Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 20 - Evidence - November 17, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:33 a.m. to study the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: band council funding and related issues).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. Welcome to all honourable senators and members of the public, as well as viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the Web.
I am Senator St. Germain from British Columbia, chair of the committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, generally.
One recurring question from previous meetings is whether the rights and obligations of off-reserve members differ from members living on the First Nation. Related to this question is how funding operates for members living off- reserve. The purpose of today's meeting is to obtain a briefing from the department, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, on the issue of band council funding and related issues.
[Translation]
Before we hear from our witnesses, allow me to introduce to you the members of the committee who are in attendance.
[English]
On my right is Senator Carstairs from Manitoba. On my left is Senator Raine from British Columbia and, next to Senator Raine, is Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island.
Allow me to introduce our witnesses. We have Christine Cram, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Joining her from the department are Sara Filbee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Economic Development; Peter Traversy, Director General, Planning and Resource Management; and Wendy Stewart-Fagnan, Director, Office of the Federal Interlocutor.
Ms. Cram, I understand all of you will make a short presentation. The only thing I ask is that you give us enough time to ask questions because we have a few questions we want to pose to you. I know you are familiar with the process. With that said, you have the floor and thank you for coming.
Christine Cram, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. It is a great pleasure for us to be here today.
I will start by outlining the federal role, to set the context, and then I will turn to Mr. Traversy who will provide an overview of the department's budget. Then I will give an example of how that budget works on a particular program. I will use income assistance as an example. Then Ms. Filbee will cover economic development funding, and then Ms. Stewart-Fagnan will explain how the Urban Aboriginal Strategy is funded. Following that presentation, we will be pleased to answer any questions.
The federal role in supporting Aboriginal people is derived from section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, which refers to ``Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.'' Our responsibilities are determined largely by statutes, negotiated agreements and legal decisions.
As well, the Indian Act provides the rules under which individuals are entitled to be registered as Indians. These individuals are referred to as status Indians. Therefore, status and place of residence are key determinants of an individual's eligibility for access to programs and services of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which are provided as a matter of policy.
Some of the department's programs are available to status Indians living on-reserve and other programs are available to status Indians, regardless of whether they live on- or off-reserve. Other programs are available to all Aboriginal people.
Much of the programming provided by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is directed to status Indians who ordinarily reside on-reserve because the provinces and territories provide these same services to everyone who resides off-reserve, including status Indians.
For example, the department's Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program provides funding to First Nations on- reserve for infrastructure, including water, waste water, road, electricity, education facilities and housing. Eligibility for this funding is limited to on-reserve projects, with the exception of investments off-reserve in cases of cost-shared projects with municipalities or provinces.
An example of such projects is off-reserve access roads that link a reserve community to a main provincial road.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provides funding mainly on-reserve because, generally, provinces, territories and municipalities fund infrastructure off-reserve. The Government of Canada also provides significant financial support to provincial and territorial governments on an ongoing basis to assist them in the provision of programs and services. The Canada Social Transfer is provided in support of a number of social programs, such as post-secondary education, social assistance, social services, early childhood development, early learning and child care. Payment is calculated on a per capita basis.
The Canada Health Transfer also provides per capita funding for health care. In addition, there is a territorial financing formula that supports the three territorial governments to provide their residents with a range of public services comparable to those offered by provincial governments.
The formula used in these transfers includes the entire population of a province or territory, including status Indian normally resident on-reserve.
[Translation]
That gives you some idea of the context. I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Peter Traversy.
[English]
Peter Traversy, Director General, Planning and Resource Management, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: I will take a few minutes to give an overview of the department's budget. In terms of where we are situated in overall federal spending, INAC is the fifth largest department. We have a budget of approximately $7 billion, which is 3.4 per cent of the overall budgetary Main Estimates for the federal government's current fiscal year.
INAC is a highly decentralized organization. We have 10 regions across the country. In our southern regions, about 80 per cent of the resources that we flow are to fund the delivery of programs by bands and tribal councils. Most of these programs are for provincial and municipal services, which Ms. Cram described. They include education, social assistance and community infrastructure. These services are provided to status Indians normally resident on-reserve.
In addition, as Ms. Cram also mentioned, the department funds programs that benefit on- and off-reserve residents, as well as Northerners, Metis and non-status Indians. Those programs include things such as post-secondary education, economic development, claims, self-government and expenditures through the Office of the Federal Interlocutor, as well.
In the North, we have expenditures related to land management and resource management in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. In the Yukon region, we have devolved our responsibilities entirely.
In terms of how we spend the $7 billion, the vast majority — about 83 per cent, or $5.8 billion — is flowed through transfer payments, which are grants and contributions. This department has approximately 20 per cent of the federal government's voted transfer payments.
The other larger share, 15 per cent, is flowed through our operating vote. That share covers a broad range of expenditures including legal obligations, such as the Indian residential schools claims settlement payments, litigation management, the Indian Registry System, et cetera. We also cover the direct program delivery costs, where the department pays directly for things such as contaminated sites cleanups, et cetera.
We support about 20 negotiating tables across the country. I want to emphasize this point: Only about 4 per cent of that $1 billion is administrative overhead. That amount is $264 million, which funds the range of normal corporate support functions such as finance, legal, human resources and information management and information technology, IM/IT — all that sort of thing; but it is only 4 percentage points.
In terms of allocations, a range of different mechanisms are used to allocate funding to First Nations. Ms. Cram and Ms. Filbee will go through the details of specific examples. However, a couple of concepts that come to bear at the national level and at all levels are the concepts of core funding and non-core funding.
Core funding is a range of basic services, including elementary and secondary education, income assistance and the maintenance of assets — facilities, et cetera. That block of core services are all eligible for annual program adjustments, part of the 2 per cent growth that the department receives. This funding also provides regions with the flexibility to live within the 2 per cent growth. They can move between program activities' funding to meet the priorities of the region and of the First Nation.
Then we have non-core funding. This is essentially targeted funding. These funds have to be used for the purposes for which they were provided to the department. That funding includes such things as the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan, the First Nation Infrastructure Fund, child and family services and special education. Those programs are only examples. There are long lists of both core and non-core responsibilities, but the essential difference is that the non-core funding is highly targeted. That difference will come to bear in the allocations to First Nations that will be described subsequently.
In terms of accountability — how the department transfers the funds to First Nations and how we ensure accountability for the funding — this department has about 70 separate funding authorities. Each has its own set of terms and conditions that define how the program is to be managed, who the eligible recipients are, what we can spend the funding on and how we measure performance, et cetera.
We have also developed a range of funding agreements that transfer these funds to First Nations. These agreements provide a range of flexibility. One is a simple contribution agreement, an annual contribution agreement, where essentially we reimburse actual expenditures. At the end of the year, if any funds are left over, those funds have to be returned to the department and to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have self-governing First Nations that are funded through a grant. There could be a five-year funding agreement along with that grant.
In between, we have such things as the Canada First Nations Funding Agreement, where we have a multi-year agreement with the First Nations. At the end of a fiscal year, the funds do not automatically lapse and First Nations are provided with flexibility in terms of moving funding around.
