“Aboriginal Awareness Week provides Canadians the opportunity to understand the significant contributions and accomplishments that Aboriginal Peoples have made within Canada’s Public Service today, and in the past,” stated National Chief, Betty Ann Lavallée. “I would like to encourage all Canadians to take the time and learn more about the tremendous sacrifices made by Aboriginal Peoples throughout its history and in particular, in the formation of this country. As we know, Aboriginal Peoples played a significant role within Canada`s Armed forces, along with bringing a rich cultural diversity to Canada that is now an essential fabric of Canadian society recognized throughout the world.”

In recognition of Aboriginal Awareness Week, Canadians will have the opportunity to participate in activities that honour the diverse cultures and traditions of the First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Peoples. Opening ceremonies will be held at 300 Laurier Avenue, in Ottawa on May 21st starting at 12:00 p.m. Closing ceremonies will take place at the Cartier Square Drill Hall, Laurier Avenue on May 24th starting at 10:00 a.m.

Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (Formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has been the National Representative Organization and the National Voice for the constituency and their Affiliate Organizations making up the Congress’ family of advocates for the Off-Reserve, Non-Status, and Status Indians, Métis and Southern Inuit Aboriginal Peoples living in urban, rural remote and isolated areas throughout Canada.

Click on the following links to obtain a schedule of activities or to learn more Aboriginal Awareness Week.

• http://www.pc.gc.ca/agen/aa/index/horraire-schedule.aspx  -Schedule
• http://www.pc.gc.ca/agen/aa/index.aspx – Parks Canada
• http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/agen/aa/faits-facts.aspx  – Fact Sheets

-30-

To arrange an Interview, please contact:
Julian Morelli
Director of Communications
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Ottawa, Ontario
613-747-6022

“On behalf of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, I would like to personally send my condolences to the family and friends of Elijah Harper who passed away this morning in Ottawa.  As we all know Elijah was a great Leader who stood up for what he believed in. His refusal to accept the Meech Lake Accord because it was negotiated without the input of Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples illustrates his unwavering commitment.”

“You will be missed but never forgotten.”

Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (Formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has been the National Representative Organization and the National Voice for the constituency and their Affiliate Organizations making up the Congress’ family of advocates for the Off-Reserve, Non-Status, and Status Indians, Métis and Southern Inuit Aboriginal Peoples living in urban, rural remote and isolated areas throughout Canada.

-30-

To arrange an interview, contact:
Julian Morelli: julian@abo-peoples.org
Director of Communications:
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
(613) 747 6022

I am the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, (CAP) (formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has represented the interests of off-reserve status and non-status Indians, Southern Inuit and Métis throughout Canada.

Our organization is fortunate enough to be able to provide programs and services to our constituents. It is our goal to include all Aboriginal people and in doing so, we hope we can make a difference in peoples lives. I believe the best social program is a job! This means investing in people by helping to assist with education and proper training to get there. I can tell you, as a former member of the armed forces that training is the most important aspect. When people get appropriate training they flourish.

In the last few years, the Congress has been engaged in different policy areas of building partnerships, encouraging Aboriginal students to stay in school, and addressing barriers affecting successful employment and partnerships.

Economic development and social development go hand in hand. It’s more than just programs to help people get jobs or establish businesses. You need the right skills to get the job and supportive stable businesses to attract businesses and partners. Real progress requires effective economic development programs and partnerships. It also requires investments in strong foundations, like basic education and training. One major factor in economic participation is education.

Today, over 60% of Aboriginal Peoples now live off-reserve, and this number continues to grow. The Congress has no shortage of people who are employable, but without the proper education and training, employment rates drop significantly.

The labour market downturn in 2008 and 2009 had a large impact on Aboriginal people compared to non-Aboriginal people. For instance, in the manufacturing industry, employment declined by 8% among non-Aboriginal workers. Whereas employed declined by 30% among Aboriginal workers. According to statistics Canada, educational achievement played a role during this downtown. Aboriginal people who had completed post-secondary education were not as affected, their employment rate went down by 1.8%. The employment rate for Aboriginal people with less than a high school diploma fell by 5.5%.

The education of our children from the cradle to old age is a policy priority of the first order. Many of our youth fail to complete high school or leave without the necessary education for employment.

Education is as crucial for Aboriginal peoples as it is for other Canadians. Education inspires young people and provides hope for a better future. It also plays a role in shaping individuals to be better, responsible people and active members of our society. Without higher education achievements, many Aboriginal peoples will continue to face the prospect of lower incomes and higher unemployment rates.

The obstacles that Aboriginal youth face are complex and present many challenges. These barriers include lower standards of living, social pressures and discrimination, all of which exacerbate the difficulties Aboriginal youth face when focusing on their own educational needs.

Present research validates the need to address the education issues. According to the 2006 Canada census, the high school drop‑out rate for Aboriginal students living on reserve was 60%. The drop‑out rate for Aboriginal students living off‑reserve was 43%. Among non‑Aboriginal Canadians the drop out rate was 9.5%.

When we look at higher educational achievement, only 7% of First Nations, 9% of Métis and 4% of Inuit people have obtained a university degree. Compare this to non-Aboriginal Canadians – the graduation rate of those who completed university is 23%.

Investing in education for Canada’s Aboriginal population promises a strong, healthy Aboriginal population that can address Canada’s increasing workforce needs and contribute to our economic productivity. Statistics Canada projects a labour shortage over the next two decades due to baby boomers retiring and fewer workers being available to replace them. At the same time, almost half of Aboriginal youth are under the age of 25. Aboriginal people can help fill this gap if they are empowered with the skills and education to meet the need.

The Centre for the Study of Living Standards calculates that $71.1 billion will be added to Canada’s economy if Aboriginal people attain to the same level of education as other Canadians.

The Congress is concerned that every aspect of education for our Aboriginal population be supported, from early childhood development through to adult education.  It is also important to ensure this educational curriculum incorporates Aboriginal culture, values, history and perspectives. It is the Congress’ position that educational services and programs for Aboriginal children need to be delivered by Aboriginal people exclusively.

The government is planning on passing a First Nations Education Act in September 2014 to improve on-reserve elementary and secondary schools and to increase Aboriginal graduation rates. This act was one of five recommendations made by the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education in their final report to The Honourable John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in February 2012.

While this initiative to close the gap in graduation rates between Aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people is encouraging, we all know there is still much more work to be done. It makes sense to improve education for Aboriginal people to contribute to the social and economic well being of Canada.

Aboriginal people are one of the fastest growing populations in Canada and yet they are notably underrepresented within Canada’s workforce.  Aboriginal Peoples should be considered a solution to filling labour force gaps.  Aboriginal Peoples want to work and contribute to society, they want to be financially independent, and they need opportunities to be made available to them.  The challenge is to raise awareness among employers for creating opportunities to involve more Aboriginal peoples in the labour force. Employers need to become more proactive and to outreach and support greater aboriginal participation.

