ARCHIVED - Audit of the Band Support Funding Program

Archived information

This Web page has been archived on the Web. Archived information is provided for reference, research or record keeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Date: September 2009

PDF Version (96 Kb, 25 pages)

 

 

Table of Contents

 

 
AES Audit and Evaluation Sector
AFA Alternative Funding Arrangement
AFOA Aboriginal Financial Officers Association
BSF Band Support Funding
CFA Comprehensive Funding Arrangement
CFNFA Canada/First Nation Funding Agreement
FAA Financial Administration Act
FNITP First Nations and Inuit Transfer Payment
FSO Funding Services Officer
HQ Headquarters
IGS Indian Government Support
INAC Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
IRS Indian Registry System
MCF Management Control Framework
NOBA Notice of Budget Adjustment
PY Person Years
RCM Responsibility Centre Manager
TBS Treasury Board of Canada

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Band Support Funding (BSF) program provides funding to First Nations, in the form of a grant, to assist band councils fund the cost of local governments and the administration of departmentally funded services. Indian bands as defined by the Indian Act, RSC, 1985 are eligible recipients of the BSF grant. To receive the grant, recipient must submit a completed application form for each funding agreement renewal. The amount of the BSF grant for each recipient is formula driven and takes into consideration a range of components including population, geographic location, and programming responsibilities of individual First Nations.

The basis of payment for the BSF program is identified in the funding agreement with the First Nations. Initial funding levels are determined on an annual basis, in mid-February and are based on the previous year's data (if appropriate). Funding levels and payments schedules are adjusted during an annual mid-year update, usually in July or August, once updated programming data is available to the regions.

BSF is included as part of a Canada First Nations Funding Agreement (CFNFA) also known as Alternative Funding Arrangement (AFA). It is not separately tracked like most transfer payment programs and is instead transferred to recipients as part of a block transfer, as part of the Indian Government Support (IGS) program. This is done to allow greater flexibility for recipients for the use of IGS program funding. BSF is tracked separately for Comprehensive Funding Arrangements (CFAs). As part of CFAs, the BSF program transferred approximately $137.1 million to First Nations in 2006-2007, $146.7 million in 2007-2008, and $146.1 million is 2008-2009. BSF levels were frozen from 1997-1998 to 2000-2001 at 1996-1997 levels. In 2001-2002, the Government announced a twenty percent increase for BSF, where band recipients became eligible for an increase of up to 5% per year until 2004-2005. Funding levels were unfrozen in 2005-2006.

Funding for the BSF program is transferred to the regions as part of an envelope of funds considered "core" funding. BSF is one of fifteen programs that make up the core funding envelope. The regions determine how the core funding is to be allocated within the fifteen programs based on the greatest needs of their recipients. The core funding envelope is increased by 2% each year.

The IGS programs, which include the BSF program, are currently undergoing a redesign process to obtain TBS approval for new program authorities commencing on April 1, 2010.

Objectives and Scope

The overall objective of this audit was to provide an independent assessment of selected controls within the BSF program. These controls are related to:

The scope of the audit included a representative sample of all Band Support Funding (BSF) agreements entered into by the Ontario, Quebec and BC regions in fiscal years (FY) 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. These regions were selected for examination because they represent the largest regional allocations of BSF.

Conclusions

Internal Audit is of the opinion that:

Recommendations

The audit report provides a number of recommendations intended to address the audit findings. These recommendations include;

INAC, should streamline the current application process to ensure efficiency and the use of the most current programming data. This new application process should become part of BSF Program Policy, and be adopted uniformly across regions. An implementation plan should be created for this new process to address regional communication and training issues.

INAC, should create a model that can be used to accurately calculate the PY data so that it better matches community needs. This model should become part of the BSF Program Policy, and implemented consistently across the regions.

INAC, should ensure that consistent and comprehensive guidelines that outline the appropriate uses of BSF expenses are developed and provided to regional staff and recipients. The Department should then establish a communication plan to ensure that the regions and BSF funding recipients clearly understand these guidelines. Training should also be provided to regional program staff to ensure that they are giving consistent and accurate guidance to First Nations on the use of BSF funds.

 

 

1.0 Statement of Assurance

We have completed the internal audit of the Band Support Funding Program. The overall objective of the audit was to provide assurance of selected controls related to the administration of the program's grants.

