Fixing the Education Gap

Okay, I/we can argue with a few points here and there but overall this is a great column! Required reading, says I, your humble scribe.

The AFN’s been raising this issue for a while now.

As Ivision points out, in spite of myths to the contrary, First Nations students receive $2,000 less in educational support than other Canadian students:

“…Simple fairness dictates that those most in need of the investment in quality education should receive the same level of funding as other Canadians. Yet the government's own figures suggest this is not the case.
According to INAC's own numbers, it spent $6,916 per native student across Canada in 2006/07. This compares with a national average of $8,165 for non-natives in 2004/05, according to Statistics Canada.”

Education is the key to unlocking the full potential of our people, our communities and Canada. We are the workforce of tomorrow. The AFN is calling for a greater investment in education because, simply, it’s an investment in our future. It’s good for all Canadians.

This is a bigger problem than just education. It’s true that “more funding” is not the answer to all our concerns - what we really need is a new system that puts First Nations in control of the decisions that affect their lives – but the fact is that since 1996 the federal government has capped funding for core services to First Nations governments at a meager 2% increase per year. You don’t need a calculator to realize that this does not keep pace with inflation or our growing, booming population. The result is First Nations governments are forced to try and do more and more with less and less every year.

What’s equally concerning is that, aside from education shortfalls, we have communities that have to make intolerable choices about building more houses OR making repairs to a crumbling school OR ensuring the drinking water is clean OR economic development etc. etc. These are choices no community should have to make in a country as rich as Canada.

So it’s really disheartening to hear people say that no more resources should be provided to First Nations right now while we tinker with funding formulas and such, because people are literally dying for help in our communities. Right now.
True, resources are not the whole answer but let’s stop the crisis and stabilize the situation so we can spark and grow First Nations economies and self-sufficiency.

National Day of Action, Take Two: Calling on All Canadians!

National Chief Phil Fontaine held a news conference here in Ottawa on Thursday (April 18) to announce the second National Day of Action to be held May 29th. The National Chief, joined by national religious, labour and student organizations, urged all Canadians to come out and show their support in calling on the federal government to work with First Nations on a positive and progressive agenda for change. Ultimately, we want to turn poverty into prosperity and we have the plan.

The National Chief is calling for peaceful demonstrations by all Canadians, though the media (of course!) has latched on to other aspects of the announcement. As have other First Nations, including some that support the 2010 Olympic Games.

It’s important to note that the National Chief never referred to “disrupting” the Games (and note further that in July the AFN signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Four Host Nations to work with the organizing committee on the games). Rather, the Olympic Games shine an international spotlight on the host nation and this spotlight can be used to show the international audience and the international media the reality faced by First Nations people in Canada. Peaceful protest is not lawlessness, it’s democracy.

Anyway, the focus right now is on May 29th of this year, not 2010. Though if we’re still calling for government action by 2010, well, no doubt the Natives will really be restless!

Special added bonus blurb!: Media at the press conference were also interested in the hoped-for-soon-to-be-much-anticipated announcement on the federal government’s apology to residential schools’ survivors. The National Chief made a few notable points that you may want to checkout here.

Long Weekend Roundup

Some items of interest for inquiring minds.

The situation at Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) First Nation in Ontario (formerly known as Big Trout Lake) is causing quite a stir.

You may have read about it: six members of the First Nation, including the Chief and Deputy Chief, were sentenced to six months in jail for trying to prevent mining exploration company Platinex from drilling in their traditional territory.

Reaction from First Nations and supporters has been particularly strong, including a general backlash against mining in the region. Even the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada calls the situation “sad and disappointing,” and is urging an “amicable, mutually beneficial negotiated resolution.”

The Assembly of First Nations agrees.

There’s a very good Globe and Mail op-ed assessing the situation, but unfortunately it’s behind a subscriber wall. Suffice to say that the question in the title of the article – “Are the KI Six outlaws or prisoners of conscience?” - is not answered explicitly, but the implicit answer is: prisoners of conscience. The only drawback to this analysis is that it neglects to mention that the federal government has the primary responsibility to ensure there is proper, adequate consultation and has a central role as a broker in these processes.

Another interesting news story deals with Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant decrying the lack of investment by the federal government in First Nations. The federal government responds by saying it’s not just about more money, it’s about better spending.

You know what? They’re both right. Clearly more investment is needed because too many First Nation communities simply aren’t safe – there’s dangerous drinking water, unsafe and over-crowded housing, collapsing schools, inadequate funding for health needs and on and on. We need to move quickly to deal with this situation and it will involve equality of funding for First Nations. But yes, we also need to bring some sense to broken system and bureaucracy plagued by duplication, overlap and over-reporting that is not focused on whether or not quality and appropriately funded programs, services and initiatives are actually reaching and benefiting our communities.

Because while the KI story rightfully continues to be a focus of media coverage, tragic stories like this – which touch at the same core issues of Treaty rights, obligations and responsibilities - wrongfully tend to disappear from the front pages all too quickly.
If all levels of government – and all Canadians – understand this reality, we can indeed work towards amicable, mutually beneficial solutions.