The Congress is continually going over the most effective means to increase employment rates among Aboriginal people. Our organization has worked with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada over the last ten years to find ways of including more Aboriginal people in the labour market.

One of the programs that was developed and implemented through Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is the Aboriginal Skills & Employment Training Strategy (ASETS).  This program is delivered to our constituents through our provincial and territorial organizations. The Congress is the national voice for its affiliate organizations that advocate on behalf of Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve.

The ASETS program is meant to encourage service providers to enter into partnerships with private-sector employers, governments and other organizations that lead to employment opportunities. The benefits of collaborating and working in partnerships range from improving employment outcomes, providing Aboriginal people with more opportunities for their career choices, and allowing better access to culturally sensitive training and employment services for meaningful and longer-term employment.

The Congress has found that successful partnering depends upon each party displaying the same sort of attitudes and behaviours that would contribute to sustaining a healthy interpersonal relationship. These efforts include getting to know potential partners before negotiating a formal partnership arrangement. Such relationships include openness, honesty, regular communication, and flexibility.

There are also practical steps required in forging relationships, this involves: seeking out prospective partners, planning, drafting a written agreement and monitoring progress.

The Congress has sub-agreements with our provincial and territorial organization that deliver this program. As well, any Aboriginal person in Canada who wishes to participate in this program is able to apply directly to the Congress.

Some of our affiliates have been quite successful in their partnerships. For example, The Native Council of Nova Scotia has partnerships is both the Trucking Sector and another focused in the construction industry. New Brunswick has also focused on construction. The Vancouver Aboriginal Skills and Employment partnership participated in several major construction projects including the Sea to Sky Highway and the 2010 Olympic venues.

There are still challenges to overcome.  The Congress is working to find solutions to minimize these challenges. Some of which include: human resource capacity, lack of mentors, and forming complementary partnerships.

The Congress developed a Partnering Tool kit to help overcome some of these challenges. This tool kit was designed as a self-help guide for organizations with limited experience in partnering.

Some of our affiliates have had difficulty participating with provincial governments as this is viewed as a Federal initiative, outside the jurisdiction of the provinces. Yet some of our affiliates have been able to tap into the provincially administered labour markets and think creatively about ways of seeking complimentary funding. For Instance, The Native Council of Prince Edward Island administers a program called the SMART project, which stands for Strengthening & Mentoring Aboriginal People for Realistic Training to Employment. This program has made a difference in Prince Edward Island. It focuses on employment training, and helps to eliminate the barriers that many Aboriginal people face.

Over 80% to 100% of clients served by the Congress’ affiliate organizations face multiple barriers. These barriers range from lack of public or private transportation, lack of child care, lack of self-confidence, living in poverty, learning disabilities, lack of an off reserve support network, housing issues, language and so much more.

The people who run the SMART program really give a tremendous amount of support to help each person resolve their barriers. This may involve financial support, helping find childcare, resolving transportation issues and really addressing whichever barrier arises for each person. This program has proven successful results and has changed people’s outlooks and future prospects to come.

Evidence suggests when Aboriginal organizations are directly involved in initiatives geared toward other Aboriginal peoples the outcomes are much better, than when it is provided by governments or mainstream organizations.  It is reasonable to suggest that Aboriginal leaders should be given the tools to motivate Aboriginal youth to participate more in education and the workforce, rather than non-Aboriginal peoples.

Developing capacity for engagement is not simply about inclusion, it has to be an equal relationship.  To develop a strong capacity for engagement it is necessary to teach financial literacy and wealth management skills so that Aboriginal Peoples are truly able to work together.

Creating equal partners allows for more opportunities to promote education, professional skills and financial expertise to Aboriginal youth.

Building healthy and collaborative relationships, over a long-term period, between Aboriginal Peoples and non-Aboriginal Peoples promises sizeable mutual benefits for both everyone.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples strongly supports empowering Aboriginal people to move forward with their career aspirations. There are many barriers, but if we can address these barriers and try to close the educational gap as much as possible we will have a more optimistic outlook on the labour market needs in Canada.

We lalioq

Thank you

Merci beaucoup

Location: Hotel Arts, 119 12th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta

Date: Monday, May 6, 2013

]]> http://www.abo-peoples.org/national-chief-lavallee-speaks-in-calgary-on-how-to-support-urban-aboriginal-employment/feed/ 0 http://www.abo-peoples.org/presentation-by-ron-swain-house-of-commons-standing-committee-on-the-status-of-women/ http://www.abo-peoples.org/presentation-by-ron-swain-house-of-commons-standing-committee-on-the-status-of-women/#comments Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:32:44 +0000 Julian http://www.abo-peoples.org/?p=4470

Hello, Bonjour –

Good morning Chair Lamothe and committee members. It is a pleasure to be here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples to speak to you about Matrimonial Real Property on-Reserve.

I am the National Vice-Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. As you know, the National Chief was to speak to you this morning.  Unfortunately she has taken ill, and asked me to make this presentation in her place.

Let me being by saying that since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, (formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has represented the interests of off-reserve status and non-status Indians, Southern Inuit and Métis throughout Canada.  Today, the fact is that over 60% of Aboriginal Peoples now live off-reserve, and this number continues to grow. The Congress is also the national voice for its affiliate organizations that advocate on behalf of Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve throughout Canada.

The issue of matrimonial Real Property On reserve is certainly not new. Actually, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba addressed this in as far back as 1988. At that time, that inquiry recognized the need for an equal division upon marriage breakdown under the Indian Act.  In addition, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples put forth recommendations on the issue.

Over the last ten years, there has been numerous studies and reports issued by the House of Commons and in the Senate.  A number of pieces of legislation have also been introduced by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples supports Matrimonial Real Property and we feel it is time to move on.

This legislation should not come as a surprise to anyone.  Aboriginal organizations, including the Congress, along with Aboriginal people were consulted on Matrimonial Real Property in 2002 through the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee. In fact, we helped draft the legislation for the First Nations Governance Act under this Committee.

In 2003, the Standing Committee on Human rights released an interim report called: A Hard Bed to Lie In: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve. This report is still relevant today. It outlines the importance of Matrimonial Real Property for a variety of reasons by emphasizing many of the barriers Aboriginal women face, including factors that intensify additional inequality and discrimination toward women in these circumstances.

One story in this report really was really striking.  An Aboriginal woman and her five children were forced to leave their reserve. They lost their social support, and were left with limited finances in search for a home. This woman sought assistance for affordable housing but was turned down and ended up living in a rundown boarding house.  Child and Family Services intervened and took her children from her because she didn’t have adequate housing for her children. In the end, she could not take it anymore and in despair, she took her own life. This is just one tragic example and there are surely thousands more.  Yet, these hardships still continue today.