The internal audit was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury Board (TBS) Policy on Internal Audit and the Institute of Internal Auditors' Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.

The audit team assessed the controls related to the administration of the program against criteria derived from various sources including INAC's Financial Management Manual, relevant INAC and Treasury Board policies, best practices, and the Grants and Contribution Audit Criteria document developed by Audit and Evaluation Sector (AES) in 2007.

In my professional judgment, as Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive, sufficient and appropriate audit procedures have been conducted and evidence gathered to support the accuracy of the conclusions reached and contained in this report. The conclusions were based on a comparison of situations, as they existed at the time of the audit and against the audit criteria. It should be noted that the conclusions are only applicable for the areas examined.

 

 

2.0 Introduction

The Band Support Funding (BSF) program is the largest component of the Indian Government Support (IGS) funding program. The program provides funding to First Nations in the form of a grant to assist band councils in meeting the costs of local government and the administration of departmentally funded services. Since the support is provided in the form of a grant, BSF allows First Nation communities the flexibility to allocate funds according to their individual needs and priorities. It also provides an increased level of responsiveness in an environment of growing complexity as they move toward self-government.

To receive the grant, recipients must submit a completed application form for the initial funding agreement. In addition, recipients are required to re-submit a completed application form for subsequent years for funding agreement renewals. Indian bands as defined by the Indian Act, RSC, 1985 are eligible to receive BSF grants. Band councils apply for the grant on behalf of the band.

Recipient First Nation communities must complete, authorize, and submit the application forms to regional offices prior to March 31st each year. The amount of the BSF grant for each recipient is formula driven and takes into account population, geographic location, and programming responsibilities of individual First Nations. The regions pre-populate the applications prior to sending them to recipients using data available through the Indian Registry System (IRS) and the First Nations and Inuit Transfer Payment (FNITP) system (with the exception of PY data). The recipients then validate this data and return the application.

The application form contains data used in establishing funding levels, including agreed to Person Years (PY) information, and therefore must be reviewed for comparison with departmental records and approved by the regional office.

An application form should ideally be received by mid-February to allow sufficient time for review and to ensure that BSF is included in the new fiscal year funding agreement. Initially information needed for the application, such as final funding levels for the current year, is not known. Instead information from the previous year is supposed to be used to establish initial BSF levels, as outlined in the program policy. An update is conducted when the current year's information in known (usually in July or August).

The regions are using two distinct methods to manage the application process. The two methods are discussed below:

  1. In most regions, officials are sending application packages in January to First Nations. The packages include a pre-populated application template, instructions on how to fill-out and submit the application, and other correspondence related to the program. Once the applications are received by the regional office, officials will validate the information with the data in IRS and FNITP, and establish the initial BSF levels to include in the agreement.

  2. In other regions, officials are only sending application packages to First Nations after the mid-year update. In these regions, the initial BSF levels are equal to the final year-end funding levels of the previous year (i.e. post mid-year update levels). The Funding Service Officer (FSO) will send a pre-populated application with mid-year updated data to the First Nation to validate, sign, and submit to the regional office. This is typically done in July or August.

The number of Person Years (PY) needed to administer services to the band is required as part of the application, and is used as an input to the BSF formula. In most regions, the PY data is pre-populated in the application with the previous year's totals. In these regions, if a First Nation wishes to increase its PY totals it would have to provide a letter of request, that includes the rationale for the change, to the responsible FSO. However, in many cases the PY data has never been updated and is largely based on the information departments have on file prior to BSF levels being frozen in 1997.

There are also different methods used across the regions related to establishing initial funding levels. In some regions, the initial funding levels are set to the final funding levels from the previous year, and changes are only being made during the mid-year update. In another region, the initial funding levels are calculated with the funding formula, and are based on 90% of the increases in other INAC programming levels provided to the First Nation. This is done so that in the majority of cases the adjusted levels are increased during the mid-year update, or any decreases are minimal.

