Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 20 - Evidence - November 18, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:35 p.m. to study the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: First Nations land management and environmental protection on reserves).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I see quorum and I call the meeting to order.
I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public and all viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the web.
I am Senator St. Germain from British Columbia, and I have the honour of chairing this committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. This gives the committee a broad scope to look into issues of all types that touch on matters of concern to First Nations, Metis and Inuit. In the past, the committee has had briefings by the Office of the Auditor General when that office has published new chapters of reports dealing with issues that relate to this committee's constituency.
In its November 2009 report, the Auditor General of Canada presented its audit findings on land management and environmental protection on reserves. The audit focused on whether Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Environment Canada have met their responsibilities for land management on reserves, specifically with respect to transferring control of land management and providing essential environmental protection on reserve lands.
The purpose of today's meeting is to obtain a briefing from the Office of the Auditor General summarizing the audit's main observations and recommendations.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before hearing our witnesses, let me introduce the committee members who are here tonight.
[English]
On my left are Senator Raine from British Columbia, Senator Brazeau from Quebec, Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick, Senator Patterson from Nunavut and Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island. On my right are Senator Campbell from British Columbia, Senator Peterson from Saskatchewan, and last but not least, Senator Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Senators, allow me to present to you once again witnesses who have become familiar faces in this committee. We are thankful that they are here. We have the pleasure to welcome the Auditor General of Canada, Ms. Sheila Fraser. With her at the table is Assistant Auditor General Ronnie Campbell and Mr. Frank Barrett, Principal.
I understand that Ms. Fraser had to cancel other plans to be with us this evening. That is very nice of you, Ms. Fraser.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of the witnesses for accommodating us by appearing on relatively short notice.
Ms. Fraser, please begin your presentation if you are prepared to do so.
Sheila Fraser, Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to be here this evening to discuss Chapter 6 of our November 2009 report entitled Land Management and Environmental Protection on Reserves.
As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, and Frank Barrett, principal, both of whom are responsible for this audit.
Reserve lands are central to First Nations peoples' history, cultural identity and day-to-day activities. As the committee will know, many First Nations are among the most economically deprived in the country. Their sustainable economic development depends on their access to and control over their land and natural resources and on a clean and healthy environment.
[Translation]
In this audit, we examined how Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and Environment Canada (EC) have carried out the federal government's responsibilities for land management and environmental protection on reserve lands. This included looking at regulatory and non-regulatory measures used to manage the environment, and the support INAC provides to those First Nations wishing to assume more control of their reserve lands. Provincial and municipal laws and regulations generally do not apply on reserves. Our audit found that here are few federal regulations in effect to protect the environment on reserves. As a result, residents of First Nation reserves do not have the same environmental protection as do other Canadians.
While the federal government has the authority to develop regulations on reserves, it has rarely used this authority to mitigate environmental threats that are regulated off reserves by provincial governments.
[English]
We also found that INAC has done little to monitor and enforce compliance with the regulations that do exist. For example, while there are regulations under the Indian Act that require a permit to be issued by INAC for anyone wishing to operate a landfill site on reserve lands, we found that the department has issued few permits and is not equipped to conduct inspections, monitor compliance or enforce regulations.
Mr. Chair, our audit also looked at INAC's commitment to transfer control of land management to First Nations who want it and are ready to take on these responsibilities. This is part of an overall departmental approach to facilitate First Nations' control over their communities.
INAC has provided options since the early 1980s for First Nations who considered that the Indian Act regime of land management was not meeting their needs. INAC has developed legislative and program options to support First Nations who wish to assume greater control of land management on their reserves. However, most First Nation lands are still managed by the department under the Indian Act.
[Translation]
First Nations' access to alternative land management regimes established by INAC does not meet the demand.
Two programs that have been in place for decades still operate, with 95 First Nations participating; however, they have been closed to any additional First Nations since 2004. Instead, the Department has developed two other options for First Nations to assume more land management responsibilities.
The Reserve Land and Environment Management Program has remained a pilot program since its creation in 2005 and access has been limited. Similarly, there is a waiting list for First Nations who want to access the other alternative, the First Nations Land Management Act regime.
As well, our audit found that the Department provides too little access to training for First Nations in comparison with the land management responsibilities it is transferring to them if they operate under either of these regimes.
[English]
During our audit, officials from both INAC and Environment Canada cited a lack of funding as a key reason for not meeting some of their commitments.
