Speaking Notes for Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
National Chief Patrick Brazeau
To The
Senate Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
BILL C-292 - AN ACT TO IMPLEMENT THE KELOWNA ACCORD
Ottawa, Ontario
April 15, 2008
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Good morning, Senators. It’s a pleasure and a privilege to appear once again before you, in this instance to offer comment in respect of Bill C-292.
I come before the Committee today as the youngest Aboriginal leader in Canada. The future of Aboriginal youth and their place within Canadian society is of tremendous import to me, and to the organization I lead.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has a long history of defending the interests of off-reserve Aboriginal Canadians who have been marginalized and forgotten by Governments. I live off-reserve, and have for nearly all of my life. I was raised by my parents to be a proud member of the Algonquin nation. I’m an equally proud Quebecer, and a federalist.
Our organization, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is a national umbrella body whose membership is derived from affiliation with like-minded provincial organizations. We strive to be inclusive, and break down the barriers imposed on our people by the Indian Act. The Indian Act discriminates on the basis of race, and gender. The divisions are deep and painful ones.
CAP’s membership is comprised of what are termed (6)1’s and (6)2’s, C-31’s, status and non-status – each of these, different “versions” of Indian status, depending on the twist and turns of the Indian Act’s prescriptive provisions. For what it’s worth, I did not become an “Indian” as you understand the term, until after 1985.
Thanks to the legislative morass that is the Indian Act, my Constituency forms the basis of a great deal of conflict and jurisdictional debate between federal, provincial, and municipal governments and First Nations band councils across Canada.
I’m perhaps painfully aware that my comments today will place me in a minority position relative to the presentations you have had by many other commentators from across the Aboriginal horizon.
Quite frankly, my constituency is so accustomed to being treated as a troublesome minority by Governments, that I’m proud to stand apart and reflect a different, more pragmatic position on the Kelowna Accord and Mr. Martin’s proposed legislation in respect of it.
I’d like to repeat some of the comments that I’ve shared with your colleagues from the Other Chamber, because I think it’s important that people understand how our current position on the Kelowna Accord has evolved.
CAP was initially enthusiastic about the intent of the Roundtable Process that led to the Kelowna Accord. We participated fully. The Kelowna endeavour was, at the outset, an offer of inclusion and accommodation, and a pursuit that aimed to rise above the partisan politics, both at the Parliamentary level, throughout the machinery of government and across the five recognized national Aboriginal Organizations.
To help frame our discussions, there are some important numbers that need to be repeated here. The recent Statistics Canada release of 2006 census data has confirmed what we’ve known for years. Only 26% of Aboriginal Canadians live on-reseerve.
One new statistic was released by Statistics Canada just last week: The largest growing Aboriginal population in Canada is non-status Indians. This single group is expected to increase by 77% by 2026.
These numbers are important because they should compel Government to rethink their spending priorities. Make no mistake, and I wish to emphasize this on the record for greater certainty, we do not wish to diminish the accommodations made for our brothers and sisters who live on-reserve.
Clearly, there are challenges there that need to be addressed. However, we remain unconvinced that money -- and lots of it -- is the answer to the challenges that confront all Aboriginal people, regardless of residency.
In the final weeks of the Roundtable process, CAP was profoundly discouraged and resoundingly disheartened to see that the Government of Canada of the day had abandoned an important component of the process – the Roundtable dealing with Accountability. This was not the first time that a Liberal Government had balked at dealing with accountability for Aboriginal programs and services.
The Private Member who is the author of this very Bill, when running for the leadership of his party in 2003, characterized an important accountability initiative of his own government as having “poisoned the well of Aboriginal relations”. This was a sad day for Canada and its First Nations citizens.
I was directly involved in the Liberal government’s initiative to bring basic accountability and structure to First Nations’ governments. There were many people who saw that bill as a beacon of hope for a better future. At the time that the First Nations Governance Act was abandoned, Mr. Martin and the Assembly of First Nations promised us a better way of dealing with accountability issues. We are still waiting.
In light of this, was Kelowna the answer? Clearly, it was not.
With respect to federal investments in Aboriginal programming, CAP recently completed an analysis of federal spending, in a report called “Where Does The Money Go?” In the absence of a clear and easily-accessed report card for Aboriginal program spending, we took the initiative to review thousands of federal grants and contributions, in an effort to better understand the funding environment.
In the course of our review, we identified over 6000 grants and contributions, by 30 federal departments, to over 2,054 recipients. We learned through our review that the Government’s reporting system is deeply flawed. As a consequence, we were only able to clearly account for $5.6 billion of the reported $10 billion in Aboriginal spending.
Perhaps the most fundamental trend to emerge is that our review ended up posing more questions than it answered. The questions raised all remain relevant to your deliberations on the bill currently before this committee. In the interest of saving time, I have attached these questions as an appendix to this presentation.
It is these questions and the answers that they beg, that form the substance of our objection to the final version of the so-called Kelowna Accord. Simply put, it’s all about a fundamental lack of accountability.
Sadly, many of my counterparts in other national Aboriginal organizations dismiss my calls for greater accountability, transparency and responsibility.
Most notably, my colleague from the Assembly of First Nations is quick to reject government efforts for increased accountability, relying instead on the Auditor-General’s criticism of the existing reporting regime for Aboriginal programs and services.
But, reliance on this single aspect of accountability misses the $10 billion point. Virtually every Auditor-General’s report includes comment that highlight a common problem with Aboriginal programs and services – and that is the lack of clarity on roles, responsibilities and mandate to provide those programs and services.
The Kelowna Accord promised big money. It created expectations for National Aboriginal Organizations, Provinces, First Nations, and the federal bureaucracy. But did we all do our homework to ensure that the money would be directed to the priorities, programs and services that adequately reflected the real truth of modern aboriginal realities on the basis of existing data?
Let’s be frank – we did not.
The fact remains, Senators that all Kelowna stakeholders had begun to slice and digest the pie before it was cooked.
The absence of an accountability framework, the lack of clarity on roles, responsibilities and mandates, and the excess of expectation about who would be receiving how much for what was going to generate some very unhealthy competition for those resources – and result in clear winners and losers within the Aboriginal community.
Please permit me to ask you a most germane question. Twenty-six years after Section 35 was entrenched into Canada’s Constitution, enabling the Government of Canada to recognize the Métis as Aboriginal peoples of Canada, there is still no functional definition of who is and is not Métis.
This being the case, how would the Government of Canada know that the amount of funding allocated for Métis people in the Kelowna Accord was the right amount of money to address the needs of that population?
The reality is that Métis and Non-status Indians are at the heart of federal/provincial conflict over Aboriginal programs and services. CAP is currently litigating the unfinished business surrounding this very issue in a case known as Daniels V. Canada.
Our goal in launching this action is the recognition of Métis and Non-Status Indians as a federal responsibility under Section 91(24) of the Constitution of Canada.
In so doing, we hope to have the courts put a stop to the jurisdictional wrangling by federal and provincial governments for Métis and Non-status programs and services.
We do so in the face of promises broken and commitments ignored by Kelowna’s architects. In the February 2004 Speech from the Throne we were told, and I quote, “With our partners, we will tackle head-on the particular problems faced by the increasing number of urban Aboriginals and Métis. We will not allow ourselves to be caught up in jurisdictional wrangling, passing the buck and bypassing their needs.”
If Kelowna bore fruits that achieved this lofty promise I failed to see them. I was there and no such measures emerged from the First Ministers Meeting that achieved this noble objective.
Remember, only 26% of Canada’s Aboriginal population lives on reserve. Based on our tracking of federal Grants and Contributions, we estimate that 92% of the funding goes to Band Councils and their service delivery or representative organizations.
And we have no idea whatsoever how much money the provinces are spending to address the needs of Aboriginal Canadians. As bad as the federal reporting system is, the provincial ones appear to be non-existent.
With respect to the machinery of government, Treasury Board policies and guidelines are filled with direction to government about the need for due diligence, evidence-based decision making, and the appropriate allocation of resources based on priority and need. The Canadian public has become openly hostile and mistrustful of program spending that places political expediencies above the principles of sound government.
From our perspective, Kelowna evolved not as an opportunity for inclusion and accommodation, but as a political expediency.
In closing, the concept of self-government is an important one to Aboriginal Canadians. Our organization is currently endeavouring to build systems of governments and program and service delivery organizations right across the country. I won’t lie to you; it’s a real struggle to do so and to get it right. But we are bound and determined to succeed.
And while we struggle to find the balance between traditional and modern concepts of governance, the Government of Canada remains not only our principle funder, but through its own example, it sets a standard for acceptable governance practices and a potential example of “best practice”.
As Parliamentarians, I would urge you to consider what Aboriginal Canadians will have learned from your example if this bill is approved in the absence of an honest resolution of the outstanding issues of a lack of accountability measures?
Thank you very much, merci beacoup.
- 30 -
For further information, please contact:
Al Fleming
Director
Public Affairs
613-747-6022 (office)
613-867-8696 (mobile)
al@abo-peoples.org
APPENDIX A
- How much federal funding is transferred to Provinces and Territories for Aboriginal people (using instruments other than Grants and Contributions) and is it being directed to Aboriginal programs?
- Are Provinces and Territories typically spending more or less than they receive in federal transfers related to Aboriginal populations?
- Which level of government ultimately bears primary responsibility for Aboriginal program expenditures that are the focus of “jurisdictional” disputes? What mechanisms are needed to begin resolving these disputes in a productive and timely way?
- Is it appropriate for governments to provide varying entitlements and inequitable program access to Aboriginal people because of status or residency?
- Noting that the Aboriginal population is highly mobile, including frequent movements between federal and provincial jurisdictions, are there federal/provincial agreements in place to ensure program access is not compromised by mobility?
- If “reasonable provincial comparability” is the program test for on-reserve program and service delivery standards, what mechanisms are used to ensure that funding is adequate to meet that test? Furthermore, how do federal and provincial governments ensure that provincial program changes, including enhancements, are supported for on-reserve delivery?
- Are on-reserve regulatory regimes sufficient to ensure that program quality and service delivery standards are being maintained?
- If urban and rural Aboriginal people are expected to access programs that are available to the general population, are there mechanisms in place to ensure that provincial, territorial, and municipal government program design and delivery actually provides adequate, accessible, and appropriate services to their Aboriginal citizens?
- For programs and services being delivered by Aboriginal organizations, what economies of scale and strengthening of capacity can be achieved through appropriate delegation and aggregation of service delivery?
- For all programs, what is the final distribution of resources between actual program spending and administration costs?
APPENDIX B
EXCERPTS FROM AUDITOR GENERAL REPORTS ON FIRST NATIONS' PROGRAMS AND SERVICES:
Streamlining First Nations Reporting to Federal Organizations (AG Report, December 2002):
Most required reports for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and Health Canada do not provide adequate information on performance or results.
An effective reporting system should:
- be based on a clear understanding between First Nations and federal organizations;
- produce fair and reliable financial and non-financial information that is verifiable;
- be appropriately open and transparent to First Nations membership, the public and stakeholders, respecting personal and commercial confidential information;
- make full and efficient use of available technology;
- be organized to achieve results, and to collect information on performance;
- be useful to First Nations communities to manage their affairs, including financial management and managing for results; and
- assist federal organizations to assess performance, effectiveness and financial control, so that they can report to Parliament on public expenditures.
Education (AG Report, 2000)
Recommendation:
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada should articulate and formalize its role in education while taking into account the roles of other parties. It should demonstrate how it will meet its responsibilities and objective, and assess the impact on departmental resources and capacity.
- Recent evaluations of on-reserve schools disclose a significant need to improve various aspects such as curricula, teacher training, equipment and homework policies. However, the Department does not monitor the implementation of evaluation recommendations.
- Under the terms of its funding arrangements with First Nations, the Department requires that all First Nations provide it with a self-assessment of their management and accountability. The purpose of the assessment is to identify needed improvements to First Nations governance, accountability, capacity to deliver devolved programs and related matters. We noted that many of the required assessments are missing; completed ones indicated weaknesses in the management of education, but there was virtually no departmental information on whether remedial action was taken.
Housing (AG Report, 2003)
Recommendation:
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in consultation with First Nations, should reach a broad agreement on their respective roles and responsibilities in addressing the housing shortage on reserves….
Departmental officials say that each band chief and council are responsible for ensuring that all housing units on reserves, including those subsidized with federal funding, meet the National Building Code. A number of processes are in place to provide inspection services. While some First Nations have their own inspectors, others rely on tribal councils or inspection services controlled by First Nations. However, it is not always clear to what extent these inspections ensure compliance with the National Building Code. We found that requirements for First Nations to provide the Department with inspection reports vary from region to region. With the exception of one region, most inspection reports that we reviewed did not demonstrate that the housing complied with the National Building Code. We are concerned that without adequate inspection systems on reserves, there is a high risk that dwellings constructed and renovated with departmental subsidies will not meet the required standards.
Water (2005 September Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development) – Chapter 5
- When it comes to the safety of drinking water, residents of First Nations communities do not benefit from a level of protection comparable to that of people who live off reserves. This is partly because there are no laws and regulations governing the provision of drinking water in First Nations communities, unlike other communities. INAC and Health Canada attempt to ensure access to safe drinking water in First Nations communities through their policies, administrative guidelines, and funding arrangements with First Nations. This approach does not cover all the elements that would be found in a regulatory regime for drinking water, and it is not implemented consistently.
The technical help available to First Nations to support and develop their capacity to deliver safe drinking water is fragmented. Given that most First Nations communities have fewer than 500 residents, and that providing drinking water has become more complex, the development of institutions that can provide ongoing technical support is critical to a continuing supply of safe drinking water for these communities.
Relating Press Release(s):
April 17, 2008 - Martin's Kelowna Accord "Fundementally Flawed"
