Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 39 - Evidence - June 11, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 11, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 10:35 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 welcome all senators and members of the public who are 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 Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to Aboriginal peoples of Canada. In considering what studies the committee might look to undertake, we, from time to time, invite individuals or 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 Public Safety Canada. Before hearing from our witnesses, I would ask members of the committee present this morning to introduce themselves. I will start with the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Dyck: Good morning. I am Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt from Nunavik.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson from Ontario, but my heart is in New Brunswick.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.
Senator Demers: Jacques Demers from Quebec.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Beyak: Lynn Beyak from Dryden, Ontario.
Senator Seth: Asha Seth from Ontario.
The Chair: Members, please help me to welcome our guests from Public Safety Canada: Mr. Shawn Tupper, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch; Ms. Annie Leblanc, Director, Policy and Coordination; Mr. Daniel Sansfaçon, Director, Policy, Research and Evaluation Division; and Ms. Kimberly Lavoie, Director, Aboriginal Corrections Policy Division. Mr. Tupper, please proceed.
Shawn Tupper, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, Public Safety Canada: Let me apologize for our tardiness. One would think that after 28 years in government, I would know which side of security to go to. My apologies.
I have a presentation that might take most of my permitted time. Since we are starting a bit late, should I try to shorten it and allow more time for questions?
The Chair: That would be great, if you do not mind.
Mr. Tupper: Okay.
Together, we represent a public safety perspective of the entire spectrum of the criminal justice system. Over the last while, issues with respect to Aboriginal peoples have really grown within the context of our work. Increasingly, we apply more and more of our resources to look at the perspectives of Aboriginal people in the context of criminal justice. From the beginning, we work with youth and crime prevention to try to keep people out of the system. As they come into the system, we have to deal with them in a policing context or in a judicial context, certainly working with Aboriginal people as they come out of our system to try to reintegrate them back into the community. Those are fundamental aspects of what we do; and we are trying to take a whole-system perspective as we look at the challenges.
My colleagues and I are here to speak to the kinds of programs and initiatives we have at Public Safety Canada, which is a bit of a continuum of those initiatives. Before I jump into program-specific issues, I would like to take an opportunity to give you a little bit of our perception of the context.
The Canadian criminal justice system often inherits the failures of multiples of other systems within the country, including child welfare and social assistance.
Aboriginal people are over-represented in the criminal justice system, both victims and offenders. In fact, a number of offenders were victims first and became offenders as part of learned behaviour. You can see on slides 2 and 3 of your package that Aboriginal people are overrepresented as both victims and in the context of spousal and non-spousal violence.
There are a number of factors that elevate the likelihood of becoming involved in the criminal justice system.
On slide 3, you can see that Aboriginal people are younger on average than the rest of the Canadian population, and we know young people tend to commit more crimes than those who are older.
Slide 4 shows that the Aboriginal population has a lower level of educational attainment than the non-Aboriginal population, and this makes it harder for them to secure employment and puts them at a higher risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system. That does not mean it is not automatically the case, but we look at the risk factors that contribute to these indicators. That leads us to slide 5, which shows that Aboriginal people are more likely to be unemployed, or if they are employed, they work at low-income labour jobs.
Once they enter the system and are sentenced, they are overrepresented in our correctional system. The federal incarcerated population of Aboriginal offenders has increased by 37 per cent over the last 10 years. For Aboriginal women, the incarcerated population has increased by 97 per cent over that same time frame. This is illustrated in slides 6 and 7.
It is against this backdrop that Public Safety Canada has developed a number of programs to meet the needs and circumstances of Aboriginal people and their communities. While each piece has a particular focus, they support each other to help improve the circumstances of Aboriginal people who are at risk of becoming involved in the system.
Through the National Crime Prevention Strategy, delivered by the National Crime Prevention Centre, funding is provided to support community-based projects that are responsive to local crime prevention needs. One of the centre's priorities is to foster prevention in Aboriginal communities.
While Aboriginal communities can access funding across the spectrum of available programming, the Northern and Aboriginal Crime Prevention Fund is designed specifically for Aboriginal groups. This fund provides funding support to culturally sensitive crime prevention initiatives, to reduce offending among youth at risk and high-risk offenders in communities. It helps to disseminate knowledge and to develop tools and resources for Aboriginal and northern populations, and it builds capacity for the development of culturally sensitive crime prevention practices for Aboriginal and northern populations.
