The following paper deals with the Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA), an agreement between the federal, provincial and territorial governments other than Quebec. The overall purpose of SUFA, which was signed in February 1999, is to clarify working relationships and understandings between the federal and provincial/territorial governments with regard to social programs.
The constitutional division of powers gives the provinces broad authority for health, education and social services. The federal government has traditionally used its spending power to partially fund provincial/territorial initiatives in these areas through fiscal transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan and its replacement as of 1996, the Canada Health Social Transfer.
Part I of this paper gives First Nations a detailed description of the elements of SUFA. Part II provides an overview of the federal spending in relation to almost 40 federal/provincial/territorial social programs, several of which apply to First Nations. Part III offers an analysis of SUFA's impacts on First Nations to date. Given the lack of First Nations involvement in the process to negotiate SUFA or participate in its ongoing monitoring and the lack of available information on the impacts of SUFA on program dollars applied to First Nations, there are many issues of concern. Based on all of the issues raised in this paper, the following recommendations should be considered by First Nations leadership in terms of next steps.
The Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) is an agreement to "Improve the Social Union for Canadians". It was signed on February 4, 1999 by the federal, provincial and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec. The Agreement sets out the rules for how the federal and provincial/territorial governments should work together; codifies rules for the federal spending power; promises collaboration, accountability and transparency and lays out principles of equity and fairness in social programs. The objective of the Agreement is to get federal and provincial/territorial governments to work more closely on social and economic issues to promote equality of services and opportunities for all Canadians.
Clause 7 of SUFA requires a joint government review of the Agreement and its implementation at the end of three years and that any necessary adjustments be made. The review is intended to ensure opportunities for input and feed-back from all interested parties, including "social policy experts, private sector and voluntary organizations." An assessment of the impacts of SUFA and its prospects for the future has commenced following its three year anniversary in February 2002. The work is underway to examine whether SUFAi:
This discussion paper is part of the review process pursuant to Section 7 of SUFA. The objective of this paper is to provide information to First Nations about SUFA and to advocate for the strengthening of First Nations involvement in the Social Union process in the future. Part I provides a brief background about SUFA: the contents of the Agreement itself, its organization and key elements. Part II provides information related to approximately 40 programs and services in the areas of health, education and social services, potentially impacted by SUFA. Lastly, this paper provides recommendations to improve the Agreement and enhance the role of First Nations governments in establishing their place in relation to the Social Union.
The Social Union Framework Agreement, SUFA, emerged as a result of constitutional, financial and political circumstances affecting Canadians. The division of powers in the Canadian Constitution gives the provinces broad authority for the delivery of social programs such as health, education and social services across Canada while at the same time the federal government is recognized as having more expansive powers of tax collection and spending authority.
In relation to First Nations, the crown in right of Canada has a fiduciary obligation to uphold treaty and constitutionally recognized Aboriginal rights. Section 91 (24) of the Constitution assigns responsibility for Indians to the federal government, thus Canada has the primary fiduciary obligation. First Nations education and health clearly fall within the federal purview, based on references in the federal Indian Act and various treaties. However, the Indian Act is silent on social services, and the federal government's position is that provincial social assistance legislation applies to First Nations. A provincial fiduciary responsibility towards First Nations was confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the mid-1990s in the Perry decision. In the past the federal government has used its broad spending power to establish priorities in areas where investment was seen as wise. Since the 1960s Canada has been cost-sharing health, social services and education with the provinces and territories, through the Canada Assistance Plan which in 1996 was replaced by the Canada Health Social Transfer (which consolidated federal transfer payments and imposed tight funding ceilings). In addition to providing partial funding for programs that are not within its constitutional jurisdiction, the federal government has, at times, taken a unilateral approach in establishing new initiatives. In the late 1990s this resulted in a financial crisis which meant significant cuts in federal transfers to provincial and territorial governments. The cuts generated a belief among the provincial and territorial governments that the federal government would exercise its spending power to establish new programs and then, in times of financial down turn, reduce its funding for the provinces.
In December 1997, provincial and territorial governments agreed to initiate a process that would lead to renegotiating the terms of a renewed social union with the federal government. One key objective was the establishment of a formal constraint on federal spending, which according to many provincial and territorial governments had compounded their fiscal crises in the late 1990s. In August 1998, after a series of meetings among the provincial and territorial governments in an attempt to reach a common position on a proposal for an agreement with the federal government on the social union, all of the provincial and territorial first ministers agreed on a framework for 2 a draft agreement. Subsequently, the federal government joined the negotiations and agreed not to introduce new initiatives without the consent of a majority of provincial governments.
On February 4, 1999, a formal federal/provincial/territorial agreement called the Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) was signed. It was hoped that through this Agreement, any federal government involvement in provincial areas of jurisdiction would take place within a mutually agreed upon and predictable federal-provincial government regulatory scheme, thus addressing the contemporary realities of fiscal imbalance and policy interdependence.
SUFA is divided into seven sections (for details on the Agreement, please see Appendix A). Within their respective constitutional jurisdictions and powers, signatory governments made major commitments toii:
In the Agreement, there are two provisions that specifically mention Aboriginal peoples. The first one is a non-derogation clause, contained in the Principles section, stating that:
"For greater certainty, nothing in this agreement abrogates or derogates from any Aboriginal, treaty or other rights of Aboriginal peoples including self-government."
Section Four, the "Working in Partnership for Canadians" section, states that:
"Governments will work with Aboriginal peoples of Canada to find practical solutions to address their pressing needs".
The Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal is responsible for the overall implementation of SUFA. The Council consists of designated Ministers from the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Quebec did not sign the Social Union Framework Agreement, thus it is not an active member of the Ministerial Council and sends observer(s) only for the matters related to the implementation of SUFA.
SUFA is a political agreement. It sets out the role of the Government of Canada regarding social programs, outlines the federal spending power and ensures greater accountability in terms of services to the public. It neither changes the constitutional powers of any government, nor is it legally binding. If the governments do not fulfill their obligations under the agreement, there is no recourse to the courts. In 1998, the federal government summarized its three main objectives for the renewal of the Canadian social unioniii:
1) promote equal opportunities for Canadians, regardless of their place of residence;
2) improve cooperation between the two levels of government, to better serve Canadians; and
3) enhance accountability to Canadians in terms of the results obtained.
The provincial and territorial governments, for their part, reached substantial consensus on the following goalsiv:
1) to establish rules governing the role of the federal government in relation to social programs, within a non-constitutional framework;
2) to avoid duplication and promote harmonization in social policy; and
3) to promote greater intergovernmental cooperation in relation to social policy.
iiWysiwyg://147://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/English/media/release/1999/agebk6.htm
iii"The Canadian Social Union: Questions about the Division of Powers and Fiscal Federalism" by Robert B.Asselin, Political and Social affairs division, Parliamentary Research Branch, January 2001
ivSupra note ii
The following are some of the federal-provincial initiativesv related to SUFA for which to date a total of 39 departmental, interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional initiatives have been examined by the Treasury Board of Canada. It is anticipated that the number of initiatives examined by the federal Treasury Board will increase as additional departments participate in the project during 2002. Of these, the programs specifically impacting Aboriginal peoples* arevi:
(NOTE: the following is not an exhaustive list, and is only meant to represent those programs known to have been examined by Treasury Board. Not all of the programs listed below are extended to Aboriginal peoples or distinguish between Aboriginal and First Nations.)
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | |
| Partners | Aboriginal individuals, organizations, and institutions (nationally, regionally and sub regionally) | |
| Other Federal departments (e.g. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Industry Canada, Privy Council Office) / Provincial / territorial departments | ||
| Effective Date / Expiry Date | April 1, 1999 / March 31, 2004 | |
| Purpose | To support Aboriginal individuals, organizations, and institutions develop and implement labour market, youth and child care programs that are designed to address the local and regional human development needs of Aboriginal people. | |
| Funding | HRDC is investing $1.6 billion over five years |
| Lead Department | Indian & Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) | |
| Partners | First Nations, Health Canada, Provinces | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | 1982 / Ongoing | |
| Purpose | To provide a policy framework and funding for services designed to assist people with functional limitations (e.g., age, health, disability) to maintain their independence, maximize their level of functioning and live under conditions of health and safety. There are 3 program components:
|
|
| Funding | -Funding for in-home care is formula based (based on comparable provincial per-capita in 1994/95 and adjusted annually for population growth).
-Funding for institutional care is based on reimbursement of actuals. There has been a moratorium on the construction of new on-reserve institutional facilities since 1988 |
| Lead Department | Health Canada | |
| Partners | Canadian Health Infostructure (CHI) including: Canadian Health Network (CHN, Population and Public Health Branch), National Health Surveillance Infostructure (NHSI, Population and Public Health Branch), First Nations and Inuit Health Information System (FNIHIS, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch), Supporting Infrastructure (SI, Information Management System Directorate, IACB)). | |
| Provinces and territories are key players in the development of a health infostructure in Canada, as well as other stakeholders, such as non-governmental organizations, First Nations and Inuit communities. | ||
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | Initial investment in Health Infostructure in 1997; current investment began in fiscal year 1999-2000 under the Strategy of Ongoing National Cooperation on Information and Accountability in the Health System / Current funding submission ends March 2002 but it is expected the initiatives will be ongoing.. | |
| Purpose | To improve access to and use of health information and expertise:
|
|
| Funding | In 1999, the Government of Canada allocated $366 million over three years to improve health information and accountability in the Canadian health system |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) - Income Security Programs | |
| Partners |
|
|
| Effective Date / Expiry Date | The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is a federal/provincial plan established by an Act of Parliament in 1965 / There is no sunset provision in the Canada Pension Plan legislation. | |
| Purpose | The Canada Pension Plan is a compulsory and contributory social insurance program operating in all parts of Canada, except Quebec, which operates a comparable program. The Plan's objective is to provide a measure of protection to workers and their families against the loss of earnings due to retirement, disability or death. | |
| CPP benefits include retirement pensions, disability pensions, children's pensions, survivor pensions and death benefits. | ||
| Funding | All benefits and administrative costs are funded by the CPP Account. The CPP Account is funded by contributions by employees, employers, self-employed persons and investment revenues. The cost to administer the CPP is shared by a number of federal departments and agencies responsible for delivering CPP services. |
| Lead Department | Health Canada (two distinct but linked programs in Population and Public Health Branch and First Nations and Inuit Health Branch) | |
| Partners | Bilateral agreements Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) between HC and 13 provinces and territories | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | Announced in July 1994 / No expiry date identified in the MOU. | |
| Purpose |
|
|
| Funding | 100% federal funding
|
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | |
| Partners | Provinces and the Yukon Territory. Exceptions are Quebec, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut who have opted out. | |
| Effective Date / Expiry Date | The original legislation creating the Canada Student Loans Program came into force in September 1964 / Ongoing. | |
| Purpose | The purpose of the Canada Student Loans Program is: to promote accessibility to post-secondary education for those with demonstrated financial need by lowering financial barriers through the provision of loans and grants; and to ensure Canadians have an opportunity to develop the knowledge and skills to participate in the economy and society. | |
| Since 1964, the CSLP has assisted more than 3.16 million students to pursue post-secondary education by providing more than $17.1 billion in subsidized loans. | ||
| Funding | Each year, 370,000 loans worth $1.7 billion are issued to students. Canada Student Loans has an annual budget, in addition to the amount of loans issued, of approximately $900 million. |
| Lead Department | Health Canada | |
| Partners | Health Canada and Correctional Service Canada are the two federal departments participating in the Strategy. | |
| Key players within the Strategy include: provincial and territorial governments; national non-governmental organizations | ||
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | Announced on December 1, 1997, and launched on May 28, 1998 / Ongoing. | |
| Purpose | To prevent the spread of HIV infection in Canada; to find a cure; to find and provide effective vaccines, drugs and therapies; to ensure care, treatment and support for Canadians living with HIV/AIDS, their families, friends and caregivers; to minimize the adverse impact of HIV/AIDS on individuals and communities; and to minimize the impact of social and economic factors that increase individual and collective risk for HIV. | |
| Funding | The Strategy receives $42.2 million annual funding. Health Canada receives $41.6 M while Correctional Service Canada receives $0.6 M. |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | |
| Partners | The F/P/T Early Childhood Development initiative involves the Government of Canada and provincial and territorial governments. The Government of Quebec does not participate in this initiative, but receives its share of federal transfers to provincial/territorial governments under the initiative. | |
| Within the Government of Canada, key partners include Human Resources Development Canada and Health Canada. | ||
| As part of this initiative, governments have committed to work with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada to find practical solutions to address the developmental needs of Aboriginal children. | ||
| Effective Date | This initiative was announced by Canada's First Ministers in a communiqué on early childhood development that was released on September 11, 2000. | |
| Expiry Date | This is an ongoing initiative. | |
| Purpose | The overall goal of the initiative is to improve and expand early childhood development supports for young children (prenatal to age 6) and their parents. The specific objectives of the initiative are:
|
|
| Funding | The Government of Canada has begun to transfer $2.2 billion to provincial/territorial governments over the next 5 years. This funding will be transferred through the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST). |
| CHST cash increase for early childhood development ($ M) | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | TOTAL |
| Newfoundland | 5.2 | 6.8 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.3 | 37.1 |
| Prince Edward Island | 1.4 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 9.9 |
| Nova Scotia | 9.1 | 12.1 | 15.1 | 15.0 | 14.9 | 66.4 |
| New Brunswick | 7.3 | 9.7 | 12.1 | 12.0 | 11.9 | 53.0 |
| Quebec | 71.6 | 95.0 | 118.2 | 117.6 | 117.0 | 519.3 |
| Ontario | 114.2 | 152.8 | 191.7 | 192.4 | 193.0 | 844.2 |
| Manitoba | 11.2 | 14.8 | 18.5 | 18.4 | 18.3 | 81.3 |
| Saskatchewan | 10.0 | 13.2 | 16.5 | 16.4 | 16.3 | 72.4 |
| Alberta | 29.4 | 39.4 | 49.5 | 49.8 | 49.9 | 218.0 |
| British Columbia | 39.7 | 52.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.6 | 291.4 |
| Yukon | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 2.0 |
| Northwest Territories | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 3.1 |
| Nunavut | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2.1 |
| TOTAL | 300.0 | 400.0 | 500.0 | 500.0 | 500.0 | 2 200.0 |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | |
| Partners | All provinces. | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | April 1998/ Five-year bilateral agreements to March 2003. | |
| Purpose | EAPD's objective is to provide funding for provincial programs and services that help working age adults with disabilities prepare for, find, and keep employment. | |
| Funding | In each year of the five-year agreements, the Government of Canada will contribute 50% of the eligible costs incurred by provinces for programs/services funded under EAPD up to the amount of the maximum federal allocation identified in each bilateral agreement. The maximum total federal input to the initiative is $193 million per year. |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | |
| Partners |
|
|
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | The Unemployment Insurance Income Benefits Act was first passed in 1940. The most recent changes to the program, including renaming to Employment Insurance Income Benefits (EIIB) were implemented in July 1996 and January 1997 (Bill C-12). Since then Bill C-32 enhanced parental benefits and Bill C-2 made adjustments to the 1996-1997 Reform./ On going. | |
| Purpose | Objective: To promote individual well being, economic stability and a flexible labour market by providing temporary income support to unemployed workers who qualify for EI Income Benefits under the Employment Insurance Income Benefits Act. Benefits are also provided to eligible workers who take sickness, maternity and parental leave. |
|
| Funding | For 1999/2000 gross operating expenditures were $583 million. |
| Lead Department | Health Canada | |
| Partners | Other participating federal departments/agencies/Crown Corporations include: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Department of Justice, Canadian Heritage, Status of Women Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Statistics Canada, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Correctional Service of Canada, Department of National Defence, Canadian International Development Agency, Privy Council Office, Department of Finance, Treasury Board Secretariat. | |
| Effective Date/Expiry Date | Phase 1 - 1998/92/Phase 2 - 1991/95-96/Phase 3 - December 1996/Permanent funding, review | |
| Purpose |
|
|
| Funding | The federal government has permanently allocated $7 million per year for family violence prevention activities, commencing with FY 1997-98. |
| Lead Department | Health Canada | |
| Partners | INAC, First Nations, Inuit | |
| Effective Date/Expiry Date | February 1999/ Ongoing | |
| Purpose |
|
|
| Funding | 1999/2000: $17 million; /2000/2001: $45 million /2001/2002: $90 million /2002/on-going: $90 million. |
