Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 37 - Evidence - May 28, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 28, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine and report 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.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the Web.
My name is Vern White from Ontario, chair of the committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada in general. In considering what studies the committee might like to undertake, we, from time to time, invite individuals, organizations and departments to give us an overview of issues of concern within their mandate.
Recently, we have heard from witnesses on the subject of Aboriginal peoples within the criminal justice system. Today, we will carry on with this subject by hearing from representatives of the federal Department of Justice.
Before hearing from our witnesses, I would like to take this opportunity to ask members of the committee who are present this morning to introduce themselves. I will start with Senator Dyck, who is the deputy chair.
Senator Dyck: Good morning. I am Lillian Dyck, a senator from Saskatchewan.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Demers: Good morning. Senator Jacques Demers from the province of Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: Good morning. Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from the province of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Beyak: Good morning. Senator Beyak from Ontario.
Senator Tannas: Good morning. Scott Tannas from Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Please help me to welcome our Justice Canada witnesses: Barbara Merriam, Director General, Programs Branch; and Candice St-Aubin, Acting Director, Aboriginal Justice Directorate. We look forward to your presence, which will, I am sure, be followed by questions from the senators. Please proceed at your leisure.
Barbara Merriam, Director General, Programs Branch, Department of Justice Canada: Good morning, committee members, and thank you for this opportunity to be here today.
[Translation]
We look forward to our discussion and hope to contribute to your understanding of one funding program in particular, the Aboriginal Justice Strategy.
[English]
I have some brief opening remarks, which I understand will be followed by questions and answers.
I would like to start with an overview of the Aboriginal Justice Strategy. Since its inception in 1991, the strategy has supported cost-effective, culturally sensitive, community-based justice programs that help to address the over- representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system and to increase access to justice.
While being federally led, the Aboriginal Justice Strategy is cost-shared with the provinces and territories. Aboriginal communities also make contributions to the programs. These programs are unique and innovative as the services offered are based on justice-related priorities identified by the community in which the program operates.
Operating in communities that are on-reserve and off-reserve and in urban, rural and northern locations, the programs hold offenders accountable for the harm they have caused through participation in culturally sensitive, justice-related programming.
[Translation]
The Aboriginal Justice Strategy was expanded in 2007, allowing the establishment of additional programs, especially in northern and urban areas, as well as increasing preventive work with youth.
[English]
Approximately 275 programs, reaching over 800 communities across Canada, are currently receiving funding under the strategy. AJS programs work within the framework of the law and are complementary to the mainstream justice system as they work in coordination with established judicial norms and procedures.
Formalized as alternative measures under section 717 of the Criminal Code and as extrajudicial measures under section 4 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the criteria for diversion under the Aboriginal Justice Strategy are the same as those applied in the non-Aboriginal context. The community-based justice programs deal largely with low- level, non-violent crimes and can help to prevent this type of behaviour from escalating into more serious crime.
As you have heard from other witnesses who have appeared before this committee, the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system is an issue of significant concern. For example, in 2010-11, 27 per cent of adults in provincial and territorial custody and 20 per cent of those in federal custody were Aboriginal people, about seven to eight times higher than the proportion of Aboriginal people in the adult population as a whole.
Aboriginal Justice Strategy programs help to address this overrepresentation by diverting offenders from the criminal justice system to community-based alternatives.
In addition, evaluations of the strategy have found that individuals who participate in programs funded by the Aboriginal Justice Strategy are less likely to reoffend than those who do not.
These rates of reoffending were found to be significantly lower among program participants for eight years post- program, indicating longer-term impacts. The Aboriginal Justice Strategy, therefore, reduces crime and incarceration rates in communities and helps to put an end to the cycle of violence.
While programs funded by the Aboriginal Justice Strategy provide programming along the justice continuum, it is important to note that these programs do not work directly with the federal or provincial correctional systems but rather provide an alternative to the mainstream justice system in appropriate circumstances.
For example, many programs are involved in preventive work, especially with youth, that aims to reduce their contact with the criminal justice system. At the other end of the spectrum, some programs are also involved in release planning for Aboriginal offenders who wish to come back to their communities.
[Translation]
The primary focus for many AJS community-based justice programs is diversions from the mainstream justice system.
[English]
Diversion is a discretionary tool used by police and prosecution, with the consent of communities, for offences they view as more appropriate for out-of-court resolution and, generally speaking, involve non-violent crimes. AJS programs help to prevent this type of behaviour from escalating into more serious crime.
[Translation]
In order for an offender to be eligible for referral to an AJS program, all relevant justice system officials must agree to the diversion.
[English]
The officials commonly involved with AJS programs include the police, RCMP, Crown counsel, defence, justices of the peace or probation officers. Referrals can be made by these officials, by community or family members, through self-referrals or via referrals from other justice service providers, like Aboriginal Court workers.