In Canada, this has been a particular challenge for us because we do not have great data for Canada as a whole in terms of the whole population with respect to crime prevention and our successes. We have relied on proxy data from other countries that have delivered programming, particularly in the U.K. and the United States. These investments that we are making in Aboriginal and northern communities are particularly important for us because they will be the only source of relevant data that allow us to make sound investment decisions with respect to those communities.
One innovative project funded in the youth intervention and diversion outreach project has been implemented in the remote northern community of Pangnirtung, Nunavut. This project targets 310 Inuit children and youth, representing close to 25 per cent of the total population of the community, between the ages of 9 to 23. They are at risk or involved in activities such as substance abuse, violence, vandalism and theft and are having difficulties at school. Interim results for process evaluation of the project have shown very high participation rates within the community. This community is also participating in a community mobilization process to help build the capacity of community members to determine what they want for their future, what they want that future to look like and what it will take to get there. These separate initiatives are mutually supporting the community to move forward and reduce the risk of crime and victimization.
Aboriginal communities also have the option of accessing other funds under the National Crime Prevention Strategy. The Crime Prevention Action Fund has enabled the implementation of three Leadership and Resiliency Program projects in the territories, with an investment of approximately $8.5 million over five years. LRP is a school- and community-based intervention designed to enhance internal strengths and resiliency and to prevent involvement in substance abuse and violence among high school students.
Preliminary findings indicate that participants show increased capacity to resist drug use.
The Youth Gang Prevention Fund provides funding to invest in communities where youth gangs are an existing or emerging threat and supports initiatives that clearly target youth in gangs or who are at greater risk of joining gangs.
Between 2007 and 2012, we supported nine projects that were focused on Aboriginal youth and were implemented in Aboriginal communities.
The Aboriginal Youth Alliance Against Gang Violence, also known as the Warrior Spirit Walking Project, was implemented in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, by the Prince Albert outreach program to increase access to community support and services for youth gang members. An evaluation showed trends for youth to exit their gangs over time, a decreased acceptance of gang life and a positive trend among participants in acquiring jobs. A significant decrease, 58 per cent, in symptoms of depression was also noted in this project.
This year, over $10.9 million of the $43.1 million available through the NCPC involves Aboriginal peoples and communities through 36 different projects. Over the years, the NCPC has learned that crime prevention initiatives implemented within Aboriginal communities must be sensitive to cultural differences and cultural contexts. Programs implemented within these communities have typically been adapted to take into account a need for more flexibility, including changing some of the program components from a written emphasis to an oral leaning style, for example, the involvement of elders in program teachings and the inclusion of holistic medicine wheel approaches.
I would add that we work closely with the federal departments across the government as well as with the provinces and territories. In fact, federal ministers of the FPT table, ministers responsible for justice and public safety, identified effective crime prevention and rehabilitation as a shared priority, and we are working with partnership across jurisdictions to best inform ourselves about good practices and information with a view to improving all of our programming, not just at the federal level but across all jurisdictions.
The First Nations Policing Program is a federal contribution program that supports the provision of professional, dedicated and responsive police services in First Nation and Inuit communities. Funding for the FNPP is provided through tripartite contribution agreements between the Government of Canada, the relevant province or territory and the relevant First Nation or Inuit community. The federal and provincial governments provide parallel financial contributions to these agreements. The federal government pays 52 per cent of the bill, and the provincial or territorial governments pay 48 per cent of the bill.
Since its creation in 1991, the FNPP has assisted in strengthening public safety in First Nation and Inuit communities while facilitating positive relationships between communities and the police. The FNPP has had a significant and measurable positive impact on the safety and security of communities that receive police services funded through that program.
Slide 8 gives you an overview of the reach of this program across the country.
To provide you with some data regarding the positive impact of that program, we have that on slide 9.