| Lead Department | Indian & Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) | |
| Partners | INAC, First Nations governments & agencies, provincial governments. | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | As per INAC Policy Directive 20 -1 (1989, amended 1995), / Ongoing. | |
| Purpose | To enable First Nations children and families living on-reserve to have access to culturally sensitive child welfare services in their communities and to ensure that these services are comparable to those available to other provincial residents in similar circumstances. | |
| FNCFS agencies are mandated by the province in accordance with provincial legislation, to deliver: (1) prevention services to families, in order to keep children in the home ; (2) protection services to children at risk; (3) adoption services where required by provincial legislation. | ||
| Funding | $309 million (01-02) Part III, Plans & Priorities. FNCFS is included in Social Support Services. | |
| INAC provides funding to First Nation agencies for Operations, determined by an established formula, and for Maintenance (actual costs of children in care) based on the reimbursement of allowable actual expenses. | ||
| INAC also reimburses provinces for the actual costs of providing Child & Family Services to children and families on reserve. Some agencies are being funded through block funding pilot projects to determine if increased flexibility provided to agencies will have a positive effect on the welfare of First Nation children on-reserve and the longer-term costs of care. |
| Lead Department | Health Canada | |
| Partners | Partners within Health Canada include the Veterinary Drug Program , Population and Public Health, the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. | |
| Other federal departments - the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; provincial/territorial governments and some municipalities. | ||
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | Ongoing, mature program/ Ongoing | |
| Purpose |
|
|
| Funding | The annual budget is in the order of $36 million. |
| Lead Department | Health Canada | |
| Partners | Provincial and territorial governments; led by a Federal/Provincial/Territoria | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | June 1997 / March 31, 2001. | |
| Purpose |
|
|
| Funding | The total forecasted spending of nearly $146 M varies from the original HTF allocation of $150 M largely due to a reduction in project spending due to late submissions of a number of project proposals. |
| Lead Department | Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (INAC) | |
| Partners | This initiative is in partnership with First Nations | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | 1998/2003 | |
| Purpose | The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Gathering Strength and An Agenda for Action identified as a priority the need to reform the current approach to on-reserve social assistance programming and service delivery. The overall objective of the ISR initiative is to transform the on-reserve welfare regime from one of passive support to an active-measures based system of integrated programming that promotes self-sufficiency. | |
| ISR is aimed at shifting INAC's funding from providing passive income support to linking welfare with greater access to skills development, training, and employment opportunities. | ||
| The expenditure of $15 million directed at policy changes to the social assistance program will have a significant impact on reducing the growth of the current social assistance budget. | ||
| Funding | ||
| $15 million for 2001/2002 |
| Lead Department | HRDC - Labour Program | |
| Partners | Partners are individual labour unions and employers, as well as organizations representative of both labour and management. | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | September 1991 (TB 817089 — amended TB 821541)/ Ongoing | |
| Purpose | The objective of the Labour-Management Partnerships Program (LMPP) is to support joint labour-management initiatives that are developed and implemented in the workplace, or at the sectoral level; to foster and improve the labour-management relationship. LMPP funding allows the parties to experiment with new ideas through pilot projects that are outside the scope of normal day-to-day operations and to jointly seek new ways of working and of working together. The program encourages the development of tangible results (e.g. manuals, training materials, videos, proceedings, reports) that are widely distributed by program participants to other labour and business organizations. Projects are assessed against specific program criteria and priorities. Priority is given to projects under the federal jurisdiction. | |
| Funding | $1.6 million per fiscal year. - There are no transfers of resources to provincial governments. |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of Alberta | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | November 1, 1997/ None. | |
| Purpose | To implement, within the scope of Part II of the Employment Insurance Act, new Canada-Alberta arrangements in the area of labour market development that will enable Alberta to assume an expanded role in the design and delivery of labour market development programs and services in Alberta. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 112,819,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 112,957,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of British Columbia | |
| Effective Date / Expiry Date | April 25, 1997 / None. | |
| Purpose | To give effect to Canada's and British Columbia's desire to work in concert in the design and management of Canada's employment benefits and support measures and in the operation of the National Employment Service, in a manner complementary to British Columbia's provincial employment programs, and thereby achieve a new cooperative partnership between the two levels of government and establish a foundation for a fully integrated provincial labour market development system, based on adequate sustainable funding. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 288,999,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 290,769,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of Manitoba | |
| Effective Date / Expiry Date | November 27, 1997 / None. | |
| Purpose | To implement, within the scope of Part II of Canada's Employment Insurance (EI) Act, new Canada-Manitoba arrangements respecting labour market development that will enable Manitoba to assume an expanded role in designing and delivering labour market development programs and services in Manitoba. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 49,521,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 49,126,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of New Brunswick | |
| Effective Date / Expiry Date | April 1, 1997/ None. | |
