with the communities there.
Finally, we have the policy and strategic direction group, which talks about the overall policy for the department and deals with many of the litigation issues as well.
We have 10 regional offices across the country. We have the Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non- Status Indians headed by my colleague, Mr. Caron; we have the Inuit Relations Secretariat, headed by my colleague, Mr. Duschenes, and also the Indian Oil and Gas Canada entity that is based out of Calgary.
Turning to the next page, entitled ``What INAC Does,'' I will talk about four big categories of work that we do.
[Translation]
The first of those categories is related to the responsibilities of the Department under the Indian Act such as land management, trusts and the management of money. We also have responsibilities relating to supervising elections in Indian bands, to other governance issues on reserves and to a whole series of regulatory matters.
A second broad category relates to the issue of services that are similar to those in the provinces and territories. This represents about two thirds of our annual budget of $6.9 million that is used to fund programs in education, social services and community infrastructure.
[English]
Sometimes, because of the range of services that we provide, people have used the term ``Canada's eleventh province.'' In a sense, it is misleading when you compare our services to much of the other work that provinces do. However, at the same time, the scale of things that we work with across the country is quite significant, given the size of our programs in social assistance, education and child and family services, just to name a few.
If we look at the next two categories of the work that the department does, the first, building relationships, is a critical part of our role and responsibilities. An example is the negotiations of modern land claims, which is something we do in many parts of the country. Another example is working on self-government issues, sometimes in the context of modern treaties and sometime as separate pieces.
Certainly, we must understand that there is a history and that that history was not always good and not always positive and that there are issues that endure to this day that need to be resolved. That is also a key part of what the department does. Not only do we look forward to the building of new relationships, but we need, at times, to set right aspects of old relationships that went very wrong.
In some of those cases, for example, we resolve specific claims, and, in other cases, we try to resolve litigation. We have group that is dedicated to resolving litigation, sometimes through the court process, but it often tries to negotiate settlements outside the court process as well.
Turning to the Office of the Federal Interlocutor, it is the point of first contact and advocate in the Government of Canada for Metis and non-status Indians and urban Aboriginal people. It was created in 1985 and does not operate under a statutory authority, such as the Indian Act. Not a single minister or department is responsible for all of the Metis and non-status Indians, but the focal point is through the Office of the Federal Interlocutor. It is a key part of our ongoing discussions on many matters that we deal with.
The next group is the Inuit Relations Secretariat. This group, similar to the Office of the Federal Interlocutor, focuses our discussions on issues related to a specific group, in this case, the Inuit. It has a mandate to be the primary point of contact on Inuit issues and with Inuit organizations. In this area, there are a number of land claims, four that have been dealt with over time, and many important developments. I note, of course, that we are coming up to the tenth anniversary of Nunavut in the near future.
Moving on to the next page entitled ``The Aboriginal Agenda,'' we can categorize into five areas where the department has been putting its efforts: Economic development, a key area, to improve the economic well-being, prosperity and self-reliance of Aboriginal people in Canada; education, to improve educational outcomes of Aboriginal learners as a focus; empowering citizens and protecting the vulnerable; resolution of land claims; and reconciliation governance and self-government.
The final slide in the first presentation talks about some of our key initiatives, and I thought it might be useful to have a sense of what falls under those categories. At the moment, we are in the process of developing an economic development framework. That is one of the key pieces we are completing under the economic development pillar.
With respect to education, we have the Canada-British Columbia agreement on education, sometimes called FNESC or First Nations Education Steering Committee, under way and a recent agreement with New Brunswick on education. Those are examples of initiatives in that area.
In terms of empowering citizens and protecting the vulnerable, the key initiatives are investment in housing and infrastructure; the recent repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which, for those of you who may not have followed it directly, was the provision that exempted the Indian Act from the considerations that were available to other Canadians under the Canadian Human Rights Act; and reintroduction of the matrimonial real property bill.
Two examples under resolution of land claims are the establishment of the Specific Claims Tribunal and the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement. Finally, under reconciliation, governance and self-government, we have the Prime Minister's apology to former residential school students and their families.
That is an overview of the Indian, Metis and Inuit component of our work. I turn now to my colleague, Ms. Labonté, to speak to the component that relates to northern affairs.
[Translation]
Danielle Labonté, Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Honourable senators, I am pleased to appear before your committee this evening.
On page 2 of the second deck, relating to Northern affairs, you will find an overview of the responsibilities of the Minister of Indian and Northern affairs. As you can see, those responsibilities are quite broad.
I would like to deal first with those responsibilities applying to all three territories.
[English]
As you know, the three territories in Canada account for 40 per cent of Canada's land mass, yet the population is sparse, small and dispersed across this large land mass. That brings a number of different challenges in terms of our responsibilities in the North.
We do have an office in Ottawa as well as three regional offices, one in each of the territories. They are the focal point for our activities with the territories and with other stakeholders.
One of our key responsibilities is assisting territorial governments and Aboriginal groups to develop political and economic institutions that enable them to assume increasing responsibilities under devolution. As you know, we have devolved to the Yukon, and we are working on devolution with the other two territories.
In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut where we do not yet have devolution, our department is responsible for managing the natural resources, for instance, to preserve, maintain, protect and rehabilitate, while we prepare the ground for future devolution.
Our responsibilities are the cleanup of contaminated sites, to expand a knowledge base for sound decision making and to improve the effectiveness of our regulatory regime in the North. We also establish northern boards, as required under the land claim and self-government agreements that we have in the North.
We are responsible for delivering and administering economic development programs and advocate for northern interests in the federal system. I will return to that later, but most notably, the government recently announced that we will be creating a northern regional economic development agency. This is very exciting for us.
We also play a role in science in terms of identifying gaps in science and knowledge. Scientific knowledge is key to everything we must do in the North in terms of making effective decisions. Our minister acts as a federal champion to address these gaps and fill them.
Finally, our minister is the lead for coordinating the federal Northern Strategy, which is a government-wide exercise and is the framework for governing everything we do within INAC, as well as all our federal partners in the federal family in terms of responsibilities in the North.
That takes me to page 3, where I would like to refer you to the framework for Canada's integrated Northern Strategy.
As you might remember, the Prime Minister announced the Northern Strategy in the 2007 Speech from the Throne. It has four pillars. They are mutually reinforcing pillars. They are underpinned by science and technology, science being the basis for making decisions across all four pillars. There is both a domestic and an international dimension to each of these pillars. Having a healthy and prosperous population in the North is fundamental to all four pillars, and there are actions across the four pillars to this effect.
This is a government-wide strategy, and our minister has the lead. As part of his lead role, he is the champion at cabinet, and in that context, he is a co-signatory to policy initiatives driven sometimes by other federal ministers.
In support of that, we have a fairly sophisticated structure around the need to support the minister; the deputy- minister-level committee on the Arctic would be an example. That committee, in turn, is supported by a couple of different committees at the ADM level. There is much ongoing interdepartmental collaboration in order to continue to advance policy thinking, identify gaps, review progress and ensure implementation of those initiatives that have already been announced. It is an evergreen strategy, so over time, more initiatives will be taken across all four pillars.
