Media.Knet.Ca

From The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples website  

OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 12, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine 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: issues concerning First Nations Education).

Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.

The Chair: I call the meeting to order.

Good evening, and I would like to welcome all honourable senators, members of the public and all viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or possibly on the web.

I am Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia, and I have the honour and the privilege of chairing the committee.

The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. This gives the committee a broad scope to look into issues of all types that touch on matters of concern to First Nations, Metis and Inuit.

The committee is undertaking a study of primary and secondary education of First Nations children living on-reserve. To explore this subject further, the committee has invited witnesses from the Auditor General's office this evening.

In April 2000, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada published a report with one chapter devoted to an audit of the primary and secondary education program overseen by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, indicating that the department could not demonstrate that it meets its stated objective to assist First Nations students living on-reserves in achieving their educational needs and aspirations. The report identified three broad major issues it needed to resolve.

Specifically, the department needed to articulate its role in education of First Nations children; develop and use appropriate performance measures; and improve operational performance.

In November 2004, the Office of the Auditor General released a follow-up to its 2000 report. It concluded that, with few exceptions, the department had made limited progress since 2000. Tonight we look forward to deepening our understanding of these conclusions through an exchange with our witnesses.

Before hearing our witnesses, I would like to introduce the members of our Committee.

First we have Senator Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories; next is Senator Dyck, from Saskatchewan, who is the deputy chair of this committee. We have Senator Campbell, from British Columbia; Senator Eaton, from Ontario; and Senator Hubley, from Prince Edward Island.

We also have Senator Patterson, from Nunavut; Senator Poirier, from New Brunswick; Senator Stewart Olsen, also from New Brunswick; and we have Senator Kochhar, from Ontario.

Welcome senators and please help me in welcoming our witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the Auditor General herself, Ms. Sheila Fraser, and with her is Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, and Mr. Frank Barrett, Principal.

Ms. Fraser, we are always pleased to have you with us. You are one of our preferred witnesses on numerous issues, and it is really nice to have you here again with your capable people.

You have a short presentation I understand, and once the presentations are complete, we will open it up to questions from the senators.

You have the floor, Ms. Fraser.

Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is always a pleasure to appear before this committee, and we thank you for this opportunity to discuss our work related to First Nations education.

As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, and Frank Barrett, Principal, who are responsible for our work in Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Education is critical to improving the social and economic strengths of First Nations individuals to a level enjoyed by other Canadians. Numerous studies have stressed the importance and benefits of post-secondary education. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples linked it to capacity building, human resource development and self-government. The importance of capacity building has been raised in our past audits. In 2006, we noted that the federal government's success in implementing many of our recommendations has depended in large part on the capacity of First Nations to implement programs in their own communities.

As you mentioned, we have not conducted work on First Nations education since 2004. In 2000, we audited INAC's program to provide elementary and secondary education to First Nations. Among other observations, we found that the department could not demonstrate whether it was meeting its stated objective to assist First Nations students living on-reserve in achieving their education needs and aspirations. We also found a significant gap in educational achievement between Indian students and non-Indian students. The education gap refers to the proportion of First Nations people living on-reserve over the age of 15, with at least a high school diploma, compared with the proportion in the overall Canadian population. At that time, we recommended that an action plan be implemented to close the gap.

In 2004, we followed up on recommendations and observations from our 2000 audit and also included the Post-Secondary Student Support Program in our audit scope. We found that the situation had not improved since 2000.

By 2004, the education gap had not narrowed, and the time estimated to close that gap had actually increased from 27 to 28 years.

Despite its commitments, we found that the Department had made limited progress in the way it supported, administered, and reported on its Elementary and Secondary Education Program for students living on reserves. The Department still had not defined its role and responsibilities with respect to education.

Our 2004 audit also found significant weaknesses in the Department’s Post-Secondary Student Support Program. We reported that the way INAC allocated funds to First Nations did not ensure equitable access to as many students as possible.

Moreover, the Department did not know whether those funds had been used for the purpose intended. As with its Elementary and Secondary Education Program, the Department had not clearly defined its roles and responsibilities. We have not conducted any additional audit work in this area since 2004.

However, in 2009 INAC conducted two internal audits of these programs; one on the Elementary and Secondary Education Program and another on the Post-Secondary Student Support Program. These audits identified several of the same weaknesses that our audit had found five years earlier.