With respect to eligible expenditures, as outlined in the BSF Program Policy, the BSF grant is intended to provide a stable funding base for the maintenance of a local government and the central coordination of programs and the services to the citizenship. The BSF Policy indicates that other departmental programs and services provide funding to bands for a variety of associated items that are considered exclusions to the eligible expenditures of the BSF program. These include:

  1. Direct service costs;

  2. Salaries for employees engaged specifically in service delivery (e.g. teachers, welfare aides, development officers);

  3. Long distance telephone calls for service-oriented purposes;

  4. Specialized equipment and supplies (special forms, microfiche readers, computers, etc.);

  5. Travel and training allowances for band service employees;

  6. All costs, including office space and equipment, for the delivery of a major capital project (over $1.5 million for the total cost of the project except housing); and

  7. All costs of other defined projects which do not constitute an ongoing service.

BSF funds are automatically halted when recipients are non-compliant with respect to submitting financial reporting such as annual audit reports and regional management plans. Furthermore, as prescribed in the Management Control Framework (MCF) in all regions, BSF is automatically halted when recipients are not meeting the minimum reporting requirements for other IGS programs. In these instances the FNITP system tracks when a report is missing, or unsatisfactory, and places an automatic halt on BSF funds. Subsequent payments are pooled and released to the recipient once the reporting requirements are satisfactorily met.

Payment schedules for BSF are established and included in the funding agreements with the First Nations. The total payments reflect the amount calculated by the BSF formula and the payment schedules are set as per the Cash Management Policy in each region. In all regions this policy states that BSF payments are to be made as twelve equal payments throughout the year. Payments are tracked within FNITP to ensure they do not exceed the total BSF funds to be provided to each recipient. BSF levels and payments schedules are adjusted during the mid-year update, which happens in July or August. This is done through a Notice of Budget Adjustment (NOBA) that is appended to the funding agreement.

Certification that each recipient is entitled to each payment for BSF is provided by the Responsibility Center Manager (RCM) in each region, who has authority under Section 34 of the FAA. This is conducted through a Batch Approval Process, where payments reflecting commitments through multiple programs are issued concurrently to recipients. Once certification for Section 34 of the FAA has been provided, payment to the recipients is authorized via Section 33 of the FAA. This is done by accumulating all the funds committed within the batch that is applicable to the BSF program and having it signed off by the Director of the RCM for the program. This is done at regular monthly intervals, with some supplemental and emergency batches being issued at times.

Certification that sufficient funds are available before the agreements and Notice of Budget Adjustments are signed is provided through a Notice to Commit in order to comply with Section 32 of the FAA. This is done semi-annually (again once for the initial commitment of funding, and then again for the mid-year update), and is signed off by the Director of the regional unit responsible for managing the BSF program.

BSF included as part of a Canada/First Nations Funding Agreement (CFNFA) or Alternative Funding Arrangement (AFA) is not separately tracked, and is transferred to recipients as part of a block IGS programs transfer. This is done to allow a greater flexibility for recipients for the use of IGS program funding. As a result, it is impossible to determine the amount of BSF provided separately from the IGS block funding within CFNFAs and AFA. BSF is tracked separately for Comprehensive Funding Arrangements (CFAs). As part of CFAs, the BSF program transferred approximately $137.1 million to First Nations in 2006-2007, $146.7 million in 2007-2008, and $146.1 million is 2008-2009.

BSF levels were frozen from 1997-1998 to 2000-2001 at 1996-1997 levels. During this period, band information was not updated. In 2001-2002, the Government announced a twenty percent increase for BSF, where bands became eligible for up to a 5% increase per year until 2004-2005. Funding levels were unfrozen in 2005-2006.

Funding for the BSF program is transferred from HQ to the regions as part of an envelope of funds considered "core" funding. The BSF is one of fifteen programs that make up the core funding envelope. The regions determine how the core funding is to be allocated within the fifteen programs based on the greatest needs of their recipients. In fiscal year 2008-2009, approximately $3.2 billion was transferred to the regions as part the core funding. The core funding envelope is increased by 2% each year.

The Indian Government Support (IGS) program, which includes the BSF program, are currently undergoing a redesign process to obtain Treasury Board approval for new program authorities effective April 1, 2010.

 

 

3.0 Objectives

The overall objective of this audit was to provide an independent assessment of selected controls within the BSF program. These controls are related to:

 

 

4.0 Scope

The scope of the audit includes specific controls and oversight activities over the grants associated with the BSF program. The audit examined and assessed the adequacy and effectiveness of controls related to specific areas within the audit scope. The following table outlines those specific in-scope audit areas and matches them to the audit objectives.