A second eligibility criterion is that the offender must take responsibility for the crime and agree to abide by stringent conditions. Some offenders view these high standards of accountability as more challenging than a prison term.
Aboriginal Justice Strategy programs are a cost-effective alternative to processing through the mainstream justice system. In 2008, the average court and legal aid costs per implicated person in the mainstream justice system totalled $3,472. Comparatively, the average cost per participant to go through an Aboriginal Justice Strategy program is $3,149. This represents an immediate savings to the mainstream justice system in the amount of approximately $322 per Aboriginal Justice Strategy participant.
[Translation]
The cost-savings produced by the strategy are even greater when considering the future cost-savings gained by reduced recidivism rates.
[English]
The Aboriginal Justice Strategy programs therefore produce net short- and long-term savings for governments by reducing costs, interrupting the crime escalation cycle through which offenders tend to graduate from provincial custody to federal prisons, and freeing up police, court and correctional resources to address more serious crime. In many northern and remote communities, justice services are limited or entirely absent. Programs funded by the AJS provide valuable access to justice services, enabling communities to deal with crime locally in a culturally appropriate, cost-effective and often more timely way than through the mainstream justice system.
By enabling communities to develop alternative culturally based processes that work within the Canadian justice system, the Aboriginal Justice Strategy programs also help to address the alienation that many Aboriginal people feel from the mainstream system. This enhances Aboriginal communities', victims' and offenders' access to meaningful justice.
This concludes my brief overview. Ms. St-Aubin and I are happy to answer questions.
The Chair: I apologize to Ms. St-Aubin for saying ``St-Amour'' earlier. I should have looked at my sheet. I also want to mention that Senator Munson, Senator Watt, Senator Seth and Senator Raine are here as well.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentation. The number of federally incarcerated Aboriginal women has doubled in the last decade. We are talking about an Aboriginal Justice Strategy that I think you said has decreased the incidence of recidivism or reoffence. Clearly, something is still missing within the Aboriginal Justice Strategy to look after the needs of women. More so, I am worried about whether there is anything within the AJS that addresses youth. We know the demographics are such that we have a large number of youth coming up. What is missing with respect to women? What is being discussed or put in place to address the number of youth who might be at risk?
Candice St-Aubin, Acting Director, Aboriginal Justice Directorate, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you very much for your question. You are correct; and we see that as well. Our programs, as Ms. Merriam mentioned, were enhanced in 2007, specifically with the priority areas of urban, northern and youth, recognizing that it is the fastest growing demographic in Canada.
With regard to women and their incarceration rates, we work closely with federal partners on programs related to violence against Aboriginal women and girls. Within that section, we try to do targeted project-based work with women who come into contact with the criminal justice system, be it as offenders or as victims. Under the Aboriginal Justice Strategy, communities are open to design a program that meets their needs at the community level at that time. While we look to ensure that it is gender representative, there are no specific target areas where it would be a female- only or a male-only program. However, we see that some programs are starting to address those issues as they become more prevalent in the bigger discourse of criminal justice and Aboriginal justice.
Senator Dyck: As a follow-up question, when you look at the statistics, do you look at whether the woman or the man is living on-reserve versus off-reserve? We have raised the issue of domestic violence. I do not know whether there are any statistics or data to indicate the difference between on-reserve and off-reserve or whether there are different factors that lead to more incarceration of women or youth off-reserve.
Ms. Merriam: I do not think we have any statistics that separate on-reserve and off-reserve. Our programs are both on-reserve and off-reserve, so we are interested in working with Aboriginal communities wherever they are, focusing on the clientele they are interested in serving.
Ms. St-Aubin: As a follow-up to that, when it comes to data and information gathering, privacy issues are key priorities. Therefore, when it is inappropriate we do not necessarily gather or when people feel uncomfortable disclosing where they are, especially when we are working within urban populations. It becomes more difficult at this point to track that kind of activity. However, I believe it is happening in small pockets at this time.
Senator Demers: Along Senator Dyck's line of questioning, what specific challenges, if any, do Aboriginal women and girls experience in Canada's correctional system?
Ms. Merriam: That is an excellent question. It is not one that we can answer because we are focused on programming to divert offenders from the justice system. If they are coming out and returning to a small community, we may get involved in programming, but we do not work within the correctional system.
Senator Demers: In recent times, it seems that more Aboriginal women than men end up incarcerated. Is there a reason for that? I am the father of three daughters, and I think it is very sad that it happens; and it is sad for young men, too. Do you know the reason? Are the girls not being taken care of? What is going on there? It is a big concern.
[Translation]
Ms. St-Aubin: Good morning. Thank you very much for your question. It is quite appropriate.