Since 2004, communities with FNPP-funded police services have observed a 22 per cent decrease in the number of criminal incidents and a 19 per cent decrease in the number of violent criminal incidents. In comparison, for every 100,000 people, First Nations communities realized a decrease of 6,046 incidents of crime while Canada as a whole has realized a decrease of 1,682. The decline in violent incidents of crime was 1,416 for First Nation communities and 143 for Canada as a whole.
These are indicators that crime rates and crime severity index measures are much higher in First Nation communities. We have seen generally the decline in crime rates and crime severity index for those communities at a similar decline that we have seen in the population as a whole, but because of the severity levels, the numbers are that much greater for these communities.
Just three months ago, the Government of Canada demonstrated its ongoing commitment to this program by renewing it for five years with a $612.4 million investment. In 2012-13, 163 policing agreements are in place under the FNPP that provide for approximately 1,263 police officers in almost 400 First Nation and Inuit communities.
Through the Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative, the department works with Aboriginal communities and community-based organizations to test and evaluate models of offender treatment in Aboriginal communities that are taking a holistic and healing approach to community wellness and to support the development of urban corrections strategies for Aboriginal offenders.
As part of this initiative, the department has supported the development of projects that work with federal and provincial offenders offering support and programming to address some of the root causes of offending behaviour. Projects have addressed abuse, victimization, spousal abuse, reclaiming Aboriginal identity, rebuilding family and community relationships, and barriers to employment. Projects have a local oversight committee, which includes representatives from the local police.
Mamowichihitowin, also known as the Hinton community, was supported by the department to respond to high rates of intergenerational sex abuse among the Aboriginal population in that region. The Hinton Friendship Centre implemented a therapeutic model that was based on the following principles: family safety being paramount, that behaviour of offenders accepted into the program is changeable, and to ultimately break the cycle of abuse within families.
Between 2005 and 2010, the program had a total of 229 clients. It is important to note that many of the clients in the program are both victim and offender. As of 2012, there has been no recidivism for any of the primary clients who have completed or are engaged in this program.
In addition to the programs and initiatives highlighted above, in 2010 the Government of Canada made an additional investment of $25 million over five years, from 2010 to 2015, to address the disturbingly high number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada. Public Safety Canada received $5.7 million out of that total fund to support Aboriginal communities in the development of community safety plans. These improved the safety of Aboriginal women. When this initiative was originally announced, the Community Safety and Partnerships Branch utilized the regional network to identify communities that could benefit from the community development and capacity-building approach.
Regional staff from both Aboriginal policing and crime prevention provided the names of communities, based on their on-the-ground knowledge and experience, that could benefit from the approach. This is one way that different areas of the branch support communities together, and we are able to achieve our goal in improving the overall safety of Aboriginal people and communities.
Prior to developing a safety plan, most communities need to take stock of where they are at and build a unified vision of where they want to be. To help with that, a resource guide entitled Moving Toward a Stronger Future: An Aboriginal Resource Guide for Community Development was developed specifically to support community development and capacity building.
An example of the increased capacity is illustrated through the experience of the isolated community of Eabametoong First Nation, formerly known as Fort Hope. This community had declared a state of emergency in October 2010 and it hired an outside consultant to help it find a solution. In March 2011 the department conducted the first community training session and worked with the community for over a year to support capacity building and community development. In February 2012 we received a proposal to develop a community safety plan that was developed entirely by the community without any outside assistance. This community is now in the process of developing that plan.
As of March 2013, the workshop for this plan was delivered in 25 First Nations and two urban communities. The First Nation communities ranged from those who had previously declared a state of emergency to those who were coping fairly well. Each community had a variety of issues that had to be overcome, from divisiveness in the community to serious gang issues. Some had a strong support system in the community while others relied on outside providers to fill most community needs. This process helped unify the community, helped define priorities, identified existing strengths and collectively guided members to find solutions to the identified priorities. With the funds received, we are also supporting three pilot projects that have identified through the safety planning process innovative ways to respond to lateral violence. To date, over 190 people have been trained as community mobilization trainers or community champions.
This process uses an integrated, comprehensive approach to move communities from fixing problems to building communities into a civil and sustainable society, building upon the strengths and gifts of the people in each unique community. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and the strength lies in the ability to allow communities to determine their own priorities and support them to find ways of moving forward.