As Long as the Sun Shines…

AFN Blog Entry – March 7, 2008

This is going to be interesting.

In case you missed it, the AFN and Canada are convening a conference on Treaty Implementation which will be held this March 26-27 in Saskatoon.

The conference is the first time (ever) that First Nations and the Federal Crown have jointly hosted a conference to look at Treaty implementation.

We know that treaties and Treaty making are central to First Nations. Treaties get to the heart of our nation-to-nation relationship with Canada, confirming the fact that we are and always have been nations. But the federal government has tried to deny or ignore this reality for far too long. This conference will be an opportunity to kickstart the discussion on what the Treaties mean in the new millennium and how we can work to give life to the spirit and intent of the Treaties.

The overall objective of the conference is to bring together the Treaty Partners to discuss the parameters, issues, barriers and mutual benefits of a national Treaty implementation framework. This is a critically important opportunity for Treaty First Nations and the Crown to share their perspectives and understandings of Treaty and to jointly develop common principles to guide this relationship.

Keep checking here for more information as we get closer to the opening day. And we hope to see you there!

Numbers – Turns out you can’t always count on ‘em!

The recent Statistics Canada release of the 2006 national census data on Aboriginal peoples garnered a great deal of media and public attention. In the following days, attention was turned to the controversy surrounding some of the numbers.

But first, let’s look at some of the positive findings. The census pegs the “Aboriginal” population (Aboriginal includes Métis, Inuit and First Nations people) at more than a million, further noting that the Aboriginal population is growing more than 3.5 times faster than the non-Aboriginal population.

It also reaffirms what many of us already know: our population is young, with more than half of our people under the age of 25.

The sheer numbers of Aboriginal people – more than a million strong – coupled with a young and booming demographic, represent a tremendous opportunity for Canada. As the rest of Canada’s population is ageing and reaching retirement, we have a ready and able pool of talent that can be educated and trained as the workforce of tomorrow. Now, more than ever before, it is in all our interests to reach out to First Nations people and seize the opportunity for education and investment.

Now, having said that, there are some real problems and real confusion with Statistics Canada’s numbers, particularly as they relate to First Nations (or “Indians” or “North American Indians,” to use the Stats Can term).

The problems start with confusion over the term “Aboriginal.” Aboriginal refers to the Inuit, Indians and Métis. This is an important distinction, especially when we’re talking about the on- and off-reserve population. If you talk “Aboriginal” people living off-reserve, you’re including the Métis and Inuit. This is wrong and should not be done because Métis and Inuit never had reserves and therefore never would have resided on-reserve. It’s kind of like saying “most Italian Canadians do not live on-reserves,” or “most Asian Canadians do not reside on reserve.” What we really want to look at is: how many status Indians – those entitled to live on-reserves – actually live on- and off-reserve?

The reality, according to both Indian Affairs and Statistics Canada, is that more than half of the status Indian population live on-reserve. And the on-reserve population is growing.

There are also problems with Statistics Canada’s own numbers, problems which they acknowledge. Their figure for the on-reserve population undercounts by at least 200,000, compared to the official federal Indian Registry. Twenty-two reserves don’t take part in the census, and these include some of Canada’s largest reserves. As well, at least one-quarter of residents weren’t counted on 166 reserves.

Add to this Statistics Canada’s self-created confusion over terms like “Aboriginal identity” and “Aboriginal ancestry.” Individuals who do not have Indian status but claim “Aboriginal Identity” are rolled in with the First Nations population, while those who claim “Aboriginal Ancestry” are excluded. There is no rationale for this decision. All it does is create a wonderful state of what Bob Dylan called, in an early recording, “Mixed-up Confusion.”

So, what are the real numbers? The best estimate, based on Indian and Northern Affairs registry, is that there were 763,555 status Indians in Canada in 2006, 58% were living on reserve, and those numbers climbed steeply in 2007.

This misleading picture created by Statistics Canada has real world implications. If, for example, the government is going to take a truly progressive step and, say, invest in First Nations education, it needs real numbers to identify where the investments should go. For that reason, the AFN is meeting with Statistics Canada and hopes to work with them to create a more accurate and informed picture of Canada’s first peoples.

Bill C-21 – Dealing with First Nations Rights by Committee

Anyone watching the daily goings-on on Parliament Hill these days – and believe me, I live in Ottawa and these people exist! – are probably focused on the Ethics Committee’s ongoing probe into the Karlheinz Schreiber affair.

But the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is slowly working its way through a piece of legislation that, while much more low-key than the Schreiber-palooza Festival, has real potential to impact First Nations people and First Nations rights in a major way.

The name of the legislation is Bill C-21, an Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act Bill C-21would, basically, repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), which exempts First Nations communities from the CHRA.

Everyone supports the repeal of section 67 and supports the Canadian Human Rights Act. But a lot of people and organizations don’t support Bill C-21 (at least not as it’s currently written). That’s because the Bill would cause major problems for First Nations citizens and First Nation governments and would do more harm than good to First Nations collective rights and individual rights.