Our audit made five recommendations. These included the need for INAC and Environment Canada to work together and with First Nations to develop the means for better environmental protection on reserves and to assess their funding requirements to fulfill their land management responsibilities. It also included the need for INAC to provide greater access to its land management initiatives and land management training as required.
The committee may want to discuss with INAC and Environment Canada the funding they have available to deliver the programs that we discussed in our audit. You may also want to ask these departments to provide an action plan to address the recommendations in our chapter and to follow their progress in addressing the issues that we have raised.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Fraser.
Senator Peterson: For clarification, in the First Nations Land Management Act, do they remove themselves from the Indian Act in terms of having to be self-sufficient and have to do everything themselves?
Ms. Fraser: I will ask Mr. Barrett to respond to that.
Frank Barrett, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Yes. Under the First Nations Land Management Act, they are literally taken out of all the 25 or 26 provisions of the Indian Act, so they are operating under a totally separate regime. In that regime, when they are fully operational it would be considered to be a form of sectoral self- governance. On the land issues, the First Nation would have far greater control.
Senator Peterson: Would it be fair to say that that would apply mainly to where there was some commercial viability for them as opposed to a remote reserve?
Ms. Fraser: One could presume, yes, though a more remote reserve might want to control land use and issues such as sewage disposal, dump sites, things like that, which are now currently under the control of the department.
Senator Peterson: Then the Reserve Land and Environment Management Program, as distinct from the First Nations Land Management Act, stays within the act; is that correct?
Ms. Fraser: That is correct, I believe. Maybe Mr. Barrett could give some details.
Mr. Barrett: Yes, certainly. The Reserve Land and Environment Management Program (RLEMP) was designed as an alternative to two other programs that had some limited delegated authority, still with the First Nation operating under the Indian Act. The only difference is that, instead of INAC doing some of the functions, it is now the First Nation taking on some of the responsibilities that were otherwise being done by INAC, but still meeting all of the requirements of the Indian Act.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You mentioned the land management act. How can the First Nations have access to this program and have it enhanced?
Ms. Fraser: I will let Mr. Barrett respond, chair.
Mr. Barrett: Yes, I am very happy to respond to that.
The RLEMP was originally put in place to replace those two precursor programs that were there. The way it has unfolded, because it was originally a pilot program and they have never expanded it out, it never went broader than that. Right now, the only possibility of being in the RLEMP is if the First Nation was already in one of those two other delegated-authority programs.
Then, from there, the only way into the RLEMP is when INAC invites them to take the RLEMP training. That basically becomes the difference between whether the First Nation stays in the Regional Lands Administration Program, RLAP, or one of the precursor programs or moves into RLEMP.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: These are the barriers. Does the First Nation not have access to land management? Is there no funding?
Ms. Fraser: One of the major barriers is the lack of training given to First Nations to assume these responsibilities. The department has told us that it is because of insufficient funding to be able to provide more training, so there is a backlog of First Nations that would like to assume more responsibilities, but obviously they have to have the training to do that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Does this happen anywhere else in the country, such as Winnipeg? Does it take this long to get a program into their towns or cities, or is it just First Nations?
Ms. Fraser: We cannot really comment because we do not audit provincial governments and how they react with municipalities, but it is clear from the audit that we point out that the regulations and the environmental protection for First Nations is significantly limited as compared to other Canadians. This is a gap that has been known and recognized by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and Environment Canada for many years. Again, they have done very little to address that, citing again funding as being one of the reasons.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes. Do you think in the future that there could be more funding going into these communities to access this land management?
Ms. Fraser: That would be an excellent question for the department.
The Chair: That is a good answer. I have a quick question. Is this creating health hazards in these places? We had a group here from Northern Manitoba at one time that talked about a contaminated site within their community. It was just horrific. I cannot recall the name of that community — maybe one of the people at the table here can — but it was a nightmare for them. Would your audit have encompassed situations like that?
Ms. Fraser: We did not look specifically at situations, but it is very clear from the audit that there is a significant risk.
We have a table in the audit on page 17 that shows regulations that would exist for any community in Ontario as compared to the regulations that exist on reserves. There are, for example, no regulations around hazardous waste. Even if there is some regulation about dump sites, INAC is supposed to issue the permits. I think they have issued 14. We all know there have to be more than 14 sites in this country. There is no inspection; there is no monitoring, so certainly the risks are very high.