For example, many women are forced to leave their reserve after a marriage breakdown.  Those who leave the reserve in search for affordable housing could find their position quite grim.  Let me give you an example; in 2006 the federal government entered into the off-reserve Aboriginal housing sector.  They allotted $300 million dollars over three years to the provinces to go towards off-reserve affordable housing.  Not one of our affiliates received the full amount of funding.  When the federal government gave money to assist off-reserve housing, it didn’t actually get there. In fact, one province under this program received $38.2 million dollars and refused to provide any resources for off-reserve housing. This particular province refused to assist off-reserve housing initiatives because, and I quote, they “had other priorities.”   My question is simple. Where are these people supposed to go?!

This is why our organization fought so strongly for all Aboriginal people to be included under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. People who leave reserves for whatever reason should still have their rights. They are rightful partners in Confederation. They are federal jurisdiction. Once a person leaves the reserve, they no longer have the same level of services or support available to them. They are simply not getting the help they need.

Obviously, conditions differ in every region of Canada and each person has their own unique challenges to deal with.  However, I find it appalling that in this day and age, Aboriginal women continue to encounter discrimination, inequality and are literally being deprived of their rights.

The Constitution Act of 1982, under subsection 35(4) states: (and I quote)“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.” This is not the reality for Aboriginal women.

We at the Congress understand the complexities of this legislation, but that is no excuse.  This is legislation that should have gone through years ago.  How land is managed and allotted on a reserve plays a big part on how matrimonial real property is exercised. There are reserves that have different categories of land on the same reserve. For instance, whether a reserve is regulated by the Indian Act, or voluntarily adhering to the First Nations Land Management Act, or self-government.

The Indian Act itself is problematic on a number of levels.  It does not enshrine the treaty relationship, but in many cases undermines or seeks to replace it.  It was introduced and amended by governments that took a paternalistic view towards Aboriginal people. It is more about limiting the day-to-day existence of Status Indians and reserve communities, than it is about implementing and building relationships with sovereign people who were entered into this Act, without their consent!  The lack of matrimonial real property is probably the most honest example of what is wrong with the Indian Act at its root.

Some communities have voluntarily adhered to the First Nations Land Management Act to get away from the Indian Act.  A small fraction of those communities have made the necessary steps in recognizing the division of family assets. But there are still difficulties for women when it comes to exercising those rights.

The Standing Committee on Human Rights’ Interim report states that:

(I quote) “the federal policy on self-government calls for the application of the Charter:

“The Government is committed to the principle that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should bind all governments in Canada, so that Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal Canadians alike may continue to enjoy equally the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Self-government agreements, including treaties, will, therefore, have to provide that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Aboriginal governments and institutions in relation to all matters within their respective jurisdictions and authorities.”

This legislation accommodates for the different land managements on a reserve. It also allows for communities to establish laws that are specific to their culture and their traditions.

It has been argued that Bill S-2 could be interpreted to imply that it impedes on the non-derogation clause found under Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Our organization strongly supports the non-derogation clause, in that nothing should “abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to aboriginal peoples of Canada.” I honestly believe that ensuring equal rights to both men and women does not impede upon Aboriginal treaty rights. On the contrary, I would argue, not backing this bill is disallowing equality for all Aboriginal people.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples strongly supports Matrimonial Real Property On-Reserve. We recognize that by implementing this legislation many communities may be burdened with an increase in responsibility. For this reason, it is important that communities be provided with the necessary tools and financial resources to assist them in implementing this important legislation. This is an instrumental bill and it is important that we don’t impose legislation on Aboriginal Peoples and their communities. But rather help Aboriginal people by establishing a reciprocal relationship in working together and supporting Aboriginal communities to ensure they are able to integrate equality while maintaining their cultural values and traditions.

Thank you

Merci beaucoup

I am the National Vice Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has represented the interests of off-reserve status and non-status Indians, the Southern Inuit of Labrador, and Métis peoples throughout Canada. The Congress is also the national voice for its affiliate organizations that advocate on behalf of Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve. The Congress tries to be consistent and inclusive by welcoming all Aboriginal peoples.

The Congress indirectly represents its members through our regional affiliates (Provincial Territorial organizations). It is not possible to have one membership criteria from coast to coast because of the distinct realities in each region. Our membership is structured to include all Aboriginal peoples, geographically, historically and culturally, which in part is why we are able to discuss Aboriginal Inclusion from such a broad perspective.

To set the stage for our presentation, I want to look over two recent and major events in the ongoing story of Aboriginal relations with the Canadian government. We’re about to talk about some very specific approaches to Aboriginal Inclusion, but first I want to bring up these two events to address the more fundamental questions of “why Aboriginal Inclusion?” and “why now?” The first is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC.

The TRC, established in 2008 and still ongoing, is the official response to the legacy of the residential school system which continued until the 1990s. Over the past few years the TRC has held hearings across Canada, lending its ear to many unheard voices, and connecting the Canadian public more intimately with the story of their ‘unknown neighbours,’ the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.

Truth and Reconciliation are noble and worthy goals, to which we lend our fullest support. The TRC has stated that its purpose is to “guide a process of truth and healing, leading toward reconciliation within Aboriginal families, and between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal communities, churches, governments, and Canadians generally. The process will work to renew relations on the basis of inclusion, mutual understanding, and respect.” So from this we can see how Aboriginal Inclusion becomes an integral part of the reconciliation process. During the presentation we will be taking the term ‘inclusion’ in a more restricted sense, relating it to the workforce, but I think it’s clear how the two senses of inclusion – social and economic – are related. We will not see the full effects of healing and reconciliation until we see a fuller partnership between private industry and the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.

I would like to drive this point home. Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.” The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948, by a vote of 48 in favor (of which Canada was one) and 0 against, with eight abstentions: namely the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the People’s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the People’s Republic of Poland, the Union of South Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Only South Africa’s opposition had been clear throughout the process.

To work within one’s capacity, in industry, at any level (entry, skilled, or professional) is a human right that all Aboriginal people have whether we are “on” or “off” reserve.  Canada has a great opportunity to right the wrongs of the Indian Act and ensure this great nation upholds the values we committed to in 1948. We can do this by ensuring that all Aboriginal peoples are included as part of the economic engine for growth. Let’s not perpetuate the “haves and have-nots” policy and history of the Indian Act.  Government and Industry have to challenge themselves to ensure that Aboriginal inclusion in the labor force does not become a “feel good” policy, nor a cynical means of access to territory, but part of its collective values as a nation.