I hope this gives a sense of the broad scope of the work we are doing within my organization and within Public Safety Canada. We engage with Aboriginal communities on a daily basis across a number of fronts to help communities address their safety needs. We are very happy to be here and to participate in your discussion.
The Chair: Thank you very much. No one else will be giving a briefing, I take it.
Mr. Tupper: No, they will not.
The Chair: We will start with the deputy chair, Senator Dyck.
Senator Dyck: You have given us a lot of information, and it is very interesting because it actually focuses on success with respect to crime prevention.
On the second page of your presentation you talk about a project under the youth intervention and diversion outreach project in Nunavut. Are there similar projects like that across Canada or is Nunavut the only one?
Daniel Sansfaçon, Director, Policy, Research and Evaluation Division, Public Safety Canada: This one is unique to Nunavut in particular because it was an integrated federal effort with a number of federal departments working together to try to see how we could pool our resources to ameliorate the situation in this particular hamlet. Whether it is applicable in other parts of the country is something we will know better once the analysis of the results of this project is completed next fiscal year.
Senator Dyck: You mentioned a project in Prince Albert. You also talk about there being about $43 million, of which about $11 million has gone to crime prevention projects within the Aboriginal community. Generally speaking, is the take-up by Aboriginal communities high? Are there any barriers for them to apply for money? Are there a number of projects that have been received that have not been funded, or is there something preventing people from applying?
Mr. Tupper: The program by and large is oversubscribed. There is a great deal of enthusiasm for making investments across the country with respect to crime prevention, and I think that would apply to particular projects in Aboriginal communities. In fact, we could probably spend the entirety of that envelope just in Aboriginal communities.
The thing to remember is that while we have segmented elements of our funding that are specifically designed to address the unique circumstances of Aboriginal communities, the data and what we learn from all of the projects we invest in we think teach us something that every community can use. One of the interesting aspects of this NCPC program is that it really is about building experiments and building data and knowledge that we can disseminate. We are trying to be a little bit of a clearing house of knowledge and evidence that communities can use themselves. A lot of what we produce, even if it is not an investment in Aboriginal communities, is relevant to Aboriginal communities because they can learn from it, they can adapt it and bring it into their own communities.
Senator Dyck: When you decide to set up this strategy of community-based projects, who informs the decision to do this? Last weekend I was looking at the paper and there was a woman from Saskatoon who just got her doctor of philosophy, Sharon Acoose, in community and population health, and her thesis was on a similar area. It is called They Stole my Thunder — Warriors Who Were Behind the Walls: Experiential Storytelling with Criminalized Indian Women. Do you have contact with academics and people such as Dr. Acoose, who clearly has done a lot of work in this area and just received her PhD for it? Do you have contact with this source of knowledge?
Mr. Tupper: Across my branch, indeed, we do a fair amount of research and we have a fairly well-structured network of collaborators and stakeholders that we cooperate with. Certainly, within the crime prevention program and within our corrections and criminal justice program, we have some of the leading experts in the world. They have developed that expertise as a result of those collaborations.
With respect to this particular academic, I do not know whether we have a partnership. Do you?
Mr. Sansfaçon: We do not have a partnership with this person in particular, but we have others. For example, Dr. Martin Brokenleg is one of the persons whose work we have used and indeed are implementing some of the elements of this work to test in various communities whether this works, how this works and then identify the key elements that might be used by other communities, as Mr. Tupper mentioned.
Senator Dyck: You talk about the First Nations Policing Program and how it has been effective. It is nice to see that you have decreased the number of criminal incidents as well as recidivism.
You say that it has been renewed for $612 million. Have you estimated the savings that have accrued through the decrease in criminal activity? You are no longer sending as many people to jail. Therefore, you have saved. Do you have any idea how much you have saved by keeping these people out of jail?
Mr. Tupper: We are actually doing that work now. Part of our resolution, as we move forward into a multi-year funding arrangement, is to work much more closely with our provincial and territorial partners. The savings accrue to all jurisdictions. We do not have those firm numbers yet. We can do some theoretical costing. We know how much it costs when someone goes through the system. We are trying to develop that data in partnership with the provinces and territories.
Senator Dyck: Thank you.