I would like to now proceed pillar by pillar. I will highlight some of the reasons those pillars were chosen, as well as point out a couple of actions under each that have been taken by the government.
As you know, the sovereignty debate has been featured quite prominently in the media for the past while, even though Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic and our claim to the lands and waters of the archipelago are long-standing, well-established, based on historic title and claim and, moreover, are undisputed.
The Inuit helped cement Canada's land base, territorial base, in the North and continue to play a role in the exercise of sovereignty through their presence and work via the Rangers. Nevertheless, as I said at the beginning, this is a vast and remote region, and clear opportunities exist to increase presence and capacity, to plan for and respond to incidents.
Furthermore, sovereignty issues of the future will likely be maritime-based and determined by science and negotiation, with the ongoing exercise of sovereignty through enhanced safety and security and continued environmental protection.
Recent investments to support these objectives and challenges include additional funding to ensure that Canada has a high quality claim for the delimitation of our continental shelf under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, investment in a new icebreaker to replace the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent and also a significant investment in patrol ships that will carry out surveillance in the Arctic and the approaches to the Arctic.
Looking at the economic and social development pillar, as you know, over the past decade, we have witnessed the development of world-class diamond mines. I believe about $2 billion worth of economic activity has now taken place. Exploration has been done of the North's massive oil and gas reserves, and we are in the early stages of the Mackenzie gas pipeline.
Aboriginal northerners are playing a larger role now in the economy, and the capacity of northern and Aboriginal governments is growing as a result of devolution, land claims and self-government agreements. However, we need to ensure development is sustainable and environmentally sound, and that such development brings opportunities for northerners, particularly Aboriginal northerners.
We also need to ensure the regulatory regime is timely and predictable. Minister Strahl commissioned Neil McCrank to carry out a study of the existing system and to make recommendations to reduce regulatory barriers. We have that report now and are reviewing the recommendations with a view to future implementation.
Page 5 deals with the environment protection and governance pillars. I will start with the environmental pillar and the effect of climate change. As you know, the effects of climate change are widespread. They are accelerating and are felt more in the North than anywhere else. Reduced ice coverage may open new shipping lanes and transportation routes in the long term, but they will also create hazardous conditions for vessels in the short term. This underscores the need for strong shipping laws and the ability to enforce them. Some of the investments I spoke about, such as the Arctic patrol ships and the icebreaker, will help in terms of our enforcement ability. The Arctic Council will also soon be issuing a report on the state of Arctic marine shipping, which will help inform the Arctic community in terms of future policy directions.
Through the International Polar Year, we are learning much about climate change. Climate change is one of the two key priorities to study, with the second being the health impacts on northern people. This will also really inform our future adaptation efforts.
Finally, I would point to the government's recent introduction of amendments to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which is now in second reading. It will extend the application from 100 to 200 nautical miles in terms of our surveillance capacity and also changes to NORDREG, which will make reporting to Transport Canada mandatory for any vessel entering northern waters. The recent budget also announced $165 million to accelerate cleanup of federal contaminated sites, many of them being in the North.
The governance pillar aims to strengthen governance within Canada as well as international Arctic governance. Domestically, our objective is to build strong northern governance. The two aspects to this are, first, to strengthen Aboriginal governance and build the capacity, and, second, to build the capacity of territorial public governance. The long-term goal is to establish strong, responsible, accountable northern governance that contributes to a dynamic, secure Canadian federation. While this task continues, much progress has been made. In April 2003, for example, the Yukon became the first to achieve devolution, and Nunavut will celebrate its tenth anniversary on April 1 of this year as a territory of its own.
As Canada shares the Arctic Ocean with other states, we have a vested interest in ensuring the broader Arctic remains stable and reflective of Canadian interests and values, which was why we helped to create the Arctic Council and are active in many of its working groups. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and other departments are currently preparing for the next Arctic Council ministerial meeting to be held at the end of April in Norway, and Canada will assume chairmanship of the council in 2013.
Turning to science and technology, which is foundational to sound decision making across all four pillars, the government has made science and technology in the Arctic a priority and a number of announcements have been made to this effect. This was in response to our findings through the International Polar Year efforts and recognition that our existing infrastructure in the North is degrading. Much of the infrastructure is very old and does not meet the needs of science in terms of both the demand for science and the type of infrastructure.
So while we do have a fairly robust science industry and many world-class scientists in Canada, the need was there to increase our capacity to support the Northern Strategy. The government has decided to invest in a High Arctic research station as well as to enhance the existing network of stations that exist across the North. We currently have a call for proposals to respond to the Budget 2009 announcement to place $85 million of funding into the existing network. This will be a very important initiative for the Arctic science community.
At page 7, you will see a report card of sorts. It is not an exhaustive list, but it gives a rundown of some of the major initiatives announced across all four pillars. Some are underway while some are at more initial stages. I will not go through the whole list. It is a checklist for your reference. That is the end of my comments.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I would like to welcome everyone here tonight. This all sounds very impressive, but if INAC is doing this for Aboriginal people, why are First Nations still living in Third-World conditions? Anyone could answer.
Mr. Watson: I will try to answer that. There is no short answer to that question. Without in any way, shape or form trying to take away from the fact that there are many bad conditions out there, I think it is also important to recognize that there are many places where things go very well and where First Nations and Inuit and Metis communities, companies and institutions have done very well. Again, I say that not in any way, shape or form to take away from the fact that there are a number of other situations not nearly as well-off.
Many challenges exist out there. I understand that yesterday's presentation looked at some of the educational attainment challenges faced in many communities and gave you a statistical picture of those areas. We have undertaken a number of efforts on that front, and we can speak about those shortly. Clearly, they have not arrived at the point we need them to.
Some of the questions we have are regulatory in nature, and some communities have found working solutions around those; sometimes in the context of the Indian Act, sometimes through self-government agreements and sometimes through legislation such as the First Nations Land Management Act. It is fair to say that many communities are still looking for solutions that work for them.
A common issue across the Canadian economy is the challenges in industries that were once dominant in a particular area and are now no longer performing to the degree they once were. Whether or not you are from an Aboriginal community or from a non-Aboriginal community, when one of the driving industries for that area disappears, obviously it is a significant problem.
There is no short answer to that question. I do not believe it is for lack of effort, certainly on the part of many of those communities, because we see extensive effort in many cases. Nor is it a lack of effort of any number of other players, sometimes in the private sector or the federal government, sometimes in provincial and territorial governments. However, we are well aware, as you would have seen in the presentation yesterday, of where many of those challenges lie.
I hope you will see that many of the challenges identified yesterday overlap with the areas we have identified as our initiatives today. However, I believe the connectedness of all of those challenges is part of what we are dealing with here.
Perhaps I could ask my colleague, Ms. Cram, to talk about some specific things we are doing in some of the fields.
Christine Cram, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: It is a pleasure to be here, honourable senators. We are making progress. If you asked: Are you making progress as fast as you would like, the answer would be, no. We wish we could make more progress, but we are progressing in a number of areas.