Mr. Chair, we are beginning a follow-up audit that will include First Nations education. We will revisit some of our observations and look at INAC's progress in implementing some of our past recommendations. We plan to table this audit in April 2011 and would be pleased to appear at this committee to discuss our findings at that point.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fraser.

I presume you have read the terms of reference of our study. As we have in the past, we are trying to focus on a narrow aspect of trying to establish what type of foundation we have to possibly recommend or change to make the educational system work on-reserve for First Nations.

I am really encouraged that you will revisit some of the observations you have had in the past. Have you actually made any recommendations to structural change in the infrastructure that exists, or is that your responsibility as such, or do you just basically report on the situation as is as opposed to recommending changes that would facilitate the improvement that we are all looking for?

Ms. Fraser: When we did the audit in 2000 and the follow-up in 2004, we looked at the program as it was designed at that point in time within the mechanics of government, and we really hesitate to recommend major changes to how government establishes its program. Certainly, when we did the larger follow-up in 2006, we did talk about capacity and helping to build capacity within First Nations communities, and certainly we have alluded to such things as education boards, for example, and creating institutions that would help First Nations to progress. I think everyone recognizes that when programs were transferred to First Nations, many of those institutions and structural support were not there to achieve it. That has been mentioned. I do not know if we mentioned it specifically in 2000, but I believe we talked about institutions. That would deal with school board curricula and those types of issues.

The Chair: I am sure you are aware that there are tripartite agreements being entered into with the provinces, and I wonder whether your department, when you revisit this subject, would be proper to suggest that maybe we look at some of these memorandums of understanding and some of these tripartite agreements being entered into in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta?

Ms. Fraser: Yes, absolutely. Even when we did one of the audits, we looked at the agreements with the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, Mi'kmaq Education Agreement, and that has actually been around for quite a while, since 1997. We noted that in the report at the time and indicated some lessons that could be learned and experiences that should come from that. Certainly that would be one area that I think would be beneficial for the committee to look at.

Senator Sibbeston: Ms. Fraser, in 2004, you made a fairly long list of suggestions as to what INAC could do better. They agreed with them but added that success in achieving educational goals could only be measured in the long term.

I do not know whether this was a situation where they were passing the buck or really recognizing that they were an entity that could not do much more than what they had been doing.

Do you think INAC is an entity that can improve or reform First Nations education, considering that they are really only a funding agency and that they are not an entity that is similar to a provincial department of education, which is responsible for all of education, setting the curriculum, the standard and the hiring and so forth?

Education is in the hands of First Nations people in our country, so recognizing that do you think INAC is really not able to do more than what they have done to date? When we look at INAC and maybe want to criticize them for the lack of progress, are we really dealing with the right entity, or should we be looking at First Nations themselves and urging them to do better than what they have been doing?

Ms. Fraser: In many of the audits we have done, be they in education or in other areas, we raised the issue of the department and government not clearly defining their responsibilities and roles. We raised it clearly in our audits on education: Is the role of INAC simply a funding agency, or do they have more responsibilities than that?

That is essential to answering your question because they would appear to assume more responsibility than simply funding. On the part of First Nations, there is an expectation that they have more responsibilities, yet it is not clear. INAC has not put in place many of the measures and systems you would expect to monitor the educational progress that has been made and whether the education is of a high quality. In collaboration with First Nations, they have to define what the respective roles and responsibilities are.

I was just looking today at the internal audit report done in 2009, which I mentioned. The exact same issues we raised in 2000 are being raised now. Much more progress should have been made on some of these basic issues than the department appears to be making.

Senator Campbell: How often have you audited various programs at INAC over the years, generally?

Ms. Fraser: We have done audits at least once a year, and sometimes twice a year.

Senator Campbell: What is the compliance? I am astounded that what you found in 2000 has not changed even by their own audit in 2009. I am concerned about that.

Ms. Fraser: We did a fairly major follow-up in 2006, and that is what we are planning to do next spring. We saw that some progress was made on some recommendations, but the progress tended to be administrative or internal process matters of the department. Little progress was made on some of the more challenging recommendations.

We should probably not prejudge what our conclusions will be before doing the audit, but I would not be surprised if the conclusions next spring are about the same, based on some of the internal audit that we are seeing. The department is having a difficult time making real progress on some of the issues that we have raised over the years.