As well, we note in here contaminated sites. The government has a policy of trying to address contaminated sites within a 10-year period by 2020. The department used about $10 million from a fund to clean up or manage the risks of 58 sites, but we note in the report that they are actually identifying more sites each year than they are able to clean up. There is a very significant challenge here.
The Chair: I recall now. I think it was Manitoba Hydro that contaminated this particular site with PCBs.
Senator Campbell: Thank you for coming on such short notice. In your report, you said that federal responsibilities for carrying out land management and environmental protection on reserves is shared between INAC and Environment Canada. For example, Environment Canada and INAC have signed a five-year memorandum of understanding to develop environmental management agreements with First Nations under the First Nations Land Management Act. To date, not one agreement has been concluded, and it appears Environment Canada has withdrawn from this process, citing a lack of resources.
Can you tell me when the memorandum of understanding concluded?
Ms. Fraser: Can we get back to you on that?
Senator Campbell: Yes, it is no problem. I have trouble understanding this.
Environment Canada has withdrawn from this process, citing a lack of resources. Admittedly, it is between two government departments, but when you sign an agreement, one side does not get to say, "Sorry, we do not have any money; we are withdrawing." One would assume when you enter into an MOU that you look at the future to see what this will cost and whether there are the resources to follow through before it is signed. Am I being naive? Gee, I have never been accused of that.
Ms. Fraser: One would like to think that that analysis is done before anyone in government signs any kind of agreement or passes any law or assumes any responsibility. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and that is, obviously, often the subject of our reports — the fact that commitments are made, agreements are signed, MOUs are done, and there is no follow-through on them.
Senator Campbell: This is not partisan. It did not just start happening. This has been going on for years with successive governments.
Do you think that INAC is in the position where its people think INAC will be gone, and so they will just keep pushing things off until such time as they do not have the responsibility anymore?
Ms. Fraser: I certainly have never heard that from any departmental officials. It must be recognized that they have a serious challenge in delivering their programs. We have noted in previous reports that there is an increase in the First Nations population of roughly 10 per cent or 11 per cent, I think.
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Ms. Fraser: The funding in the department is capped at 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent. In every audit we do, be it housing, child welfare services or others, the funding appears to be a big issue in every single one of them.
Senator Campbell: However, correct me if I am wrong: they continue to go out and sign agreements.
Ms. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Campbell: They continue to go out and cut deals. They continue to make promises that they have to know when they are signing they cannot possibly keep. Do you have any reason for that? Why? Would this not make more sense? We have a program here and will set this program up this year. We will take care of these five First Nations because we have the money for that. Then the next year we will continue on in some manner.
We continually hear about promises being made, and they are just never completed.
Ms. Fraser: I am probably going further than I should, but one issue might be that many of the programs have no legislative base. It is all policy-based, and that is something the committee may wish to explore further, that there is no actual legislative base to many of the programs.
The other issue is how one defines success. Certainly when we look at land and treaty negotiations, people seem to believe that success is when the land claim agreement is signed. In reality, things are only beginning then.
Senator Campbell: That is when the work starts.
Ms. Fraser: We found in many cases no implementation plans, no consideration of what the costs are or who will do all of this. There needs to be much more on the implementation and, as you say, the analysis of what the costs are of these commitments that are being made.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much.
Senator Peterson: I think that just demonstrates the enormity of the problem that the First Nations are facing where Environment Canada walks in, signs a deal and says they will help First Nations out. Immediately Environment Canada realizes they have nowhere near the resources to deal with the problems they are facing. I do not think they should be allowed to sign any more agreements until we come up with some type of structure that can deal with these people. Half of them are dealing with boil water advisories. It is atrocious. Maybe it is a bigger problem than signing the agreements, making everyone feel good and then you cannot do anything. I guess that is a problem for tomorrow.
The Chair: This is serious. I can recall 30 years ago when I was in the construction business — before I got into politics, when I was making money and was successful in business — there was a notorious dump site. You could dump anything, literally anything, and it was on a First Nations reserve. I never followed up on it, but it just came to light. There had to be no supervision because you could drive in there any time and stop by the house, pay them and dump whatever you wanted, batteries, anything. I can imagine how serious this is.
Senator Hubley: Welcome. It is nice to have you back.
