Government Operations Committee on May 15th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, I'm sorry we made you wait, but I thought it was important that the questions be asked.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I actually was worried that it was going to be an accrual accounting filibuster for a moment there. So I'm very pleased that my honourable colleague kept himself within ten minutes on an issue he's very passionate about.

I think many people were very shocked by what came out in terms of the failure for the first nations family services program. Anybody who has worked in any of these communities will see that this is the way business is done. You point out the obligation that is laid upon communities to meet provincial standards, without the federal government having any concurrent obligation to provide to provincial standards. You talk about the outdated formula from 1988 that is for child and family services. It's the same in education, a 1988 standard that's based on every factor that no longer exists.

The other element in this is a 1996 funding cap, which has basically left communities now with a dramatic rise in population, dramatic increase in costs for travel for isolated communities, and also the fact that whenever a child is moved into a provincial education system or into a provincial system, the rising costs charged back to the federal government have to come out of band funding someplace else. Communities are now losing 23¢ on a 1996 dollar and they're still having to maintain these obligations.

Beyond the massive negligence that's in place—and I think it's systemic negligence, it's designed negligence—people simply don't want to spend money on helping first nations children at the government level. I can't see it any other way. But there's also a lack of any standards for rules, for transparency, for obligatory standards that you would have at the provincial level when dealing with children. Have you found anything to deal with basically the vacuum that's there in terms of what the obligation is for a federal agency dealing with children?

[Sheila Fraser]

If I could just clarify that, Madam Chair, the federal government has a policy of encouraging or promoting first nations agencies to deliver many of these services. These agencies are supposed to be delivering services that meet provincial standards, because child welfare is a provincial responsibility. One of the many issues that we raise in the report is that the federal government does not know if it's meeting those standards, and it needs to do that. It also needs to get better measures of outcomes. Are these programs actually working, and what is happening to these children?

That is a broader issue than just these agencies. I think it's an issue across many of the provinces as well, because there aren't good outcome measures. Certainly when you're dealing with children, the federal government should be getting much better information.

I think the fundamental issue we're raising here is that the funding is not sufficient to support the policy of the federal government that these services meet provincial standards and are culturally appropriate. I guess the most telling example of that is a new agreement in the process of being reached with the Province of Alberta. When that agreement comes into place, the funding for the first nations agencies will go up by 74%.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

In my region we were stunned this past December when the government decided they were going to cancel a school. We've gone eight years without a grade school in Attawapiskat, and we have no school in Kashechewan. So two communities in my riding have no schools. Neighbouring Fort Severn beside my riding has no school. We had worked eight years to get a school built, yet at the last minute the government decided to move the money elsewhere. North Spirit Lake was starting to build their school when they were told that the money was being pulled.

And as for Rocky Bay First Nation, the government has a report that says there's asbestos in the classrooms and fungal mold on the walls, and the roof is so stressed that a heavy wind or snow could cave it in on the children. That school was cancelled in December 2007, because the government decided that building schools was not going to be part of its five-year plan.

I don't know of any province that could take the money for building schools and shift it to building roads or doing tax cuts. There are guaranteed funds in every budget, it seems, to deal with children, except at the Department of Indian Affairs. Should we not have basic guaranteed rules that money dedicated for schools is going to be a line item, and that we're going to be able to see that line item?

Again, we get back to the lack of accountability and transparency for something as fundamental as children.

[Sheila Fraser]

I must admit that I don't know what the solution is to all of this. As you will see, we note in the report that many of the first nations are having to shift money from programs for housing to be able to deliver the child welfare services they require. We point out as well that the services have not kept track with the new preventative services the provinces are giving. And we point out there are eight times the number of first nations children in care on reserve.

I guess I have to question, but we haven't been able to prove, if the funding formula is not driving this, because the federal government will clearly pay the cost of children in care, but will not necessarily pay or give enough money for preventative services. So there can be a real distortion in what's happening just because of the way the funding is given. So it obviously needs a whole overhaul.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Certainly.

And in terms of the shifting of the educational funding, it is being done by a federal department, not the band.

I'd like to point out an example from when I worked at Timiskaming First Nation in Notre-Dame-du-Nord, Quebec. We had a child with heavy, heavy special needs. The federal government would not put money into first nation special education needs. However, we put that child on a bus with an adult and drove that child across the border to an Ontario public school and paid a person to watch that child in the hall all day. The province would then ding the federal government for the full cost of all of that service.

We met with the Minister of Indian Affairs at the time—it was a previous government—and we asked if it wouldn't be a lot simpler to take that same amount of funding and put it into special education on our reserve school in Quebec, as we could then hire three teachers and probably deal with six children. The only thing we got was a shrug.

Again, there is no accountability, there are no standards, there are no targeted measures that any educational authority in this country would have to live by.

How is it that in 2008 we don't have these most basic standards for education and for ensuring child welfare at the federal level?

[Sheila Fraser]

I really don't have an answer. I think that's up to the department. The department should be providing those answers to you.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Would that be an issue that you think the Auditor General would look into? These are serious amounts of money that are being moved away from primary care of first nations children.

[Sheila Fraser]

We have looked in the past at education. I think we have made the point that there were no standards. I think in many of our audits we actually sort of talk about the lack of institutions in the way that we would know them, school boards, or people who would establish standards.

Certainly in this case there are standards. They are the provincial standards, and they're supposed to be following them, except that they don't know if they are or not. They have to adapt to the provincial standards, understand what the provincial standards are, and then make sure that the agencies are actually able to follow them and meet them.

Mr. Campbell, do you want to add anything?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Madam Chair, if I may, I think the question is a vital one. I think if you look at a lot of what the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does, they deliver provincial-like programs, but they do it through policy, as opposed to what the member is talking about, having legislation and the budget discussions that flow from that.