[English]
You are right. Statistics demonstrate that Aboriginal women seem to be coming into correctional institutions at a quicker pace than what we have seen over the past 20 years. Unfortunately, our role, as Ms. Merriam said, is that of diversions and youth populations. We have not undertaken research — and this is just the Aboriginal Justice Strategy — specific to gender issues related to incarceration rates. That is not to say it is not an issue that would require further investigation.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Welcome. Approximately what percentage of First Nations people working in Justice Canada are qualified to work with Aboriginal youth?
Ms. St-Aubin: Is that within our programs? I would have to hazard a guess to say that probably about 98 per cent of people who work with Aboriginal Justice Strategy programs are Aboriginal people from the community. One of the studies we undertook within Aboriginal Justice was that of labour market participation. We found that where there are communities with programs, the community members work with the programs.
When there is a requirement for social services to do supportive work, it is usually training to the program area in the community, so Aboriginal people deliver the training and, of course, work with our youth, where possible.
When we have partners, such as RCMP officers, First Nations policing, parole officers and Crown counsel, ideally we would love it if they were all Aboriginal people, but that is not necessarily the case, unfortunately.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: If more Aboriginal people are interested in the justice setting, are there programs that would provide funding to train these Aboriginal people?
Ms. St-Aubin: Actually, in the way the Aboriginal Justice Strategy is developed, we have two funding envelopes. One is community-based, and those are the actual programs in the communities. Those tend to be multi-year programs. Then we have a one-year call for proposals for capacity development and training. Just last year alone, we funded 19 projects. Over $750,000 went that particular year. We trained over 150 communities. That is, again, proposal-based. Every year is the same thing, there is a call for proposals and Aboriginal communities participate. We had participation across Canada last year. It was one of our most successful years. It is Aboriginal justice workers accessing those funds only.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: As you know, there have been a lot of program cuts, and that probably makes it hard for these youth to get legal aid and such. What happens in that case?
Ms. Merriam: Which programs are you referring to?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Programs to get legal aid or lawyers.
Ms. Merriam: Yes. That is not this Aboriginal justice program. Legal aid is a provincial and territorial program that is supported by the federal government. We do have a legal aid program. Actually, I am pleased to say that the program has not been cut so we are continuing.
I agree that other programs have been cut and youth can fall through the cracks. In this particular program, the Aboriginal Justice Strategy, our programming for communities has remained the same.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: In the future, do you think the funding will be restored for this?
Ms. Merriam: I think that is better left to the Minister of Finance.
Ms. St-Aubin: At this point, we have had two one-year renewals where we saw the program dollars going to communities remain the same, which is a win, I think, for us. We are returning again this fall to see about perhaps renewing.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you very much.
The Chair: That is a positive response. I have a question and then I will move back to my list.
You talked about the type of offenders you looked at when it comes to restorative or community justice. Restorative justice has about eight entry points, all the way from pre-charge to post-release. Why do you not refer to the violent situations, which Australian research has identified as the most successful restorative justice situations? Why are you not referring to the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, or VORP, particularly in these situations where violence is so prevalent, for those offenders on re-entry as being a high target or high success group on some of these programs?
Ms. St-Aubin: We have recently just looked at the type of offences going through our programs. On the whole, they have been low-level offences. I think that to deal with those kinds of offences, perhaps a larger structure might be required to support. That was never the purpose of the Aboriginal Justice Strategy when it started. That being said, we are over 20 years old, and situations and demographics have changed.
When we did our review of programs we found, and something that was important, is that we leave it to the discretion of Crown, RCMP and counsel as to who gets diverted. It is really at their discretion. When we have more violent offences, it may be felt that diversion might not be an appropriate avenue to take.
The Chair: Not to be argumentative, I am not talking about through diversion because that is pre-charge or pre- conviction. I am talking about re-entry and victim-offender reconciliation. The police, the Crown and Corrections should almost be ignored because this is supposed to be about a healthy community in the future. Taking an offender who spends six years in Kingston Penitentiary or Millhaven or Pittsburgh and dropping them back into Senator Watt's community, having no re-entry, is not only not helpful, I can tell you that we can almost save their bed because they are coming back.
I am not talking about diversion. I do not like the word ``diversion'' because it is about community restorative justice. However, I have to say that the reoffending we are seeing among those offenders in those communities, I would argue — and I guess I am trying to see whether or not you should push your dollars there — have to focus on safer and healthier communities. I am not sure that just focusing on the soft end of the stick is helpful right now.
Ms. St-Aubin: Thank you for the clarification. That makes more sense to me right now. We have been working with Corrections Canada. Reintegration planning is part of their mandate and activities within the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There is a specific section that deals with Aboriginal offenders reintegrating into communities. It is section 84 of that act. That is their primary role. We have found, though, after consulting with their community programs, that there are some engagements where it is appropriate and feasible. All of us are working with thin dollars on the ground and to overburden additional community justice committees to support that reintegration work has become a little bit of a challenge. Our justice workers do want to do it. These are their communities.