Senator Munson: Thank you for being here this morning. It is very informative. Are you able to answer questions on healing lodges?
Mr. Tupper: As they pertain to our programming, yes.
Senator Munson: My understanding is that the Correctional Service of Canada operates with a budget of $21.5 million. My understanding is that the four Aboriginal-operated healing lodges receive $4.8 million, and there seems to be a discrepancy. Is there anything having to do with section 81? This is the section that I have been told. I just have to ensure that I have my information correct to understand the question that I am actually asking.
Kimberly Lavoie, Director, Aboriginal Corrections Policy Division, Public Safety Canada: Yes, section 81 of —
Senator Munson: Would allow the transfer of care and custody of Aboriginal offenders to Aboriginal communities from CSC?
Ms. Lavoie: Yes. Section 81 of The Corrections and Conditional Release Act is the section that does allow for the transfer of offenders from the date of sentence until warrant expiry. There are eight healing lodges currently in existence, four of which are CSC operated and four of which are operated by voluntary sector organizations — Aboriginal organizations. The ones that are operated by Aboriginal organizations are funded at a lower level than the ones that are funded by the Correctional Service of Canada. There are a number of reasons for that. The voluntary sector, in general, receives less money than people who are in unionized government jobs. Whether it is right or wrong, it is just kind of the way it is. Those organizations have certain economies of scale because they have in-house services that they provide, whereas the Correctional Service of Canada often contracts those same organizations to come in and provide some services in-house.
Yes, they do receive significantly less money.
Senator Munson: Is there a reason for that?
Ms. Lavoie: Part of it is just the way things are. Unionized folks get paid more money than non-unionized folks. They are smaller-scale operations. They have fewer beds. It is less money to run. It is done on a per diem basis, and they are done in five-year agreements. They do not receive less money than any other voluntary sector agency would receive for housing offenders.
Senator Munson: There have been zero agreements since 2001, right? There has been a 40 per cent rise in Aboriginal incarceration.
Ms. Lavoie: There have been no new section 81 agreements. There was an amendment to one with Native Counselling Services of Alberta to allow for a female, section 81, 16-bed facility to be added. It was added in 2010.
That was the most recent. There have not been any new ones since that time.
Senator Munson: Thank you. I just have one other question, and I will bring up Senator Demers because this is where he understandably gets very upset. We have these numbers in front of us. We have talked about them before, with other witnesses, as we prepare a new study, but, according to Public Safety Canada, the number of federally incarcerated Aboriginal women increased by 97.1 per cent between 2002 and 2012. Men increased 34 per cent in the same period.
It is an obvious question, but I think we still need it. What factors would account for the rising numbers of incarcerated Aboriginal people in the last decade? Senator Demers focuses in on this all the time. We sit here and do our studies, trying to do something positive and to take a new and innovative look at what we can do as an Aboriginal committee, but, my goodness, 97 per cent. Let us say 100 per cent in 10 years.
Ms. Lavoie: Yes, it is a huge increase. It is a huge number. Demographics partially play a role. The Aboriginal population is much younger than the rest of the population of Canada. As we said earlier, younger people get into trouble with the law more than older people. Demographics are certainly working against us with respect to trying to reduce those numbers.
In addition, we also talked about inheriting the failures of other systems. The child welfare system is an issue, as is the fact that folks do not have the same level of education. I know that the government is working on that at the moment, but the fact of the matter is that education levels are much lower in Aboriginal communities. With Aboriginal people, employment is lower. These are all risk factors.
Until we address some of those underlying and root causes, we will continue to inherit the failures of those systems, and we will not stem the tide of people coming into the criminal justice system.
What we can do once we get them is to work on programs to help rehabilitate and reintegrate them so that they do not reoffend.
Senator Munson: I am sure other senators have questions, chair.
The Chair: Yes, they do. Thank you very much.
Senator Dyck: Could I ask a short supplementary question on that?
The Chair: Right after me. Thank you very much.
Just on the education commentary, you are looking at education levels, but are you looking at quality of education as well? I know we have heard a number of witnesses talk about the fact that some programs graduate high school students, for example, who are having huge difficulties in transitioning into the college or university level because the levels are not high enough. I know that Nunavut did a study a few years ago about the high school graduation level and whether or not it truly prepared them.
Are you looking, as well, at the quality of graduation levels, not just having a high school diploma? Is it being looked at? Not by you, personally. I apologize.
Ms. Lavoie: It is certainly not me. People are looking at both the quality of the education and the quantity of people who are graduating. Certainly, the legislation in the Indian Act right now refers to a reasonably comparable level of education. It is a question of what that means, what that looks like and how that can also incorporate culturally relevant studies while ensuring that folks have the level of education they need to be able to succeed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Senator Dyck, please. Sorry about that.
Senator Dyck: I just wanted to follow up on the aspect of education. I am a bit of a numbers addict. Years ago, I went to Statistics Canada and tabulated all of the stats with regard to education with respect to gender, ages and area of specialization. It turns out that — and it is well-known now — more women than men in the Aboriginal community are completing high school, and about twice as many women as men are getting a bachelor's degree. If we still see a huge increase in the number of women who are being incarcerated, education does not look like it could be the only factor. What would you suggest as an additional factor that would push these horrifying numbers?
Ms. Lavoie: Well, there are a huge number of factors. We know that Aboriginal women are vastly overrepresented when it comes to violence. We have domestic violence, spousal violence and interfamilial violence, and people who are victims of violence will often lash out.
A lot of these women are in for violent crimes, and sometimes, if we can break that cycle of violence, we will be able to actually break that cycle of involvement in the criminal justice system.
If I had to suggest one place, that would be a place where I would like to see efforts placed.
Senator Dyck: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for the very informative presentation. You were asked about collaboration with academics in this field, and I wonder if you are familiar with the work of Dr. Jane Dickson-Gilmore, who is working in the Department of Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University, right here in Ottawa. The committee received a very compelling presentation from her recently. At the risk of paraphrasing a detailed presentation, she was asked and said that preventive and community justice approaches of the kind described are not working. She was very clear about that. They are not effective. It had to do with whether they were top down or bottom up, I guess I might summarize crudely.
I asked whether these mostly federal programs are evaluated. Also, you spoke in your presentation about evaluation results; and the results look impressive. Her assessment of it was that the terms of reference and the process of evaluation of most, if not all, federal programs were suspect and unimpressive. Perhaps I exaggerate, but I do not think I do.
Do you have an independent, rigorous, peer-reviewed evaluation process? Is it skewed to present results that might not be objective? Forgive the bluntness of the approach.
Mr. Tupper: No, no.
Senator Patterson: Her testimony was strong. She has been decades in the field. She impressed most of us.
Mr. Tupper: We are certainly familiar with her work. I might say that our understanding is that her concerns are primarily in the areas of restorative justice as opposed to across the entire crime prevention spectrum. There would be a difference.
In terms of evaluation, given the way that we structured our program, we are able to invite failure in the sense that you learn from failure. We have been very encouraged since 2008 to run our programs in such a way. We want to invest in what we know are best practices because when they are applied locally, we learn a lot. Equally, we want to determine what other kinds of initiatives might be invested in that might teach us something. In a sense, I will say boldly that we are not really afraid of failure.
Our series of evaluations across the last five years in the NCPC indicate that there were projects that did not deliver the results we had hoped to see. We think that is legitimate. That is the kind of investment we should be making. If we invested only in the things we know, then we would tunnel in on too-specific arrangements. I hope that you would see that if you looked at some of our materials.
The other side of that is that as a program in NCPC, we overinvest. If anything, we are criticized for what people term the Cadillac evaluation process we have in that program. We build resources to a statistically relevant set of our projects so that they are evaluated outside the compliance of our office. That gives us some independent evaluation. Certainly, within the government process, we have an evaluation process within the department that sits outside my branch, through which we also undergo evaluation.
This program is evaluated, and we are fairly confident of the results that we are showing, both good and bad.
Senator Patterson: In that connection, I would like to ask one further question: In September 2010, your evaluation director at Public Safety Canada released the 2009-2010 Evaluation of the First Nations Policing Program. I believe the first recommendation was that Public Safety Canada's Aboriginal Policing Directorate assist in strengthening community governance of police service providers.
I would like to ask how you have responded to those recommendations and what concrete measures have been taken, if any, to strengthen community governance of police service providers.
Annie Leblanc, Director, Policy and Coordination, Public Safety Canada: Our self-administered police services, which Mr. Tupper mentioned a while ago, have a police management board as there would be with another police service, such as OPS or any other police service. There are community tripartite agreements with a contingent of dedicated police officers, such as the RCMP, policing in a community. The agreements include community consultative groups.
Since the agreement, and even before the evaluation in 2010, we have offered training to the communities. There are certain best practices in setting up these groups, such as terms of reference, optimum numbers, and the priorities for these groups to focus on. These groups play a very, very important role in the communities. They sit with the police services and determine policing priorities. They help with communication between the police service and the community. They help them to better understand the cultural diversities and the community as a whole. They will find opportunities to involve them in cultural activities.
These consultative groups have existed, and we have tried to support their level of training better to ensure that they are equipped to perform their important role to sustain the agreement and to work closely in a context of community- based policing.
Mr. Tupper: The happy result of our ability to manage across our portfolio is that all of the investments we make in First Nations policing are collaborative within the context of overall policing.
You have likely heard of work that is going on right now with respect to the economics of policing and looking at better policing models that we could apply across the country. The innovations that come from that will apply in the context of First Nations policing. A broad breadth of training goes on in those contexts. Our First Nations police officers and First Nations chiefs of police are fully integrated into the Canadian Police Association. There is a lot of give and take. They are exposed constantly to those advantages as well.
Ms. Leblanc: If I may add, on the issue of the economics of policing where they are looking at new community safety models, in the evaluation that you referenced, F-2010, the evaluators recommended that we look at innovative service delivery models and how these may meet the objectives of the First Nations Policing Program.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Welcome. Unfortunately, my question was just asked by my honourable colleague. I have another question: What percentage of incarcerated First Nations people leaving prison get jobs compared to other people? Why is this? Explain, please.
Mr. Tupper: We do not have that data at hand. Certainly, we can see if it is available and whether we can obtain it from Correctional Service of Canada to provide to the committee.
Senator Raine: I would like to clarify the acronym NCPC, which is not in our notes.
Mr. Tupper: It is the National Crime Prevention Centre.
Senator Raine: Is that a department or a physical centre? How does it relate to the National Crime Prevention Strategy?
Mr. Tupper: It implements the strategy. The centre is located within my branch and is effectively the federal government's centre of expertise on all matters related to crime prevention. It plays a strong leadership role across the federal public service with respect to issues around crime prevention.
Senator Raine: When we talk about the 97 per cent increase in female Aboriginals being incarcerated, could you give me the actual numbers? Percentages sometimes are taken out of context when dealing with small numbers. What are the absolute numbers?
Mr. Tupper: The numbers have gone from 104 to 205.
Senator Raine: There are 205 Aboriginal women incarcerated in Canada.
Mr. Tupper: In 2011-12. So 104 in 2002-03 to 205 in 2011-12.
Senator Raine: Thank you. So we are not talking about a lot of people, although 205 women in prison is very hard.
The programs you are putting in place are very different in the different regions. We know that they are not one- size-fits-all. Can you give me an example of a program?
Mr. Tupper: That varies across the three shops. The crime prevention world starts with our regional offices where a lot of work is done with our partners on the ground in developing proposals that are seeking funding.
We have a very on-the-ground, up-front community-oriented approach to the development of proposals. Once those proposals hit the standard and the conditions of our funding agreements, they are submitted to our national office where they are reviewed. It is effectively a competitive process. As I said, that program is oversubscribed; we have more people wanting money than we have money to give out.
It is a revolving door. Some programs put out a call for proposals every September. In this program, we are constantly soliciting and working with communities to see what projects might be fundable as money comes available.
Once we review the project within our organization and it meets the criteria of the program, it goes through an approval process. Once approved, we return to the project proponent and assist them in getting their program up and running. At that point, their project is theirs to run. It undergoes review, monitoring and evaluation.
That is what we do in the context of our crime prevention programming. That programming attaches to all sorts of issues. We primarily focus on children and youth, gangs, and drugs.