Senator Campbell: British Columbia has the First Nations Education Steering Committee, FNESC. In 2007, the First Nations jurisdiction over education in British Columbia came into effect. Have you had an opportunity to review that at all?

Ms. Fraser: No, we have not looked at that.

Senator Campbell: You did the audit in 2004. Did FNESC appear to have a well-defined relationship with INAC and the province?

Ms. Fraser: I will ask Mr. Campbell. I am not sure that we looked at that specific issue at the time; it was more of a follow-up of the recommendations of 2000, to see if progress had been made.

Senator Eaton: I sit on another committee that has been looking at Aboriginal access to post-secondary education. We have had many witnesses, both First Nations people and educators. One of the suggestions was that money should not go to the band. Instead, each First Nations child born receives a bank account that they cannot access. However, they would receive so much a year for every year of high school completed, and then a bonus, which they could use 10 years following their graduation of high school for post-secondary school.

Is INAC's funding envelope too large? Should it be divided? Instead of giving the band X sum of money, could they not divide the envelope into education, housing and health? Do you think that would make a difference?

Ms. Fraser: The funding is targeted for post-secondary education.

Senator Eaton: What about kindergarten through to the end of high school?

Ms. Fraser: The funding is targeted at different programs, so primary and secondary would probably be one envelope. Post-secondary would be another one, as would health. A number of various envelopes are given.

One of the issues we found in the funding, particularly for post-secondary education, was the way the funding was distributed. We have seen this in other programs — child and family services comes to mind. It is done on a historical basis rather than on actual need. There is no assurance that the funding is being distributed equitably across the country.

The internal audit report mentions that the cost of the program is increasing at a higher rate than the funding increase. This again is an issue common in many programs. The budget funding increases for INAC have a cap of 2 per cent. They mention that the post-secondary education fees alone are increasing more than 4 per cent a year. Obviously, the number of students eligible is decreasing.

There was no assurance, either, that the money was going to fund post-secondary education. The department did not track it. At times, there can be surpluses — the money is not all spent — but because of needs in other programs, the money that is targeted for post-secondary education could be shifted to other programs. There are all of those issues in the way the funding has been handled.

Senator Eaton: You could almost say that the same thing might happen with the funding envelope for primary education?

Ms. Fraser: Yes. It is possible.

Senator Eaton: Would it be possible for you to recommend in your next audit something that could ensure that the funds are actually going to where they should be going, whether it is primary or post-secondary education?

Ms. Fraser: We have made the recommendation many times that the department should be tracking and ensuring that the funds are used for the purposes intended.

Senator Eaton: Is there another way of ensuring the money goes into education?

Ms. Fraser: It comes back to a more fundamental question of whether this is government to government or government to individuals, and the relationship between the federal government and First Nations governments. If the objective is that the First Nations should be running and managing their own programs, then it should be assisting them to do that equitably.

Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: In education, as in some other areas at INAC, we are looking at what you might call provincal-like programs in that off-reserve is the purview of the provinces.

Quite often within INAC, there is an objective of compatibility. Certainly in child and family services, they had an objective of funding services that were compatible with those delivered in the provinces. We noticed in that audit that that was the objective, but they did not fund it that way. As the Auditor General was saying, they funded it through other ways. However, there was a disconnect between the objective of funding something to a compatible level of service compared to how they actually funded it.

In education, you can quite easily impute an objective of compatibility there, in that when we talked in 2000 and again in 2004 about the education gap or the time it would take to close that gap, of course, INAC said that they agreed with that and would do something about it. As the honourable senator is pointing out, you can have that objective of trying to attain some degree of compatibility without funding it accordingly, so you are hardly likely to get there.

Senator Eaton: We are really up against a rock and a hard place.

Senator Hubley: I was just looking at how you have predicted the number of years it would take to close the gap. From 2000, I think it was to be 23 years to close the gap; by 2004, it had actually risen to 28 years. We are not exactly encouraged that we are moving in the correct direction with education.

Have you seen any significant changes recently that might suggest that when you do your follow-up audit in 2011, you will see improvement in that gap?

Ms. Fraser: We are not aware of any significant improvements to date. We have not done any audit work to allow us to assess it one way or another. The internal audit has come up with many of the same issues. It certainly has not noted that anything has changed significantly.