These communities are bringing back offenders who have gone through the system and they want to be able to ensure healthy communities. We try to support them as best we can in that role, but, again, we need to look at Corrections Canada to work with us as well. We have been making more bridges in that because we do see a higher incidence of the need for a reintegration plan.
The Chair: We will call them next.
Senator Munson: Thank you for being here this morning. You may have addressed a couple of these issues before some of us arrived, but I have a question dealing with the First Nations, Metis and Inuit communities. Do the risk factors associated with higher chances of coming into conflict with the law differ among these three nations and, if so, how?
Ms. St-Aubin: Thank you for your question, Senator Munson. That is a challenging question, and unfortunately that is not something, with regard to this strategy, we have studied or examined. I would not feel comfortable trying to even identify or have a position on that. Everyone's situations are unique, given geographical instances, access to labour market participation and those whole social determinants.
Senator Munson: I understand.
We had Mr. Howard Sapers here, the Correctional Investigator. Have you heard his testimony, or do you have access to that testimony?
Ms. St-Aubin: Yes.
Ms. Merriam: Yes.
Senator Munson: Some of it was rather chilling, and it really was a reality check for all of us at the committee. What is your view on it? He talked about Aboriginal-run healing lodges at parity and expanding CSC staffing initiatives and creating the position of a deputy commissioner. He painted a picture that I thought was horrific in a way without overstating what is happening.
Could I get your views with respect to those recommendations in his report, Spirit Matters? I do not think very much has been taken from his perspective of what is going on and what should be changed within our penal institution and before Aboriginal youth, women, men, whoever, end up in these places.
Ms. Merriam: I do not think we can really speculate on his recommendations. He is making them about the federal correctional system, and that is not the Department of Justice; that is Public Safety. Therefore, for any of his recommendations to be implemented, it would have to be the decision of the Minister of Public Safety.
Senator Munson: It all connects.
Ms. Merriam: Yes. In our role we are trying to keep people out of the correctional system, either the provincial one or the federal one, and diverting them into our programming, or we are helping at the other end. We are not working while people are in the system.
Senator Munson: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Raine: Thank you for being here. It was very reassuring to hear that your studies show that your programs are working. This is kind of a bit of optimistic news for us.
Could you elaborate a bit more on a typical program? What age of youth are you looking at? How are the programs set up? Are you using sport, arts and culture and all of those kinds of things?
Ms. St-Aubin: Thank you very much for that question, senator. I think that is the age-old question of the Aboriginal Justice Strategy. ``Could you describe to us a typical Aboriginal Justice Strategy program?'' I wish we could. We are not a franchise model, and that is part of the beauty and why we are seeing such positive rates of reducing reoffending.
I can give you an example of one that I participated in recently. I was with 14 female offenders, coming back to the gender issue, in northern British Columbia, the highest point of British Columbia that you can reach by bush plane. I took four planes to get there. The women, however, the 14 offenders, ranging from minor drug offences up into more physical assaults, hiked in 42 kilometres, with backpacks and pack dogs. They were there with elders only. While I was flying in and setting up my tent, they were sleeping on the ground, essentially facing demons that were bringing them there. Two days of hiking over the mountainous terrain, and they were broken. The walls that had been set up for so many years had come down. Within that program, I saw these women live off the land. We hunted together.
As an Aboriginal woman, I found it very empowering myself to see these women being able for the first time to speak of their own victimization and their own circumstance that brought them there. They had counsellors on site, and they spoke with them. They talked with elders. Many community elders participated in this program. This program went on for four weeks in the north of B.C. in the bush. I found that to see these women actively participate and openly participate in this program really brought to me the sense of what restorative justice can do.
The hardest part those women had to face was not the climbing and the mountainous terrain to get there; it was accepting participation in the program. For many people who participate in our programs, we find it is much easier for them to not face the victims, to not face the communities where this has happened and to go into the penal system and the criminal justice system where they have a place to stay and will be fed and know where they are going to be for the next few months or years. That is one example.
Another example of a program was one where they reunited female offenders with children who had been remanded into child and family services for the first time. We have programs in school systems on-reserve and in urban environments that work with youth. We have some that deal with on-the-land programming and some that are more mommy-baby activities with female offenders. It really runs the full gamut. We have men working with anger management issues so that when they return to address the issues of repetitive family violence and domestic violence, they agree to work with agencies to deal with anger management issues. When they return to their communities and homes, they are able to do it with the tools they require.
Really, the beauty of Aboriginal Justice Strategy programs is that they allow the community and the elders to define what that community's needs are at that particular time. It is never a cookie-cutter model. It really depends on where they are, because programs in Nunavut will be quite different from the programs that we see in Montreal or Winnipeg. For us, that has been one of the keys to our success.
Perhaps we do have increasing rates of overrepresentation in our correctional institutions. We have not been able to keep up with the pace of growth of Aboriginal populations, unfortunately, but we are still seeing results, which makes us proud.