The second event I want to share with you, and which you may already know of, is the landmark outcome of the Daniels Case. In January of this year the Federal Court released its decision on a 14 year old case regarding the official recognition of Métis and Non-Status Indians as Indians within the definition of section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1867. The Federal Court found in favour of recognizing Métis and Non-Status Indians.

What does this mean? To understand the implications of the decision, we have to look at why Harry Daniels launched the case. In short, he hoped to prove that all Aboriginal people have a place in Confederation. There has been lasting damage to Aboriginal peoples who reside off‑reserve or who are not registered Indians under the Indian Act. Legislation has divided families and communities according to externally artificial created categories, and has destabilized our social structures necessary for our communities to function. These categories prevent Aboriginal people from defining who belongs to their communities according to their own traditions.

In this case, the plaintiffs put forward 3 declarations:

(a)   Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians” within the meaning of the expression “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” in s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867;

(b)  That the Queen (in right of Canada) owes a fiduciary duty to Métis and non-status Indians as Aboriginal people;

(c)   That the Métis and non-status Indian peoples of Canada have the right to be consulted and negotiated with, in good faith, by the federal government on a collective basis through representatives of their choice, respecting all their rights, interests and needs as Aboriginal peoples.

The judge granted the first declaration that Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians” under s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The other 2 declarations were not granted, they did not need to be. The reality is; the second and third declarations flow logically from recognition of the first.

Today, over 60% of Aboriginal peoples live off-reserve, and a large number within urban centres; these are the people whom CAP represents. If we look at the possible implications of this decision, the federal government would be obligated to provide both Métis and Non-status Indians with access to the same programs and services currently provided to status Indians, living on reserve.

Some of the programs and services which are currently available to status Indians, but not to Métis and non-Status Indians consists of: Heath Services, Non-Insured Health Benefits, Post-secondary Education, the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, Justice services, Housing, Community Infrastructure, Federal and Provincial Tax Exemptions, Band funding, and more.

If upheld, this decision will lead off-reserve and Urban Aboriginals into a leadership role in the economic development of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Today’s gaps and barriers will be filled and overcome, as institutional frameworks will be created to encourage talent building and collaboration. And this is why today we’d like to talk to you about Partnership, Mentoring, and Aboriginal Inclusion.

Finally, I’d like to touch on the relationship between public policy and an emergent trend called Social Entrepreneurship and the Social Economy. This trend refocuses business goals away from the bottom line and externalities, and towards the bettering of social conditions. In many cases we’re seeing that because of the heightening of consumer awareness, this refocusing actually boosts the bottom line. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Economy initiatives encompass Aboriginal Inclusion in the workforce, and we see this as a tremendous vehicle for change.

At this time, however, Social Entrepreneurship and Social Economy as a vehicle for Diversity is lacking in government support. We are witnessing something of a misalignment between what the marketplace is calling for, and what the government is responding with. What I believe we need to see is a correction of this, and the alignment of public policy behind Social Entrepreneurship and the Social Economy, perhaps through taxation incentives and other effective methods. This way, good will from the public and private sector can work to magnify each other.

Before turning things over to our presenter, David Acco, I’d like to thank the Conference Board of Canada for hosting this excellent event, and for providing an opportunity for the Congress to speak out about our own experiences, and moreover, on behalf of the peoples we represent. We have great hopes for the future. I also want to thank all of you for your attention and participation. I hope these ideas will open a new perspective to you, and shed new light on Aboriginal potential, how forward-thinking mentoring and partnership can transform this potential into reality, and how this will all return once more to the process of healing and reconciliation currently underway.
We lalioq

Thank you

Toronto, Ontario,  Tuesday, April 23, 2013

The Aboriginal Affairs Working Group (AAWG) is composed of Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs from all provinces and territories, and leaders from the five National Aboriginal organizations. The 5 National Aboriginal Organizations in collaboration with AAWG has worked together on three priority areas:

• Education: Closing the graduation gap;
• Economic development: Closing the income gap; and,
• Ending violence against Aboriginal women and girls. (See Backgrounder for detail list of accomplishments)

“I am pleased with the progress we made today towards achieving equality for Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve,” stated National Chief, National Chief, Betty Ann Lavallée. “It is encouraging to see Aboriginal Organizations Leaders call upon the Federal Government to hold a National Public Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women and Girls. This is something which the Congress has supported for a long time.”

National Vice-Chief, Ron Swain added, “Today, the fact is that over 60% of Aboriginal Peoples now live off-reserve and our Aboriginal Youth is the fastest growing demographic in Canada1   This reality demands that education and skills development programs are developed quickly so that our Aboriginal youth can fill Canada’s employment skill shortages-now and into the future.”

“I will continue to advocate on behalf of  our Affiliate organizations and the over 600, 000 Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve, to ensure that progress continues to be made in the other priority areas of education, economic development, and housing,” concluded National Chief Lavallee. “I look forward to bringing these issues to the table at the Annual Council of the Federation meeting this summer.”

Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (Formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has been the National Representative Organization and the National Voice for the constituency and their affiliate organizations making up the Congress’ family of advocates for the Off-Reserve, Non-Status and Status Indians, Métis and Southern Inuit Aboriginal Peoples living in urban, rural remote and isolated areas throughout Canada.

To arrange an interview with National Chief Lavallée, contact:

Julian Morelli

Director of Communications

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

T: 613-747-6022 ext. 202

Ottawa, Ontario

Backgrounder

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples:

Ministers and Leaders agreed to actions in the following priority areas:
Education: Closing the Graduation Gap:

• Endorse the joint work plan of AAWG and Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC) on shared priorities.
• Endorse the inventory of Aboriginal education related provincial and territorial initiatives and agreements that are promising approaches to increasing Aboriginal graduation rates.
• Identify opportunities to build and foster relationships among partners to address the education challenges and opportunities of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples regardless of status or residency.

Economic Development: Closing the Income Gap:

• Support practices in Aboriginal communities that have increased opportunities and participation in economic development.
• Endorse further additions to the AAWG economic development success stories website (www.aawgecdev.ca).
• ·         Share activities and best practices related to developing increased Aboriginal entrepreneurship, employment training and business development programs and strategies for First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples regardless of status or residency.

Ending Violence against Aboriginal Women and Girls

• Received recommendations of the Third National Aboriginal Women’s Summit hosted by Manitoba in November 2012.
• Discussed FORSAKEN:  the British Columbia Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry 2012; amongst other reports and best practices.
• Acknowledging that Parliament has agreed to appoint a Special Committee on the matter of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in Canada, Premiers and Ministers in attendance support the National Aboriginal Organizations Leaders call upon the Federal Government to hold a National Public Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women and Girls, and that the Federal Government consult with the Provinces, Territories and National Aboriginal Organizations on the terms of reference of the National Public Inquiry. Explore further actions for prevention and support of Aboriginal women and girls at risk.
•  Exchange information and promote collaboration between the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Justice Table and the AAWG.