I know this committee studied water recently and presented an excellent report vis-à-vis water. In terms of progress on water, we continue to reduce the number of high-risk water systems and increase the number of trained operators. We have also seen increased investments in water. I note that in Budget 2008 there was increased investment in water and recently again in Budget 2009. If we are looking at infrastructure and water, we are seeing improvements there.
Improvements are occurring in education. If we look at post-secondary participation in particular, participation in trades training, as well as at the community college level and apprenticeships, has grown quickly and is equivalent to the non-Aboriginal rates. The university level is where the gap remains.
It is true that we still have gaps in high school graduation. That is an area we really want to focus on.
In December, we launched two new education initiatives aimed at trying to improve the situation from kindergarten to Grade 12. We are looking forward to those initiatives. It is a proposal-driven process. The first round of proposals came in in mid-February. We are looking at launching a student success program as well as a partnership program.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Studies have been done, reports are out and the situation is always the same — not enough money going into First Nations communities from this government, the past government and other governments before that. The problems still exist, and they are getting worse. There is poverty and suicide, and there is not enough drinking water. Those are only three of the problems communities have.
I know this because I live in a First Nations community. I grew up with this situation, and I still see it happening. It seems as though nothing ever gets done. Do you think anything will ever get done?
Ms. Cram: I did mention water, but I would note that in 2003, there were 218 high-risk systems. That figure, as of March 31, 2008, is 77, so that is an improvement. We continue to work on that issue, and obviously we want to reach a point where there are no more high-risk systems.
We are continuing to work on kindergarten to Grade 12 education, and we hope that we will see an increase in high school completion rates. Being in a community, you know that it takes time. Are you from Tobique?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes, I am.
Ms. Cram: In terms of post-secondary participation, Tobique has a high number of students in post-secondary education. Tobique expended a lot of effort in that area, and that is showing results.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes, I know that for a fact, but some of these students cannot get to these places to obtain their education. They are poor; they do not have vehicles; they are not provided with travel money, et cetera. I know it is up to them to provide transportation. However, if they are on welfare and have to buy food — and with the recession — they cannot afford it, and end up dropping out.
The Chair: I would like to ask a quick question, since we are on the topic of education. My understanding is that the department spends $6,500 on education per student, whereas the non-Aboriginal community spends close to $11,000 in some cases, but anywhere between $9,000 and $11,000. Is that an accurate picture of what is happening out there? Maybe Ms. Cram can answer that.
Ms. Cram: People use many different numbers in terms of comparing tuition rates and often use a per-student tuition rate when comparing a First Nations school and a provincial school. I am not familiar with the particular numbers that you used, senator, but I would say that it is a complex issue and one that we are working on to try to understand the differences.
Provincial schools differ among school boards in terms of the per-student cost, and so do provinces. Differences occur between provinces and within provinces.
We have to look at the comparator on a school-board-by-school-board basis across the country. We do not have all of that data. Different numbers are at play. For example, in our discussions with the First Nations Education Steering Committee in British Columbia, they say they have a shortfall of X amount. We recognize that there are differences in tuition rates, and we need to study those differences.
The Chair: I believe that the figure that I have came from the Auditor General's department. I will not belabour the point, but it would be good if you could get back to the committee through the clerk. I believe, as I am sure many of my colleagues believe, that the only way out of this morass that we are in is through education.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for sharing some of your time to be with us this evening. It is nice to see all of you, but a couple of you in particular. I have worked with some individuals in my previous capacities.
For the benefit of the committee, would you describe how on-reserve communities receive their funding, in terms of core funding, and whether the funding formula is based on per capita?
I am obviously aware of the mandate of the department. It was stated in the presentation that there is oversight of band elections and other governance issues on-reserve, but is there, for example, a report card mechanism that the department uses to look into the issue of accountability?
We know that money is being spent on-reserve for different programs — for capacity, governance, et cetera — but is there a mechanism that you utilize to see if the money that is going to the communities is actually reaching out and getting into the hands of the people with needs or being spent on the programs that it is supposed to be spent on?
Many questions have been raised surrounding issues of accountability. I have had the privilege in my previous role, and for many years, to consult with many grassroots Aboriginal peoples across the country. The number one theme that surfaces is lack of accountability.
I would like to know from you and from the department if there is a mechanism that reports on what is going well and what is not going well. If there are such reports, could we have copies of them? If there are no such reports, why do they not exist?
Mr. Watson: Perhaps I can speak to the second set of questions, and my colleague might jump in on both those and the earlier question about the support funding to bands.
In regard to the accountability mechanism, we get into two sets of discussions. One set of discussions is that the federal government should not be interfering in the accountability between First Nation leaders and those who elect them; and that part of a community's ability to make its own decisions includes the ability to decide who should be its leaders, the ability to decide whether or not they have done a good enough job to continue being elected and to make the judgement about whether or not the right decisions about the use of resources were made.
That is very important because at one level, if we build up the relationship between the federal government and First Nations governments so exclusively that there is not a role for those who elect within a First Nation to hold their leadership to account, we do everyone a disservice if we go too far down that route. At the same time, we are very cognizant of the fact that what we are dealing with here are public monies, and there needs to be accountability for that. The chair mentioned earlier the Auditor General. The Auditor General has actually commented on us a number of times in this regard. One of the series of comments has talked about the fact that sometimes we exact too many sets of reports and accounts from First Nations.
The secret is in ensuring that we get it right. That fundamental relationship of accountability between the electors and the elected is something that we need to encourage and that certainly we would want to support, but we are not the dominant player. It really is the electors and the elected. At the same time, we have audit requirements in all of our funding agreements that I am aware of. We do evaluations of all the programs that we run. The documents that come out of our evaluation and audit processes are public, generally speaking, except in the rarest of circumstances. Those are available on our website for many of the programs we run.
If you looked at the education programs, you would be able to find the reports there. It is, though, an area where people are very engaged, and when they are engaged, they have many questions, which is a good thing. The more people push, the more people question; the more information that people have and are seeking, the more they will make a difference. One of the things I firmly believe is that 30 engaged parents in a community who are unhappy with the way things are going on will do far more to change that community than 500 people added to the roles of INAC. That is something we need to ensure that we support in this process without interfering inappropriately in that relationship.
Ms. Cram: In terms of how funding is done and whether it is done on a per capita basis, different programs are funded in different manners. I will use education as an example, kindergarten to Grade 12. It is funded based on the nominal roll, and that is how many children are attending the on-reserve school and how many are attending the provincial school, and it is based on an actual count of those children, which takes place usually in September of each year.
In terms of social assistance, a First Nation makes an estimate of the numbers it thinks it will have on social assistance rolls, and then they are actually reimbursed on the actuals on the provincial rates, so how many people actually are eligible for social assistance, and then the money is provided based on whatever that provincial rate is.
In terms of operating costs related to capital, it is based on the assets that need to be maintained, and the amounts are calculated on that basis.
It varies by program, and each program has its own budget management regime as to how the resources are provided. Resources go from headquarters to regions, and then from regions into individual First Nations agreements.
In terms of reporting, a national reporting guide indicates what reports are required for each of the program areas, and it also specifies what is required in the way of an annual audit, which I think is required as of July 30 of each year.