Audit Objective In-Scope Audit Area(s)
Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the Program and Agreement
  • Applications received from potential recipients

  • Eligibility of applicants

  • Payments and payment schedules
Recipient Monitoring
  • Recipient intervention (3rd party)
Compliance with INAC policies and the FAA
  • Compliance with Sections 32, 33 and 34 of the FAA

  • Potential holdback of BSF as per the program's Management Control Framework
Financial management as it relates to grant transfers (i.e. budgets and expenditure Management)
  • Monitoring flow of funding from HQ to the Regions.
 

The scope of the audit included all BSF agreements entered into by the Ontario, Quebec andBCregions for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. These regions were selected for examination because they represent the largest regional allocations of BSF.

Audit criteria were drawn from various sources including INAC's Financial Management Manual, relevant INAC and Treasury Board policies, best practices, and the 2007 Grants and Contribution Audit Criteria developed by AES. The audit criteria that were used and the related lines of inquiry are outlined in Annex A.

The scope of the audit was limited to BSF associated with Comprehensive Funding Arrangements (CFAs). Since, BSF under the CFA model is tracked separately from other IGS programs; it allowed the team to accurately review BSF transfers. Controls relating to BSF provided under CFNFAs/AFAs, which are not tracked separately from all other IGS programs, were excluded from the scope of the audit. It should also be noted that the scope of the audit did not include an assessment of recipient Audited Financial Statements as they relate to BSF.

 

 

5.0 Approach and Methodology

The audit was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the TB Policy on Internal Audit and followed the Institute of Internal Auditor's Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. Sufficient and appropriate audit procedures have been conducted and evidence gathered to support the accuracy of the opinions provided and contained in this report.

Audit work was completed in three phases: the planning phase; the examination phase; and the reporting phase.

Planning Phase

The planning phase included a review of key documents identified and provided by INAC staff, as well as, interviews with INAC officials. Based on the findings from the planning phase, a work plan was developed to guide the examination phase of the audit. The work plan confirmed the objective of the audit and identified the scope, lines of enquiry, criteria, schedule, and methodology for the examination phase.

Examination phase

The examination phase was conducted from April to June of 2009 at Headquarters, as well as, the Toronto, Thunder Bay, Quebec City, and Vancouver regional offices. Evidence collected during the examination phase was primarily obtained through file reviews and interviews.

Recipient File Reviews

The audit focused on grants issued through the BSF program within the Ontario, Quebec and BC regions for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. Between 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, 259 First Nations were provided with BSF grants through Comprehensive Funding Arrangements. A representative sample of 58 files was selected for review. The file sample is available in Annex B.

The selection process for the sample focused on large dollar value grants, where the potential consequences associated with weak or ineffective controls would be greatest. Potential anomalies related to the number of payments made, funding level adjustments and recipients under intervention were also considered during the sample selection process.

The recipient file review consisted of on-site testing to the Toronto, Thunder Bay, Quebec City, and Vancouver regional offices. Testing included the review of documents and files associated with the administration of the program. A file review template was developed as part of the work plan to guide the file review exercise.

Interviews

Interviewees were identified by INAC officials from the Professional and Institutional Development Directorate at headquarters and by the BSF program's Responsibility Management Centre (RDM) in the regions. These individuals were deemed to have the greatest expertise in the administration of the BSF program. In total, ten interviews were conducted as part of the examination phase. Interview guidelines developed as part of the work plan, were used to guide the interviews. Interviewees also provided supporting documentation to the audit team for review, upon request.

Reporting Phase

The reporting phase included a synthesis and an analysis of findings from the examination phase. Following a review of the findings, a report, outlining the key findings, conclusions and recommendations from the audit, was prepared.

Exit meetings were held at each regional office to discuss the audit findings with regional management. Program management at Headquarters was also briefed on the audit findings, following the conclusion of the fieldwork.

 

 

6.0 Conclusions

Internal Audit is of the opinion that:

 

 

7.0 Observations and Recommendations

7.1 The Application Process

The current application process has a degree of redundancy and needs to be streamlined.