There are three major problems (and a bunch of little ones) with Bill C-21 as it is currently written:

• It does not provide any way to balance collective rights and individual rights (there is a long history of balancing rights in Canada, because it’s the only way to ensure we don’t lose our collective Aboriginal and Treaty rights)
• It does not include a statement that the Bill will not cause any harm to Aboriginal and Treaty rights (the fancy legal term for this is a “non-derogation clause” and it’s included in many Bills that deal with First Nations peoples and rights)
• It does not provide for any means for First Nations to enforce the CHRA; that is, it says “yes, the CHRA now applies” but does not provide First Nations – or anybody – with the ability to enforce it.

Now, before anyone thinks the AFN is alone on this, we’re in good company. Here are a few other groups that appeared before the Committee and spoke against Bill C-21 (then called Bill C-44), citing the same concerns as the AFN:

• The Canadian Human Rights Commission and their Chief Commissioner, Jennifer Lynch Q.C.
• The Canadian Bar Association
• The Native Women’s Association of Canada…and basically, 20 out of 21 witnesses that appeared before the Committee calling for changes to Bill C-21.

One of the biggest practical problems is the whole “lack of capacity” issue. Sure, you can say the CHRA applies…and then what? If First Nation governments have no organization, individual or resources to deal with complaints under the CHRA, then what good does it do? For example, there may be a requirement to make all First Nation buildings handicapped accessible (a great idea, by the way). But infrastructure on most reserves is crumbling because of federal under-funding and a lot of First Nations are struggling to keep their schools safe and provide enough houses to reduce over-crowding. How can they be expected to make these kinds of major changes when they’re already falling behind?

As well, First Nations communities will require resources and trained people to deal with the new system. As the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission told the Committee: “The need for local level systems to resolve conflict and provide redress of complaints is critical to the success of repeal. … I would like to articulate clearly the imperative need of ensuring that both First Nations and the Commission have the resources needed to ensure that implementation is successful. … implementation will not be successful without adequate resources to build needed capacity.”

If we simply repeal section 67 but don’t give First Nations governments or citizens any way to exercise and enjoy those rights…then have we really done anything worthwhile for our people, or have we perhaps done even more damage?

So, how do we fix Bill C-21?

• Include a non-derogation clause (which will not make any substantive difference to the gist of the Bill)
• Provide more time for the Bill to be implemented once its passed so First Nations, the CHRA and others are ready to deal with the changes
• And do an assessment of the impacts the Bill will have so everyone knows the resources and capacities required to enforce it (the government did its own impact assessment, but it only looked at what government needed to do and not the people directly affected: First Nations)

Hey, sorry for the longer-than-usual post, but figured this was information you’d want to know about.

In summary, anyone who says Bill C-21 as it is, without amendments, is a good for First Nations either hasn’t read it, doesn’t understand it, or doesn’t care about First Nations rights!

New Approach to Resolving Specific Claims Unveiled

November 30, 2007

Yesterday saw the unveiling of the new approach to resolving specific land claims, jointly developed by the AFN and Canada.

This new approach has been in the works since last June. It’s one of the first times (first time ever?) that the AFN and First Nations have been at the table with government to draft legislation. As well, a companion Political Agreement was secured by the AFN so that work on important issues that fall outside the legislation will continue.

You can get important information about the new legislation (Bill C-30) and the Political Agreement here. AFN has even produced a handy-dandy guide which walks you through the new approach, and you can get it here.

A few highlights and notable items:
The new system will deal with claims that are valued up to $150 million (which covers about 95% of all claims). Canada and First Nations will continue to work on a new approach for claims that are above $150 million.
The new system creates an independent Tribunal which can make binding decisions on claims. This means the government can no longer control the whole process and can no longer act as judge and jury in deciding claims against itself.
The new system forces the government to respond within three years to the First Nations’ claim, which means the government can no longer delay claims by simply not responding to them. If there’s no response or the claim is not settled in three years, First Nations can take the claim to the independent Tribunal.
The new system now opens up the claims process to types of claims that were shut out of the old process, most significantly pre-Confederation claims.
For the first time, Canada will commit to a specific amount of resources to resolve claims: $250 million each year for the next ten years for the new approach alone. Additional monies can be spent on other claims outside the process.
AFN secured a five year review so First Nations and government have an opportunity assess the process and make any changes – if required – after five years.

There’s a lot more to the new approach so check out the Guide and the info on the website.

And remember: the new legislation is not yet law. It still has to be passed by Parliament and receive “Royal Assent” before it is Canadian law. This could take a few months. AFN has secured resources for regional dialogue sessions by First Nations on the new approach to give everyone time to get informed.

UPDATE: This article raises a few questions about the new approach.
It is true that the independent Tribunal only awards financial compensation, but the new approach is based on negotiation and mediation as the preferred approach to resolve claims. These negotiations can include land as part of the settlement. The prospect of a financial award through the Tribunal is incentive for Canada to reach a negotiated settlement which can include solutions apart from financial compensation. As well, the Political Agreement recognizes the importance of recovering or replacing lost land and commits to reviewing the Additions to Reserve policy.