The key point here is that regardless of the flexibilities, none of the flexibilities kick in unless the terms and conditions are met. Those 70 sets of terms and conditions referred to set the bottom line that has to be delivered. Once we have met those terms and conditions, some of the flexibilities can kick in.
Our funding agreements are legal documents between us and the recipients. The agreements define the obligations of both parties. Every funding agreement has an audit clause, which allows the department to go in and make sure funds are expended appropriately. We require that recipients provide us with annual audited financial statements, audited by accredited accounting firms.
We have an intervention policy that, should things go off the rails, we can come in and assist the First Nation at various levels of intervention to address those problems. We also have program evaluations. In terms of managing our program authorities, every department is required to ensure that audits and evaluations are performed on a periodic basis to permit us to continue along with those authorities.
That is essentially my presentation. I will pass to Ms. Cram.
Ms. Cram: To see how it might work in a First Nation community, I will use the example of income assistance. One program funded through core funding that Mr. Traversy spoke of is income assistance. This program provides financial assistance to those ordinarily resident on reserve that meet provincial eligibility criteria. An example of the criteria might be age. The program essentially provides financial assistance for food, shelter, clothing, et cetera.
For those First Nations funded on a single-year agreement, how funding is provided is based on prior year expenditures. Their initial budget starting out for the year would be based on prior year expenditures, and this funding is adjusted during the year for caseload changes, provincial eligibility criteria if it has changed, or for rate changes, should the province change its rates.
Income assistance is not status-based; it is based on residency. The reason is to make it administratively simpler, so that the federal government provides income assistance on reserve and provinces provide it off reserve. I will pass to Ms. Filbee.
Sara Filbee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Economic Development, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: The lands and economic development sector of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada administers a range of programs. We serve on-reserve First Nations, all Aboriginal peoples including Inuit, Metis and First Nations both on and off reserve; and we also fulfill a number of responsibilities of the government under the Indian Act, both lands and economic development.
Specifically, our funding programs support First Nations and Inuit community economic development, the development of First Nations, Inuit and Metis businesses and lands management on First Nations reserves. We are also responsible for the administration of a series of laws and regulations that enable economic development, including the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act and the First Nations Land Management Act.
The community economic development program provides approximately $95 million annually to support economic development planning, commercial and business infrastructure and economic development capacity building in First Nations and Inuit communities. Funding for the community economic development planning, about $56 million, is provided according to a population-based formula; and the rest, about $39 million, is proposal driven. This program supports the type of community economic development services that any local government would provide to promote business- and investment-ready communities.
The Aboriginal Business Development Fund provides approximately $48 million annually to support Aboriginal businesses, including Inuit, Metis and First Nations, both on and off reserve. This funding is proposal driven and provides much needed capital to Aboriginal businesses regardless of whether they are on or off reserve.
Finally, the lands branch provides approximately $48 million annually to support INAC's responsibilities for managing reserve lands and to help First Nations manage their own lands. These programs and services support First Nations capacity building through the reserve land and environmental management program, First Nations land management, additions to reserve — which includes meeting treaty land entitlement obligations in Manitoba and Saskatchewan — and registration of legal interests in reserve lands.
INAC also provides guidance, advice and training for environmental legislation policies, processes and information management. The activities undertaken by the lands branch are consistent with our responsibilities under the Indian Act and help to enhance the value of First Nations lands, which are an important economic asset.
While our sectors offer a diversity of programs, we recognize that the responsibility for supporting Aboriginal economic development is shared with other departments and agencies that complement our efforts, including the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CanNor, which supports economic development in the North and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which supports Aboriginal labour market development, as well as a number of other departments and agencies.
Going forward, our work will be guided by the new federal framework for Aboriginal economic development, which was announced by Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in June 2009. This framework represents a fundamental change in our approach to supporting lands and economic development, and also recognizes significant real and growing opportunities for our Aboriginal people to take an unprecedented step toward becoming full participants in the Canadian economy.
The framework emphasizes achieving better results through an up-to-date, whole-of-government approach responsive to economic conditions, targeted at emerging opportunities, and one that leverages partnerships to achieve sustainable, long-term economic development.
The work of this committee — in particular, your report, Sharing Canada's Prosperity — A Hand Up, Not a Handout — was extremely valuable in the development of advice to ministers on the new framework. I also have copies of the economic development framework that I will leave behind.
Wendy Stewart-Fagnan, Director, Office of the Federal Interlocutor, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: The Urban Aboriginal Strategy is designed to support urban Aboriginal communities by promoting increased participation in the economy. UAS investments are focused on three national priority areas: improved life skills; promoting job training, skills and entrepreneurship; and supporting women, children and families.
The UAS budget is $68.5 million over five years; from 2007 to 2012 it is roughly $13.5 million per year. We are currently working in 13 designated cities: Vancouver and Prince George in British Columbia; Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge in Alberta; Saskatoon, Regina and Prince Albert in Saskatchewan; Winnipeg and Thompson in Manitoba; and Toronto, Thunder Bay and Ottawa in Ontario. We are also undertaking preliminary groundwork in Montreal and Halifax.
Generally speaking, the cities are identified based on the absolute numbers of urban Aboriginal people in their population or as a percentage of their population; the strategy compares Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations in that city.
In general, the larger UAS cities have a notional allocation of $185,000 per year to support communities' strategic planning, and the smaller cities have $100,000 available for this purpose. A key feature of the UAS is community and governments working in partnership to identify local priorities and pursue local solutions.
The outcome of this capacity funding is a community plan that sets out key objectives and activities to obtain improved outcomes. The work of implementing the plan is guided by the UAS steering committee comprised of government and community members.
Project funding is also available to UAS communities to help meet the objectives and outcomes in the local plans. In general, notional allocations are $750,000 per year for the larger centres and $400,000 per year for smaller centres. There is some variation in that allocation based on performance and past results.
These project funds are generally seed funds. That is to say, UAS federal funding requires demonstrable commitments — either financial or in kind — from other governments — provincial and municipal — as well as private sector sources and from Aboriginal-serving organizations.
With respect to allocating funds to specific projects, while there are variations from city to city, generally the process is as follows: The UAS steering committee invites proposals that respond to the priorities set out in its strategic plan for the community. The committee reviews the proposals received and ranks them according to their fit with the objectives in the plan. The committee makes recommendations to a funders' table comprised of any and all government, philanthropic and private-sector funders whose programs might support the urban community's aspirations.
In the case of UAS funds, our task is to decide on projects based on their fit with the three national priorities, ensuring we encourage other funders' participation wherever possible when putting contribution agreements in place. However, our overall purpose is that we can see a demonstrated benefit for Aboriginal people living in that urban centre.
The Urban Aboriginal Strategy has experienced modest successes in encouraging investment from other sources. Since 2007, the federal UAS has invested $18.3 million dollars in worthwhile projects, with an additional $18.2 million leveraged from other sources.
Other outcomes I will touch on briefly include the UAS success in engaging provinces and municipalities as effective partners in supporting urban Aboriginal communities, as well as in improving collaboration amongst other federal departments in support of urban Aboriginal issues. Thank you for your attention.
[Translation]
Ms. Cram: We will now be happy to take your questions.
[English]
The Chair: I will lead off, colleagues, if you do not mind.
The huge challenge we have had is that we seem — maybe this is not the correct terminology — to receive conflicting reports about the idea that certain funding goes to First Nations, and the funding is based on on- and off-reserve First Nations, and that the money does not go to off-reserve people.
If my recollection is correct, this funding is in housing and other areas. The perception is that the monies allocated for these areas are based on on- and off-reserve, and yet off-reserve do not receive any funds.
Can one of you please clarify that situation for me? It does not necessarily have to be housing; it can be other instances. We receive conflicting reports from First Nations and various other sources at this table. That is why we have asked you to come here today.
Ms. Cram: Thank you for the question, senator. I will use the example of housing. Part of it is eligibility from certain programs and then writ large. Two federal departments are involved in housing; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and INAC. They each have programs specific to on-reserve people.
Other programs are available also or other funding is provided for off-reserve people. I cannot remember in what budget, but housing dollars were provided for northern housing and Aboriginal housing south of 60. I think it was Budget 2009, but it could have been 2008.
When you receive that comment from individuals, they are referring to a particular program. They may say that for that program — which is perhaps based on residency — they are not eligible for because they are off-reserve. Other programs and funding are provided for which they are eligible.
When I gave housing as the example, money was transferred to the provinces to set up Aboriginal housing trusts.
The Chair: Are there instances where the funding allocation is based on on- and off-reserve status, and only on- reserve people receive the funding? That is the big question.
Ms. Cram: I am trying to think of a case and none comes to mind.
Post-secondary education and non-insured benefits are programs that are about the only two available specifically to status Indians living off-reserve. Post-secondary education is an Indian and Northern Affairs Canada program and non-insured health benefits are a Health Canada program.
With post-secondary education, dollars are allocated to First Nations, and First Nations make the decision about which of their members will be funded for post-secondary education. Each First Nation develops an education policy, which is within the context of the national policy and sets out maximum amounts for programs and such things as living expenses.
They then look at all their members, some who are resident on- or off-reserve, and decide what priorities they have in the way they distribute their post-secondary education funding.
You may be hearing from individual students who say they are not able to receive post-secondary education funding from their First Nation, and they may attribute that reason to being off-reserve. That may not be the reason why.
Many First Nations maintain that they do not have enough money to fund all the students eligible for funding.
The Chair: Within the department is there a directive that if 50 per cent of their people live off reserve and 50 per cent are on reserve, post-secondary educational funding is allocated 50/50 to on- and off-reserve residents?
The biggest concern I have heard is that often on-reserve residents receive preference over off-reserve residents. I want that situation clarified. If it is not correct, it should be on the record.
Ms. Cram: To my knowledge there is no directive that indicates to First Nations which of their members they are to fund. They are able to make that determination themselves. In the case of post-secondary education, this funding would be based on the post-secondary education policy, which they have developed.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for your interesting presentation. I have a few questions.
All of you mentioned program reviews and evaluations. I am interested in the proposals that are funded and how those proposals are reviewed.
My second question is with regard to one of your examples of core funding. You cited income assistance. Does that assistance flow directly to the band through the federal government? How do you ensure that the people who are to receive that income assistance actually receive the income assistance? I am not sure how this program is monitored if that the funding goes to the band and then to the people on the ground.
My third question relates to UAS, which you mentioned. The UAS is urban, and someone said that urban programs are generally provincial. Is this program federally run? There is a bit of a discrepancy there.
Ms. Stewart-Fagnan: The federal Urban Aboriginal Strategy is a federally funded program in which we work collaboratively with provinces, municipalities and communities.
Ms. Cram: With regard to the income assistance question, First Nations are given an amount of money in a funding agreement for the year. Part of that amount is for income assistance. As I indicated, for those First Nations with single- year funding agreements, funding is based on the previous year's expenditures. Therefore, they have that amount of money.
Individuals work for the First Nation who are income assistance administrators. Their job is to ensure that eligible individuals receive their income assistance cheques. This income assistance is usually on a monthly basis, and it is to be at the rate and eligibility of the respective province.
Through the end-of-the-year audit, we know how much the band expended on income assistance. We also conduct program evaluations, and we can perform audits as well.
Regions have to conduct compliance activities. The regions do not look at 100 per cent of the cases necessarily. They pick a percentage of cases and pull the files at the First Nations level to see who received funding and whether that person received the correct amount, et cetera. Through those compliance activities, we are able to know that the First Nation administered the program as they should.
With audits, which are conducted, I think, on a three-year cycle, and evaluations, which are conducted on a five- year cycle, we also have further information. There is an annual audit of financial statements so we would know their expenditures.
Mr. Traversy: With respect to the evaluations, the management of our transfer payment programs and spending authorities requires that we have periodic audits and evaluations. They have to be current, within a five-year period.
We have a three-year transfer payment management plan, which is linked directly to our audit and evaluation plan, to ensure that when we make a decision as to whether a funding authority should continue or should be modified in any way, that the decision benefits from the evaluations and audits that have taken place.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Do you have an example of a program proposal that was not running the way it should be and you cancelled it?
Ms. Cram: Perhaps I can ask Ms. Filbee to speak to economic development, because some of that program is proposal driven.
Ms. Filbee: Our programs are a mixture. There is a tranche with respect to lands. That is on reserve, so I will leave that program for now.
Then the community investments branch runs a number of core funding and economic development operations that are proposal driven. Again, this programming is on reserve because of its nature; it is community supporting, including Inuit communities.
The last tranche is what used to be Aboriginal Business Canada, now Aboriginal Business Development, which is all proposal-driven and is open to all Aboriginal businesses.
In any program, there are what we call terms and conditions, known in our alphabet soup as Ts and Cs. Those terms and conditions determine what we can approve money for. When someone says we cannot approve that proposal because it does not fall within our terms and conditions, that is shorthand for saying that someone submitted a proposal that does not comply with the purposes for which we are allowed to spend the money. When we receive a proposal and review it to determine whether we have the money, we either award it or not.
The other thing that happens regularly is that there is a cycle, a period of time for which we have authorities to run a particular program. For example, in almost all the programs under Lands and Economic Development, we are coming to the end of the program authorities. We have to revisit the programs and look at all past evaluations to determine if there are better ways of running that program. We have the Aboriginal Economic Development Framework now, so it is perfect timing for us to look at how to deliver better some of the services that we are supposed to deliver through these programs, in compliance with this framework and with more modern ideas of accountability.
An example of concerns about programs is that sometimes a program is designed for one purpose and one time, and then, as the years go by, the situation changes. Increasingly, we have become more and more concerned with being able to demonstrate outcomes, accountabilities, measurement evaluation and so on.
Some of our community economic opportunities, particularly our Community Economic Development Program, were not designed in such a time. The program is coming up for renewal. It is core-support formula driven. We know anecdotally that good work has been done through this program, but we are unable to show to our satisfaction that we have leveraged the money to the maximum, and that First Nations and Inuit communities have been able to do the same.
As we renovate and work to renew the program authorities, we will make changes, and they will be informed by the various evaluations and audits that we have received, as well as by consultations and engagement sessions with stakeholders, First Nations and Inuit communities, and so on. That process is an ongoing one that we are launching into at the moment. In this particular case, we have a program that was designed for a certain time and that no longer meets the needs, so we will make changes.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you. I am interested in having follow-up on that process.
Ms. Filbee: We are happy to provide it.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentations this morning. I want to ask a question about the Post-Secondary Student Support Program. Currently, the federal government provides that financial assistance to status First Nations and Inuit students. Am I correct in assuming students can be on reserve or off reserve?
Ms. Cram: Yes, you are correct.
Senator Hubley: Prior to 1992, that funding was determined by the number of eligible students and their expenses; between 1992 and 1997, the model shifted from per student to block funding; and in 1997, as we know, funding was capped.
From the testimony of witnesses we have heard in our studies, education seems to be of paramount importance. Perhaps the funding for post-secondary education should be established as a dedicated transfer to education or something of that nature.
In your line of work and in your particular expertise, where do you feel education should fall? What should be done about increasing the number?
I will give you some of the figures. Between 2001 and 2006, 10,500 First Nations and Inuit post-secondary students were denied funding under the Post-Secondary Student Support Program. In 2007 and 2008, almost 2,600 were denied access. That lack of funding does not seem to be the right direction to move in that particular educational field. What is your response to that situation?
Ms. Cram: Minister Strahl has stated publicly that education is his top priority. He absolutely believes it; he believes that it is important that all Aboriginal young people have the opportunity to pursue post-secondary education, whatever their choice may be.
In Budget 2008, the federal government announced that it will review the post-secondary education program. At the same time, the announcement was made about the new student grant offering and changes to the Canada Student Loans Program. We have a recent audit on the post-secondary education program, which is critical of the way the program is designed and managed. Thus, we are in the process of looking at ways to increase post-secondary participation.
A big question is: Why are more Aboriginal peoples not accessing the Canada Student Loans Program and the Canada Student Grants Program? Access rates are low. The changes made to those programs recently were directed towards low- and middle-income families. One way to increase post-secondary participation is to encourage greater participation in Canada student loans and grants.
Also, a terrific number of private-sector bursaries and scholarships are not taken up. Again, these bursaries and scholarships are another opportunity for Aboriginal students. They might not take advantage of those opportunities due to a lack of awareness.
In terms of the program itself, it currently functions as entirely grant; it is 100 per cent grant. One thing we have to consider is whether that program is the right instrument. Right now, other instruments are out there, such as the Registered Education Savings Plan, which families can invest in and then they receive contributions from the federal government.
We need to look at all financial instruments and opportunities to support Aboriginal students. I also make reference to the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, which has been successful in administering the funding they receive, not only from government, but also from the private sector. That foundation has supported a number of students.
Senator Hubley: I am interested in hearing how important an educated workforce is from an economic development standpoint, as well, and the opportunities that an educated workforce can see and pursue within communities.
Ms. Filbee: Obviously, an educated workforce is fundamental and one of the elements identified in the framework as significant. There is a real opportunity for all of Canada in the significantly- and quickly-growing population of Aboriginals.
Obviously, access to post-secondary education is absolutely imperative to ensure they are best able to participate in the economy. We are not involved in that area, but it is part of what needs to happen. The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, for example, has paired both education and economic development as his priorities.
Senator Hubley: I have a quick question that you touched on. What sort of communication is there within the department among experts who are dealing in different fields pertaining to Aboriginal communities; what kind of communication goes back and forth? Is that communication something that happens, or not?
Ms. Filbee: I have been working at INAC for not quite a year and one of the things I have discovered is that there is a close-knit senior management team. We work closely together. We have regular discussions on policy issues, operational issues and so on.
We collaborate strongly across areas. As you have identified, it is almost impossible to pick any issue in which one, a few or all of us do not have some element of responsibility. One thing I have noticed at INAC is this partnership across sectors.
Senator Hubley: Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: I have a simple question: Are there any funding agreements based on per capita that go to on- reserve communities? If so, what programs are those?
Ms. Cram: I will ask my colleagues to correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think any programs are based solely on per capita. There are some programs where there is an element of population in the formula, but almost all formulae that include population always include a remoteness element, as well, in recognition of the higher costs of flying to communities and things like that.
Some programs have an element of population in them. I will use kindergarten-to-grade-12 as an example. We use nominal role in K-to-12 education. A check is made in the classroom of who is in attendance on September 30. A notional amount is provided to a First Nation and that amount is firmed up based on students who attend. One thing we have to figure out is which kids are attending First Nations schools versus which children are attending provincial schools, private schools or other educational institutions.
Senator Brazeau: If there is a component based on a per capita funding formula, what level of oversight does the department have to ensure that the funds directed towards all band members, be they on-reserve or off-reserve, have access to those funds?
Mr. Traversy: The funding flows through funding agreements, and we have terms and conditions with all our funding agreements that prescribe how the funding can be utilized. That agreement defines who the eligible recipients are, what we can pay for, et cetera. A person will receive funding provided that the person is an eligible recipient, requires that service, and we have the authority to make that payment.
The oversight is through the terms and conditions that define how the programs can be delivered. As I mentioned, all these programs are subject to regular audits and evaluations. That is all part of the department's accountability framework. It is largely tied to the transfer agreements, which are legal agreements between the department and the recipients.
Senator Brazeau: I am glad you mentioned the word ``accountability'' because I am a strong proponent and advocate of accountability. I will not dish out my frustration except to say that, as a First Nations person myself who has lived off- reserve, I do not even know how my community receives funding, what they receive funding for in terms of the programs, what the formulas are and why some people cannot have access to the available funding.
I heard your presentation this morning and I heard you say you have program reviews. Here some First Nation leaders say they over-report and they send X number of reports to the department. If this review is all happening, why are one third of First Nations communities in some sort of financial difficulty, be it some sort of remedial financial measures or third-party management?
Why are grassroots Aboriginal people not able to access available funding out there? It boggles my mind that this situation is happening in 2009. We have heard time and time again the presentations, facts and figures.
We talked about the Urban Aboriginal Strategy. I will not talk about that program because personally I think it is a farce. However, it is all about people first. One thing I hate to see is a young First Nations child, living on or off reserve, who has all the potential in the world but somewhere along the way something happens where the child falls between the cracks. I hear the department talk about all the accountability, all the great work they are doing, all the program reviews, but people are still living in poverty. How do you explain that situation?
Mr. Traversy: I will respond to one aspect of that question and perhaps Ms. Cram may want to take on a part as well. I want to clarify the number of First Nations that are in third-party management. As of November 16, there are 25 First Nations who are in some level of intervention.
Twelve are recipient-managed, so the recipient is also managing a plan to come back on track, and nine are co- managed. Only four are in actual third- party management situations. The percentage is small of First Nations that are in any type of intervention.
Senator Brazeau: The figures I used were the department's own figures of last year. I guess progress has been made, then.
Mr. Traversy: These numbers are as of November 16; they are the most current figures.
Senator Brazeau: Is it possible for the department to forward to this committee the funding formulas that First Nations have in terms of the funding that they receive for all the different programs that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada funds?
Mr. Traversy: That is possible. Funding goes into a lot of detail with all the different program areas, but it is possible to provide that detail.
In terms of our funding authorities, all that information is available on our website, but we can summarize things in a way. In terms of transparency, the 70 funding authorities I have talked about and the related terms and conditions can be seen on the departmental website. We can put together a package of information on how allocations are made by activity.
Senator Brazeau: Three weeks ago yesterday, I asked through the minister's office for a briefing on the department's funding to First Nations communities. The minister's office contacted me yesterday and said they had heard nothing from the officials at INAC. If the information is all on website, that is fine.
That is one aspect, but I want to hear from people responsible for the management of those contribution agreements so that we can have a clear picture as to what funding goes out, what it goes out through and what formula is utilized, so we can have a clear picture. If there is underfunding, as we hear many times, we will be able to make that assessment when we have the information. Right now, I do not think that Canadians, and certainly people around this table — unless I am wrong — have a clear understanding of what those funding formulas are, and what these communities receive funding for.
Mr. Traversy: Absolutely; funding covers a broad range of things. Ms. Cram may want to touch on a couple of those things. Part of the issue is that we fund a broad range of different services and each one of those services may be subject to different cost drivers or different allocation methodologies. There is uniqueness to each of the program areas and that uniqueness does not facilitate easy comprehension of how it is done. Funding is not straightforward.
Ms. Cram: I agree with Mr. Traversy that funding is complicated, but we can describe that process. I would not direct you to the website. The website can talk about program description and eligibility, but it will not give the details of the funding formula. We will provide those details.
I think you also asked the question about poverty and why there is poverty in some communities and not others. I am sure this committee has struggled with that question; we have all struggled with it.
In my view, it depends on the leadership in the community. If there is strong leadership and governance in a community — and you talk about accountability — then they likely have better results. Unfortunately, that is not the circumstance, as you well know, in every community.
Senator Brazeau: Does the department believe it has jurisdiction over status Indians living off reserve equal to those living on reserve?
Ms. Cram: When you use the word ``jurisdiction'' —
Senator Brazeau: That is, under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act.
Ms. Cram: Section 91(24) talks about lands reserved for Indians, but it does not oblige the federal government to assume responsibility for that land. The government has chosen to exercise responsibility for certain things from a policy perspective. The federal government also has spending authority that it can exercise.
What you see today is the evolution of the federal government expressing the responsibility it has chosen to take on, and the role it has taken on vis-à-vis the provinces. I am sure, as you are aware, provinces also maintain that they have, and the Constitution gives them, jurisdiction in a number of areas. It is a matter of working out with provinces what will be done by them versus what will be done by the federal government.
Senator Brazeau: Except that I have never heard a premier, to my knowledge, who has acknowledged jurisdiction for off-reserve status Indians.
Ms. Cram: I do not think anyone will acknowledge that, but I think many premiers recognize the reality that regardless of where people live, or what status they have, what all of us want is more Aboriginal people to participate in the economy.
Given the opportunities, particularly in the West, that participation is important. To me, Canada has a choice; either we are able to provide the programming and there is a circumstance where we can fill those jobs with Aboriginal individuals, or we have the circumstance where we have lots of potential individuals but choose different life courses.
Senator Raine: Thank you for coming. It is difficult because I start out with questions but then everyone else asks them. One thing I am not clear about: We hear about a 2-per-cent growth limit in certain core funding. Do I understand correctly that the limit started in about 1997?
Mr. Traversy: That limit comes out of program review in the mid-1990s, about 1995. There was a government-wide program review; and coming out of that program review, we went to 6-per-cent growth, 3-per-cent growth and then 2- per-cent growth. From 1997 until this day, we have 2-per-cent growth on that range of core-type services that we talked about. Nowadays, the 2-per-cent growth translates into approximately $93 million a year.
Senator Raine: Was this limit designed across the board, with all ministries having the same kind of growth restrictions in their budgets? Was it designed to tighten up the waste and things like that?
Mr. Traversy: That is exactly right. In program review —
Senator Raine: By program, you do not mean only INAC; you mean all departments?
Mr. Traversy: Yes, the program review was government-wide across all departments. In fact, other departments came out with absolute cuts. Two departments came out of program review with growth. One was INAC, with 2-per- cent growth, and Health Canada received growth as well. Health Canada's growth was 3 per cent on their non-insured health benefits program. Everyone else received absolute cuts.
We have received that growth for more than a decade now. However, the intention was to limit growth in program spending.
Senator Raine: Can you tell me what the growth in the Aboriginal population is?
Mr. Traversy: Off the top of my head, I do not have that number. I will have to consult on that number.
Senator Raine: I think it is more than 2 per cent annually, but I am not sure.
Ms. Cram: It is fair to say that it is more than 2 per cent.
Senator Raine: What I am looking at is, first, is that there are certain aspects of funding through INAC, especially post-secondary funding. For other services, we only have to look at how some communities are falling behind in basic services. If they are forced to live with a limit on their growth, we obviously force individual bands to rob Peter to pay Paul. That situation must cause a lot of stress. Is there any flexibility at all in this limit?
Mr. Traversy: There is some flexibility in terms of programming. You mentioned robbing Peter to pay Paul. During the fiscal year, First Nations and regions managing the resources watch where their priorities are, and they may need to transfer funds from one program to another.
Education and social are the key areas that grow faster than 2 per cent. The funding must come from somewhere else to fund that gap in education and social. In the last couple of fiscal years we have seen a significant gap in that area, and First Nations regions must take that money from elsewhere.
It is important to understand that the 2-per-cent growth is not the only growth the department receives. The 2 per cent is only a baseline growth that the department receives on that block of core services. That is to help us offset the increase in population and price.
The department also benefits from funding for all sorts of decisions. For the last successive budgets, we have seen major investments in INAC, for instance.
By way of example, in this year's Main Estimates, when we started this fiscal year our growth was almost 10 percentage points, including the 2 per cent with $93 million and all sorts of one-off additional announcements in the budget: for example, the water strategy money that came on board, Justice At Last and all of those additional things.
The department's overall growth far exceeds 2 per cent. The 2 per cent is a base adjustment we receive every year, and it funds these basic programs. That point is important to note as well.
We provide some flexibility within the funding agreements. The flexibility exists, provided that the minimum terms and conditions are respected.
Senator Raine: It must be difficult for the First Nations communities to manage their funding because they have all these reports and audits, yet they face challenges where there is not enough money in certain areas.
Mr. Traversy: It absolutely does impose challenges and requires that we impose a high level of rigour on all expenditures. Ms. Cram might want to reflect on the pressures on education and social, the key areas, but definitely reporting creates pressures.
Senator Raine: I am particularly interested in education. The minister, as you know, has said that education is a focus. I know there is a lot of interest in moving forward on education at the early childhood and primary level as well. Those primary schools on reserves are set up to fail if they are not able to pay the teachers at the going rate. In some cases, teachers take special training only to leave and go to work in the provincial system because they can make a lot more money.
Is there any program that will help bridge that gap in funding for primary school teachers on reserve?
Ms. Cram: We have a small program called Teacher Recruitment and Retention. I think funding is $5 million, but I can let you know. That program was introduced for that reason, namely the recognition that it was challenging for First Nations to provide funding at the provincial level. In some cases they have to provide even more. If they are in an isolated area, it is challenging to recruit and retain teachers.
The other thing we are working on is an announcement in Budget 2008 of a new education initiative of $269 million over five years. That initiative is to start building the foundation for using some of the tools that provinces have adopted, such as student success plans, school success plans, and accountability measures such as performance measurement. Then, schools have information on which they can start building plans to improve outcomes.
Also, we have been working on partnerships with provincial governments because we absolutely recognize that provinces have the knowledge, experience and systems in place for education, and we need to work more closely with them. A number of partnership agreements have been negotiated. One is in British Columbia; in fact it is at the legislation stage. There is also a recent letter of understanding in Manitoba and a memorandum of understanding in New Brunswick.
Those are partnership agreements to work with the provinces because 40 per cent of children normally resident on reserve attend provincial schools. The children are doing maybe a bit better, but not significantly better in provincial schools. We need to improve both systems to ensure better outcomes.
I will make the link to post-secondary education. One of the biggest problems we see is that not enough Aboriginal children are graduating from high school. We need to have them graduating from high school and then move them on to post-secondary education. High school must be a big focus as well. We must focus on K to 12.
You also mentioned early years. One area we want to look into in the future, in the continuing reform of K to 12, is putting more emphasis on the early years. You may have noticed that Ontario recently announced it will introduce full- day four- and five-year-old kindergarten because the province is concerned about improving outcomes in K to 12. We want to look at that possibility as well for on-reserve schools.
Senator Raine: To clarify, in the agreement with British Columbia, did they receive what they needed or will they continue to lose their teachers because they cannot pay them enough?
Ms. Cram: At the present time, we are in negotiations on the funding agreement for jurisdictional arrangements. There are 13 First Nations that are negotiating jurisdiction under that agreement. The First Nations Education Steering Committee in British Columbia and INAC are still negotiating the funding arrangement. The legislation requires that comparable education is provided. Thus, what B.C. First Nations want to ensure is that they receive sufficient funding to be able to provide that money to teachers.
The Chair: There is great frustration in B.C. as a result of this issue not being dealt with, from the B.C. perspective, in an efficient way. I think this frustration is partly what Senator Raine is concerned about.
Senator Sibbeston: In the Northwest Territories, the situation is so different from the South, where all the First Nations and people in the North are given services by the territorial government. I have been involved in that government. Generally, services are good to people.
Senator Patterson was premier also, and we are proud of the services we provide to the North in all areas; education and housing. There are local, autonomous bodies that deal with these areas.
Occasionally, the question will arise as to whether the First Nations in the North and the Inuit receive as much as First Nations receive in the South in terms of higher education, housing and economic development. Have you completed an analysis to determine whether the First Nations in the North are equivalent and receiving a similar amount of money as First Nations in the South?
Ms. Cram: I do not believe that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has undertaken that kind of work. The Department of Finance now has responsibility for the territorial financing formula. They may have completed that kind of analysis, but I am not aware that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has.
I do not like to say that the formula is complicated but with the territorial funding formula, funding is provided in different ways. When we look at one program and try to figure out whether there is sufficient money provided for that program, it is hard to compare, because money is coming from different sources for different purposes.
Senator Sibbeston: Has the department ever undertaken an analysis as to the state of Aboriginal people in the North versus the South? When you think of it, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, your department, is supposed to be responsible for the First Nations and Inuit people in the South, but the responsibility in the North has been given to the territorial government. I cannot help but think that you, as a department, would be concerned about how the people in the North are faring relative to the First Nations people in the South. Have you prepared an analysis of that difference?
Ms. Cram: There is work done for all Aboriginal people across the country. Different research has been done, for example, the Community Well-Being Index. I need to check whether that index has been prepared for the North. The index takes census information based on postal code and tries to compare First Nations communities with the surrounding community to see what the relative socio-economic condition is.
Work has been completed by Statistics Canada using the Aboriginal Peoples Survey to obtain data on relative socio- economic well-being. We can look into what is available and provide the information to this committee, if that is helpful.
Senator Carstairs: I have a number of questions. The first relates to the $7 billion figure you mentioned in your presentation. I think the perception of most people watching this broadcast is that $7 billion ends up in the hands of the reserve communities in Canada. That perception is not true. Can you explain exactly how much funding arrives in reserve communities in Canada?
Mr. Traversy: Approximately 83 per cent is flowed through transfer payments. About $5.8 billion flows from the department through transfer payments, and those payments go directly to the recipients, which are primarily bands, tribal councils, et cetera. The vast majority flows that way.
Another 15 per cent flows through our operating vote, and that funding includes a range of benefits to First Nations, Aboriginals and northerners.
About $300 million of that operating $1 billion is for legal obligations, which includes expenditures for Indian residential school settlements of about $160 million, and $100 million for litigation management. We have legal responsibilities with respect to the Indian registry and the land registry, and that is about another $60 million dollars.
About another $200 million relates to direct program delivery that benefits First Nations and other recipients. That program delivery is where the department is involved in direct delivery. For programs such as clean-ups in the North, et cetera, the department funds some of those programs through our operating vote. We also have people directly employed in the delivery of education, social services, et cetera, and that cost is picked up in the direct-delivery costs. Then we have negotiation tables, and we spend about $169 million for negotiation costs. We have at least 20 tables across the country that we support.
I want to emphasize that the administrative overhead of the department is approximately 4 percentage points. Those functions are the normal corporate service functions that are provided in most organizations such as finance functions, legal support, IM/IT, human resources, audit and evaluation; all those key support functions. Those functions cost $269 million, or 4 percentage points.
It is a misperception that a lot of the money that is spent does not benefit First Nations, northerners and our recipients.
Senator Carstairs: Perhaps I can rephrase the question. Exactly how much money is transferred to band councils?
Mr. Traversy: Within the transfer payments, the $5.8 billion, I will have to obtain a breakdown, but the vast majority of that money — essentially, the $5.8 billion — goes directly to the recipients; it is not managed by the department at all.
Senator Carstairs: That is interesting, because the grand chief comes up with a $4 billion figure. There is a large disparity of $1.8 billion here. If you can provide the exact figure, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Traversy: We will provide the exact figure.
Senator Carstairs: The second issue I want to address is the social transfer tax, which used to be the social health and transfer tax. Health has been removed from this transfer tax. It now covers only education and social services.
In the past, the interesting reality is that there has been no accurate way of measuring how much of that social transfer tax, or social education transfer tax, was spent on social and education services.
Does the department have any idea how much of the social transfer tax, in any province or all of the provinces, is used on Aboriginal people, both on and off reserve?
Ms. Cram: No, the department does not have information of that nature. I do not know whether the Department of Finance has any data on that transfer.
Senator Carstairs: My third area relates to the Head Start program, and you alluded to it in Senator Raine's question.
The Head Start program is an important program if you base your education initiative on childhood right through to university. I could be wrong, because things change, but the Head Start program was funded, when I was in cabinet, by three departments: Health Canada, INAC and Cultural Heritage. Three reports were required to all three departments on the Head Start initiative. In addition, I was informed that there was no interaction between the Head Start teachers and the elementary school teachers.
I am an educator by profession. It seems to me that if we were trying to prepare children in a Head Start program for future success in the elementary school program that there would be direct correlation of one program with the other.
I want to hear if that situation has changed, if those three reports have been reduced to one report, and if we are having greater success in moving our children from Head Start programs to elementary programs.
Ms. Cram: Four departments have what we call early childhood development programming for Aboriginal children. There is Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Health Canada, INAC, and now the Public Health Agency of Canada has programming as well.
About two years ago, an initiative was undertaken to look at how, on the ground, at the community level, we could coordinate all those different programs. We looked at how to coordinate it from a reporting perspective; streamlining reporting and delivery in various aspects. That initiative proved to be successful in a number of communities.
The success of integrating those elements happens at the community level. Some communities have been successful at making these programs work together and have had them closely linked to the education system, K to 12. Part of this success depends on where they put their daycare or their early learning. If they collocate it with their school, it will work much better with their school.
However, there is still more to be done.
I am sure you know this, senator, but some programs come at the issue from a health perspective, with a mentality such as ``healthy moms, healthy babes.'' Others come at it from an employment perspective. We want programming that then permits mothers and fathers to access the labour market and have child care taken care of. Others come at it from the perspective of education and having children ready to learn.
I think communities have said all those things are related and service providers need to work together.
In the federal government, we still need to figure out ways to have the same objective. It does not matter what perspective we come at the issue from, at the end of the day, we all ought to have the same objective; namely, to have a life-long learning continuum. The question then is how to achieve that objective in the best way. I think there is more work we must do.
Senator Carstairs: The reality is that a sick or undernourished child, or one deprived of sleep because there are 18 people living in a home, is not a child prepared to learn.
Ms. Cram: Absolutely.
The Chair: Ms. Cram, you said earlier that governance is generally the key, in most cases, to a successful community; governance is important for the level of affluence in a First Nations community. Then you made reference to education, and Ms. Filbee spoke of economic development.
First, I do not know whether the department does anything to help people improve their governance. We hugely underfund education. It is known that the First Nations do not have the same opportunity as other children in the country. In terms of economic development, the amount of money that goes towards economic development when we look at the overall budget is pitiful.
Governance, education and economic development are the key to bringing these people into the mainstream. I personally opposed the Kelowna Accord because only a small percentage of that went to economic development. It did not make sense. If we look at the successful communities, such as Osoyoos in British Columbia, they are successful because they have excellent governance; they have focused on education; they have been able to earn a reasonable amount to assist in education over and above the funding that comes from INAC; and they have focused on economic development.
I guess this lack is the frustration. I am going off subject a little bit because we wanted to talk about on-reserve and off-reserve funding. However, Osoyoos, for instance, help off-reserve people. I leave this information as more of a comment and maybe you want to comment later.
Senator Hubley: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question concerns funding provided to Aboriginal learners by the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. Is the funding provided by loans or by scholarships?
Ms. Cram: It is a grant; it is a combination of things. The foundation has been provided funding by the federal government in the amount of $14 million, I believe. I could be wrong. I understand the foundation has provided that funding in the way of grants. The foundation also receives money from the private sector. A company could come to them and say, Here is X amount of money and we would like to it go to students in this geographic area who are studying in these fields. The foundation then administers those funds on the behalf of those companies.
However, most students who go to the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation find that the amounts of grants are not sufficient to cover all their education. Those students therefore put together sources of money from a number of different places. They likely have a combination of loans and grants from Canada Student Loans and Canada Student Grants program. They may also factor in family income or employment income they have earned. Then, perhaps, they receive a grant from the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, which may come from different sources.
Money comes from a variety of sources. That situation is like any other student's situation in this country; students must look to multiple sources of funding to support their post-secondary education.
Senator Hubley: I want to clarify something. You mentioned loans, grants and scholarships. The scholarships are non-repayable. The loans obviously must be repaid. Are the grants non-repayable?
Ms. Cram: The grants are non-repayable. They are like a bursary.
Senator Hubley: We heard concern from First Nations that the Post-Secondary Student Support Program could become a loan program; a more centrally controlled loan program. I was thinking over some of your comments. I thought you suggested there may be a review of those programs.
Ms. Cram: I was talking about the fact that the program as it currently exists is a 100-per-cent grant program. The post-secondary education program is 100-per-cent grants, as it is currently structured. As I mentioned, we had an audit recently that was highly critical of the way the program was administered.
I said we are undertaking a review and we are looking at the other financial instruments that exist that one could consider. Should the program be 100-per-cent grant, or should it be some other combination of different sources or instruments?
Senator Hubley: The difficulty is with how it is administered. Is that the criticism?
Ms. Cram: Yes; at the present time, it is administered on a decentralized basis in the sense of core funding, which Mr. Traversy spoke about. When a First Nation receives an amount of money, an element of that core funding is for post-secondary education. Post-secondary education happens to be a discretionary program, unlike K-to-12 and income assistance, both of which are non-discretionary.
A First Nation must first ensure that it covers all its non-discretionary programs; those things that absolutely must be done. Then, the First Nation must meet some minimum terms and conditions for a particular program. We have circumstances where a First Nation could have no grade 12 graduates and thus no one in their community — I am only saying it is possible — who is eligible for post-secondary education.
The First Nation still receives an amount for post-secondary education. Thus, they have a circumstance where they could have a lot of demand in one place from students and it is not matched up with how the dollars are presently allocated.
Senator Raine: Mr. Traversy, I notice you are looking at a little cheat sheet. Can we have a copy of that sheet?
Mr. Traversy: Absolutely; I have been looking at a breakdown of our Main Estimates in terms of the strategic outcomes and all the various services. The Main Estimates show education,; elementary, secondary, post-secondary, et cetera. We will definitely send that over.
Senator Raine: That information will probably help to clarify things. I wanted to ask Ms. Filbee one thing. In the economic development side of things, are there any programs similar to what we hear about micro-loans, which are so effective in Third World countries? What is the availability of a simple micro-loan?
It seems you have a lot of programs but they are probably complicated to access. Some people might benefit from a micro-loan.
Ms. Filbee: You are talking about pure lending, such as the lending Calmeadow Foundation was involved in. The individual who received the Nobel Prize was involved in developing that lending.
Senator Raine: Yes.
Ms. Filbee: No, we have not done that. We have been working with Aboriginal financial institutions to use their facilities for commercial banks to provide access credit. For example, remote communities have a difficult time otherwise. In terms of the actual methodology you talked about, no, we have not used it.
Senator Raine: In the hearings we recently held on governance in British Columbia, we heard from small communities where they do not have enough capacity in terms of their governance to go much beyond the basic core needs of their community. If someone in their community could benefit from an entrepreneurial opportunity, that individual would not know where to go. Is that something we should tackle?
Ms. Filbee: As I indicated already, we are in the process of looking at the design of all our programs, particularly the community economic development programs. There is certainly the opportunity now to look at that issue.
One issue we have to deal with is that we have a large number of communities, all in different spaces in terms of readiness for economic development. As you indicated, a lot of that development is capacity development. That issue is something that we will take back and fold into our overall look at the programs.
Senator Brazeau: Going back to the issue of funding, hypothetically, if band council A has 100 members, 50 living on reserve and 50 living off reserve, and band council B has 100 members, all living on reserve, under the Band Support Funding program, are the two bands funded equally?
Ms. Cram: I will ask Brenda Kustra, who is the Director General of the Governance Branch, to answer this question.
Brenda D. Kustra, Director General, Governance Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: With respect to Band Support Funding, it is the total status population of a community that affects the community allowance portion of the Band Support Funding formula. Many elements are taken into account in that formula, but total status population affects the council allowance portion.
On-reserve population directly affects the basic overhead portion of the Band Support Funding formula. Population is calculated in two different ways for two distinct components of that formula. It is not generic in terms of a 50-50 split. It is based on the individual components.
Mr. Brazeau: Are all band members, whether they live on or off reserve, accounted for in this funding formula?
Ms. Kustra: With respect to the calculation of the amount of money that a band is eligible for, a band with respect to the council allowance portion only, the total population is included.
Senator Brazeau: Following the Corbiere v. Canada decision, obviously the residency component of off-reserve members was considered discrimination in terms of voting practices. There are some cases in the courts currently that deal with other issues with respect to off-reserve band members. What is the view of the department with respect to perhaps inequities or inequality in terms of off-reserve band members having access to post-secondary education, for example, or housing and health services because they live off reserve? What is the view of the department with respect to perhaps some of those inequities taking place across the country?
Ms. Cram: We are not aware of inequities in post-secondary education related to whether individuals live on or off reserve. What we hear from First Nations is that there is insufficient post-secondary education money to support all eligible students. I think a senator mentioned some of the numbers of eligible students; I cannot remember, but around 9,000. That is what we hear. We do not hear the issue is based on residency.
Another program area you mentioned was health. It is non-insured health benefits. I guess that question is for Health Canada, but I am not aware that anyone who is eligible feels they do not have access to non-insured health benefits. I cannot recall what your third program area was.
Senator Brazeau: Housing.
Ms. Cram: One complaint on housing is that housing is a huge determinant of who is able to move back to reserve. Housing is the limiting factor, in fact. I am repeating what I have heard; the reason there were not as many Bill C-31 reinstatees that returned to reserve was because there was not sufficient housing to permit it.
Now with the McIvor case, the question will be, what is the estimated number of reinstatees that will happen? Then, how many of those people will wish to return to reserve; and will there be limitations on them in making a choice to return to reserve because of available housing?
The Chair: I have a question for clarification in regard to Senator Brazeau's question. Ms. Kustra, can you describe council allowance portion, please?
Ms. Kustra: This portion is an element of the band support funding formula that supports the chief and council to undertake their responsibilities for all members of the community, whether they live on or off reserve. That is why the total status population is the element that is used in that particular calculation as opposed to only the on-reserve status portion, because the chief and council make policies and decisions that affect their members no matter where members live. Ms. Cram has indicated how some of the folks who live off reserve are eligible to receive programs and services provided by the community.
Senator Brazeau: On that point, I am not sure what sort of analysis the department has conducted on complaints and allegations, but I have heard a lot of complaints with respect to off-reserve band members who have been denied post-secondary education because the authority, in that case, lies with the band chief and council. I am not sure if you have seen any of those complaints or have received those complaints at the department.
How big is the communication shop within INAC currently?
Mr. Traversy: I may not have numbers at that level, but let me check. No, I will double-check on that number.
Ms. Cram: Off the top of my head, I would say approximately 50 people, but I could be wrong.
Senator Brazeau: I know at one point several years ago, the number was close to 100 individuals. Whether that number has been reduced is probably likely. In any event, that is still a lot of individuals, in my view, with respect to a department that receives taxpayer dollars to communicate positive messaging and information with respect to what the department does, what streams of funding it provides for the benefit of citizens, and what the roles, responsibilities and rights of First Nations citizens.
I think all Canadians would be well served if the department turned their minds to communicating some of these messages. Frankly, I do not see that communication out there and I think individuals would benefit from it.
Having said that, what are the priorities of the department to the advantage and benefit of First Nations citizens across the country?
Ms. Kustra: I would say generally everything that we do in the Department of Indian Affairs should ultimately be geared toward benefiting First Nations and First Nations communities. We want to support First Nations individuals and First Nations governments to take advantage of all the opportunities that Canada offers, and to be able to participate in economic opportunities that will bring jobs and employment to individual First Nations communities to improve the community's well-being.
Every program, every service should be able to describe the ultimate benefit in a First Nations community of being able to deliver that program.
Senator Brazeau: I agree with you 100 per cent. However, and this is why I brought up the communication shop within the department, if this message is not communicated directly to First Nations citizens wherever they may live across the country, how will they participate and fully contribute to Canadian society?
Ms. Kustra: I believe that a number of First Nations success stories are being posted on the INAC website to try to promote those experiences. Many communities do not want their success promoted, and the respective chiefs make such decisions. Individual community websites often have examples of their successes. Certainly, a number of highly vocal chiefs across the country, such as Chief Clarence Louie, are active on the economic front. Chief Louie travels across the country to engage with other leaders and with industry to talk about the successes in his communities. He is available as a mentor to other communities to help them to achieve the same kind of success that he has had.
It takes effort in many different areas to bring out the good-news stories. For example, the media are more attracted to bad-news stories than to good-news stories so it can be an uphill battle.
Senator Brazeau: Are you suggesting that you need the permission of First Nations chiefs to post their success stories?
New Speaker: We like to work in partnership with the communities, Senator Brazeau, and community success belongs to the community. We want to ensure that community leaders support us in telling their stories on our website.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you.
The Chair: I thank the department for being candid in their responses to the questions of committee members. A delicate balance must be maintained when suggesting what First Nations people should do with their funding, whether it be for post-secondary education or other areas.
Funding is confusing, and I do not know whether the process can be streamlined. I can understand why some people are disappointed that certain funding is not distributed equitably for on-reserve and off-reserve First Nations. That was the focus this morning and why we asked departmental officials to appear.
I look forward to reviewing as soon as possible the information requested this morning by various senators.
(The committee adjourned.)