Currently, the application process involves regional officials pre-populating the applications with the required data and sending the applications to recipients for validation and authorization. The information contained in each application is populated with the previous fiscal year's data, available to regional officials through IRS and FNITP. Since the applications are required by mid-February in order to be included in the upcoming fiscal year's agreements, the data validated and authorized by recipients in order to establish initial funding levels, is two years old (i.e. setting initial funding levels forFY 2009-2010 would use FY 2007-2008 final data). This also makes the application process largely a validation exercise for recipients.

The audit found that two distinct methods are being used in the regions to manage the application process. These are discussed in greater detail in the introduction section of this report. Of the two methods being used by regions to manage applications, one has regional officials distribute application material in January, while the other calls for application distribution in July or August. In our opinion, the latter method appears to be more efficient as applications are only being distributed when changes are made to the BSF level. Although this method provides greater predictability for First Nations regarding BSF levels, which assists them in longer-term planning, it is non-compliant with the BSF Program Policy, which dictates that all applications must be received prior to March 31st to be eligible for grant funding in the new fiscal year.

The current application process was found to be redundant as First Nations are required to validate and authorize two year old data as part of their BSF application; information that is already available to the Department. Interviewees also stated that the application process has caused some confusion amongst recipients. The process needs to be studied in greater detail and ways to streamline it should be identified and prescribed in the BSF Program Policy. The new application process should rely on up-to-date programming data.

Recommendation

INAC, should streamline the current application process to ensure efficiency and the use of the most current programming data. This new application process should become part of BSF Program Policy, and be adopted uniformly across regions. An implementation plan should be created for this new process to address regional communication and training issues.

There are inconsistencies across the regions in the approach used to calculate Person Years (PY) data.

Recipients are required to provide PY data to the Department as part of the BSF application process. PY data is a critical piece of information used by BSF formula to calculate BSF funding levels. The audit found that there are inconsistencies across the regions in how PY data is determined, which has an impact on the funding levels provided to recipients.

In most regions, the PY data has never been updated and is largely based on the information collected by the Department prior to the freezing of BSF funding levels in 1997. In one region, after the BSF levels were unfrozen in 2005, a review of PY data was conducted for all the bands. The review highlighted that in some instances, old PY data was producing BSF levels that were incongruent with the current services being administered. The region attempted to update the PY data by using similar INAC positions as a model. This drastically reduced the PY totals for all bands, and as a result decreased the BSF levels. The next year, the region re-calculated the PY data again based on a model provided by the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada (AFOA), which conducts studies on the salaries of positions in band offices across the country. This increased the PY totals, which also increased the BSF levels.

This illustration demonstrates that the PY totals entered into the BSF formula can have a significant impact in the total BSF levels provided to First Nations. The BSF program policy does not provide guidance on how to calculate PY data, which has led to inconsistencies in the calculation of PY data across the regions.

INAC should develop and implement a model for PY data that reasonably reflects the needs of the First Nations communities in administering their services. The BSF Program Policy should be updated to include this model so that PY data is calculated consistently across all regions.

Recommendation

INAC, should create a model that can be used to accurately calculate the PY data so that it better matches community needs. This model should become part of the BSF Program Policy, and implemented consistently across the regions.

7.2 Eligible Expenditures

The intended uses of BSF funds may not be communicated consistently to recipients.

While not specifically within the scope of this audit, the procedures for recipient monitoring yielded a potential concern related to a lack of consistency in communicating eligible expenditures to recipients. The BSF Program Policy, which contains the terms and conditions of the program, provides very little guidance on the eligible program expenses. Since BSF funding is provided as a grant, there are no requirements or expectations to monitor the use of funds. The policy states that the grant is intended for the general purpose to "…provide a stable funding base for the maintenance of a local government and the central coordination of programs and services to the citizenship."

The audit found that having such general guidelines related to eligible expenditures has caused confusion amongst recipients. In particular, it was noted that recipients were making enquiries to regional offices in order to determine what constituted an eligible use of funds. However, since there are no specific guidelines governing the use of funds, these enquiries may be responded to inconsistently across the regions. For example, an expenditure that is communicated as being "eligible" in one region may not be in another region. Guidance provided to recipients on the intended uses of the funds should be consistent across all regions.