The Department of Indian Affairs delivers education, water on reserves, the infrastructure that we audited a couple of years ago, all of those programs, and this one as well, through matters of policy, always trying to chase whatever the standards might be elsewhere. But that's the world they're in. It's very different from how provinces would organize themselves through these things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I wanted to add, is the fact that the population of children is growing far faster than in the rest of the country also an issue? Does the funding follow the increase in the numbers of children? That's a question I'd like to have answered.

[Sheila Fraser]

I don't know that we looked at it specifically for the child welfare program, but when we looked at it overall, I know the first nations population had grown, I believe, about 11% and the funding had grown less than 2%; I think it was 1.5% overall. So there could be an issue there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

It continues to be a major problem, then.

[Sheila Fraser]

Certainly the funding formula for this program is really a formula to allocate the money that has been targeted for that program to the various first nations. It is not based upon the needs. It's really a method of allocating a fund that has been determined in advance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Merci.

Go ahead, Ms. Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to change the subject and talk about Chapter 7 of the report which deals with the Canada Border Services Agency.

First of all, I want to thank you for clearly pointing out that the Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for detaining and removing individuals who enter Canada illegally or who pose a security threat. The Canadian public often has the impression that the vast majority of persons who are or should be removed pose a threat to the security of Canadians. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my sense is that it is the individuals who have entered or who remain illegally in Canada who must be removed to their country of origin. Thank you for making that distinction.

Regarding removals, there are two things to consider. First, you say that individuals are not all treated the same way and I'd like to hear more about that.

However, I also want to hear your comments on the delays, that is, on the amount of time that passes from the moment the Agency determines that an individual should be removed, until that person's actual removal. Having worked with many of these people over the years, my feeling is that the process is drawn out, and that perhaps too much time passes.

If my impression is correct, why does it take so long? There may be valid reasons, but in my opinion, once a family has been informed that it must leave the country, the best thing to do is to proceed as quickly as possible with the removal, barring, of course, humanitarian considerations, so that it can start over again in another country.

Can you explain to me what your expectations are, in terms of consistent removal practices across the country, dates, timetables and the process followed?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to emphasize once more that most of the individuals who are removed from Canada do not represent a threat to Canadians. The majority are individuals who have requested and have been denied refugee status.

As you can see in Exhibit 7.1 on page 6 of the report, the detentions and removals process is quite complex. It can even take years before a final removal order is issued. You are right when you say that it becomes increasingly difficult over time. These individuals may have families and may be established in Canada. Their situation can be quite heart-wrenching.

The current process is based in part on court decisions. Individuals who enter Canada are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are entitled to have due process of law and to appeal any decision handed down by a court.

Regarding the consistency of the decisions, we observed that in different regions of the country, considerable flexibility is used in the application of agency policies. Consequently, an individual may be detained in our region whereas under identical circumstances, he would not be detained elsewhere.

Therefore, in our view, guidelines need to be issued to agency officials to ensure greater consistency in the handling of individuals. The agency's detention capacity may well be a factor. Some regions have the capacity to detain more individuals, whereas others have only very limited capacity. Of course, they can use provincial facilities such as prisons for this purpose. However, we believe that when capacity is limited, individuals are not detained, but rather simply released.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

In short, it comes down to administrative decisions. One person can decide one thing in one province, while another may come to a different decision in another province.

What truly surprised me about the Immigration and Refugee Board is that the same thing was happening several years ago. An individual applying for refugee status was treated a certain way in one city, but could be treated very differently in a city at the other end of the country. In a way, I can understand that it depends on how the act is interpreted. However, we're dealing here with administrative guidelines. These should not be interpreted so very differently in different parts of the country.

I realize that the Agency has only been in existence for four years. Do you think it would be possible to review this matter in the near future? You may not revisit this topic for five years and it is an important area. To my way of thinking, the same criteria should be applied across Canada. Of course, economic and other conditions may differ.

However, the legislation should be applied consistently everywhere in Canada, particularly in the case of people who have exhausted all other options. As lawmakers, what can we do to ensure that this happens?

[Sheila Fraser]

Among other things, we recommended that the Agency ensure that its decisions are consistent. It should put in place a system to ensure that the decisions made are consistent across the country. The committee could ask the Agency what it intends to do to address this problem and, in future, to report back at specific times to show that its decision-making process is consistent.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Very well. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

You have the floor, Ms. Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Fraser, it is a pleasure, as always, to welcome you to the committee. You hail from a lovely region that I know well. The people in my riding ofVaudreuil-Soulanges admire you tremendously for the accuracy of your analyses. In fact, if I were to pass along to you all the letters I receive, you would have enough work to keep you occupied for years. People admire your candour.

I'm familiar with other departments, and when the conversation turns to accrual accounting... When someone forces the government's hand by setting deadlines or by adopting legislative measures, all of a sudden, it comes up with a magic formula to effect the changes needed. The immigration committee witnessed this first hand in the case of lost Canadians and again in the case of international adoptions and the rights of adopted children.

I have a raft of questions. I also have a soft spot for the preservation of the arts and for artists. I have read your report and one thing concerns me, namely the matter of the official residences. These buildings house many works of art that reflect our artistic heritage.

Have you received any warnings from conservation societies or from people working in the field of heritage and art preservation that treasured works of art are somehow at risk?

[Sheila Fraser]

We really didn't focus on that aspect. Obviously, I would imagine that all of these works are managed by the Canada Council's Art Bank. Perhaps Mr. Watters can...

[Mark Watters, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

As for the art objects housed in the residence, when the time comes to begin the renovations, these works will be removed and stored for safekeeping while the repairs are being done.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Have art curators expressed any concerns? For example, are they worried that postponing the renovations would further endanger these works of art?