Senator Hubley: You briefly discussed school boards. Mr. Mendleson, who appeared as a witness, was quite direct in saying that the system is wrong; the system is not producing results at all. He suggested moving to the creation of school boards and giving appropriate funding and responsibilities to that board. We must give those boards the actual powers to make decisions.

I am sure that has never been costed out. Should we look at other models and be prepared to put the funding and responsibility behind those decisions?

Ms. Fraser: As I mentioned earlier, we talked about the importance of institutions to support the capacity building of First Nations in our follow-up work and other audits. Mr. Campbell pointed out that in our audit of 2000, we mentioned that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development recommended in 1996 that INAC establish an Aboriginal education institute as its highest priority. That was 15 years ago.

At one point, discussions took place with First Nations about establishing some type of an institute or board of education to help First Nations develop that capacity. However, it did not advanced very far.

Senator Hubley: There are school boards that perhaps influence curricula and things of that nature. We heard that First Nations must have power to make the decisions on schools, curriculum and hiring — taking on the role as a school board. Unless the department is prepared to divest the educational responsibility and allow First Nations to be masters of their educational system, which I believe they want, progress may not be possible.

Ms. Fraser: I agree. I also suggest that the committee compare the funding. What is the funding provided per child on-reserve compared to what the federal government pays to a provincial government for education?

We saw a significant difference in child and family services in Alberta; when a new agreement was reached, funding went up 75 per cent. It is not a question of a few dollars here and there. How do you pay teachers? How do you ensure schools and all ancillary services are kept up to date?

We have not done much analysis on the funding question, but I think that is an important area to review.

Senator Kochhar: Are these deficiencies and non-compliance uniform throughout the country? Is there more non-compliance in one part of the country compared to other parts?

Ms. Fraser: We do not break down our audits much by specific regional differences. We look more at overall management of the program. Therefore, I expect these deficiencies are across the country. Some variation may occur because of different arrangements with provincial governments. The issues on tracking progress, collecting performance information and ensuring equitable access to funding affect the entire country.

Senator Kochhar: When you find non-compliance and deficiencies, can the government put conditions on further funding such that unless rules are followed and compliance met, funding will be reduced or changed in some way?

Ms. Fraser: The federal government has strong power vis-à-vis First Nations. They can delay or cut funding, et cetera, if they want. However, our recommendations are addressed to the government and to the department in areas where they should improve their management.

Senator Poirier: In your opening remarks, you recommended an action plan was to be implemented to close the gap. You continue to say that you followed up on the recommendations and observations in 2004. You found the situation had not improved since 2000 and that by 2004 the gap had expanded rather than narrowed. Then you went on to say that you found that the department had made limited progress in the way it was supported.

However, if I go back to the second recommendation, it says that the importance of capacity building has been raised in your past audit. In 2006, you noted that the federal government's success in implementing many of your recommendations has depended in large part on the capacity of First Nations to implement programs in their own communities.

Was a recommendation made to INAC to look at the capacity of First Nations to determine if they have the ability to implement their programs? In your audit, did you look at which First Nations did not have such capability? If so, were they compared to First Nations that did have that capability to determine if that is where there is a weakness?

It is good to say that INAC wants to do something, but in reality you must have the partnership connecting both parties.

Ms. Fraser: We recognize that INAC cannot take these measures alone. It clearly must be done in collaboration and consultation with First Nations.

We do not do assessments of First Nations ourselves. We have not rated — if you will — capacity. We certainly expect the department to have that information. The department has the information to a certain degree because funding formulas and agreements will be more or less flexible depending on the department's assessment of how well the First Nation is able to manage its own affairs.

If INAC has assessed that the First Nation is more capable, the First Nation will have fewer conditions and possibly receive more block funding than would another First Nation with more limited capacity for which funding would be more targeted and specific.

I know we made that commentary. I do not know that we actually made a recommendation such as that. We often comment that INAC must take into account the capacity of First Nations in delivering their programs. We have certainly made several recommendations urging them to help First Nations to increase their capacity through such things as training and taking leadership in various initiatives, and developing the institutions, as I mentioned earlier.

Senator Poirier: You have not gone into the First Nation community to see if they have the capability or capacity to offer a program. Have you not looked into that at all?

Ms. Fraser: In every audit we do, we engage with First Nations communities, but we do not have, nor do we seek, a mandate to audit First Nations. To go in and do an assessment of them would be something that we actually would not do. We do not do that work. We would expect the department to have that information to use in their program delivery. However, we do have a good relationship with First Nations, who collaborate with us in all of our audits.