Senator Brazeau: I have to agree with my colleague Senator Lovelace Nicholas' point. I am fully aware of the Auditor General's statements over the last few years that First Nations are over-reporting, but I think you will agree that sending a report to the department does not mean that money is being spent where it is supposed to be spent.
Having said that, I agree and stress the point that we know that a lot of money is going into different programs and services for the benefit of people living on-reserve and other areas., but there does not seem to be a mechanism that allows Canadians to see what is working, what is not working and what should be done in a case that is not working. I take your point that you do not want to seem to meddle or interfere in the band's affairs. However, at the same time, I certainly would not want, as soon as the cheque is cut and sent to a reserve, the oversight to somehow end and the department wash its hands clean of whatever may or may not happen. That is the kind of reporting I would like to see from the department to indicate to Canadians what is working, what is not and what should be done about things in areas where it is not working.
Mr. Watson: I agree fully, senator. Simply because someone provides a report does not necessarily prove that things are good, bad or indifferent. The providing of reports is an important element because they are public and available for members of the First Nation, parliamentarians and others to see and use.
We also do much by way of evaluation and audit. The reports come up on those programs throughout the year. Every year, we do review a component of our programs and services such that over time we get 100 per cent coverage there, and those evaluations and audits are done with a fair bit of rigour and often involving outside players looking at these things. They offer a fairly candid view of how things are or are not working. Again, the results of those are publicly available, and certainly I would be happy to give you some examples if that would be of interest.
Senator Sibbeston: In relation to the matter of accountability that Senator Brazeau has raised, recently The Globe and Mail had a report about documents that apparently exist within INAC that deal with some initiative dealing with governance and accountability. The minister was asked questions in the House of Commons, and he denied any knowledge. That is conceivable because he may not be aware of the workings within the department. You obviously work at levels that you ought to be aware of any such documentation and initiatives that are being undertaken by the department. Can you tell us about these documents, verify that they do exist and that there are some initiatives with respect to the area of governance and accountability?
Mr. Watson: The minister's statements on this that I have read talked about the fact that there was nothing secret. I think that was the comment that he said. He talked about meetings that have taken place in the past in Manitoba and another meeting that was taking place later this week in Atlantic Canada. I am aware that there are reports of documents attributed to the department. I do not know exactly what those documents are, obviously, so I have not seen what it is that he is referring to.
The minister's statements on that point stand for themselves. I recall them as being that there was nothing secret. Issues related to governance were talked about with First Nations in Manitoba and with First Nations in Atlantic Canada. Those discussions were the furthest thing from secret. They were with First Nations involved there. That is all I can recall of the minister's statements at this point in time, and I really would not be able to say anything more than that at this point.
Senator Sibbeston: Are you telling us the truth?
Mr. Watson: Absolutely, the truth to the best of my recollection of having seen the minister's statements.
The Chair: You have not seen the documents, correct? Documents have been circulated. I have not read them, but I saw some documents that related to this. I am surprised that you, Mr. Watson, would not know about them if they did exist. That is not to say they are secretive or anything like that, but just that someone in the department or somewhere has been looking at this particular subject.
Mr. Watson: Just to be clear, a reporter says that he has some documents. He has not showed me those documents, so I cannot be sure what they are. However, as I recall from the minister's statements in this matter, I know there have been discussions in Manitoba and in Atlantic Canada with First Nations about a series of governance topics relating to those First Nations. That is the part that I know.
Senator Lang: Thanks for coming out this evening. Further to Senator Brazeau's questions, I want to follow up on the accountability a bit further.
We hear stories about money being allocated in good faith by the people of Canada through your department to the reserves across Canada, and then every now and again, we hear stories about outlandish expenditures or mis- expenditures, and then it goes away.
From the response that you gave to Senator Brazeau, I gather that perhaps you do an audit or financial review every now and again of one particular situation in one part of the country, but the balance is just this reporting aspect. We get this report, and we accept that the money is being spent where they say they are spending it. However, at the same time, in that same year, we might get a situation where maybe the housing money was not spent where it was supposed to be spent.
What will you do differently from what you have been doing in the past to have more accountability to ensure the money that the House of Commons votes and that you administer is being spent where it is supposed to be spent? Will you change your approach?
I want to go back a bit further. I am from the Yukon; I did almost 20 years in the legislature there. I saw the devolution, and we worked hard at the devolution of the responsibilities from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but we did that in concert with taking on the responsibility with the Financial Administration Act, requirement for audits and those types of things. I would assume that if you are to devolve responsibility, which you say you are, to the various bands across the country, then, along with that, you would be asking for some accountability.
Mr. Watson: Absolutely. To paint a fuller picture, when we enter into an agreement to fund services, lengthy provisions deal with the reporting requirements for that. One relates to an audited financial statement every year for that particular First Nation and the money that it receives. An evaluation cycle of all the things that we do runs every five years, but an audit cycle also runs every three years. They run concurrently and are related to each other.
When complaints or questions arise, we also have the opportunity to do special audits or, in some cases, even forensic audits, if the allegations made are serious enough to warrant that type of look. I do not want to suggest that money goes out there on a haphazard basis, and people choose either to look at it or not. In fact, in every agreement we have, there are detailed reporting provisions and mechanisms, many of which revolve around audited financial statements of the parties involved.
Senator Lang: For example, if I went on your website and went to a certain First Nation's financial statements, would I be able to see what the chief was getting paid, what the administration was getting paid, how much money was going to education, et cetera? Would it be the same as if you looked at the books of a municipal council?
Mr. Watson: I do not believe you can go on our departmental website and find each First Nation on that front. You can certainly find our audits and evaluations of programs.
Some First Nations publish and make information available to all their members in quite a fine level of detail in terms of the expenditures. Perhaps my colleague can help me out, but I do not believe information is available for the 600 or so First Nations down to the last level of detail for their individual audit and statements.
Where we have contribution agreements, we have reporting mechanisms in them where people provide us with those reports.
Senator Peterson: With your indulgence, I would like to refer back to an matter that we dealt with in December of 2006. We tabled a document called Negotiations or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice.
One of the major recommendations was the establishment of an independent body for resolving specific claims through a cooperative effort by First Nations in Canada.
You make reference in your report here about a specific claims tribunal. I just received a nice document today stating ``a new beginning.'' Is this tribunal in place? Do we know who the people are and their contact points?
Mr. Watson: The one colleague of ours that I mentioned earlier whom we did not bring this evening is exactly the colleague who would be best placed to answer that question. Perhaps I could ask your indulgence to get back to you with written information. I do not have the specific details.
Senator Peterson: Yes, please. You can send that to the clerk.
In May 2008, we tabled another document entitled Honouring the Spirit of Modern Treaties: Closing the Loopholes. One of the major recommendations was that the Clerk of the Privy Council take immediate steps to establish the senior level working group and to include officials from Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Privy Council Office, Department of Finance Canada, senior officials from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and all their departments and treaties to establish a comprehensive land claims tribunal.
How are we doing on that? Do we have that?
Mr. Watson: No, that is not in place at this point in time. My colleague who is responsible for the treaty negotiations side would be a good person to get into those details. Certainly that tribunal that you referred to in that report is not established at this point in time.