| Purpose | To implement, within the framework and authority of Part II of the Employment Insurance (EI) Act, new Canada-New Brunswick arrangements in the area of labour market development that will enable New Brunswick to assume an expanded role in the design and delivery of labour market development programs and services in New Brunswick. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 90,425,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 90,813,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of Newfoundland & Labrador | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | March 24, 1997/ None. | |
| Purpose | To give effect to the desire of the agreement partners to work in concert on the design and management of Canada's employment benefits and support measures and in the operation of the National Employment Service, in a manner complementary to Newfoundland & Labrador's provincial employment programs, and thereby achieve a new cooperative partnership between the two levels of government that will meet the needs and circumstances of Newfoundland & Labrador. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 127,531,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 128,769,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of Northwest Territories | |
| Effective Date / Expiry Date | October 1, 1998/ None. | |
| Purpose | To implement, within the scope of Part II of the Employment Insurance (EI) Act, new Canada-Northwest Territories arrangements in the area of labour market development that will enable the Northwest Territories to assume an expanded role in the design and delivery of labour market development programs and services in the Northwest Territories. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 3,448,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 3,610,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of Nova Scotia | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | January 1, 1998/ None. | |
| Purpose | Recognizing their respective responsibilities in the areas of labour market development, economic development and social policy development, the objective of the agreement is to provide a framework for Canada and Nova Scotia to work jointly to find opportunities through strategic partnerships to benefit Nova Scotians. To this end, Canada and Nova Scotia will collaborate and coordinate efforts to improve their respective labour market programs and services. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 80,205,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 80,462,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of Nunavut | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | April 1, 2000/ None | |
| Purpose | To implement, within the scope of Part II of Canada's Employment Insurance (EI) Act, new Canada-Nunavut arrangements in the area of labour market development that will enable Nunavut to assume an expanded role in the design and delivery of labour market development programs and services in Nunavut. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 2,091,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 2,165,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of Prince Edward Island | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | May, 1997/ None | |
| Purpose | To give effect to the desire of the agreement partners to work in concert on the design and management of Canada's employment benefits and support measures and in the operation of the National Employment Service, in a manner complementary to Prince Edward Island's provincial employment programs, and thereby achieve a new cooperative partnership between the two levels of government that will meet the needs and circumstances of Prince Edward Island. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 25,138,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 25,697,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of Saskatchewan | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | January 1, 1999/ None.. | |
| Purpose | To implement, within the scope of Part II of the Employment Insurance (EI) Act and in a manner complementary to the Saskatchewan Training Strategy: Bridges to Employment, new arrangements in the area of labour market development that will enable Saskatchewan to assume an expanded role in the design and delivery of employment programs and services in Saskatchewan. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 38,857,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 39,187,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | |
| Partners | Government of the Yukon Territory | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | February, 1998/ None. | |
| Purpose | To give effect to the desire of Canada and the Yukon to work in concert in the design and management of Canada's employment benefits and support measures, in a manner complementary to the Yukon's employment programs, and thereby, achieve a new cooperative partnership between the two levels of government that will meet the unique labour market needs and economic development priorities of the Yukon. | |
| Funding | 2001/02: $ 4,051,000 confirmed allocation | |
| 2002/03: $ 4,103,000 projected allocation |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | |
| Partners | Provincial and territorial governments (except Quebec), and First Nations.* | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | The National Child Benefit was launched in July 1998./Not Applicable1- this is a permanent undertaking. | |
| Purpose | Federal, provincial and territorial governments designed the NCB to meet three goals: | |
|
||
| Funding | As of July 2000, the Government of Canada has invested $1.7 billion per year in the NCB. | |
| The 2000 federal budget and the October 2000 Economic Statement announced that the Government of Canada will invest an additional $740 million in the CCTB as part of its commitment to the NCB in July 2001, which will increase to at least $850 million by 2004 as a result of indexation. In total, by 2004, the NCB Supplement for low-income families with children will reach approximately $2.5 billion per year. | ||
| Provinces, territories and First Nations are estimating that approximately $608 million will be spent on NCB initiatives in 2000-2001. This figure includes funding made available as a result of adjustments to provincial social assistance child benefits as well as additional investments of provincial and territorial funds in National Child Benefit initiatives. |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | |
| Partners | Organizations for people with disabilities, including the private sector and comparable provincial crown corporations; organizations, including public health and educational institutions; band/tribal councils; and municipal governments. | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | April 1, 1997/ Opportunities Fund was renewed to March 31, 2002 with the potential to be extended to March 31, 2005 | |
| Purpose | To assist persons with disabilities to prepare for, obtain and keep employment or self-employment. | |
| Funding | Since 1997, $30M annually has been made available for Persons with Disabilities |
| Lead Department | Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) | |
| Partners | First Nation and Inuit communities and/or regional representative organizations, and several post-secondary institutions | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | Introduced in 1977 / Not applicable1 — Program is ongoing. | |