Senator Poirier: The last report for the gap you had was in 2004. You said that you had not looked at that since 2004 to see if that had actually expanded or if it was narrowed. I know you anticipate that there is not much change. Do you know if INAC has looked into it and if they follow this yearly? Do you have any idea if it is a recommendation that they keep up to date on?

Ms. Fraser: I do not know. Perhaps Mr. Campbell can respond.

Mr. Campbell: No, I have no information that INAC tracked that on an ongoing basis. As the Auditor General said, two internal audits were conducted by the department in 2009, and they looked at a number of issues that we had looked at in terms of funding, the allocation methodologies for the funding and the extent to which there are performance measures and indicators, but in neither of those audits do I recall that they had talked about the gap. It looks as though they picked up many of the issues we had picked up, but not that particular one.

Senator Poirier: You mentioned that you had recommended that they have an action plan put in place. Did you give them any suggestions on what that action plan should be and in what direction it should go?

Ms. Fraser: We made a number of recommendations to them on specific issues, such as performance measurement, monitoring where funding was going and the funding formula to ensure equitable access. There would have been a number of recommendations, and we would have expected them to prepare an action plan. They agreed with all the recommendations, so we would have expected them to then say how they would put that into place.

The way departments work now is a little different from what it was in 2004, in that departments are much more specific about action plans. We have begun, in many cases, to actually review them and indicate whether we think they address the recommendations from 2004. I do not know that we ever saw the action plan, but certainly that will be part of the follow-up that we will conduct this year.

Senator Poirier: As far as you are concerned, you do not think the action plan has been followed?

Ms. Fraser: I do not even know if an action plan was produced, actually.

Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentations. My first question has already been partially addressed; it had to do with the funding for students who live on-reserve compared to off-reserve, non-Aboriginal students. You were saying that some of your data indicated that there were gaps between on- and off-reserve students. Certainly at this committee we have heard other witnesses who have indicated that that gap can be quite significant, depending on the area of the country. Is there any way we can address that gap by any recommendation from your office?

Ms. Fraser: In our audits, we did not do that comparison, so the information we have is anecdotal and based on comparisons that we did in other programs, notably the child and family services. We have heard from many First Nations that there is a difference in the funding formula. That is something we can certainly consider looking at when we do our follow-up.

As Mr. Campbell mentioned earlier, most of the programs have a principle or policy of equal or equitable services to provincial services, yet if the funding is completely disproportionate, obviously the services cannot be the same. That may be one of the themes that we would want to look at when we do this follow-up audit.

I almost hesitate to raise this because we have not audited it and I have been trying to get the information, but we were told by fairly credible sources that the fees charged for students who live on-reserve to go to schools off-reserve would be the non-resident fees. That might be something. We have been trying to get some data but have not been able to get it. In addition to having funding that is not keeping in line with the increased costs of education, if the students are being charged a much higher rate than students off-reserve, that too limits the number of students who can access those services.

Senator Dyck: My second question is somewhat more general and broad and has to do with the legal authority and the obligations that INAC has with funding education for First Nation students. I was looking at the chart of your key events since the start of assistance to First Nations. I imagine that is mostly post-secondary students.

What legal documents guide the funding arrangements? How does INAC decide in a particular year how much they will fund for First Nations elementary and secondary education? For instance, I am sure that the majority of First Nations people are under the age of 25. It is a rapidly growing population, growing at about five times the rate of the non-First Nations population in Canada. It is a very young population. Large numbers of students are going through elementary and post-secondary education right now. How does INAC decide that they have to increase the funding to meet that? What sort of legal obligation or legal authority do they have to say that they will bump it up by 50 per cent this year?

Ms. Fraser: In the audits, as I mentioned earlier, we found that INAC has not clearly articulated or defined its role and responsibilities. A number of acts and a number of treaties make reference to education. However, what they specifically mean as an obligation for the department is not clear. Again, most of these programs are policy-based and do not have a statutory, legal base, which is an issue that we have raised in many of our audits as well.

As I understand it now — and this would obviously have to be verified with the department — the funding is really on a historical basis, so last year’s amount plus 2 per cent. A funding cap is placed on departments. I am not sure how the latest freeze on appropriations may have affected these programs. They may also be frozen with that cap. That might be something to explore with the department.

