PACP Committee Report

INTRODUCTION

In April 2000, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) told Parliament, in response to an audit by the Office of the Auditor General, that it was committed to “a faster resolution of the gap in student achievement between First Nations and other Canadians.” At the time, the Auditor General estimated it would take 23 years for First Nations to reach the same level of education as the broader Canadian population ^[1].

Almost five years later, in November 2004, a follow-up audit by the Auditor General found that the time it will take to close the education gap was growing, not shrinking in spite of increases in educational funding. Using 2001 Census data, the Auditor General calculated it would now take 28 years for the native population to attain the same educational profile as the overall Canadian population, up from 27 years using 1996 Census data. In short, the Auditor General’s findings suggested that things had gotten relatively worse (compared with the broad population) for First Nations rather than better between 1996 and 2001.

Moreover, the Department could not explain why the time needed to close the education gap was increasing, a problem which in turn pointed to the fact that the Department has, despite repeated promises ^[2], been unwilling to clearly define its roles and responsibilities in First Nation education.

More generally, the Auditor General’s 2004 Audit found that only “limited progress” had been made on recommendations from her 2000 audit and from a May 2000 Public Accounts Committee report on the same issue ^[3]. The Auditor General also found “significant weaknesses” in the Department’s management and accountability policies for its educational programs, including the post-secondary program, which was the subject of a separate audit ^[4].

With this in mind, the Committee held a meeting with officials from the Office of the Auditor General and the Department on 31 January 2005. To the Committee’s dismay, the Department was ill-prepared for the meeting, failing to address any of the Auditor General’s concerns and recommendations in a direct, detailed or clear way. Instead, the Committee heard promises about more meetings, more reviews and more studies. Disturbed by this response, the Committee passed a motion demanding that the Department come up with a detailed action plan to address the Auditor General’s concerns.

On 29 April 2005, the Department sent the Committee an action plan, which was discussed at a meeting on 4 May 2005. The action plan is built on two pillars, namely a First Nation Education Policy Framework, which is slated for completion by June 2006 and will consist of a joint review (with First Nation working groups) of INAC’s policies and programs, and a second pillar, a First Nation Education Management Framework, which is slated for June 2007 and will spell out the Department’s accountability mechanisms.

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Government of Canada has jurisdiction over First Nation communities, including jurisdiction over education, by virtue of the Constitution Act of 1867 as well as various statutes, treaties, agreements and policies. Since the 1950s, the federal government has delegated an increasing share of its responsibility over education to First Nation communities and provincial jurisdictions ^[5]. At the same time, the amounts spent on First Nation education are substantial and growing, especially in the last five years. In 2003 04, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs spent about $1.1 billion to support and provide elementary and secondary education to 120,000 First Nation children and another $304 million to help about 25,000 First Nation students attend a post-secondary institution or seek some other professional qualification. Compared with 2000 01, the year of the last audit by the Auditor General, these 2003 04 amounts represent a 14% increase in spending on elementary and secondary education (from $965 million) and a 7% increase in spending on post secondary education (from $284 million) ^[6].

The Need for Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities

Increasingly, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada sees its role as providing “support, advocacy and management of the various funding arrangements,” ^[7] although as noted above, it has yet to spell out exactly what this means in practice, especially with respect to primary and secondary education.

The Committee believes that a clear definition of the Department’s roles and responsibilities in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education is the first and most important step in addressing many of the problems identified by the Auditor General in her November 2004 and April 2000 audits. With some clear definitions, the Department will be better able to deliver focused and effective education services to First Nation communities and measure its progress against performance indicators built on the basis of those roles and responsibilities. The lack of clear roles and responsibilities creates confusion, incoherence and uncertainty. In the case of the Post-Secondary Student Support Program (PSSSP), for example, the Auditor General found conflicting opinions about whether the Department’s mandate is to play a purely funding role with no oversight or, conversely, to ensure adherence to some minimum program requirements ^[8].

In its April 2005 action plan, the Department promises to have a draft definition of its roles and responsibilities in education by the end of September 2005. The Department will then consult with First Nation communities to complete a final version by the end of December 2005, which will subsequently be published by June 2006. The Committee reminds the Department that in response to the Committee’s 2000 Report, the Department promised a “statement on its role (sic) and responsibilities in First Nation education by the end of June 2002.”

Given the Department’s history of missed deadlines and unfulfilled promises, the Committee is understandably sceptical about the Department’s ability or willingness to respect this latest deadline. It needs some assurance that the Department will adhere to its timeline. It also understands, however, that progress in defining its roles and responsibilities could be hampered if draft documents were released to the public prematurely. The Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 1

That Indian and Northern Affairs Canada report to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in confidence on an ongoing basis on its progress in defining its roles and responsibilities. In particular, the Department’s draft statement of roles and responsibilities must be completed for presentation to a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee planned for the end of September 2005.

The Committee also believes it is important for Parliament and Canadians to stay abreast of the Department’s progress in defining its roles and responsibilities. In the past, the Department has resisted using its Estimates documents to keep Parliament informed on this and other matters. In 2000 for example, the Committee recommended that beginning in 2001 02, the Department “provide a clear and formal statement of its roles and responsibilities” in its report on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports (the Estimates documents) ^[9]. In its response to this recommendation, INAC said that an Estimates document could not provide the “specific or detailed reporting on a single program as has been contemplated by the Committee, nor is it a document which is likely to receive distribution or attention within the education community or First Nation communities.” ^[10]

Instead, the Department promised to publish a biennial report on First Nation education beginning in June 2002 which would spell out progress in developing, amongst other things, clear roles and responsibilities. The first biennial report was not published until December 2003. Weighing in at 15 pages, including the cover page, the document failed to include a “clear and formal statement” of the Department’s roles and responsibilities in education and came up short on many of the other details sought by the Auditor General and the Committee. In fact, a typical page consisted of photographs and two or three paragraphs of large font text.

INAC’s action plan makes no explicit mention of using the Estimates documents to keep Parliament informed. Instead, it promises a management framework by June 2007 that will thoroughly address the accountability issues raised by the Auditor General. In the meantime, it says it will publish the second edition of its biennial report, contribute an Aboriginal chapter to Canada’s Performance Report ^[11] and continue to work on a document called the “Aboriginal Progress Report.”

The Committee has long believed that Estimates documents are the appropriate place to report on roles and responsibilities, performance indicators and especially on important policy objectives such as closing the First Nation education gap. In a report from 2001, for example, the Committee wrote that it “strongly supports the use of reports on plans and priorities and performance reports as accountability documents, as management tools for departments, and as a means of fostering greater transparency in government.” ^[12] Moreover, the Committee has for some time now been urging departments to make better and more imaginative use of these documents to improve accountability to Parliament and Canadians more generally. The Committee also notes that the limited amount of information in the Department’s Education Programs Report could easily be incorporated in its Estimates documents.

Finally, the Department might arguably have made some progress at deriving a clear and formal definition of its roles and responsibilities if it had been obliged to report on its progress, or lack thereof, in its Estimates documents. The Estimates documents would have served as a constant reminder to the Department and to Parliament of the need for such a clear and formal definition. The Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 2

That Indian and Northern Affairs Canada report on its progress in drafting its roles and responsibilities in its report on plans and priorities in the spring of 2006 and on its progress in developing a final version of its roles and responsibilities in its departmental performance report in the fall of 2006. Once the roles and responsibilities are defined and in the public domain, they must be published regularly in both the Department’s report on plans and priorities and its departmental performance report.