Senator Raine: What would be the youngest age group you would capture in your programs or that a program could be designed for?
Ms. St-Aubin: Ten to twelve years of age. It is really focused on 12, unless it is through a tertiary way where we are working with moms or dads and more of the family aspects of a program, but really programs designed for youth would focus around 10 to 12 years of age and up, in the school systems.
Senator Raine: We have heard that one of the problems is that on the reserves there is nothing to do and that youth are at a bit of a loss as to how to use the time productively or in an appropriate way, and getting in with gangs and things becomes attractive. Do some of your programs reach out and include people who have maybe not gotten into trouble with the law yet but are kind of bored?
Ms. St-Aubin: That is where we see many of the relationships and partnerships that we develop with First Nations policing or RCMP, or even community members. Community members can refer essentially other community members to preventive programs where they do see a higher youth population or children. Really, youth in my mind are still children. They can be referred by an elder into a program to do more of the preventive-type activities where they have after-school programs, but really where they have something that is targeted to try to develop those life skills that they may require as they get older and really get them busy. That again is defined at the need of the community.
Senator Raine: When you have a program that works, are you able to communicate the success of those programs to elders and community leaders in other regions? That would be very helpful, too. If you kind of know what has been successful, you can pass it on.
Ms. St-Aubin: Recently, over the last three years, we undertook a series of dialogue sessions with our community members in partnership with the provinces and territories. Out of those came a success stories document that now we are finally able to share more openly as well. That also provided an opportunity. We went across all jurisdictions and brought together all of our programs and elders, Aboriginal leadership, as well as provincial and territorial parties. That gave them an opportunity to share. Again, that was purely at a jurisdictional level, a provincial and territorial level. We have not had a national one in scope. However, that allowed them to share, and we did see the cross- pollination of information and what is working because there are a lot of common elements that communities do see. Technology is a big one right now for them, and youth suicide, those kinds of things. There was some discussion but, on a national scope, probably not nearly as much as I know we would like to see. We are trying to disseminate information where possible.
Senator Raine: It may not be appropriate on a national basis because the Aboriginal communities are so different and cultures are different.
Ms. St-Aubin: Cultures are different; you are right.
Senator Watt: Thank you for your presentation. If I understood correctly, the programs that you are talking of all apply to first Nations, off-reserve and on-reserve. I also believe they apply to the Metis and Inuit. Who accesses those programs, and how do you access them? I have never heard of the programs that you are bringing forward. I am from the North, from Nunavik, and we have a great deal of problems. We are trying to find some solutions to our own problems, and it is always hard to find. Where do you get money to do certain things? Could you enlighten me in that area, to start off with?
Ms. St-Aubin: Thank you very much for your question, senator. Our programs are accessed by First Nations, Inuit and Metis, and we do actually have programs in all of the communities in Nunavik. I am looking at my Quebec coordinator. We work closely with the Government of Quebec. Our cost share is matched 50-50. We have programs in all the Inuit communities in Nunavik, as well as some across the southern parts of Quebec.
Again, one of the problems we find with the Aboriginal Justice Strategy is that they are not large programs. They are not YMCAs. I have seen through our evaluations that part of the problem is communicating that these programs exist. Sometimes it is just one or two people working out of the band office or working out of maybe one room in an organization, trying to get referrals into them. A lot of it is communication with community members, the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec or what have you to say that these programs exist and can be used.
In my opinion, based on some of our evaluations, there is, perhaps, not a strong enough communications strategy on the ground. We do have issues, like someone not knowing there was a program in a community, because we have not done enough to get the Crown, probation officers and the whole system aware that we are there and are an option. A lot of people do not realize that they can actually use this program to divert or to address reintegration. I think that is probably an issue. I have heard people say before, ``I did not realize there was program in my community because it is so small.''
Senator Watt: If I understood you correctly — and you can correct me if I am wrong on this — you deal only with the beginning of it and the tail end of it, but you do not touch on what is happening in between.
How can you determine what program is suitable and what program is not suitable if you do not have a clear understanding of what is happening in the middle? When I say in the middle, I am talking about the people actually in the penitentiaries. If I understood correctly, you said that you do not have a program for that, but you have programs to prevent and to rehabilitate at the community level. Do I understand you correctly?
Ms. St-Aubin: Yes, you are correct.
Senator Watt: We do not have a band system. We operate very differently from the First Nations because we have municipalities, local government, regional government and a funding formula that is attached to the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. If it is a matter under federal jurisdiction, the federal government is supposed to provide, according to the agreed funding formula, 75 per cent. If it is under provincial jurisdiction, the province is supposed to provide 75 per cent. Whoever has jurisdiction puts more money into it. Is this being followed? The treaty already exists between Nunavik and the Crown, implicating the Province of Quebec also. Is the funding formula that was negotiated back in 1975 being adopted?
Ms. St-Aubin: For the purposes of this program of restorative justice, there is actually shared jurisdiction. It is not federal jurisdiction, and it is not provincial jurisdiction. We are not in the correctional institutions. Therefore, we have signed a declaration, in 2008 most recently, and we have a memorandum of agreement with the Quebec government saying that we 50-50 cost share.
Senator Watt: That is why you deal with the front and with the tail end but not in between.
Ms. St-Aubin: Exactly.
Senator Watt: Understood. I would imagine that the program will be made available, at least the information side of it, to the provincial government only. Is it also made available to the community, to local and regional governments that might have primary responsibility on a daily basis?
Ms. St-Aubin: The community programs are not designed by the province or by the federal government. They are actually designed by the community itself, in partnership with local governance structures. It would be Nunavik's KRG and those kinds of organizations.
Senator Watt: For example, if there is a need to establish a not-for-profit corporation to administer that type of program, having a strong community input, and if that is incorporated as a non-profit corporation with a reliable board of directors that knows what they are dealing with, that should have access to that program?
Ms. St-Aubin: Yes.
Senator Watt: Where do we apply? I am talking about it because I am helping to create one right now for the young offenders, and that is precisely what we are talking about.
Ms. St-Aubin: Okay. I do not have forms with me for that.
Senator Watt: It would be very helpful if I could get my hands on that. Those are all the questions I have.
Ms. St-Aubin: In all seriousness, one of the unfortunate outcomes of our success is that there are large waiting lists for new programs. We cannot answer the need for these new programs to get started, and there are geographical challenges when it comes to areas like Nunavik. You have very distinct jurisdictional issues, quite different from those of Nunavut and of southern Quebec. We do not do an open call for proposals at this point because we have completely expended our dollars, and we have since its inception. However, we do have a waiting list for programs.
Senator Watt: We had a very interesting person before our committee last week, I believe. I am talking about Ms. Dickson-Gilmore. She was very impressive in the way she was highlighting certain things — the programs already available and already tried out — that are not working. She basically told us, to our faces, ``You people are focusing in the wrong area.'' We should be focusing on the need for housing because a high number of people, sometimes three or four families, are living in small houses. That was one of the issues that were raised. The other issue that was raised was education. We need to put more money into education. The other aspect that is especially real in the North — in the Arctic — is that our purchasing power is almost down to nothing. People have no way of making ends meet.
For example, in the community where I come from, which is the closest to the South, our purchasing power represents only 25 cents. If you go further north, are they making ends meet? No, they are going under. They have no purchasing power. Those are the issues that the government should be focusing on. This is what she was actually saying. I urge you to pass that information on to the people who need to read it so that they will have a bit more understanding of what is happening in the Arctic. That would be very helpful. I would recommend that you read the transcript of the testimony from last week. I think it would be very helpful.
The Chair: I met with some folks from the Cree Regional Authority. Some of those programs are funded from the federal side, so there is some work being done. I think it includes Great Whale River, so they are accessing funding in some of the communities in northern Quebec.
Senator Watt: It should apply to every community.
The Chair: It is actually under the Cree Regional Authority. My point is that some communities are accessing funding, so applying for access is not an issue. Getting the money is a different thing.
Senator Watt: Do not forget, Mr. Chair, that, when you talk about Great Whale River, you talk about one community, but, in a sense, it is two communities. It is two different systems altogether, and it is a very small community.
The Chair: I understand; it is a 50-50 Inuit and Cree split. My point was that there is the ability to apply for and access this funding. Whether it is available is a different story.
Senator Tannas: I heard that you have wait lists for programs that want to get funding and get going. We heard about the success of your programs overall. I am curious to know how you measure success with the programs you have, and I would be interested to know, especially with wait lists, how you declare a program unsuccessful, what you do in that case and how many you have done that have not been successful? What is your churn of programs, and how do you communicate that to people on the wait list, who are waiting for a program to fail in order for them to get in?
Ms. Merriam: There are various ways of doing things. Unfortunately, not all programs succeed, but you have many clues. Our staff work very closely with the programs. If there are issues around deliverables and the timing of reports, they work with their provincial colleagues and the community organization to try to improve the situation. At times it does not work and the organization fails. We do not fund national programs. We fund programs together with the provinces and territories in a province and territory.
If a program in B.C. failed, we would look at the next program on the waiting list in B.C. and whether it could use the money.
Senator Tannas: I am curious: What is the percentage of success and failure?
Ms. St-Aubin: It is quite low. I can say just from last year that we had one that was unsuccessful. No one wants a program to not succeed, so we do everything in our powers, within the policy allotment we have, to support communities to succeed. Is it capacity training? We try to get a sense of what is going on in the particular community. The Aboriginal Justice Strategy at Justice Canada has been blessed in a way because we had the resources at the time to allow our staff to be on the ground. We were in there; we were with communities hand in hand in our provinces making sure that the communities had the tools they needed to succeed, which is why the rate of turnover is quite low and why we have waiting lists, unfortunately.