You are right. We have noted in many audits that they have a funding cap of 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent. However, the population is growing at a much higher rate than that, and costs of education are increasing at more than 2 per cent per year. The number of students who can access education is, of necessity, decreasing every year.

Senator Eaton: Just to be clear, the money is given to the band in an envelope classified education or whatever, whereas in Canada, the provinces would allocate it to the number of students in the school or the number of families.

Ms. Fraser: That is right. In most cases, some needs assessment would take place. With a First Nation that has a very large population growth, you might want to move more funds to them for elementary education rather than continue with the historical formula and the historical amount plus 2 per cent every year.

Senator Eaton: Could you ever recommend in your audit that the historical formula be changed to look at the number of people?

Ms. Fraser: Yes. I think in education as well, but certainly in other areas, such child and family services, we have recommended that the funding formula be based on need, on numbers of people, rather than just a historical amount that is indexed each year.

The Chair: We are talking about funding. Based on the present structure, if there is no change to it, some of us believe that it does not matter how much money you pour into it necessarily, within reason; there still would not be any difference. If you do not have the structures there, it is similar to building a house on muskeg. It does not matter how well you build the house, it will sink. I hate to put you on the spot, but I always do.

We are respectful of your opinions because you are one of the few people in the country that looks at this analytically. If we do not have some type of legislative framework or infrastructure, then regardless of how much money would be dumped into this situation, there is no method of tracking it at the moment. If one of our First Nations gets into trouble in another area, nothing stops them from diverting the funds to that.

I think they need more money, but only if the vehicle is there to deliver it. Maybe I should ask you, Mr. Campbell, and get your boss off the spot. Would it make a significant difference from your observations and experiences in this area?

Ms. Fraser: Clearly, chair, I agree with you that something has to be about some sort of institution to support education for First Nations. That being said, I think money can go a long way to helping people. We have a backlog of students who want to go to university and cannot because they do not have the funds to do it.

We would probably see an increase in teachers, if they were paid better salaries. There are a number of things. I am sure that would have short-term benefits, but I do agree that over the longer term, institutions need to be put in place to support these important programs and to build the capacity of First Nations to be able to deliver them.

That has been called on for close to 15 years now, and it has not been done.

Senator Stewart Olsen: I picked up one thing along the lines of Senator Dyck's questions that has to do with our study. I found it intriguing that you suggested that we look at the differences, the discrepancies between the funding, and that once a First Nation had signed an agreement in Alberta, they seemed to receive more. Are you saying that perhaps, province by province, there are funding formulas as well?

When we are looking at these things, it might behove us to ask how individual provinces fund and then compare them to the INAC funding. I understand that. However, then would the provinces be auditing? Would you have any idea if they are auditing the performance of how they are doing, as well? I think it would help us greatly in our study if we could look at something on that.

Ms. Fraser: I am not sure about the provinces, but what we can certainly do, I think, is ask our colleagues, the provincial auditors general, what work they may have done recently on education in their provinces, and particularly on performance. You would certainly expect that all of these provinces would have good information.

We did an audit just recently on the education program in Yukon, and I know a number of standard tests are given in Alberta and British Columbia, which Yukon uses, and comparisons of rates are done between provinces. I think a fair amount of information is available on student performance at various levels. From memory, I think it was grades 3, 6 and 9. I know, in Ontario, we see the ratings of the schools come out every year, so a fair amount of performance information is available.

Senator Stewart Olsen: I am wondering about the actual funding correlated to the performance.

Ms. Fraser: We can ask our provincial colleagues, if the committee would like, if they are aware of any information on that.

Senator Stewart Olsen: I think it might help us focus a little as we move forward. We are looking at the different types of agreements, but I think that might be helpful.

The Chair: If it is not out of the ethical bounds, would you be so kind as to supply that through your offices?

Ms. Fraser: Sure; I would be glad to.

Senator Poirier: On a follow-up to a comment you made a while ago to one of the questions, you said that when a Native student goes to a provincial school off-reserve, the fee that is transferred to the province in that partnership is higher. They pay more than non-resident who would be going to school. Is that in all the provinces that have a partnership right now, or is that just in one specific province? I know New Brunswick is a partnership, and I was not aware that that was the case.

Ms. Fraser: I do not know. I hesitated to raise it because it was simply information that was given to us that we were not able to validate; but it might be something, in the comparisons of different provinces, that would be an issue that might come up.

Senator Poirier: That would also be interesting to know. If it is not happening in all the provinces, you need to question why one province would do it. That partnership could be something to be looked at.

Senator Patterson: I believe one of the principal recommendations of the Auditor General's work in 2000 and later was about the lack of any formal document to define the department's roles or responsibilities in education. This means, according to your report, that as a result of this lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities, the department's accountability for results is weakened and its assurance that education funding is being spent appropriately is, at best, unclear.

These are pretty strong, clear words from you, Ms. Fraser. Of course, that is your job, and we respect you for that.

We also know, and I guess it does not need to be said, that the Indian Act provides no help in this area. Its provisions on education are dated and deal with very specific aspects of truancy and attendance. Could you give us an idea — and I know you have such vast experience — of whether you find this to be typical? Do you find this often in your work or is this an exceptional situation, that you have a department spending this amount of money with what seems to be no clear mandate? I think it is now closer to $2 billion since your report; I think it is $1.7 billion. Is that a rare thing in your work?

Ms. Fraser: It is probably atypical for most programs across the federal government, but it is very typical for programs in INAC. I do not know that any of the programs have a legislative base. Most of it is from policy. The Indian Act is very old, and things have evolved significantly over all those years, so there is no clarity around the role. We asked whether the department is simply a funding agency. Is it to monitor progress? At one point, it was even running the schools and setting the curriculum. It does not do that anymore.

It is important that government establish its role and responsibility so there is clarity to First Nations as to their roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis the department. Internally, does the department have the capacity and skill set to deliver whatever role they determine they should play? This issue has come up in almost every audit we do at INAC. There is no clarity around their programs.

Senator Patterson: Could you give us an idea of what sort of formal articulation of the department's roles and responsibilities would be helpful or would be required? What should we be looking for or working toward?

Ms. Fraser: In a perfect world, there would be a legislative base underlying these programs in education, health and family services, et cetera. That would give clarity to the role of the government.

Senator Patterson: In the last Speech from the Throne, some reference was made to the need to develop legislation. I am sure that our committee will examine that option.

Going back to your response that the education program is defined by policy, were you able to obtain information about that policy? Is there a policy? People say that the program is based on policy. Were you able to see the policy?

Ms. Fraser: I am trying to find the specific reference. We could not find a formal articulation or formal policy. We saw referrals to various agreements that had been made and delegations of authority to First Nations' devolving programs. Broad objectives are stated in the department's Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports. However, the objectives are so broad that it is difficult to understand what they are trying to achieve. Of course, if you do not have that, then you cannot measure. How do you know if you are succeeding if you have only a very broad objective stated? I do not know if that has changed since 2004. It might be more specific today.

Whether they have provided more clarity might be a question to ask the department. I noted in the 2009 internal audit report that they recommended that they needed to articulate their role and responsibilities.

Senator Patterson: We have heard from departmental representatives and learned that they have a significant responsibility across quite a number of First Nations schools from one end of the country to the other. We were struck by the fact that the head of the education program told us that about 60 people reported to her. Would you have any observations on that? I know it was difficult for you to do your work without anything solid to work from, but do you have any comments about the apparent capacity of the department? In your report, you talk about performance measurement and the gathering of data. Do you have any general comments about the department's capacity?

Ms. Fraser: We have noted, not specifically in this area but in other areas, a general impression that the department is stretched in many areas. Essentially, they are running what would be all the provincial responsibilities for 600-plus First Nations across the country. It is a real challenge to them. Not only are they running these programs and doing the funding, but they are also doing the negotiations for treaties and dealing with a host of issues that arise. I am sure there are crises probably every week if not every day.

The department has many challenges and is very strained in meeting those challenges. In part, it goes back to funding because they do not have the resources necessarily. Then again, before we determine what the resources should be, they have to determine what they want to do. They have to begin by defining their role and responsibilities and then determine whether they have the personnel with the capabilities to meet those objectives.

Senator Patterson: Thank you, very much.

The Chair: I thank the witnesses for always being so forthcoming and candid. We will be most interested in your revisit to this file. It helps us tremendously. Hopefully, we will come up with a recommendation for a legislative base, as you have written in your 2006 report.

Senators, tomorrow in the chamber, we will seek government response to the elections report, which was tabled today, as agreed to by the committee. If there is no other business, the meeting is adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)