In the correctional context, our work is all focused on looking at the offender population. In this instance, Ms. Lavoie's shop works exclusively with Aboriginal offenders. Her shop is unique in that it employs 100 per cent Aboriginal employees. We have a direct and facilitated ability to work within those communities because the people who are working on behalf of the government are from those communities. We are making giant leaps forward in terms of our ability to understand community needs and to speak the same language, if I can put it that way.
In that instance there is a lot of flexibility. It is hard to describe any single process that would result in funding, and that is because communities and individuals are unique and we have to be on the ground and go into the communities and evaluate for ourselves with the community what their needs are. We will develop, with the community, responses that meet those circumstances. It is a flexible and unique program insofar as it funds things in different contexts.
The policing side is much more standardized. We have template arrangements. We engage with the provinces and territories first, because the provinces have responsibility for the delivery of policing services within their jurisdictions. We first meet with them to determine levels of funding and get that organized. The arrangements that we then move into with the province and the community in question are a reflection of a template agreement, and that is because we have a fairly good sense of what the policing models are. The provinces have fairly strict guidelines for how they implement their responsibility for providing policing within a province or a territory, so there is a lot of standardization there.
In that instance, it is our ability to cooperate with the province and the community to get funding into the community that facilitates and augments policing services there. It is a fairly straightforward and clean process.
Senator Seth: In First Nations communities there are deep-rooted, systemic problems that contribute to the high number of Aboriginal people in prison. What is the role of the RCMP in First Nations policing, and what is the relation between Aboriginal police and the criminal justice system? Could you tell me a bit about the First Nations Policing Program?
Mr. Tupper: The First Nations Policing Program grew up in 1991 and was a reflection of needs in the community. It was built around the difficulties we had in Oka, and it was an acknowledgment that we needed to find a better way to augment police services in First Nations communities. It is an on-reserve program designed to put into the community culturally appropriate and professional police services.
Culturally appropriate is critical. History has been reflected upon, and the residential school system is a great example of that history. The police were often used to enforce the strategy behind the residential schools, so there is a lot of distrust within communities. The more we can do to build up appropriate and sensitive policing within those communities, the more we break down the historic barriers and have greater opportunity for success.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do these safety programs exist across Canada in First Nations communities?
Mr. Tupper: All of our programming is delivered across the country. In the context of what happens on-reserve, First Nations policing is present in about two thirds of Aboriginal communities, and those are mainly First Nations communities in the South.
In the crime prevention program, every community is eligible to put forward proposals, and we fund proposals right across the country. Within the Aboriginal correctional context, particularly with community safety plans, we apply it across the country. We are currently working in 25 communities across the country helping them to develop that capacity.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I asked that because I do not notice any in New Brunswick, especially in my community. I have never noticed any Aboriginal police working with the RCMP for crime prevention, et cetera.
Ms. Leblanc: Is that the community of Tobique?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes.
Ms. Leblanc: We have a community tripartite agreement in Tobique. It is RCMP policing, so you would see the RCMP, but there should be a group in place that works directly with the RCMP to better meet the needs of your community and to help set policing priorities.
Senator Watt: How is your program integrated into provincial programs? One is federal jurisdiction and the other is provincial. How do you deal with that?
Mr. Tupper: In the context of First Nations policing it is a direct partnership. We pay 52 per cent of the cost of that program, the provinces pay 48 per cent, and we negotiate agreements to implement the program.
In the context of crime prevention, it is federal funding that goes to programs that we support, but all of the community work we do and the reviews are done by boards in jurisdictions, and the provinces and territories participate in that.
In that collaboration we try to ensure that we are not spending our money on the same things and that there is a clear understanding of the kinds of investments that are being made at both the federal and the provincial-territorial level.
Senator Watt: An application would have to come from the community base?
Mr. Tupper: In the context of crime prevention, yes.
Senator Watt: Directly to the federal government?
Mr. Tupper: It is developed at the local level and comes to the federal government. However, after the local development, we already have a perspective on local governance and, at the provincial level, their sense of those kinds of programs.
Senator Dyck: Could you provide us with the gender breakdown on slide 1, non-spousal violent victimization of Aboriginal people?
Mr. Tupper: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation.
(The committee adjourned.)