Other areas of consideration:

• Approved plan to inventory current Aboriginal Housing initiatives and conditions of First Nations regardless of status or residency, Inuit and Métis Peoples, in cooperation with existing Federal-Provincial-Territorial Housing Forums. Identified need for disaster mitigation strategies with the federal government on reserve and to improve disaster mitigation and emergency management in Aboriginal communities.

The AAWG is composed of Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs from all provinces and territories and the Leaders from the five National Aboriginal Organizations (Assembly of First Nations, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Métis National Council, and Native Women’s Association of Canada).  They continue to call on the federal government to join the AAWG as a partner to advance these priorities.

Next Steps:

Ministers and Leaders acknowledge the importance of continued cooperation on Aboriginal Affairs. This includes focusing on increasing efforts to support safe communities and prevent violence against Aboriginal women and girls, enhancing skills training and educational opportunities, building strong working relationships with Aboriginal communities to support economic development, working to address housing challenges and working with the federal government to enhance disaster support services.

The Aboriginal Affairs Working Group will continue to provide national leadership on these and other issues to further support and ensure a strong future for Aboriginal communities across the country.  The results of today’s meeting will be shared with the Premiers at the next meeting with the National Aboriginal Organization Leaders this coming July 24, 2013 at Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Ministers and Leaders agreed to meet again in November 2013 to discuss progress on these activities.

-30-

(OTTAWA) April 15, 2013 – The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples issued the following statement to congratulate Justin Trudeau on winning the Leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

“I would like to congratulate Justin Trudeau for his victory and mandate he received from Liberals in the leadership race,” stated National Chief, Betty Ann Lavallée CD, (Ret’d).

“I believe the time has come for political leaders from all parties to acknowledge the fact that over 600,000 Aboriginal Peoples are living off-reserve, and that number will continue to grow.  As the National Chief, I ask Mr. Trudeau and other leaders to seriously think about and propose policies and programs to reflect this reality.”

Vice-Chief, Ron Swain added, “When you look at the numbers, over 60% of Aboriginal Peoples now live off-reserve.  “Our Aboriginal Youth is the fastest growing demographic in Canada and their migration into urban centers is happening because they are looking for better educational and employment opportunities, to name just a few.  I echo the National Chief’s challenge to all political leaders to put in place polices that work.”

“My mandate is to ensure that Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve are given full recognition of their Aboriginal rights under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution of Canada,” concluded, Chief, Betty Ann Lavallée. “I will work with political leaders from all parties to make sure this happens.”

Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (Formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has been the National Representative Organization and the National Voice for the constituency and their Affiliate Organizations making up the Congress’ family of advocates for the Off-Reserve, Non-Status, and Status Indians, Métis and Southern Inuit Aboriginal Peoples living in urban, rural remote and isolated areas throughout Canada.

-30

To arrange an Interview, contact:

Julian Morelli
Director of Communications
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Ottawa Ontario, Canada
T: 613-747-6022 ext. 202
C: 613-325-8264
Ottawa, Ontario

Since 2009, the Aboriginal Affairs Working Group (AAWG) has worked on three priority areas:

• Closing the graduation gap;
• Closing the income gap; and,
• Ending violence against Aboriginal women and girls

Chief Lavallée will focus her discussions on what needs to be done in three key areas for Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve: education, economic development, and Violence against Aboriginal Women and Girls.

Date:                    Wednesday, April 17^th, 2013

Time:                    Meeting begins 8:30am (Photo/media opportunities-11:30am & 3:20pm)

Location:             The Fort Garry Hotel, Provencher Ballroom, Winnipeg, MB

Note: National Chief Lavallée will also be available for interviews, Tuesday, April 16 and Wednesday, April 17.

Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (Formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has been the National Representative Organization and the National Voice for the constituency and their affiliate organizations making up the Congress’ family of advocates for the Off-Reserve, Non-Status and Status Indians, Métis and Southern Inuit Aboriginal Peoples living in urban, rural remote and isolated areas throughout Canada.

To arrange an interview with National Chief Lavallée, contact:

Julian Morelli
Director of Communications
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Ottawa Ontario, Canada
T: 613-747-6022 ext. 202

National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

 Fairmont, Château Laurier, Ottawa, Ontario

 Thursday, April 11, 2013

Note to Reader: Portions of the Speech may not be as delivered. Updates may follow.

PDF Version

 Kwe – Hello, Bonjour –

Good morning to all who have gathered here today in Ottawa. It is a pleasure to be here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples to speak to you about the recent Harry Daniels case concerning the recognition of Métis and Non-Status Aboriginal peoples under section 91(24) of the constitution of Canada. We believe and appreciate that this is a timely discussion, probably more so since the Crown has decided to appeal this case in the federal court of appeal.

I am the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, (formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has represented the interests of off-reserve status and non-status Indians, the Southern Inuit of Labrador and Métis peoples throughout Canada. The Congress is also the national voice for its affiliate organizations that advocate on behalf of Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve.

My designated role here today is to address the issue of Non-Status Indians and Métis peoples and their history in conjunction with the Daniels case. The Congress has spent the last 14 years on this case, and we will continue to spend as much time as required in the present and into the future to see this issue resolved, once and for all! This court case did not differentiate between Métis and non-status Indians and nor does our organization. The Congress tries to be consistent and inclusive by including all Aboriginal peoples. We will leave no one behind!

In fact, the Congress lobbied the current government, and past governments to change its name to include all Aboriginal people. And we were certainly delighted when we heard the government listened and changed the department’s name from Indian Northern Affairs Canada to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

We do appreciate and recognize Métis people and non-status Indians may have distinct differences pertaining to their own personal circumstances and how they identify themselves. The question of identity is extremely important to each and every person sitting in this room today. It defines who you are as an individual and a human being!

Right now, I am a status Indian, but I haven’t always had status. First, I was a non-status Indian, or at least I thought I was. My grandfather, a status Indian was approached to sign his name for enumeration purposes. He was unknowingly deceived, the papers he signed was to relinquish his status. My father’s military career also excluded our family from having status, or at least we thought it had. This meant there was a divide among my immediate family with respect to our culture, identity and the circumstances of my mother and father’s upbringing. I also chose a career in military and I remained a non-Status Indian. To me, I wasn’t an Indian, and I certainly didn’t want to be a non, nothing. I just figured I was Métis that is what my teachers at school told me I was.

I and of course my father received our status in 1985 under Bill C-31. Officially, it is a problem when legislation changes your identity back and forth, like a chameleon. Canada is now the only place in the world that legislates and defines people’s identity. So why is that? The only reason for this is to limit the Crown’s liability.