That was the first time, I believe, in my time with the Aboriginal Justice Strategy that I have seen two failures. I use the word ``failure,'' but it is not that the community failed. Rather, the program was not as successful, based on various accountability measures we have at the federal government to utilize, such as financial accountabilities. They have agreed to terms and conditions, and it meets those terms and conditions. We do everything that we possibly can do to get this community program rooted. Equitable, sustainable programs have always been our goal, but it is not always the case.
Senator Dyck: Senator Tannas was asking about evaluating the programs. In your answer, you said that communities have to agree to certain terms and conditions. Are the terms and conditions part of the criteria that you use to determine whether a program is successful? Before you answer that, what are the terms and conditions? Could you give us some examples of what is deemed a successful program versus an unsuccessful program?
Ms. Merriam: I forgot to mention that because we are a funding program with grants and contributions, we have to be evaluated every five years. Our information on the recidivism study and the success of the strategy is based on some of this evaluation work. There are case studies with different groups that we have funded. That is all part of it. The other part is that we have a contribution agreement with the community where they have made a proposal for what they plan to do, how they plan to run their program and where their participants will be from. We have agreed to the amount of money, and they have agreed to submit financial reports. It used to be very heavy duty, but now the reporting is twice a year.
We alluded to the fact that sometimes reports are late. We try to find out the reasons for that. We have accountability measures from the federal government, so we have to know that the program is actually serving real people. That is the kind of thing we are looking for.
Ms. St-Aubin: To build on that, our evaluation cycles of five years are mandated by Treasury Board, like all programs. We have designed it for the Aboriginal Justice Strategy such that we do a cost-benefit analysis on how much it saves Canadian taxpayers to have a participant go through our program versus mainstream justice. We also take the recidivism studies and case studies on a volunteer basis across Canada. Those three studies, in addition to our studies internally on operating dollars, make up our evaluations. They are all available on line, so I encourage people to read them.
With regard to what defines a successful versus unsuccessful program, as Ms. Merriam was saying, we do funding agreements. Communities negotiate or work within their community leadership to define benchmarks, activity plans and work plans for the year, et cetera. We use those when we work with communities to find out whether they are meeting their targets. They set the targets. They may come to us when they are having some problems or they are not getting diversions. We may get calls from community members to say that no one showed up to help them when they were sitting at the court. We go on a multitude of issues to define whether a program is successful. Is the community being served in terms of the purposes that they set out? That is why we do not see a lot of programs close. We try to work with communities directly to resolve those issues in a way that we can support them.
We often see that many challenges occur when there is a change in governance with new leaders coming into a community. We then start from scratch because they want to know what the program is about and whether there is dollar value for the efforts. That helps to define what is and is not a successful program. If those community members are not getting the services that the agreement was set up for, then we have a problem and we need to figure out why.
Senator Raine: Our briefing notes mentioned the Aboriginal Courtwork Program. Could you explain that program? Are it and the AJS program rolled into one? Is it quite different, although it is part of the Aboriginal justice system?
Ms. Merriam: It is a long-standing program that celebrates its thirtieth anniversary this year. It is a very small program with approximately $4.5 million in funding per year. It is cost-shared with the provinces and territories and has to do with Aboriginal court workers. Through this program, Aboriginal court workers are able to accompany Aboriginal alleged offenders into the courtroom. They do not practise as lawyers but they help to make referrals and provide support. They explain to the alleged offender what his or her rights are in the criminal justice system. The program works closely with the AJS program because sometimes in a community, the community justice worker could be half-time community justice worker and half-time Aboriginal court worker.
Ms. St-Aubin: I always view the Aboriginal Courtwork Program as our sister program — two sides to one coin is how I view it. We do it together because, at the end of the day, the health of the community is our goal. It is our overarching objective. We work closely nationally with the court workers and try to support each other through capacity building. We work in partnership to get capacity dollars out to support their work on a capacity level. They are right in the courtroom with the accused, whereas we are not because that is not necessarily our role. We try to get the supports they need to the court worker so that the court workers can then translate that information to the accused.
Senator Raine: Does every First Nation and Aboriginal community in the North have access?
Ms. St-Aubin: That would be lovely, would it not?
Senator Raine: What percentage of our communities would have access to a court worker?
Ms. Merriam: Sometimes in the North, when it is circuit court, it may be the only person there. Sometimes the Aboriginal court worker may even be acting as defence counsel in the North, but that is not true in the rest of Canada.