Recommendation

INAC, should ensure that consistent and comprehensive guidelines that outline the appropriate uses of BSF expenses are developed and provided to regional staff and recipients. The Department should establish a communication plan to ensure that the regions and BSF funding recipients clearly understand these guidelines. Training should also be provided to regional program staff to ensure that they are giving consistent and accurate guidance to First Nations on the use of BSF funds.

 

 

8.0 Action Plan

Recommendations Actions Responsible Manager (Title) Planned Implementation Date
1. INAC, should streamline the current application process to ensure efficiency and the use of the most current programming data. This new application process should become part of BSF Program Policy, and be adopted uniformly across regions. An implementation plan should be created for this new process to address regional communication and training issues.  INAC, in the context of the renewal of the Indian Government Support programs, will seek authority to simplify the funding formula such that funding entitlements will be calculated entirely on the basis of current data already contained in internal INAC databases, relieving applicants of the burden of submitting data to INAC. All First Nations communities will have access to the data employed in this calculation. Gianni (John) de Francesco Secure program authority for a new funding formula by April 1, 2010

Implement new automated data collection system by April 1, 2011
2. INAC, Professional and Institutional Development Directorate, should create a model that can be used to accurately calculate the PY data so that it better matches community needs. This model should become part of the BSF Program Policy, and implemented consistently across the regions. INAC will seek authority for a simpler funding formula which is driven by population, by the volume of other programs managed by the community, and by geographic factors; the new formula will not employ person-year data. Gianni (John) de Francesco Secure program authority for a new funding formula by April 1, 2010
3. INAC should ensure that consistent and comprehensive guidelines that outline the appropriate uses of BSF expenses are developed and provided to regional staff and recipients. The Department should establish a communication plan to ensure that the regions and BSF funding recipients clearly understand these guidelines. Training should also be provided to regional program staff to ensure that they are giving consistent and accurate guidance to First Nations on the use of BSF funds. INAC will seek authority to define the purpose of the grant to be to support First Nations in the execution of functions of government. Regional Operations Sector will provide program guidance to all regional offices regarding these functions. Gianni (John) de Francesco Provide training to regional offices on the purpose of a renewed grant program by December 31, 2010
 

 

Annex A –Audit Criteria

Audit Area Audit Criteria File Review Interviews
Applications received from potential applicants Applications are completed and provided by each recipient prior to the assessment of the amount of funding to be granted to the recipient. Yes  
Applications have been reviewed for accuracy prior to assessment of the amount of funding to be granted to the recipient. Yes Yes
Eligibility of applicants Each recipient of BSF is an eligible First Nations community as defined under the Indian Act Yes  
Payments and payment schedules The amount to be granted to each recipient as calculated by the funding formula is equivalent to the amount stated in the funding agreement. Yes  
Payments are tracked to ensure they do not exceed total funding, including adjusted amounts. Yes Yes
Initial and ongoing disbursements (including emergency payments) are issued and recorded in a manner that is consistent with the established payment schedule. Yes  
Disbursements are approved by a Program Manager or Regional Manager before the payment is made. Yes Yes
There is evidence that application data has been reviewed for the purposes of adjusting recipient funding levels. Yes Yes
Budget Adjustments are reviewed and approved by the Program or Regional Director (or EX - 1) to ensure changes are justified and are within the terms and conditions of the program. Yes  
Recipient intervention The INAC Intervention Policy is implemented and followed where appropriate. Yes Yes
BSF is used to compensate 3rd party managers where recipients are under intervention. Yes Yes
Compliance with Sections 32, 33, and 34 of the FAA Program Officers are aware of and regularly review their allocated annual program budget.   Yes
Certification is provided by the responsible officer that sufficient funds are available before the agreement is signed.   Yes
Commitments are accurately tracked against available budgets to avoid over commitments prior to funding being approved.   Yes
Certification is provided by the appropriate delegated authority that the payee is entitled to the payment. Yes Yes
Sufficient proof that the recipient is eligible has been obtained by the Finance Officer with the appropriate delegated authority that Section 34 of the FAA has been met prior to authorizing payment via Section 33. Yes Yes
Program records that support Section 34 certification are retained on file to provide documentary evidence of analysis performed and decisions made. Yes  
Potential holdback of BSF as per INAC policy Money owed to the government is recovered from eligible payments in accordance with TB and INAC policies.   Yes
BSF is held-back from recipients where the recipient has not met minimum reporting standards related to other INAC funding programs. Yes Yes
Monitoring flow of funding from HQ to the Regions Total program funding is monitored and tracked as it is dispersed from HQ to the Regions.   Yes
Total program funding is dispersed to the Regions, or any remainder that is not dispersed to the Regions is managed and reported to Treasury Board.   Yes
 