Senator Peterson: Tight time limits were put on the establishment of that tribunal. Possibly you could follow that up and give the information to the clerk as well.
I have a final question on the budgeting. Is it global budgeting that you do, or do you break it down by function and individual area, namely, breakouts?
Ms. Cram: In terms of the funding to a First Nation, it is by individual aspect. An amount would be included for kindergarten to Grade 12 education, for post-secondary and for social assistance. It would be enumerated.
Different First Nations operate under different financing instruments. Some are on multi-years, where they have more flexibility to move the money between categories; others are on annual funding agreements.
Senator Peterson: With respect to your Arctic initiative and what you are doing there, is that new money?
Ms. Labonté: Much of it has been announced in previous budgets. However, most of it is new money that has been announced since 2007, in the last two or three budgets.
Senator Peterson: It is not taken out of your existing budget. I presume this whole Arctic sovereignty issue is collaborative; it is not just you. You must be working with many departments.
Ms. Labonté: Yes, absolutely. Much of it is through National Defence, such as the patrol ships, and the icebreakers is the Canadian Coast Guard. Therefore, a lot of the big dollars have gone to other departments, indeed.
Our minister is the champion for the overall framework, but we are not the recipients of all the initiatives or responsible to deliver on all of them. We just maintain stewardship over the overall framework.
Senator Peterson: You do not feel you are being short changed. That is, you are not carrying an inordinate part of the load out of your existing budget.
Ms. Labonté: No, I guess not.
Senator Dyck: I will follow up on the idea of the interdepartmental coordination for the Northern Strategy.
During our reports and hearings with regard to specific land claims, time and again we heard about the lack of coordination between various departments with respect to First Nations issues on land claims. Part of the strategy was to improve that, yet you are telling us that that has been done for the Northern Strategy and that our minister is the champion for this. Could he champion the older issues as well? It seems as though this strategy has taken priority. I think in every department you have priorities.
Would you consider that a possibility, namely, that the same type of framework that you have developed for the Northern Strategy in terms of interdepartmental communication can be used for areas such as settling land claims and treaties?
Mr. Watson: The department has an entire group that is dedicated to the issue, not only of negotiating treaties — which, by definition, involves a broad range of federal departments dealing with everything from fisheries to harbour issues to sometimes natural resource questions, others from a full range of federal departments — but in addition to the work that is done coordinating the negotiations, an entire group is there for the purposes of dealing with land claim implementation issues. The role that they play is very much around coordinating those other departments. That group has been in place for quite some time. There is no doubt that it is a challenge, in large part because of the breadth of the relationship that arises out of claims.
Many things need to be done in a specific time frame to deal with title issues, legal interests and so on, but also some longer-term relationship management issues that are important going well into the future. Many departments are involved in that, and we have a group within INAC that is specifically dedicated to doing exactly that type of thing.
In addition to that, we have also created a forum, at a very senior level, of assistant deputy ministers from a number of affected departments that come together to talk about the bigger questions on areas that are working well and areas that might need more effort. That is a useful tool that will help push along those areas where people run into challenges and perhaps can use a bit of extra assistance moving things forward.
Certainly structures are very much in place to do those types of things. There are those who would say that they wish we came to different conclusions from time to time and those who wish we came to those conclusions more quickly. However, at the same time, the structures are in place and are designed to do exactly what you describe.
Senator Dyck: I am happy to hear that you believe you have those structures. Certainly, when we had the hearings, it did not sound as though things were moving along in a timely fashion. Perhaps there are other things that you have initiated that will speed that process along.
In your deck of materials, you have INAC's mandate. It is a noble one in that it may be somewhat nebulous. Who defines the mandate? Where does this come from; does it develop internally? Was there legislation that tells you what to do? Did it come from the minister?
Mr. Watson: This is an internally developed mandate. It has been in place for some years now. It was developed within the department.
Senator Dyck: I would suspect that probably Joe or Josephine citizen, myself included, would think that the mandate of INAC, to some extent, is controlled by the Indian Act — you also say that you respond to 60 other acts — and that the mandate should be, to some extent, defined by those pieces of legislation.
Mr. Watson: That is at the core of a large piece of what we do. In addition to that, however, we do many other pieces above and beyond the Indian Act. For example, the work on land claims agreements and self-government agreements are not something out of the Indian Act in and of itself.
Senator Dyck: That was my next question.
Mr. Watson: There would be any number of pieces of reconciliation that, it would be fair to say, are not borne in the Indian Act. They come from a different place.
Between the mandate and our mission statement, we need to be mindful of carrying out the obligations we have under the Indian Act, but we are cognizant as well that there are other things we are trying to do.
Senator Dyck: With regard to negotiating land claims and treaties, coming from Saskatchewan, First Nations in Saskatchewan would argue that the treaties were not negotiated with INAC; they were negotiated with the Crown. There may be some dispute as to whether your mandate is to do that or not. It could be that your mandate is more in terms of implementation of something that is negotiated by two nations as opposed to a nation going to a federal departmental agency.
Mr. Watson: Treaties are between the Crown and First Nations, and the Crown is expressed in many different ways, not only through INAC; I agree completely. Many other departments are involved. At the same time, the principle voice for the Government of Canada or the Federal Crown in that instance goes through INAC.
However, to go back to your previous question, that makes it part of our responsibility, then, to bring in other players. To be very clear, in many cases, it is not a particular challenge to get them involved; many other players are actively involved in this field. They have been involved for some time, and they are very energetic in terms of their engagement in this area.
Senator Dyck: On your last page, you provide INAC's key initiatives. Under ``empowering citizens and protecting the vulnerable,'' you list some legislative initiatives. To me, it is almost as though there is a blurring here between INAC and what has come through our parliamentary system. I do not believe INAC initiated the bill that removed section 67 from the Human Rights Act.
Mr. Watson: It was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Senator Dyck: Maybe in this last session, but it had come through Parliament in a number of different forms before that. We had it in the Senate prior, but when the government was dissolved, it was reinitiated.
Mr. Watson: Certainly in the most recent rounds — and I am trying to remember if it was at the end of 2006 — it was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that presented it then.
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Mr. Watson: In the past, for some 30 years many discussions have taken place about the importance of dealing with section 67, and, no doubt, other ministers in the past dealt with that. However, during the last few years, these have been projects of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Senator Dyck: One final question with regard to education. The 2 per cent cap that was put on funding in 1996, was that an INAC initiative?
Ms. Cram: The 2 per cent cap is not INAC per se; it is how we get funding. The government decides how much funding individual departments will get, and it comes in their budget. However, it is not INAC itself that imposed the 2 per cent cap. It comes from the money that we received.
Senator Dyck: Is it from Treasury Board?
Ms. Cram: I suppose the Department of Finance works on the budget. It comes from the budget itself.
Senator Dyck: Is there any way that you, then, can internally lobby for that? If you say you are promoting education, would you not want to do what you could internally to have that cap removed?
Ms. Cram: I would say that successive ministers of INAC have argued that the 2 per cent cap has not kept pace with the demographic growth or the cost. Repeated ministers and deputy ministers have made that point.
Senator Dyck: Did they make that point to the Minister of Finance?
Ms. Cram: In various fora, yes.
Senator Dyck: I hope they keep it up. All the groups across Canada are saying that cap should be removed.
Senator Raine: Thank you all for being here tonight. I have found it very informative.
Listed under the things INAC does for First Nations, Metis and Inuit people is ``works with federal departments on delivery of the Aboriginal agenda, see slide 7,'' which I looked at, ``and supports Canada's international presence on indigenous issues.'' Can you explain how that works? As a Canadian, a proud Canadian, I have been very dismayed at the attacks being made by representatives from Canada in the international forums on Aboriginal issues — attacks against Canada.
Mr. Watson: One of the interesting terms I ran into a while ago and wondered what it meant was the term ``intermestic.'' I had no idea what it meant at the time. The speaker went on to say that there are, in many cases, no longer international or domestic issues, that the Internet and communications and so on have meant that virtually all issues that we might have thought of as international before have some domestic play and vice versa.
Canada has been seen as a leader in many aspects of Aboriginal issues in many parts of the world for some time. Canada has been under criticism for work in the Aboriginal area also in many parts of the world for some period of time. There is a divergence of views out there.
There are cases where people on any number of fronts, not limited to Aboriginal but certainly within the Aboriginal realm, who are unhappy with decisions of governments in Canada have taken those issues to international forums. There are also cases of other governments around the world taking a look at Canada's record and offering their own comment on it, sometimes positive, sometimes negative. It is fair to say, a large number of delegations come to Canada every year looking to see how we do the work that we do, draw from that experience and bring it back to their countries.
We also recognize that we can learn many things from other parts around the world. Interesting things are happening in many other places around the world in relationships between indigenous people, as the term is often used in that context, and other populations there.
We ensure that people understand what the Government of Canada's position is on different issues. The biggest part of our work on the international front is actually sharing Canada's expertise and experience.
A couple of years ago, I was in Geneva, for example, talking to a group and showed on a map the size of the land claims that we have dealt with in Canada in relation to the size of Western Europe, and a few gasps were heard around the room. When people understand the context in which we work and the things that we are doing here, they understand, too, quite frankly, the challenges that we have.
I take pride in the fact that when I go to these events and talk about some of the findings, which you would have heard in your statistical briefing the other day, that show some areas not working well at all, people say, ``How can you be so open about such significant shortcomings?'' On that front, we have always said that those are the areas we are trying to address, and there is no point in trying to hide them. The other point is that many things are actually going very well. One of the greatest enemies we can have of some of the possible successes out there is to concentrate solely on the shortcomings. Sometimes there is that aspect to many of the discussions.
Again, if I were to divide the international work we do into a couple of components, on the first instance it is really sharing the Canadian experience with a bunch of other players who are interested in learning what we have done, and then in other instances it is ensuring that the Government of Canada's position is clearly communicated and as well understood as possible where these issues come up.
Senator Sibbeston: With respect to the page on Canada's integrated Northern Strategy, I would say it looks good in terms of outlining what you consider the four pillars of the Northern Strategy. I appreciate that the Prime Minister in Budget 2007 stated that there would be an integrated Northern Strategy dealing with sovereignty and so on.
About 10 days ago in Yellowknife, I met with Premier Floyd Roland and had a good discussion with him in his office. I asked him what the most pressing issue is in the North. He said that a comprehensive Arctic strategy is needed. He recognized that the federal government was doing things. A recent discovery of the North has been taking place because of climate change, and now sovereignty. Southern Canada has an interest in the North, but it seems as if a southern approach is being taken to things northern. Premier Roland said that a northern-involved, northern-initiated effort is required to deal with a northern strategy. While the graph on page 3 looks really good — brown, green, darker green and blue — and looks as if you have everything covered, everything in hand, according to the head of the government in the North, it is not quite so good.
While there is emphasis on one aspect of the sovereignty issue in doing such things as building stronger patrol ships in the North, extending the boundaries for pollution and building a docking and refuelling facility in Nanisivik, these are really Ottawa things. These are really initiatives and ideas that have begun in Ottawa.
You must recognize the history of the North. Senator Lang and I have many years of experience dealing with legislatures in the North. Perhaps the largest single improvement or advancement in the North is the growth of responsible government in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and the creation of Nunavut. These are amazing feats, particularly in places such as Nunavut. Without firing a harpoon and bow and arrow, a whole new jurisdiction is created where the Inuit are sovereign and are masters in their homeland, as it were. That is pretty significant.
It is clear to me that whatever the government in Ottawa does, and if you have any role in that, you ought to ensure that it is done from the northerners' point of view; it would work much better that way. When I was part of government in the North, we used to say that if the federal government had $100,000 and could build one or two houses with that, we in the North could do better than them. We could build four houses compared to what they could do. That is the history of responsible government in the North. We in the North can do all these little tasks much better than government from afar in Ottawa.
In the work you do, you ought to focus and recognize that decisions made about the North should be made by people of the North.
If you were to ask people in the North what they feel is the most critical, important thing that would benefit their lives and that would recognize sovereignty, the answer would be a MacKenzie Valley highway down the MacKenzie Valley right to Tuktoyaktuk. That would be the most significant advancement, to provide roads so that people would have better access, cheaper foods and open the areas to development. You would have an opportunity for Canadians to come south, drive north, go right to the Arctic Ocean and then drive back through the Yukon.
Do you think an idea such as that emanating from Ottawa could ever be made? I do not know. There is a suspicious and jaundiced eye on anything from Ottawa. That is the history of the people from the North, and you are part of it. What can you do to improve the situation in the North?
Ms. Labonté: Thank you, senator. It is true that some of the earlier investments of the Northern Strategy focused primarily on the sovereignty pillar. The sense was that this is a primordial responsibility of the federal government and that, from an international point of view, this was an area the government wanted to invest in first and foremost.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that the strategy is evergreen, and we are working on all the other pillars. There have been a number of other investments and initiatives, if not outright investments, to at least lay the foundation for better governance and improved economic, social and environmental development and protection.
Therefore, we are not finished with the strategy; it will be an ongoing exercise. We are in conversation with northerners on a number of the initiatives. Perhaps not all of the initiatives have been done in consultation. However, just to talk about strategic investments in northern economic development, for instance, this is a five-year program that expires at the end of March, which will be renewed. It was announced in Budget 2009. We have worked closely with the territories. This program has been very successful. All territorial leaders have told us they want renewal. The government has renewed the program to the tune of $90 million over five years. For that fund, the investment plans are done by the territories in conjunction with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
We are also working on Arctic research. This is done in concert with northerners. We have been talking to them over the last year. This is why the government decided to invest $85 million in existing infrastructure, before we go forward with the future High Arctic research station. Much of this existing infrastructure is not federal; it belongs to the territories, to academic institutions, and it is responding to needs that come from the bottom up.
There are a number of other examples. It is not across every single initiative, but we have tried to find a balance. Ongoing discussions will take place as we go forward with the creation of the regional economic development agency for the North. We will be talking to the territories and other stakeholders in the North.
Other budget announcements this year include the Community Adjustment Fund and the recreational infrastructure projects, which will be delivered by this new regional development agency and will also create some opportunities. We are trying to find the balance, and we do not have it perfectly yet.
Senator Sibbeston: My question deals with the economic development agency that was announced in the 2008 budget. Northerners are excited about the possibilities. In the South, every region of the country has economic development agencies, and they are generally headquartered in the region that they serve. Not many of the details were announced in the budget speech. Do you know offhand whether the agency will be headquartered somewhere in the North?
Ms. Labonté: We do not yet know where the headquarters will be located, but my sense is that they will be located in the North. There will likely be offices in each of the territories, as well as probably a base in Ottawa. I do not want to get ahead of myself here, but in our discussions, that seems to be the sense.
Senator Sibbeston: Would you agree that it is incomprehensible that the agency would be headquartered in Ottawa?
Ms. Labonté: I do not want to comment on this. It will not be my decision where the headquarters end up being located.
Senator Sibbeston: Would you put your life and job on the line to insist that the headquarters should be in the North?
Ms. Labonté: I would recommend —
The Chair: These are tough economic times, Ms. Labonté.
Do you have something you wish to say, Mr. Watson?
Mr. Watson: As a former and proud resident of the Northwest Territories at one point in time, I concur fully with the senator's comments about the abilities of the North. I wish to pick up the theme that my colleague raised and that the senator has commented on. At one point in time, I was with Western Economic Diversification Canada in Saskatchewan, and I can certainly say that the presence of the regional development agencies gave a very different voice to the region in question across the federal government. I would fully expect that the northern development agency would be a part of that and would understand the comments that the senator has made.
Senator Brazeau: I do not want to belabour this point, but because of its magnitude and the importance, I think I must. Hypothetically, if this committee, at some point in the future, whether tomorrow or 10 years from now, were to conduct a study on accountability, looking at current investments being made toward Aboriginal peoples and looking at the department to try to assess if it is in fact doing a report card on itself as to what is working, what is not working and how we can do better, and to come up with a plan to see whether there are results at the end of the investments, is the department currently in a position to share some of that information if you have it?
I will restate what I mentioned earlier. I have had the privilege to consult with Aboriginal peoples all across this country who live both on- and off-reserve. The number one theme is lack of accountability: students not being able to access post-secondary education; people being on the housing list for X number of years but still have no housing; and individuals applying for economic development funds but cannot access it for some reason.
The reason I mentioned this is because the only arguments we hear from many of the leaders across the country are about the lack of money. If we are not in a position currently to state how much money is being spent, where it is going and if it is getting into the hands of the people with the different needs, then how can we properly assess whether or not more money is needed? That is what I would like, as a First Nations citizen in this country, to be able to assess for myself.
My second question is for Mr. Caron. Yesterday, we heard from individuals from Statistics Canada and the department talking about demography and recent census data. For example, there has been a boost in the Metis numbers. It is my personal opinion that that is because individuals who cannot register, because of the prescriptive definitions under the Indian Act, do not want to self-identify as a non-status Indian. No one wants to be a ``non- something.'' I feel that perhaps they may look at the Constitution and say that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada includes the Indians, Inuit and Metis and lean toward self-identifying as Metis.
In your experience, to what would you attribute the jump in Metis numbers? The problem, I feel, is the lack of definition of what constitutes a Metis person in this country. I would like to hear your views on why there is the increase in numbers.
Mr. Watson: With respect to the first part of the question. If one were to do that type of a study, any number of source documents are available that would talk about many of those questions, but not all of them. I have no doubt about that.
We have the evaluations of all of the programs that we run, which are available on our website for anyone to consult. We have audits done on all of our programs. The people that we deal with through contribution agreements almost universally, as I recall, are required to submit audited financial statements to show that what they are telling us is in fact something that has been audited and assessed by people who do audits as being a true reflection of the way the money was spent.
In addition to that, we also have the management accountability framework, which is report cards done across government. Those are done every year, and people can look at those for every department in the federal government. It says where we are doing well and where we are not doing well. It is pretty clear, and, in some cases, breathtakingly blunt. That type of a report card is out there.
When we get into the question of some of the specific details that any citizen of any government might want to know, part of that goes to the question of what the community members are asking of their elected leaders. In some cases, we have seen either the leadership volunteer on their own, or in other cases membership, insist on getting a very fine level of detail in terms of salaries, expenditures and any number of things. I have been at meetings where someone talked about moving maybe $500 from a recreation program to something else, and the entire meeting got into an uproar because they thought that was inappropriate. You can get into that level of detail, but there are other situations where there is not nearly that degree of engagement or transparency.
I am not aware of anything in the Indian Act that stops members of any particular First Nation requesting any level of financial accountability that they want from their elected leaders. Nothing stops a band council, if it wants to, from making such a bylaw, and members regularly pressure their leaders to make those types of bylaws. In some cases there may even be referenda on those types of things in the First Nation. That is a critical part of this equation. I go back to what I said earlier: Thirty parents unhappy about the way the school is run on a reserve will do far more at the end of the day to bring about change in that school than 500 people sitting at 10 Wellington Street.
Fred Caron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: To respond to Senator Brazeau's question, I wish I could give you a hard scientific answer, but I probably cannot. I will just make a few comments based on my own observation. As you remark, senator, the number of people identifying as Metis has increased tremendously from the previous census to the last one. Some of it obviously is due to increase in population, but certainly not all of it. Some of it is due to people having a new sense of awareness that they want to identify as Metis. Also, we see some anecdotal evidence in newspapers where people say that they want to identify as Metis now and are proud of that heritage. Some are not comfortable with identifying as North American Indian and do not want to identify as Aboriginal without specifying a category. I think it is a mixture of reasons, and I would not point to any one as being the most significant. However, from my own observation, those are the kinds of factors that are resulting in this increase.
Lastly, some people may identify as Metis because they feel they should have access to some rights that have been identified. After the Marshall case in the Maritimes, there was a 200 per cent increase in the number of people identifying as Metis, so there could be some connection there as well.
Senator Brazeau: Mr. Watson, I take your point on the fact that the Indian Act does not prevent anyone from asking for financial information, but would you also agree that the Indian Act does not provide any recourse in the case that the leadership would not provide that information either?
Mr. Watson: No, I do not know that I would agree with that. The Indian Act does provide for elections. One of the most fundamental pieces of accountability is when an elector says to a leader, ``I am not prepared to tolerate the fact that you are not providing me with the information I want.'' That provision comes from the Indian Act, and the elections are held under the Indian Act.
In addition, the contribution agreements and the programs that we run under the Indian Act all include audit clauses now. We have the ability in some cases to launch forensic investigations if the questions are serious enough. Although it is not necessarily under the Indian Act itself, our full coverage of programs through evaluation of audits is part of the program structure that exists under the Indian Act.
No, I would not say that it is the case that the Indian Act does not require any of those things; many tools are available there. However, I come back to the fact that, at the core of this, nothing is more fundamental in that relationship of accountability than the electors within that scenario and the elected.
Senator Lang: In your opening presentation you talked about the INAC being the eleventh province of Canada. I want to let you know that the Yukon would like to be the eleventh.