So! What is the difference between someone who is identified as Métis and/or a non-Status Indian? There really is no difference, both are discriminated against. A Non-status Indian is basically an Aboriginal person who is not registered with the Crown under the Indian Act and/or not registered to a band that signed a treaty with the Crown. This is consistent with Métis people. Even the former founding President of both the Native Council of Canada and the Métis Nation of Ontario, Tony Belcourt, acknowledged in his recent article that there is little difference between non-Status Indians and Métis people when he explained why both non-status Indians and Métis people were to be represented by Native Council of Canada. I quote:

“We made a deliberate and collective decision to build a national organization that would include both Métis and Non-Status Indians for two reasons: first, because it reflected the reality of membership of all of our organizations at the time; and, second, because we shared the same goals and were in basically the same position – landless and without federal recognition.”

Mr. Belcourt concluded in his article that membership should not be attached to a specific region or time in history. (Again I quote) “Although we share a similar history, culture, ancestors, territory, and traditions, one fact we need to realize is that the Métis are not a single homogenous group. History shows that we have seen ourselves in different ways: either, in part, because of the European or First Nations ancestry that was fundamental in shaping our culture and customs, or in part because of the ways of life, depending on where we live.”

The Congress indirectly represents its members through our regional affiliates (Provincial Territorial organizations). It is not possible to have one membership criteria from coast to coast because of the distinct realities in each region. Our membership is structured to include all Aboriginal peoples, geographically, historically and culturally, which in part is why we were able to launch this court case. This is obvious when you look at all of the plaintiffs involved in this case. Harry Daniels’ son, Gabriel Daniels was raised in Edmonton Alberta and he identifies as a Métis person. His mother was sent to Indian residential school along side Status Indians, and remains ineligible for Indian Status. Gabriel participates in Aboriginal cultural activities, including pow-wows, sweat lodges and round dances. Leah Gardner is a Non-Status Indian, residing in Wabigoon, Ontario. Terry Joudrey is also a Non-status Indian who resides in Nova Scotia. Both his mother and grandmother were Status Indians. Terry is ineligible for status because his father was not a status Indian. He does carry his Aboriginal Treaty Rights Association card with him to use as a license for hunting and fishing.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is also a party to this case, as a National Aboriginal corporate body that advocates on behalf and for Métis people and Non-Status Indians throughout Canada. The judge was cognizant of the Congress’ role in his decision, in paragraph 43, Judge Phelan states: “the pivotal role CAP played in advancing this claim – a role that few, if any, individuals falling within the group known as Métis Non-Status Indians could do.”

Under paragraph 44, the Judge emphasized: “CAP has played a key position in modern day discussions between native groups and the federal government but it is not the only group to speak on behalf of the Métis.”

Judge Phelan noted in paragraph 47 of his decision: “Although the MNC were not involved in this litigation, the Court is cognizant of the fact that CAP is not the sole recognized voice of Métis.”

I find it very compelling after the judge made his decision on January 8, 2013, Mr. Belcourt wrote an article in February 2013 advocating MNC to create a more inclusive organization. During this whole process not one organization put a nickel into this court case! The Congress has spent many years on this case, and we continue to do so with no financial assistance. I know this as a fact because I was a board member from the beginning of this case. Why are people so interested now? This case is not over yet. I am curious to know why now is there a sudden rush to jump on the bandwagon!

After I stumbled upon Mr. Belcourt’s article, I found it intriguing that he not only mentioned the Daniels case, but also referenced the Powell case in great detail. In the Powley decision (dated September 19, 2003), the judge illustrated and I quote:

“The respondents shot a bull moose near Old Goulais Bay Road, in the environs of Sault Ste. Marie, within the traditional hunting grounds of that Métis Community. They made a point of documenting that the moose was intended to provide meat for the winter.”

What the judge did not mention, is that Stephen and Roddy Powley placed a hand written tag on the moose, this tag indicated the purpose, date and their Métis membership #. This membership number belonged to one of the Congress’ affiliates. Mr. Belcourt, states in his article, and I quote, “Each of the MNC Governing members amended its Constitution or Bylaws to incorporate the 2002 National Definition and registration…” Mr. Belcourt acknowledged, (I quote) “the federal government finally began providing financial support for registry purposes after the Supreme Court decision in Rv. Powley in 2003.” This is key to the Daniel’s case because Powley was a card-carrying member with OMMA, one of our affiliates. Hypothetically, if the Congress chose to redefine each of our membership criteria, similar to what the Crown has done for many years, it is quite possible that neither the Powley case nor this case would ever forge ahead.

The Congress’ mission is to include all Aboriginal peoples, regardless of how this creates financial challenges for some of our regional affiliates. The Crown would prefer that we establish a distinct definition to our membership. If the Congress made this move, the Crown would most likely begin to provide core funding to our affiliates who currently receive no funding. But, we would then comprise our standards to make sure that no one is forgotten.

We stand by our commitment! That is the only way we can proceed forward to create positive changes for our people. This is essential, even the Judge noted this by quoting The Royal Commission on Aboriginal people (in paragraph 26):

“The Métis and non-status Indian people, lacking even the protection of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, are far more exposed to discrimination and other social disabilities. It is true to say that in the absence of Federal initiative in this field they are the most disadvantaged of all Canadian citizens.”

The history of Aboriginal people is well documented. Prior to confederation, it is obvious that the term “Indian” referred to all Aboriginal peoples. In 1839, a parliamentary sub-committee issued a report entitled “Indians in Upper Canada”. This report acknowledged injustices against the rights of Indians in accordance with documents issued in 1670 and the Royal Proclamation of 1763. This report clarifies and defines who is an “Indian” there was no differentiation between an Indian and someone with mixed blood. The Royal Proclamation was based on mutual respect and reconciliation with Aboriginal peoples in recognition of their contributions in the Seven Years’ War. The Royal Proclamation set out obligations that Canada inherited. It recognized Aboriginal rights and title to land and stated that all land would be considered Aboriginal land until ceded by treaty.

The British Imperial government recognized Aboriginal people, included Métis people through a gift giving process between the Crown and the Aboriginal allies. These gifts reinforced the alliances between Aboriginal peoples and the British Crown. This year marks the 250th anniversary for the Royal Proclamation. Each year, on October 1, in the city of Halifax, my people are received by the Crown to get their shot, powder, etc. as was promised in the pre-constitution treaties.

History shows us there is no distinction between Aboriginal peoples prior to Confederation. Nor does there appear to be any distinction made during confederation. The framers of the constitution in 1867 created a broad undefined scope for the term “Indians” to encompass all Aboriginal peoples. This is obvious when one looks at the motivating forces of confederation. One of the driving features of Confederation was the construction of the Canadian railway. Parliament wanted to expedite this process as quickly as possible. But Indians, including Métis, posed a challenge for the railway. Many Indian tribes maintained their livelihood by means of hunting and gathering. This was definitely an issue for the federal government of the day. Parliament needed to settle the Indians. One of the approaches used was to negotiate and form agreements with Indians, including Métis through various treaties and scrips with the federal government. These treaties did not discriminate or create distinct classes of Indians.

It is the Indian Act of 1876 that is the origin of distinguishing between Status and non-status Indians. The Indian Act itself is problematic on a number of levels. It does not enshrine the treaty relationship, but in many cases undermines or seeks to replace it. It was introduced and amended by governments that took a paternalistic view towards Aboriginal people. It is more about limiting the day-to-day existence of Status Indians and reserve communities, and limiting the Crown’s liability and responsibility, than it is about implementing and building relationships with sovereign people who were entered into this Act, without their consent!

Only those Aboriginal people who fit within the definition laid out in the Indian Act are able to hold status. Subsequently, many have lost their status by legislative means. For Instance, the Enfranchisement Act in 1869, under this Act, (section 6) any Indian women who married non-Indians were no longer considered Indians within the meaning of this Act and nor were their children. This discrimination has only been partially addressed.

In 1984, Bill C-47 was proposed in Parliament to grant status to 133,000. This group was comprised of Indian women who were enfranchised by section 12(1)(b), and their first and second-generation descendants.

Following elections, in 1985, Bill C-31 An Act to amend the Indian Act was passed to abolish enfranchisement and restore status to those individuals who had their status removed through enfranchisement in the “marrying out” rule and the “double mother rule.” Parliament provided status to 78,000 enfranchised by section 12(1)(b), and their first generation descendants.

This amendment resulted in restoring status to individuals and at the same time terminating individual’s status to those who acquired Indian status through marriage. The effects of Bill C-31 are revealed with one of the plaintiff’s in the Daniel’s case, Leah Gardner. Her father retained Indian status through Bill C-31, along with her late husband. Both of her children also have status. Her application for status was denied. And, believe me when I say this situation of Leah Gardner is only the tip of the iceberg! My own family situation is a nightmare!

Although both of her children are members of the Eagle Lake First Nation, she is not. She is also not eligible to live on the reserve or access the variety of services and benefits available to reserve occupants.

This situation creates a lack of belonging to identifiable communities and limited opportunities to participate in cultural activities. Gardner’s situation is a common occurrence among many Aboriginal families that continues to prevail today.

In 2011, Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act further reinstated 45,000 individuals who had become enfranchised.

How does the Crown determine the exact number of who should have their status restored or not? By previous calculations, the Crown has proven they are capable of calculating the numbers through their own enumeration records and reports. Although the public is not made aware of how these calculations are made. The only way the public knowledge to these calculations is indirectly through the census. The census is tied into membership. Our organization is very disappointed that you can no longer identify as an Aboriginal person by way of the census. We continue to encourage our members to respond to the voluntary census, but this is ultimately going to decrease our numbers as well as the Crown’s accountability.

Going back to the issue of enfranchisement. There are several forms of enfranchisement. Voluntary enfranchisement is distinct from automatic enfranchisement, where an individual would lose their Indian status upon obtaining a university degree, becoming a doctor, lawyer, soldier or joining the holy orders. Enfranchising under either form was supposed to mean consenting to abandon Aboriginal identity in order to assimilate with the majority.

There are cases of loss of status or assimilation that have conceivably gone unnoticed:

During the first and second world wars Aboriginal people fought alongside with Canadians, they were treated equally, until they returned home from active duty. During the Second World War, the federal government set up a generous Veterans’ benefit package. Unfortunately, Indian Veterans were unable to retain these same benefits. A prime example of this is that Status Indian Veterans were not able to access the $6000 in Veterans’ Land Act loans. The reason being is that reserve lands, subject to the Indian Act are communal and Indian Veterans can not hold individual title to the land. As a substitute, Indian Veterans could receive a grant up to $2,320. Given this disparity, it is quite possible Status Indians gave up their status to receive the equivalent benefit as other Veterans. This would not be an uncommon phenomenon if you considered the Manitoba Act in 1870 provided lands to half-breeds who relinquished their Indian title.

Similarly, in 1920, the government made it illegal for Indian children to stay at home from school and their children were forced into residential school. In 2011, the Congress participated in an exploratory process. It was through this process that we heard from other Aboriginal people who described that they did in fact relinquish their Indian status so that their children would not be subjected to the residential school system. Those who chose to protect their children, lost their identity, culture and community. To our knowledge this issue has not been explicitly addressed in the healing initiatives with the Truth and Reconciliation.

There has been severe and lasting damage to Aboriginal peoples who reside off reserve or who are not registered Indians. Legislation has divided families and communities according to externally created categories, and destabilized social structures necessary for communities to function. These categories prevent Aboriginal people from defining who belongs to their communities according to their own traditions and continues the cycle of assimilation.

When we look at the impact of the Daniels Case we need to go back to the purpose of the case. Harry Daniels launched this case to prove that all Aboriginal people have a place in Confederation.

Our organization has continually been faced with both provincial and federal governments denying their responsibility to Aboriginal people due to jurisdictional issues. Let me give you an example, in 2006 the federal government entered into the off-reserve Aboriginal housing sector. They allotted $300 million dollars over three years to the provinces to address the need for affordable housing in Aboriginal communities. Not one of our affiliates received the full amount of funding. Some of our affiliates were given most of the required amount. While one province under this program received $38.2 million dollars and refused to provide the money to our affiliate because this province and I quote “had other priorities”. This is just one of many examples the Congress has faced over the years due to jurisdictional issues.

Harry Daniels was a prominent figure. He fought for Métis and Aboriginal rights. He was also instrumental in having Métis and Aboriginal rights included in the Constitution Act of 1982. It was his belief that this jurisdictional wrangling would be resolved once Métis and Aboriginal rights were instituted in the Constitution. Unfortunately, this question of jurisdiction remained.

In this case, the plaintiffs put forward 3 declarations:

(a) Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians” within the meaning of the expression “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” in s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867;

(b) That the Queen (in right of Canada) owes a fiduciary duty to Métis and non-status Indians as Aboriginal people;

(c) That the Métis and non-status Indian peoples of Canada have the right to be consulted and negotiated with, in good faith, by the federal government on a collective basis through representatives of their choice, respecting all their  rights, interests and needs as Aboriginal peoples.

The judge granted the first declaration that Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians” under s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The judge noted we did not make a case to claim a right for specific legislation or access to a specific program. It was only to be included in the Constitution of 1867. The other 2 declarations were not granted. But really, the first declaration allows the other two declarations to follow suite.