| Purpose | To increase access to and enrolment in post-secondary studies for status Indian and Inuit students. | |
Includes:
|
||
| Funding | $292 million in 2001-2002 (Estimates) |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | ||||
| Partners | Business, labour, educators, and trainers with other government departments (including Industry, Health, Heritage, and Environment) and with provincial and territorial agencies in carrying out sectoral skills initiatives. | ||||
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | April 1, 1993/ until renewal of legislation. | ||||
| Purpose | Our mission is to advance partnerships with industry and the learning system to ensure that Canadians have the skills and knowledge required for the workplace. | ||||
| To encourage and support employer and employee associations to improve their capacity for dealing with human resource requirements and to address skills development issues. | |||||
| Funding | 2001-2002 | 2002-2003 | 2003-2004 | ||
| SPI | $47.7M | $46.7M | $46.7M | ||
| Lead Department | Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) | |
| Partners | In most instances, the program is delivered by First Nations. | |
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | 1964/ Ongoing. | |
| Purpose | The Social Assistance Program (SAP) has the broad objective of providing individuals and families living on reserves with the means to meet basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. | |
| Funding | $651 million in 2001/2002 |
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada |
||||
| Partners | Non-profit organizations, such as voluntary organizations, research institutes, professional associations and educational institutes. | ||||
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | April 1, 1998/ Review set for 2001-2002 | ||||
| Purpose | To support research and development activities of the social non-profit sector in line with HRDCs mandate. These activities identify, develop and promote nationally significant best practices and build capacity of national organizations to meet the social development needs and aspirations of populations who are or may be at risk, such as people with disabilities, children and families. | ||||
| Funding | SDPP | 2000-2001 | 2001-2002 | 2002-2003 | |
| $17M | $22.2M* | $21.2M* | |||
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) | ||||
| Partners | Partners include: provinces/territories; municipalities; communities; public institutions (eg. Health care); non-governmental organizations (eg. service agencies); and the private sector. SCPI funding does not represent a fiscal transfer to the provinces. | ||||
| Effective Date/Expiry Date | April 1, 2000/ March 31, 2003 (The Government of Canada's National Homelessness Initiative was approved as a 3 year initiative | ||||
| Purpose | The ultimate outcomes of SCPI, based on the accountability reporting model (developed with stakeholder consultation), are to:
|
||||
| Funding | 2000-2001 | 2001-2002 | 2002-2003 | ||
| SCPI | $102m | $102m | $101m | ||
| UAS | $18m | $18m | $18m | ||
| Youth | $20m | $20m | $18m | ||
| Research, Reporting & Accountability | $2m | $2m | $2m | ||
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | ||||
| Partners | Summer Career Placements and Partners in Promoting Summer Employment under Student Summer Job Action within the Youth Employment Strategy. | ||||
| Businesses, organizations, municipalities and band/tribal councils who submit an application to receive funds for hiring a student and the promotion of benefits of hiring a student. | |||||
| Effective Date / Expiry Date | April 1, 1998/ March 31, 2005 | ||||
| Purpose | To assist in preparing students for their future entry into the labour market through career-related employment opportunities and to provide students with income to allow them to pursue their education. | ||||
| Funding | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | ||
| Summer Career Placements | $91.6M | $91.6M | $91.6M | ||
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | ||||
| Partners | Businesses, organizations, municipalities and band/tribal councils are eligible recipients. | ||||
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | April 1, 1998/ March 31, 2005 | ||||
| Purpose | To assist out-of-school, or unemployed or underemployed youth in preparing for, obtaining and maintaining employment, and in making a successful transition into the labour market by enabling them to acquire the knowledge and work experience necessary. | ||||
| Funding | 2000-2001 | 2001-2002 | 2002-2003 | ||
| Youth Internship Canada | $63.0M | $63.0M | $63.0M | ||
| Lead Department | Human Resources Development Canada | ||||
| Partners | |||||
| Youth Service Canada part of the Youth Employment Strategy. | |||||
| Businesses, organizations, municipalities and band/tribal councils. | |||||
| Effective Date/ Expiry Date | April 1, 1998/ March 31, 2005 | ||||
| Purpose | To assist youth in preparing for, obtaining and maintaining employment, and in making a successful transition into the labour market. Youth Service Canada focuses on providing youth facing greater barriers to entering the labour market with opportunities to acquire valuable job experience and life skills while strengthening their sense of accomplishment and attachment to their communities, and ultimately transition to the labour market. | ||||
| Funding | 2000-2001 | 2001-2002 | 2002-2003 | ||
| Youth Service Canada | $30.6M | $30.6M | $30.6M | ||
The actual and cumulative impacts of these programs and services on First Nations communities or First Nations individuals whether on or off-reserve is unknown. Very few assessments have been undertaken. Evaluations of the effectiveness of such programs and services would greatly benefit both the policy development process and the inclusion of First Nations peoples in the delivery of programs and services directed at them. At the same time, fiscal pressures on First Nations funding due to population growth and rising service costs could very possible affect service delivery and level of care in the future. These and other cost drivers give further credence to the need for broad program assessments.
vThe information in this part is taken from the Treasury Board Website -wysiwyg://52/http://www.tbs-ct.gc.ca/rma/account/sufa-ecus/dept_mini_e.asp
viSupra note v
The federal government's Throne Speech in 2001 emphasized the need for a balance between economic prosperity and the meeting of basic needs such as health, education and social services. Special focus was given to Aboriginal peoples:
"Nowhere is the creation and sharing of opportunity more important than for Aboriginal people. Too many continue to live in poverty, without the tools they need to build a better future for themselves or their communities. As a country, we must be direct about the magnitude of the challenge and ambitious in our commitment to tackle the most pressing problems facing Aboriginal people. Reaching our objectives will take time, but we must not be deterred by the length of the journey or the obstacles that we may encounter along the way.
The Government of Canada is committed to strengthening its relationship with Aboriginal people. It will support First Nations communities in strengthening governance, including implementing more effective and transparent administrative practices. And it will work to ensure that basic needs are met for jobs, health, education, housing and infrastructure. This commitment will be reflected in all the Government's priorities."vii
Much of the subject-matter of the Throne Speech also relates to SUFA: health; jobs; education; housing; poverty; children; self-government; and intergovernmental relationships. The federal government's description of the deplorable reality confronting the lives of many First Nations peoples is a significant admission of failed policies and relationships. Its statement regarding the huge and long-term nature of the task speaks to the need for new and creative thinking.
First Nations peoples are still waiting to see how the federal government's Throne Speech commitments will be implemented. A serious set back was encountered with the freezing of funding levels in the 2002 federal budget, due to the prioritization of national security in the wake of the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 — despite a commitment to address the continuing tragedy of every day life in First Nations communities or on urban streets in Canada where other First Nations peoples live. While the anti-terrorism fight and national security are unquestionably high priorities for the Government of Canada, the basic needs of the First Nations should be no less a priority.
The federal government's only real actions in keeping with the Throne Speech have been in the form of the First Nations Governance Initiative, which many First Nations peoples have already rejected as an unwelcome intrusion into First Nations lives and nothing more than a continuation of the thinking that produced today's First Nations' dependency and hopelessness. Any potential for the Throne Speech to have practical meaning and benefit depends on the federal government changing the way it does business with First Nations peoples and governments and demonstrating leadership in that regard with respect to federal/provincial/territorial relations. This could be demonstrated through authentic intergovernmental relations with First Nations governments.
"This Commission concludes that a fundamental prerequisite of government policy making in relation to Aboriginal peoples is the participation of Aboriginal peoples themselves. Without their participation there can be no legitimacy and no justice. Strong arguments are made, and will continue to be made, by Aboriginal peoples to challenge the legitimacy of Canada's exercise of power over them. Aboriginal people are rapidly gaining greater political consciousness and asserting their rights not only to better living conditions but to greater autonomy.
Opening the door to Aboriginal peoples' participation is also a means of promoting social harmony. The unilateral exercise of federal authority to make and implement policy can no longer be expected to attract enduring legitimacy; it must be discarded in favour of the principle of participation. It is vital for Canada to be seen as legitimate by all its inhabitants. The strength of a geographically vast and culturally diverse country like Canada rests on the commitment and mutual respect of its peoples. The true vision of Canada is that of a multinational country, strengthened by the commitment of individuals to their natural and historical ties and to a federal union that promotes the equal security and development of all its partners."
The final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoplesviii made several recommendations to ensure the future participation of Aboriginal peoples as noted above, recognizing that Aboriginal people know best how to identify and promote their own interests. RCAP described the federal government's legislative power as instrumental in protecting the interests of Aboriginal peoples first from local settler interests and since 1867, from provincial interests. As noted earlier, the federal legislative power as set out in the Canadian constitution also contains the essence of the crown's fiduciary obligation to Aboriginal peoples which prevents Canada from exercising its power in a unilateral or arbitrary manner; it must not "derogate" from Aboriginal interests.
Most of the provisions of SUFA are consistent with First Nations needs and aspirations such as ensuring access to social programs and services, commitment to health care, helping those in need, encouraging public accountability and transparency in government decision-making, joint planning, etc. However, in the process of development and implementation of SUFA, the involvement of First Nations has been very limited.
Based on a number of considerations including the inherent right of self government, aboriginal and treaty rights, and the fundamental importance of social policies and programs for First Nations peoples and their governments, the Assembly of First Nations has consistently advocated the position that First Nations must be full and equal participants in the Social Union. The Social Union Framework Agreement has always been viewed as an important step in the renewal of intergovernmental relations among governments in Canada. It represents Canada's effort to modernize and restructure the intergovernmental relationship. However, the following facts clearly establish that First Nations governments and their national representative organization are not considered by other governments to be part of the intergovernmental structure:
The reasons given for the exclusion of Aboriginal national leaders from the SUFA negotiations were that the talks involved administrative arrangements, not constitutional proposals, and that delivery of social programs continues to be a provincial responsibilityix. This rationale for exclusion is completely devoid of logic. First Nations governments are capable of and do deliver social programs, therefore, their inclusion in discussions about administrative arrangements is entirely appropriate.
First Nations analysts do not believe that this exclusion has anything to do with administration; rather it is a continuation of the policy of control over and assimilation of First Nations peoples. This kind of thinking represents the challenge alluded to in the Throne Speech that needs to be overcome by federal and provincial governments.
Any meaningful improvement of SUFA for First Nations peoples must acknowledge that:
The Social Union and SUFA are part of the ongoing process of social policy development in Canada and such policy will have a large impact on First Nations peoples. However, for all the reasons described above, policy making for First Nations peoples must ensure their inclusion in the process and formulation of policy that directly affects them.
By the federal government's own admission, the social, economic and political conditions facing First Nations peoples are deserving of comprehensive and unique measures. This means that direct First Nations participation is a prerequisite to ensuring that appropriate and effective measures and solutions are taken because it is their conditions and well being that are at stake.
"The Government of Canada will work in partnership with Aboriginal governments and organizations to develop a new fiscal relationship which provides more stable and predictable financing, is accountable, and which maximizes the internal generation of own-source revenue.
For First Nations, this means putting in place new fiscal relationships that will allow First Nations governments to exercise increased autonomy and greater self-reliance through the creation of expanded new transfer arrangements. First Nation fiscal authority, resource-revenue sharing and incentives for enhancing First Nations own-source revenue capacity."x
It is understood that the Gathering Strength strategy quoted above is still the official policy of the Government of Canada. At no time has the Government announced that it has abandoned the strategy. Moreover, it is understood that the strategy is government-wide and not merely applicable to the operations of the Department of Indian Affairs. Therefore, First Nations' expectation is that the Government of Canada and First Nations, working in partnership, need to address new fiscal relationships.