One of your major premises is that the devolution of responsibility to the territories is a priority, and I think you have done a pretty good job in the Yukon. I can speak for the Yukon. It has worked out fairly well between INAC and the Yukon government. However, I do have a concern about the northern economic development agency. The concern is that I do not want another INAC. Do you have the flexibility with the northern economic development agency if one territory, such as the Yukon, wants to administer it somewhat differently than, say, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut? Will you have that flexibility?
Mr. Watson: I will let my colleague speak to some of the specifics in a moment. However, I can borrow from my experience on Western Economic Diversification Canada, which, obviously, covering the four Western provinces, deals with some fundamentally different economic situations and circumstances. From what I know about the others, they have a long history in those organizations of being able to respond to the specific circumstances of different regions and being quite flexible. It is fair to say that in those organizations, the scale, which is typically much smaller than most other federal those departments, not only lends itself to a flexibility that is sometimes difficult to find when you expand an organization to many times that size, but the entire history of it has been around a degree of flexibility.
Obviously that flexibility has to operate within some parameters. You cannot have different elements running off in completely different directions. However, there is a space where I think all of the regional development agencies have been able to find, on the one hand, sufficient flexibility to recognize differences, even within their mandates, while on the other hand keeping it within parameters that make sense for an organization as a whole. The summary of that is that we are building on some very sound history that has some good experience in some other places.
Ms. Labonté: Mr. Watson has captured most of my thoughts. The creation of this agency is an opportunity to do something that responds to the unique needs of the North, and those needs are not the same across the whole North. It is a large geography. The three territories are at different stages of development and capacity, and the new agency will have to respond to that. I would just echo what Mr. Watson said.
Senator Lang: You mentioned in your opening address the question of an environmental review that was done. Was that done for the Northwest Territories, or was it done for the North in totality?
Ms. Labonté: It was a study done of the regulatory system in the North. It is publicly available. It was released a few months ago, after a number of consultations with northerners. It basically lays out a number of recommendations to improve and make the northern regulatory system timelier, more predictable from an investment perspective and just make it simpler to navigate through. The department is now reviewing the recommendations and will be going forward at some point.
Senator Lang: Could I get a copy of that report?
Ms. Labonté: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I would also like to touch on accountability, but this has to do with elections on First Nations. There have been many complaints about dishonest goings on at elections, and the RCMP had filed a complaint to INAC, but INAC refused to intervene because they did not want to rock the boat with the Native people, the RCMP and INAC. I hope that will be looked into.
What is the percentage of people who work in your department are First Nations?
Mr. Watson: I should know that answer to your last question. The number we are both thinking of is 27 per cent. I will be happy to confirm the number with the chair and with the clerk, but I think the number is 27 per cent. That would compare to a national labour market availability somewhere in the area of approximately 6 per cent if, I recall correctly.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: What would the ratio be with non-Natives and Aboriginals?
Mr. Watson: I guess roughly three to one would be the rough proportion, if memory serves me.
Ms. Cram: My recollection is that one of the regions has 50 per cent, and our objective is to achieve 50 per cent. I believe headquarters has the lowest percentage, which is fewer than 20 per cent. That is my recollection.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you.
Senator Sibbeston: Dealing with the McCrank report, it is interesting in the sense that the person went to the North to look at all of the environmental boards. His task was to see how decisions in regard to development can be sped up. A number of projects are happening in the North, so he went to looked at the scenario and found many environmental and management boards there. All of the decisions about these development projects had to go through them. It was a very time-consuming process.
The desire in the North is to have decisions made with greater speed, and his recommendation was that there should be a streamlining so as not have to deal with all those environmental boards. However, they are set up pursuant to land claim agreements and are constitutionally protected.
I do not think it will be easy for the government to set up a body without going through these land claim management boards. I wonder about the purpose or the practicality of the McCrank report, as to whether it can be fulfilled.
Do you agree it is a difficult situation? Four or five land claim agreements have been made, and in order to change it, we have to get their agreements, so the land claim agreements will have to be opened up again. It seems like an impossible scenario and an impossible thing to achieve.
Do you want to say something about that?
Ms. Labonté: Certainly, although, I am not the expert on regulatory systems in the North.
We are reviewing the various recommendations, and they are quite numerous. My understanding from the briefings that I participated in is that a number of recommendations could be implemented without opening up the land claims agreements, and they could make a significant difference.
That is about all I can say, since it is still under review by the department. We probably could provide you more information.
The Chair: We have had ample exposure to this situation, and I would like to thank you, Mr. Watson, Ms. Cram, Mr. Duschenes, Ms. Labonté, and Mr. Caron for appearing before us and making your presentations in a professional way, and trying to answer all of our questions.
You can see that the various issues that have surfaced here tonight are issues that we, as a committee, are certainly concerned about. There is the question of accountability in the North, implementation and the response to the reports that we have already had, as Senator Peterson brought forward, and you will get back to us on those issues.
The biggest concern is that the change is not happening quickly enough. I think Senator Lovelace Nicholas pointed it out. She pointed out to me that her particular band is in third-party management right now. Have we got a number as to how many bands are in third-party management at the present time?
Mr. Watson: I do not know what it is, but we can find that number readily.
The Chair: That is a clear indication that, in spite of the fact that you people are trying as hard as you can, we maybe should be trying to invent something that accelerates this process.
I thank you again for appearing before the committee and being so forthright and candid in your responses.
Honourable senators, I will get to the other business. We have a brief bit of administrative business to carry out. You have in front of you a draft budget, which must be approved by this committee in order to grant us funds from now until the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 2009. As we do not expect to be doing any travelling in the next few weeks, the budget is modest. It is essentially designed to cover the local cost of these meetings, and if anyone has any questions, please feel free to say so. If not, I would ask one of you to move the adoption of this draft budget.
It was moved by Senator Peterson, seconded by Senator Lang. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: No discussion? It is carried unanimously. Thank you.
The steering committee has been meeting, and we have various subjects that we are discussing. The library researchers are anxious to find out which direction we are going so that they can commence to make the preparations necessary for whatever we will study.
Senator Sibbeston, Senator Hubley and I will be working together, and we will be speaking to all of you.
I am trying to arrange that the entire committee meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have spoken to him, and he is in favour of this. We will hope to get the meeting as soon as possible. Hopefully, we can work in the cooperative way we have in the past and achieve some of the similar positive results — and I recall specific claims. I am quite interested in where the department stands on issues such as implementation, which was brought up by Senator Peterson. We have done the study and have the information. What is really happening at the implementation level with these modern treaties is one of the areas we studied recently.
We will be coming to you with recommendations. If you have anything, feel free to approach any of the members of the steering committee, and we will definitely take into consideration any requests that you might have.
You could possibly send any recommendations that you have to the clerk or else through us. Let us get the job done. It does not matter how we do it. It does not have to be formal. However, let us make certain we carry on the way we have for the past few years in committee. We have gained a lot of respect, and I suspect we will gain a lot more because we have many excellent people on the committee, as we have always had in the past. The quality is no different now, and possibly we have more experience.
Thank you very much. If there are no other comments, I would like to adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)