I will go back to the high-risk and medium-risk sites. I believe that some of these sites were contaminated prior to 1998, and the federal government has already committed funding to clean up the contaminated sites on-reserve.
The audit recommended that INAC undertake a plan to remediate by 2020 high- and medium-risk sites contaminated prior to 1998. I think that is admirable, but by then, how many more sites will we have? Is that something that would have bothered you? Would it have crossed your mind that we really have a lot of catching up to do and are not getting ahead?
Ms. Fraser: Absolutely. The senator is correct. We based the recommendation on the government policy. The government has set up this fund of $3.5 billion, which would be cost-shared with departments, to address contaminated sites that existed before 1998, but we note in the report that they had identified roughly 1,600 contaminated sites; 550 had been classified as high- or medium-risk, and in the year between April 2008 and April 2009 they identified over 270 more sites and had cleaned up 58. The situation is only getting worse. They are identifying more sites as being contaminated than they are doing the remediation on.
The Chair: In your examination of this situation, were you able to establish clearly that the situation is exacerbating itself as opposed to staying still or improving?
Ms. Fraser: That is correct. The situation is getting worse. There are more contaminated sites. In the year ended April 2009, more contaminated were sites identified, and the liability or the estimate of the cost to remediate those sites increased by about $50 million.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you, Ms. Fraser, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Campbell for being with us this evening. I thought I would just step back a bit and ask perhaps more general questions, given your time allocation and your presence here with us this evening.
Ms. Fraser, you mentioned that INAC has done little to monitor and enforce compliance with existing regulations. Given your experience, have you identified similar shortcomings with other business that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs conducts?
Ms. Fraser: I would say that is a fairly common theme throughout the audits we do. One example I will use was a recent audit that we did on child and family services where we noted that the funding formula was some 20 years old and had not been adapted to reflect the new types of services that the provincial bodies were giving. A concrete example is that the federal government was funding children taken into care but was not funding preventative services, so it is perhaps not surprising that it was, I think, eight times the Canadian average of children being taken into care. When they renegotiated the agreement with Alberta First Nations based on the Alberta model, funding went up 75 per cent.
It is frequent. We have looked at housing, education, water and the implementation of land agreements, and gaps are consistently identified throughout every one of them.
Senator Brazeau: I feel privileged to know someone who has seen the funding formulas, because I have been waiting all my life and have never seen them.
Given what you have said, how would you rate INAC's performance on the stewardship of its total operating budget? Equally important, given the audits that you have conducted throughout the years, do you believe that First Nations citizens have access to the investments that are currently being made?
Ms. Fraser: I do not think we have ever found a problem per se with the actual management of funds. The problem is that the programs are not getting the results or meeting the objectives that have been set out, and significant gaps remain, be it in the level of education, in the housing available to First Nations people or in the quality of water. I do not think the department is necessarily mismanaging the funds available, but it is having enormous difficulty getting the results that one would expect and helping the people get the quality of life that every other Canadian is enjoying. Why would First Nations have less environmental protection than any other Canadian?
Those are the kinds of issues with which I am concerned, and I am sure that in large part the department would respond. I think that in large part it is due to funding.
Senator Brazeau: Do you believe the department has been taking a long time to respond to your recommendations over the years?
Ms. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Brazeau: My final question is on the issue of third-party management. To my knowledge, there are two triggers that initiate the process for third-party management. One is running a deficit beyond the 8 per cent marker, and the other is instances of political instability that might dampen the overall operations of First Nations communities.
For the record, my opinion is that regional INAC offices are not following their own policy on the 8 per cent figure, because if they did they would not look like good managers.
Given the work you have done, do you believe that the department is following its own policies regarding third- party management? I ask that because yesterday INAC officials giving testimony here said that there are only four communities in the country that are in some sort of financial difficulty.
Ms. Fraser: We did some work on third-party management in 2006. One recommendation we made was that the department often waits too long to assist First Nations, that there did not seem to be enough proactive assistance given until they imposed a third-party manager.
I recall that we also found they did not have exit strategies. How were they going to get out of that situation and help the First Nation reassume control over its financial affairs?
The Chair: I have been sitting on this committee for about 15 years, and the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I am not trying to put anyone on the spot, but is it not time that we say that, although this department has the best of people with the best of intentions, it is virtually impossible for them to carry out the mandate of the Indian Act when you consider education, housing, social assistance, et cetera? On education in particular, they have no infrastructure to back up a system. A province has infrastructure to deal with learning disorders and so on.