 

Annex B –File Review Sample

Fiscal Year Band Number Recipient Paid to Date
Ontario      
2006-2007 0129 Six Nations of the Grand River $1,420,941
2006-2007 0145 Taykwa Tagamou Nation $294,000
2006-2007 0185 Ginoogaming FN $249,610
2006-2007 0205 Lac Seul FN $583,250
2006-2007 0207 Bearskin Lake FN $578,678
2006-2007 0211 Sandy Lake FN $1,018,994
2006-2007 0216 Cat Lake FN $418,527
2006-2007 0235 Obashkaandagaang $184,959
2006-2007 0238 North Spirit Lake FN $417,523
2006-2007 0325 Kee-Way-Win FN $406,554
2007-2008 0143 Attawapiskat FN $959,644
2007-2008 0150 Wabaseemoong Independent Nation $453,744
2007-2008 0163 Algonquins of Pikwakanagan $387,113
2007-2008 0186 Marten Falls FN $368,794
2007-2008 0188 Gull Bay FN $193,872
2007-2008 0203 Mishkeegogamang FN $101,562
2007-2008 0208 Pikangikum FN $840,592
2007-2008 0239 Neskantaga FN $240,760
2007-2008 0241 Nibinamik FN $305,915
2007-2008 0242 Aroland FN $280,573
2008-2009 0129 Nicickousemenecaning FN $0
2008-2009 0138 Chippewas of Georgina Island $249,131
2008-2009 0144 Moose Cree FN $906,450
2008-2009 0170 Walpole Island FN $763,524
2008-2009 0174 Magnetawan FN $65,844
2008-2009 0183 Eabametoong FN $599,649
2008-2009 0209 Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug $686,631
2008-2009 0210 Kasabonika Lake FN $690,447
2008-2009 0237 Deer Lake FN $618,762
2008-2009 0140 Webequie Settlement $199,970
Quebec      
2006-2007 0054 Premiere Nation Malecite $102,325
2006-2007 0051 Listuguj Mi'Gmaq Government $644,433
2006-2007 0074 Algonquins of Barriere Lake $320,620
2006-2007 0052 Micmacs of Gesgapegiag $386,763
2007-2008 0082 Bande des Innus de Ekuanitshit $330,573
2007-2008 0083 Bande des Montagnais de Natashquan $519,299
2007-2008 0069 Mohawks of Kanesatake $479,029
2007-2008 0084 Montagnais de Unamen Shipu $659,660
2007-2008 0087 Bande de la Nation Innu Matimekush-Lac $709,218
2008-2009 0067 Long Point First Nation $337,414
2008-2009 0088 Bande des Montagnais de Pakua Shipi $444,057
2008-2009 0053 La Nation Micmac de Gespeg $159,704
2008-2009 0068 Wolf Lake $133,044
BC      
2006-2007 0539 Nuxalk $514,736
2006-2007 0550 Musqueam Indian Band $409,841
2006-2007 0557 Mount Currie Indian Band $582,870
2006-2007 0631 Namgis FN (Nimpish) $504,265
2006-2007 0721 Kluskus $151,277
2007-2008 0555 Squamish Nation $569,619
2007-2008 0559 Chehalis Indian Band $344,876
2007-2008 0610 Kwadacha Idian Band (Fort Ware) $424,506
2007-2008 0669 Old Masset Village Council $452,582
2007-2008 0684 Adams Lake Indian Band $297,437
2008-2009 0530 Moricetown Indian Band $447,453
2008-2009 0642 Cowichan Tribes $722,671
2008-2009 0683 Iskut FN $374,659
2008-2009 0705 Lytton Indian Band $513,650
2008-2009 0726 Nee-Tahi-Buhn Indian Band $112,016
 
 
Date modified: