Summary Of Discussions - First Nations Breakout Session

Participant Key Messages

The First Nations breakout group began with participants at each table being asked to identify the key messages that they wanted to come out of this sectoral session. Through over 50 key messages the participants highlighted a variety of concerns and suggestions relating to the basis, focus and complexity of the current system of accountability. While many of the key messages were raised in subsequent breakout group discussions, examples from the flip charts include:

• elusively complex (e.g. multiple relationships, different systems of government, conflicting policies);
• accountability deals with more than money;
• accountability starts in the community;
• many things have negative impacts on accountability (unstable funding and cash flow, late agreements, capacity, training);
• reciprocal accountability-government to First Nation, First Nation to government;
• need a formal process of accountability regarding the implementation of treaties;
• traditional values contribute to modern governance/accountability.

Accountability in a First Nations Context

Working in small groups the participants were asked to provide input on the various accountability relationships that are relevant to First Nations, and that First Nations are presently engaged in or should be engaged in.

In terms of the relevancy of current relationships the participants highlighted that:

• current way of designing programs is tied to funding agreements rather than need;
• internal accountability between the delivery office and the service recipient is the most important;
• the tools and funding to support the public service environment the government would like to see at the community level is not there;
• the government background paper describes four levels of accountability but 95 percent of current emphasis is on accountability for funding allocated;
• accountability to government is to the contract/contribution agreement and Minister and not to the community or the improvement of the quality of life;
• government policy limits First Nations funding to on-reserve population;
• relationship is a policy based relationship, not based on legislation or the recognition of rights;
• political environment within a First Nation will dictate ranges and nature of accountability; and
• different perceptions about responsibilities exist when two parties involved don’t agree on what the needs are (e.g. housing).

In terms of the kind of accountability relationship First Nations should be involved in the flip charts suggest the following:

• Programs that meet needs result in positive impacts.
• Delivery can’t just measure how finances are managed/physical account. Has to also measure program effectiveness, and reflect culture customs and values (e.g. the human aspect).
• Accountability is not only about finances, but on a whole range of issues that form the First Nations/Crown relationship.
• Governments must be accountable to Aboriginal people (e.g. treaty provisions, resources, revenues).
• Relationship should be similar to those with provinces (e.g. Social Union Framework Agreement) and based on recognition of Crown’s fiduciary obligation to First Nations.
• Treasury Board could go to a single window approach to eliminate a great number of reports now being prepared by First Nations.
• First Nations develop unique and different systems, policies and agreements across country reflecting diversity of cultures.
• Internal systems are needed to deal with the issue of matrimonial property.
• We need a joint process, fully mandated by all governments, to define accountability framework (including capacity and human capital to feed into process).

When asked what these current and proposed relationships suggest about the meaning of accountability in a First Nations context, the participants made several specific suggestions, with one table referring to its response in the previous question (for ease of reference those comments are included here). Accountability in a First Nations context would include:

• need to redefine accountability to include social determinants;
• need outcome accountability to First Nations citizens;
• need transfer payments, multi-year funding to establish a predictable and stable flow of funds;
• need new First Nations government(s) and institutions(s) that address the needs of First Nations peoples;
• the values upon which an Aboriginal/First Nations context are based include holistic; balance; equity/fairness; equality; consensus; community focus; respect for individuals; respect for First Nations autonomy/self-determination, diversity, expertise and knowledge; clear roles and relationships;
• government needs to recognize that First Nations governments have responsibilities to all their members, and agreements need to reflect this;
• fulfilling treaty obligations has to be front and centre in any proposed accountability framework;
• accountability relationships must accept different viewpoints on what accountability is to each party;
• could be an ombudsman role;
• vision of accountability-process in place to develop single shared accountability framework that removes duplication, differences in rules and simplifies reporting;
• primary focus is empowering our people through improved reporting/accountability to community;
• should include mutually agreed outcomes, measurements and reporting structure and broader discretion in expenditures by recipient;
• want to see full transparency of details of government expenditures on Aboriginal peoples;
• some responsibilities and financial benefits should be devolved to grass roots instead of leadership.

During this discussion a number of the participants reiterated, expanded upon, or asked questions about some of the problem areas currently being experienced. Examples of these types of interventions include:

• dependence on federal funding;
• on-reserve services under funded compared to similar provincial services;
• accountability relationships are complicated because some basic governance systems (e.g. water treatment) are not in place when responsibility is transferred;
• First Nations are still treated as wards or children of the state;
• how do we track whether the government is meeting its fiduciary obligations?;
• First Nations question whether the Government of Canada is ready to address this (e.g. many good ideas get dismissed by departments interpreting well beyond Treasury Board Guidelines).

Critical Issues and Recommended Actions

Based on the preceding discussions, the participants validated a list of critical issues suggested by the facilitators and developed recommended actions to respond to those critical issues, and in some circumstances applied the crosscutting lenses.

Crown accountability to Treaty (Aboriginal Treaty Rights), self-government, legislation (Indian Act), fiduciary (honour of the Crown, obligations/duties), court decisions

The participants clarified current challenges within the federal approach to legal obligations (e.g. policy is to narrow its obligations, etc.), described the relationship between the Social Union Framework Agreement and section 91 and section 92 of the Constitutional Act 1867 jurisdictions and listed additional critical factors that need to be considered when addressing this issue (e.g. supporting portability of rights, responsive funding formulas, attitudes of government officials). Specific recommendations included:

• need a fiscal framework for transfers between First Nations/Aboriginal peoples and the Crown;
• develop a joint management approach to service/program delivery that goes beyond advisory level and addresses the Department of Justice’s unilateral interpretations of Crown obligations/responsibility;
• establish a Crown/First Nations committee to look at/review implementation of court decisions beyond INAC using court determined principles of interpretation; and
• as a key to transformative change directly involve First Nations in changes to the machinery of government that support the infrastructure for First Nations to deliver services on the Crown’s behalf (e.g. authority and resources delegated to INAC regional directors).

Principles and standards (transparency, two-way street, not just financial)

Accountability between all stakeholders and governments can be based on a variety of principles (e.g. traditional and natural values, recognition of rights, two way street, etc.) While the principle that one size does not fit all suggests that standards may not be appropriate in all circumstances, these values can guide the development of fluid and flexible standards (e.g. demonstrate value for money, compliance reporting, decision making authority, service delivery, etc.). It was suggested that:

• section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 be the centrepiece of recognition;
• there be agreed upon definitions of comparability;
• in certain areas there needs to be tripartite (Canada, province, First Nation) accountability on how First Nations are dealt with and their rights recognized;
• program and service delivery goals be jointly developed/negotiated;
• while reporting is still needed, control has to be relinquished;
• a framework agreement could provide a basis for measuring and acknowledging the varying standards of living between First Nations communities;
• fully transparent accountability must be the goal;
• a First Nations parallel position to the Auditor General be considered as a mechanism to determine whether the principles (e.g. section 35 recognition) are being followed.

In applying the crosscutting lenses (women and off-reserve) to this discussion the participants discussed whether accountability standards needed to be different for off-reserve members. They suggested the need for full consultation and grievance mechanisms to deal with marital property and non-members on reserve land.

Provincial-territorial (First Ministers Conference, Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA), federal/provincial jurisdiction)

This issue was discussed in terms of the challenges (e.g. lack of political will, silos) that contribute to recognition within section 35 not being translated into policy decisions at the federal, provincial, territorial levels. The participants indicated that a federal, provincial, territorial and First Nations development framework was needed. Securing this framework could be done through:

• considering costs of litigation and the status quo, particularly the health and social issues of Aboriginal women, persons with disabilities and Aboriginal people in urban areas compared to the value of cooperation;
• provincial and territorial inclusion of First Nations in policy development and decision making; and
• development of provincial territorial report cards and ombudspersons on First Nations issues.

Building accountability from the ground up

This group stressed that efforts be undertaken to:

• address the limited capacity to deal with accountability outcomes through community education and communication strategies, financial support and making models of success available;
• create greater financial independence and self reliance through innovation, political will and effectively managing the relationship between politics and business;
• provide incentives for increasing credibility through International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification of accountability practices; and
• modify business like approaches/standards to reflect community needs, culture and values.

Multiple accountabilities (number of reports that are program focused, no coordination within a department-Health Canada and INAC, frequency of reports, contribution focus accountability)

This group identified a recommendation and considered a crosscutting lens application for four concerns within this critical issue including:

• reduce complexity of receiving and reporting on funding by devolving authority to a central authority for First Nations, applying this to Health Canada funding provides an opportunity to consider the crosscutting lenses;
• apply accountability to longer term goals and objectives through funded five- to 10-year integrated First Nations development plans. Providing resources to directly involve lens interests addresses the crosscutting lens;
• pursue accountability as an outcome by defining First Nations accountability processes within the community. The crosscutting lenses can be applied by streamlining the number of agencies, reducing competition and creating better working partnerships with service interest groups;
• support First Nations self government as a means for defining authority and clarifying jurisdiction and accountability; and providing funding to enable First Nations to take responsibility for all citizens (i.e. women, non-status) whose ancestry comes from their community would allow the crosscutting lenses to be applied.

Government-to-government process (transfer payments, joint processes being required with First Nations as participants)

This group identified many recommended actions. Some examples not noted previously include:

• provide flexibility to address changes during long-term agreements;
• treat First Nations as governments through a recognition instrument (e.g. proclamation, legislation, agreement, policy), government-to-government negotiations and First Nations determined priorities; and
• establish aggregate levels of First Nations governments to pass laws, administer programs and services, establish and monitor standards.

Knowing We are Making Progress

The statements developed by the participants suggest that indicators and measures will reflect the implementation of the recommended actions that demonstrate that shifts in the accountability relationship have created transformative change. Examples include:

• legislative approach for delivery of programs and services, input into Memorandum to Cabinet, Treasury Board authorities and approvals for transfer payments;
• joint regional and national policy and planning forums;
• ongoing discussions and meetings on a framework agreement;
• more integration within the federal system;
• policies updated to reflect recognition of section 35 rights;
• improved quality of life/standard of living;
• one report satisfies all needs;
• federal, territorial, and provincial government acceptance of First Nations definitions;
• instruments for recognition and implementation as governments;
• culturally relevant agreed upon standards being applied; and
• agreed upon factors driving funding.

The Basis of Good Reporting/Improving the Reporting Process

The participants expanded upon and validated a list of critical issues developed by the facilitators and developed recommended actions to respond to that critical issue.

Supporting Transformative Change (TC)

The participants described First Nations expectations for transformative change (e.g. meets needs, secures jurisdiction and control, involves First Nations communities as equal partners in joint decision making, creates economic independence, etc.). In order to be partners in the improvement of the quality of life of First Nations there must be:

• full partnership in planning, priority setting, resourcing, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, reporting and adjusting based on results;
• resources to address human resources, capacity, and training gaps as well as gaps created by downsizing, under-funded devolution and formula rather than needs based funding; and
• more centralized intergovernmental decision making for existing programs and services.

Relevance and usefulness

In addressing the relevance and usefulness of information the participants identified issues and recommended actions relating to:

Federal and provincial governments need to:

• integrate existing reports;
• provide funding for First Nations reporting activities;
• react to gaps and problems identified by First Nations; and
• provide useful information back to First Nations.

First Nations need to:

• gain control over this information; and
• develop their own reporting requirements.

Together First Nations and governments need to:

• develop a shared consensus on what constitutes useful and relevant information;
• provide better access for people to review summarized and simplified reports; and
• develop reporting requirements that reflect gradual progress to rights recognition.

Performance measures/monitoring

Improving performance measurement and monitoring could be accomplished by:

• creating a two way performance measurement process;
• ensuring understanding of the link between performance measurement and decision making;
• establishing a framework on what kind of data is to be shared;
• knowing what to do with information collected (so what?);
• engaging across sectors to measure links between governance, health, education, etc.;
• providing communities with the infrastructure to interpret and use information;
• Aboriginal people setting performance and outcome measures through a joint process;
• tying outcomes to a community plan; and
• finding ways to measure outcomes of such things as the link between funding received and the treaties, the government-to-government relationship, cross sectoral outcomes.

Results based

Improving participation in a results-based environment involves:

• a simplified, streamlined government process for checking off whether outcomes were achieved at the community and government levels;
• more time spent on developing community based and driven principles, outputs and outcomes to capture and report results; and
• looking at the entire federal government ($8 billion) and planning better.

Data issues

Addressing data issues such as ownership, institutional relationships, privacy, relevance, and informed consent requires:

• detailed funding arrangements;
• building capacity and tools to participate in system, understand and share data;
• designing a full set of easy-to-use people focused community indicators (e.g. broader definition of health);
• agreeing on the policies and procedures that support transparency;
• supporting community participation (boards/committees) in the publication, presentation and analysis of results;
• First Nations territorial/regional approaches that assist with urban data issues;
• ensuring that any new methodology matches cultural values and captures all Aboriginal people-regardless of status or residency;
• examining what the First Nations Statistical Institute can do in terms of First Nations ownership and management of the whole data collection process.

Principles

Principles and approaches that could support improved reporting include:

• improving and building trust by applying a gender based analysis to the Aboriginal Report Card, policies and programs;
• communicating public policy changes that acknowledge legal responsibilities including sections 25 and 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982;
• making an ongoing commitment to developing the relationship (e.g. legislative base for partnerships, equitable access to resources) and developing processes to effectively measure its evolution; and
• ensuring that senior officials are committed to acknowledging cultural values and engaging in meaningful consultation that affects decision making.

Application of the Crosscutting Lenses

While the crosscutting lenses had been included in some of the previous discussions during the breakout group, the facilitators engaged the participants in a specific exercise to discuss how improved reporting/accountability would address the needs of those included in the crosscutting lenses.

Rural, remote, northern (and small communities)

The participants suggested that in addition to applying strategies to reduce reporting burden and improve capacity, it was important to:

• stop lumping northern and remote together;
• provide better disaggregated demographic information;
• improve access for persons with disabilities;
• increase utilization of and access to connectivity;
• improve accountability for services provided to non-reserve based peoples; and
• find ways to support stability within the communities and community government systems, which affects all of the above.

Urban Communities

In addition to discussing the characteristics of First Nations/urban relationships (e.g. Corbiere decision, regional differences, competition, etc.), the participants suggested several ideas:

• improve two-way communication through First Nations and local newsletters, newspapers, and the moccasin telegraph as tools for dispelling myths and encouraging empowerment;
• strengthen accountability between service organizations and the people they are serving;
• consider involving First Nations as board members and using intergovernmental agreements; and
• consider benefits of having funding for urban citizens allocated to their First Nations.

First Nations women (Aboriginal)

The needs of First Nations women could be addressed through:

• conducting a gender based analysis (GBA) to determine their needs/rights;
• increasing visibility and awareness of Aboriginal women and their involvement in self government;
• measuring the impact of policy implementation to support Aboriginal women’s issues in a timely manner (e.g. marital property, violence);
• recognizing the dual First Nations and Canadian citizenship and portability of rights of Aboriginal women and children;
• involving women in revisions to the Child Welfare Act, the Child Tax Benefit; and
• providing life skills and training to Aboriginal women in remote areas.

Non-Status

The needs of non-status Indians can be addressed by including them in the development of new accountability measures. Ways of involving non-status Indians include:

• identifying, recognizing, and increasing accountability to non-status members;
• various organizations that deliver services to or represent non-status Indians could adapt the same accountability measures;
• providing resources so that First Nations can care for all their people; and
• reopen legislation that denies status (e.g. double-mother clause, double-father clause).

Process for Moving Forward on Accountability and Reporting

The purpose of improving accountability, reporting and moving forward on a report card was characterized as efforts necessary to support a transformative change agenda. As such, the participants identified a number of considerations and recommended actions that were similar in nature to the recommended actions in previous sections (e.g. direct involvement; joint agreement on objectives, measures and outcomes; capacity supports; challenges with reporting on results/impacts; etc.). Additional recommended actions provided during this discussion included the following:

• change the name from report card to something like progress reporting;
• determine the relevancy of both qualitative versus quantitative reporting and information (e.g. indigenous languages);
• consult reports that provide guidance on how to measure such things as quality of life, self government, business/economy (e.g. Chandler and Lalonde study, Cornell University, etc.);
• support an independent body approach (The B.C. Progress Board is a model to examine);
• report to the House/Senate/First Nations-Aboriginal governments;
• follow up on the reports from the sectoral processes must involve First Nations/Aboriginal governments in a fully collaborative way that is entrenched and ongoing-regardless of changes in ministers or governments;
• amend Treasury Board policy on RMAF (risk management accountability framework) to fully include and engage First Nations in all of planning, priority setting, organizing, managing/monitoring, reporting, results/evaluation processes;
• the government needs to include (in the card) a statement and an accounting of what it did over the past year (like a service plan);
• an annual card may not be possible; however, there needs to be some sort of check and balance on card achievements every year (e.g. not every indicator imperative every year);
• card must show Canadian public the benefits of dealing with First Nations’ issues
• envision an economic portion or version of report card-demonstrates sources of revenue-gaps-level of investment;
• First Nation might want to develop its own card to measure effectiveness, to report to community members;
• goes back to an Aboriginal Auditor General, who would report directly to Parliament, measuring the success of the government relationship with First Nations. Auditor General would be the steward of the report card, following it through and making recommendations;
• First Nations need one centre of expertise with capacity for statistics to deal with report card outcomes, measurements;
• use Royal Commission for Aboriginal Peoples proposed models of accountability;
• report cards did not work in the case of eliminating child poverty;
• levels of reporting accountability (e.g. national basis report, Aboriginal ways of knowing and accounting);
• process must include Aboriginal people to design meaningful accountability framework (federal, provincial, territorial, Métis, First Nations, women, Inuit, National Association of Friendship Centres, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples);
• grass roots driven design (e.g. holistic, block funding, five year community plans to identify baseline, actions, indicators of change, and audit);
• report card doesn’t mean change-only a picture that is being reported;
• current report should not be considered the starting point or the model;
• establish an intergovernmental political/technical working group to establish and operationalize national principles (standards) and regional development teams (e.g. northern report);
• agree to common objectives but leave strategies to the First Nations to design;
• international standards (rationale: moves beyond Canadian context which may not adequately reflect needs);
• purpose of a report card in relation to development of accountability is to assess change, justify money being spent and provide basis for identifying policy priorities and allocations.

Key Messages-Next Steps to Pursue Transformative Change

To conclude, the breakout group participants were asked to develop the key messages they would like to see emerge from this session.

• There must be ongoing involvement of First Nations in the development and implementation of all processes arising from the sectoral tables.
• There must be commitments to recognize and implement section 35 Aboriginal and treaty rights as the foundation for the development of policy.
• Establish an accountability framework.
• Affirm the appointment of an Aboriginal auditor general.
• Define/develop core principals of accountability.
• Develop the protocols for collection and use of data indicators to support the accountability framework.
• Accountability process must be long term.
• Vision is to clarify the nature of our relationships (First Nations, National Chief, Treasury Board, Privy Council Office).
• 1) Define transformative change; 2) from definition get a mandate (time frame, accountability); 3) commitment required across government; 4) plan how will unfold; and 5) legislate.
• Establish true/equal partnership and ongoing working relationship that starts at the inception of ideas.
• Acknowledgement and acceptance of different world views (e.g. United Nations Model).
• Information management and dissemination and equitable access to resources is critical.
• Recognition of government’s legal responsibilities.

Table of Contents

The documentation contained on this website does not necessarily represent the views of any government or National Aboriginal Organization. The purpose of this website is to share information related to the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable: background papers, Facilitator's sectoral and final reports, agendas and media announcements.

Top of page