Do you not think it is time to make a major change? Some say that to continue doing the same thing with the same poor results is a sign of insanity, but this is what we are doing. This is not partisan. Administration after administration has done this. If we do not change, we will always continue to get the same results.
From your studies, can you recommend something to change this ongoing scenario?
Ms. Fraser: Senators, you can appreciate that you are well into the territory of policy, upon which we are very reluctant to comment. Every one of our audits points to significant gaps in education, housing or water quality for First Nations people as compared to other Canadians. I would say that something does have to change. It will be difficult, and the solutions will not come overnight, but we just do not see the kind of progress that one would expect to see. In eight or nine years you would expect to see some things happen. I am not sure what the solution is, but I hope that departmental officials would be able to provide some element of solution to this.
You make a good point. For example, education curricula do not exist, yet many of these responsibilities are being transferred to First Nations that are quite small and challenged, so they need a lot of support to be able to provide those services. We found that the funding to First Nations child and family services agencies was less than that going to provincial agencies. It does not make sense. Why would they not be entitled to receive the same services as the provincial agencies are provided?
There are all these disparities, and I am not sure that the department is even aware of them or how to deal with them.
The Chair: I asked you this because of the respect that I and all Canadians have for your office and your people. It may be treading into the area of policy, but no risk, no reward, and these people deserve a reward somewhere down the line. I appreciate your answer.
Senator Raine: The current situation is shocking and totally unacceptable to most Canadians. We are allowing a Third World situation to get worse and worse in our country. We need to know the numbers. Someone has to crunch the numbers and figure out how much is required to set this on a good path.
Can your department help with obtaining those numbers?
Ms. Fraser: I suppose theoretically we could. It is not the kind of role we usually get into because that is kind of management, and we try not to step over that line.
I would suspect that numbers were generated by the royal commission, and there have been a number of studies in various areas. The department should be able to give you those kinds of numbers.
Senator Raine: Most people believe that we have studied the situation enough and that there must be a commitment to put more money in and look for positive solutions. There is such an opportunity here. This committee advocates for the First Nations across our country. Maybe it is good that you, as the Auditor General, can shine a light on the gaps. That really helps us, so thank you for being here.
Senator Peterson: You stated that INAC and Environment Canada agreed with all the recommendations contained in Chapter 6. Looking at those recommendations and their responses, quite a few of them will depend primarily on future levels of funding and will require additional funding in future years. There are a few clauses like that.
Would it be unreasonable to ask the department — that is, now that you have these recommendations and their response — to have a move-forward strategy where they could put both a realistic timeline and numbers to it, whatever the numbers are, so that we could track it? Otherwise, as you said, we are going backwards. We identify more things than have been cleaned up. That is the only way we can have any hope of getting out of this.
Ms. Fraser: Absolutely; that is why in my opening statement I mentioned an action plan that would indicate what specifically they will do, who will do it, by when, and what resources it will require. I would add for them in particular what is the source of funding. Will it be new funding, or will they simply take it from another program, which is what happens at times?
We advocate quite a lot that there be specific action plans in response to their agreement to recommendations and that the committee actually ask for that and then ask for regular follow-up. In six months or a year from now, the committee can ask them where they are. They can appear before the committee and say what they have accomplished and whether they have met their deadlines. We use their action plans to do our follow-up work. Depending on the commitments the department has made, we go back in and say, "Have you done what you said you would do?"
Senator Peterson: We will tell them that you insist upon this, then.
Ms. Fraser: They know that we ask for this.
Senator Patterson: I would like to ask about the Reserve Land and Environment Management Program and the development of a training strategy. I am trying to look for something positive in this grim scenario you have painted for us, Ms. Fraser. I see that there has been a lack of commitment to this program since it was created in 2005 and that it has remained a pilot project. However, I understand that in their response to your findings, the department has indicated that a sustainable source of funding for the Reserve Land and Environment Management Program has been secured through the Aboriginal economic development action plan.
Are you aware of how much more funding will now be allocated on an annual basis for this training? Based on your initial, earlier findings, do you think this funding might be sufficient to meet the needs of First Nations?
Ms. Fraser: I will ask Mr. Barrett to respond to the question about funding.
Mr. Barrett: First, I want to emphasize that in their response they say "We have secured a source of funding." That came after our audit, however, so we have not verified that number. From the earlier programs, I believe the numbers were in the ballpark of $5 million a year for training that they were able to reallocate, but they identified a need to be in the ballpark of $8 million or $9 million a year. They were able to do only a little more than half of what they originally anticipated on the training side. They had no new funding at the time, so they were providing limited training. In summary, they said, "We have some new funding now under the action plan," but we have not seen those numbers yet.
Senator Patterson: That answers my question. Thank you very much.
Senator Brazeau: Returning to the earlier points, I have to agree with Senator St. Germain that the more things change, the more they stay the same. I remain hopeful that, 20 or 30 years down the road, my kids will not have to fight the same battles that others have fought and we continue to fight.
You have conducted a number of audits within the department and have made some good recommendations — some have been taken up; others have not. As parliamentarians, what can we do with some of the work that you have done and with your findings to try to effect change in policy in the department? I know that talking about policy falls outside the purview here, but I am sure you must have recommendations to parliamentarians as to how we can try to effect that type of policy change from within so that individuals benefit, so that we can measure progress when it is made under different programs, and so that we can see that people are benefiting from the investments that are being made. Whether people believe that they are not enough or, perhaps, too much, we do not know.
Ms. Fraser: First, I think that the various studies the Senate does are comprehensive and helpful in identifying issues and bringing issues and information to light. You do a lot of really serious work in that regard. That is very useful.
If I knew the solution, we would be making recommendations in our report. The only thing is that Canadians become more aware of what the situation actually is through that and, perhaps, through political pressure — that is, calling the department in to answer to this and to ask them what they will do about respecting the engagements and commitments they have made, as well as getting them to do the action plans and to be specific about progress and holding them to account for that. Beyond that, I am not sure there is a lot more that can be done, actually.
Senator Brazeau: I will take advantage again of your appearance here. I know that this falls outside our mandate, but accountability is a two-way street. In some cases, there is lack of accountability in First Nations communities, and we have to admit there is a lack of accountability within the department as well. However, the current government introduced an audit clause with the contribution agreements that allows the government to go in and audit First Nations communities within a five-year period, upon signature of those contribution agreements.
In your opinion, will that improve accountability in terms of deliverables in those contribution agreements and accountability from the leadership in those First Nations communities to their citizens?
Ms. Fraser: I am not sure that audit is always the best way to achieve accountability. We did a report in 2002 or 2003 on reporting requirements and the reports that a typical First Nation had to produce for five government departments. We found that there were over 200 reports a year and five different financial statements. The Treasury Board Secretariat then did their own study and found that for just the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, First Nations in this country produced 60,000 reports a year. That means, on average, one report every three days.
The department does not like me talking about this, because they say they have corrected it since. We will do a follow-up to see if they actually have, but there is an enormous cost to producing all of these reports, and we were strongly advocating that government departments needed to get coordinated together, ask for one financial statement, not five, and there were only a limited number. There are 630 First Nations. Certainly there is a way to accumulate all that information that all these departments could use it more efficiently and have those resources address the needs of First Nations people.
Audit is required, but the First Nations are all audited in order to get their funding every year. If they do not have those audited financial statements produced, they do not get their funding. There is already a fair bit of audit that goes on. The issues of accountability to First Nations people go far beyond the question of audit.
Senator Brazeau: I apologize for saying that was my last question, because that necessitates one final short one. In your opinion, then, do you believe that the department actually reads these 60,000 reports?
Ms. Fraser: No. We looked and they do not.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Fraser, I suppose we are looking for a visionary person with experience and knowledge. I personally look to you, and I am sure this committee has a great amount of respect for you. We operate in a non-partisan fashion. If we did not, I would not chair it, because then we would lose sight of the objectives of serving the constituency we have been asked to serve.
The governments have made small steps. I can think of ministers who have tried. I go back to Ministers Nault, Stewart, and Prentice. There is a litany of them if I go back over the 26 years I have been here, from the House of Commons over to the Senate.
I know we went off the subject tonight, but I cannot apologize, because we have so much respect for you and your staff, like Ronnie Campbell and Frank Barrett. You bring a wealth of knowledge and experience.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for coming tonight and for being the people that you are and doing the job that you are doing. Thank you and God bless.
Ms. Fraser: Thank you, senator.
The Chair: I will suspend for five minutes and then we will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)