Now that the Crown has appealed the federal courts decision, this case moves forward to the federal court of appeal. If the Federal Court of Appeal rules in favour of Métis and non-status Indians, the fiduciary relationship and fiduciary duty will need to be addressed. They are both distinct. You can have a fiduciary relationship, similar to the Métis with the Manitoba Act, but have no fiduciary duty. Or alternatively the federal government has a fiduciary duty to the Algonquin people, but lack a treaty relationship.

Judge Phelan concluded there is a fiduciary relationship under paragraph 607: “the fiduciary relationship exists as a matter of law flowing from the declaration that Métis and Non-Status Indians are Indians pursuant to section 91(24). The relationship engages the honour of the Crown and applies to Métis as well as non-status Indians.”

In “tackling” fiduciary duty, the judge said (para 609):

“The Court is not prepared to make some general statement concerning fiduciary duty. Given the declaration of right in respect of section 91(24), one would expect that the federal government would act in accordance with whatever duty arises in respect of any specific matter touching on the non-clarified fiduciary relationship.”

We at the Congress are confident that we will be successful with this appeal. Although, we were a bit disappointed that the Crown decided to appeal the ruling. We had hoped to move forward from this case. In 2006, the leader of the then opposition, the Hon. Stephen Harper, responded to a letter we sent to him on important issues reflecting the Congress. In Mr. Harper’s response, he was clear that the constitutional issue under section 91(24) would be reassessed and resolved for Aboriginal people. I quote, ‘The Conservative Party of Canada agrees with the necessity to reassess the federal responsibility for Aboriginal Canadians as outlined in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act (1867) (typo in letter 1987) and section 35.1 of the Constitution Act (1982).” It is obvious to me that Justice did not get the memo!

We do understand a ruling in our favour could cost the government billions of dollars. Today, over 60% of Aboriginal peoples now live off-reserve. If we look at the possible implications in this case, a determination that Non-Status Indians and Métis fall within section 91(24), the federal government would be obligated to provide both Métis and Non-status Indians with access to the same programs and services currently provided to status Indians. The reason for this is that section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that similarly situated individuals will be afforded equal rights and benefits.

Some of the programs and services which are currently available to status Indians, but not to Métis and non-Status Indians consists of:

Heath Services, Non-Insured Health Benefits, Post-secondary Education, the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, Justice services, Housing, Community Infrastructure, Federal and Provincial Tax Exemptions, Band funding, and the list goes on.

If we look at just one of the services I just mentioned, such as Non-insured health benefits, the Crown’s implication is enormous. We know this because Health Canada initiated a study, using the 1996 census to determine what the figures would look like if Métis and Non-Status Indians were included under section 91(24). This research estimated 3 potential scenarios to calculate the total cost of their liability. The financial impact ranged from a low end of $203.5 million to an estimated high range of $2.13 billion per year. Considering the Aboriginal population has increased considerably since 1996, it is fair to say the liability is much greater! I could recite other Stats for the remainder of the programs I previously mentioned, however, I believe you get the picture!

Incidentally, I would like to point out an interesting discrepancy, just for the fun of it, as you are all aware the federal government provides transfer payments to the provinces and territories. What is especially interesting is the formula used to calculate these transfers. Did you know that the population figures for both on reserve and off reserve people are included in the transfer payments? Ironically, money is transferred to the provinces to provide services such as education and healthcare, and yet we have some provinces that continue to refuse to provide services to Aboriginal peoples based on jurisdiction. Now I am no Einstien, but this is a clear case of double dipping!

Over the years, the Congress, our affiliates and our off-reserve members have been required to pay both provincial and federal taxes, and then we have been declined for the most basic of services! This has to stop!

The Congress has experienced many ups and downs along the road throughout the development of the Daniels case. We imagine there will be some more hiccups to come. But after 14 years in the making we are proud to say, we did our very best to be inclusive and encourage others to do the same, otherwise these types of cases would cease to exist.

With this ruling it is paramount for the Congress and other communities to continue to move forward and exercise the same standards as any government, not for the Crown, but for all Aboriginal peoples, who are after all, rightful partners in Confederation.

We lalioq

Thank you

Merci beaucoup

“Increasing Aboriginal participation in the workforce is a top priority for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples…”  

National Chief Lavallée Signs Partnership Agreement with Information and Communications Technology Council

(Ottawa) April 8, 2013 – The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (Congress, CAP) today entered into a formal partnership agreement with the Ottawa-based Information and Communications Technology Council (ICTC) to increase Aboriginal participation in Canada’s information technology (IT) labour market.  ICTC is a not-for-profit organization that conducts research, and develops and implements solutions to help Canada take advantage of the digital economy.

“Increasing Aboriginal participation in the workforce is a top priority for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples,” stated National Chief, Betty Ann Lavallée, CD (Ret’d). “By working in partnership with organizations such as the ICTC, Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve have a much better chance to improve their skills which leads to high-skilled and long-term employment opportunities in the IT industry.”

“Unemployment levels in the Canadian ICT sector remain low and the supply of skilled workers to fuel the digital economy remains limited,” stated Namir Anani, President and CEO, ICTC. “Creating an ICT workforce that takes advantage of a diverse talent pool and that is inclusive of Aboriginal people should be a priority for Canada’s top employers. We are excited about the opportunity to work with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to further attract and engage Aboriginal youth into the digital economy.”

Through this partnership agreement, the Congress will work in collaboration with the ICTC to increase Aboriginal participation in Canada’s labour market by developing targeted talent, training and education program strategies to strengthen skills.  Labour projections illustrate an ongoing need for ICT professionals in Canada for years to come, thus emphasis will be placed on having Aboriginal youth consider careers in ICT sectors.

“I believe that there is a real opportunity for Aboriginal Peoples, particularly our Aboriginal youth living off-reserve, to fill the labour shortages faced in the information and communications technology sectors across Canada,” concluded National Chief, Lavallée. “We at the Congress strongly believe that partnerships with industry and government, works. Our plan is to continue to create these types of strategic alliances with our respective affiliates and with private- and public-sector organizations to ensure that Aboriginal Peoples have the same level of skills as other Canadians when competing for jobs in the rapidly changing and exciting world of technology.”

Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (Formerly known as the Native Council of Canada) has been the National Representative Organization and the National Voice for the constituency and their affiliate organizations making up the Congress’ family of advocates for the Off-Reserve, Non-Status, and Status Indians, Métis and Southern Inuit Aboriginal Peoples living in urban, rural remote and isolated areas throughout Canada.

-30-

To arrange an interview with National Chief, Betty Ann Lavallée, CD, (Ret’d) contact:

Julian Morelli

Director of Communications:  julian@abo-peoples.org

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

(613) 747 6022

———————————————————————————————-

To arrange an interview with Namir Anani, President and CEO, ICTC, contact:

Gesine Freund (613) 237-8551: g.freund@ictc-ctic.ca