No, not every community has an Aboriginal court worker, but every effort is made to find someone. For example, Vancouver has a community court and they can see any person in this community court. It could be an Aboriginal person with a drug addiction problem or who has been arrested for breaking and entering. It could be a non- Aboriginal person, but as soon as it is an Aboriginal person the first thing the judge says is: ``I am stopping this right now. I want you to go to the B.C. native counselling agency and I want to make sure you have a court worker present before I will continue to hear this case.'' It is quite common for judges to ask for that.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. I need one clarification. In the North, I do not understand how the circuit courts work, but I imagine it is a judge who goes around to different communities. Would the Aboriginal court worker travel with the judge and be available on the ground?
Ms. Merriam: It could happen that way, or they could come into a community where there was an Aboriginal court worker present.
Senator Raine: Would it depend on the size of the community and where they are located?
Ms. Merriam: Yes.
Senator Raine: In any case, would there be access in the smallest of places where the court goes for someone to go with the alleged offender to help them?
Ms. Merriam: Ideally, or the support is via telephone call. It is not 100 per cent guaranteed.
I attended a circuit court in Whapmagoostui, in northern Quebec, and certainly the judge, the Crown, the defence and the Aboriginal court worker were all there. The judge, the Crown and the defence had come from southern Quebec, but the Aboriginal court worker was located in the North.
Senator Watt: I have a bit of a follow-up to that in relation to the court worker. I know how it works in the North. In terms of sharing the costs of that individual court worker, who covers the expenditures of that court worker? How does one become a good court worker? I know one has to have credentials in that field. I wonder, can it be shared by the Aboriginal healing instrument for Aboriginals to deal with young offenders and the program that you are talking about, and combined between the federal and provincial governments?
In creating an instrument by way of getting the community involved more directly in the issue, could this court worker end up working for the non-profit organizations that I mentioned earlier?
Ms. Merriam: We have the exact same problem with the Aboriginal Courtwork Program as we have with the Aboriginal Justice Strategy. All of the money is allocated and then we share the funding of court workers equally with the province. It is often through one particular agency, which will employ many of the court workers.
Senator Watt: It is possible, then?
Ms. St-Aubin: Yes. It is the NGOs or the organizations that hire the court workers; it is not the federal or provincial governments.
Senator Watt: What about the need for infrastructure? Do you have any role to play in terms of identifying the infrastructure requirements? You have a mandate to come up with the programs. Community programs must be produced. You are monitoring that, but do you also play a role with respect to the infrastructure requirement? In the North, we have absolutely nothing.
The first one is probably the one I said I know nothing about, which is the program you are talking about. It is already dedicated to the North. That is fine; I like that, but what about the infrastructure? Who deals with that?
Ms. St-Aubin: I can answer on behalf of the Aboriginal Justice Strategy. I cannot answer for court workers. We do have dollars that go towards materials, such as office space and rental costs. We are not constructing new buildings in the North; however, there are dollars that go towards those kinds of administrative costs.
Senator Watt: Is that within the program that you administer?
Ms. St-Aubin: Yes, but again, it is based on the community's identification of it as something that they need.
Senator Watt: When I talk about infrastructure, I am talking about the buildings. They are not cheap. A three- bedroom bungalow costs about $350,000, if not more, to start off with. You are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of maybe over $1 million, $2 million, maybe even $3 million. Do you have that kind of money?
Ms. St-Aubin: No. Unfortunately no, we do not. We do not build new buildings.
Senator Watt: Can your organization help direct us to a place where ways of paying for infrastructure costs can be identified? Could that become a part of your responsibility in order to make those programs work? You can have all kinds of good programs but if you do not have infrastructure to work with what are you going to do?
Ms. Merriam: When we are approached with a new program, or even for our capacity-building program, which is just a one-time grant or contribution for one year, people may come to us with very big plans. We only have say $750,000 in total, so we look at the proposals and maybe there is an element that we could fund. Our staff can make suggestions on whether they have considered approaching this foundation or HRSDC for other elements of their program.
Senator Watt: Who do we deal with? Do we deal on the federal government level since there are already shared costs with the provincial government? How do you work with the two jurisdictions when dealing with the administrative aspects? Where do we go? Do we go to the provincial government or to the federal government?
Ms. St-Aubin: It really does not matter. At the end of the day, we talk to each other often. That is another part of our success. We have ongoing communications with provinces and territories through set structures. We have working groups that meet monthly.
Senator Watt: That is providing that they are not going to start throwing the ball back and forth between the two jurisdictions, which we see a great deal and which does not help.
Ms. St-Aubin: It can happen. I will not gloss that over. It can and does happen in certain areas because it is a shared jurisdiction, but for the most part we try to find resolution, and we have had great success with that. We have had provinces come on board and we have been working together for decades. At the end of the day, we have dedicated people both at the provincial-territorial level and at the federal level. We have some communities who contact our regional offices. We, as a federal government, will contact the provincial government to say that we have a new community coming on board or we are working together on it. We work together quite closely.
Senator Watt: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank you very much for your commentary, excellent questions and great dialogue. Thank you for being here and thank you to the senators who participated. We will now close this session.
(The committee adjourned.)