The debate over the level of funding transfers from federal government to the provinces and territories is one in which the First Nations must be actively engaged because they have much at stake in the matter. For example, the reduction of the federal government's support to post-secondary education has contributed to substantial tuition increases that hurt all First Nations students and have been particularly detrimental to First Nations governments' ability to meet the increasing demand and stress on First Nations post-secondary education programming.
Similarly, the anticipated federal/provincial National Children's Agenda will be an important policy development because as First Nations demographics show, children and youth are dominant in terms of actual population numbers and this new Agenda could improve their lives. First Nations are justifiably determined to take part in the process of defining national standards and policy guidelines relating to the Children's Agenda in order to ensure that the interests of First Nations children are protectedxi. Under SUFA, to the extent that the provinces entered into the Social Union Framework Agreement in the hope of increasing the level of funding transfers they receive from Ottawa, the interests of First Nations peoples very much match those of the provinces.
"The government will work with Aboriginal people to help achieve the objective of Strengthening Aboriginal Governance, building on treaty relationships where appropriate. This means developing practical arrangements for self-government that are effective, legitimate and accountable; that have the strength to build opportunity and self-reliance; and that can work in a co-ordinated manner with other governments. It also means extending co-management arrangements, negotiating First Nations acquisition of land and resources through claims processes, and taking steps to improve the claims process."xii
The quote above advances two important principles: one, that a government-to-government relationship was the historical relationship and that it needs to be restored; and two, that intergovernmental arrangements are the usual manner in which "coordination" takes place among governments in Canada.
What the Social Union Framework Agreement has demonstrated is that First Nations peoples are not viewed as partners in Canadian federalismxiii. Full realization of First Nations self-government and the recognition of First Nations peoples' constitutional status in Canadian federalism requires a new partnership approach between governments to re-design and manage the Social Union. This means the complete acceptance and participation of First Nations as full and equal partners. First Nations must be a part of processes that shape intergovernmental policies affecting them.
In order for the governments to live up to their commitments to protect the rights and interests of First Nations peoples, as agreed to at a May 1998 meeting in Quebec City of provincial and territorial Premiers, First Nations must be included in the formulation of any and all future intergovernmental arrangements that have an impact on them.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments must recognize that efforts to remove existing inequalities and barriers to access must start with including First Nations in the intergovernmental structure.
The cliché, "information is power" is especially true for First Nations communities. It is a fact that First Nations are not well connected to the information highway nor to the information kiosks usually attached to governmental departments.
Government usually spares no expense to publicize its message regarding new initiatives, especially when designed to promote its agenda or to score political points. It spends less money publicizing useful information such as details about funding or access relating to programs and services.
The First Nations audience has unique needs in terms of access to information about government programs and services. Often, First Nations governments and their communities simply are not aware of the availability of desperately needed funds and programs they can access. Specialized "public information" campaigns should be developed with the assistance of First Nations peoples, and implemented to ensure that First Nations communities and their governments are informed and given the opportunity to seek and benefit from government programs and services.
It is well established in law and in the Government's own understanding that consultation with First Nations is a legal and constitutional requirement. Obviously, there is disagreement as to what meaningful and effective consultation means. Surely it means more than allocating $25,000.00 to a national organization representing more than 600 First Nations communities and being given six weeks to provide feedback to the federal government about SUFA.
As indicated earlier in this paper, the actual affect that SUFA or SUFA-related programs have had on First Nations peoples is beyond the scope of this exercise. If such were to actually be done — as it should be - it would require an assessment of the impact and benefit that the programs and services have had on First Nations communities and individuals.
It would also require discussion across the country about how such programs and services should be delivered, how they could be improved, how First Nations should be included in the policy development and law making process, and how First Nations governments should be accommodated within the intergovernmental framework to ensure their interests and ideas can be considered and acted upon.
The resolution of jurisdictional issues related to health was identified as a priority for 2001-02 by the AFN Chiefs' Committee on Health, National First Nations Health Technicians' Network and Health Secretariat. Together, they advocated a process or forum to address jurisdictional issues regarding federal and provincial responsibility for the delivery of health care services and the provision of fiscal resources to First Nations. Specifically, they recommended regional forums to address the treaty right to health, a national forum to clarify the nature and scope of the crown's fiduciary obligations to First Nations for health services, and the inclusion of First Nations leadership at SUFA discussions and at federal/provincial/territorial tables of health ministers. They advised the federal government to recognize Aboriginal health as a "fourth order" of jurisdiction, following federal, provincial and territorial.
The fiduciary relationship is another of the known legal and constitutional underpinnings of the federal and First Nation relationship. Again, there is no consensus on what the fiduciary relationship embodies, however, it is a relationship that the Crown in its entirety is a party to - both in terms of the Government of Canada as a whole (and not merely the Department of Indian Affairs), and provincial governments as well.
With respect to the federal government, First Nations believe that it has a duty to advocate for the inclusion of First Nations in processes and agreements that affect them.
The federal government must advocate the interests of First Nations peoples and their governments. Failure to do so is a violation of its duties and obligations.
As a result of the commitments made by the federal government and taken together with its duties on behalf of First Nations, it is logical that the federal government should accept nothing less than concurrence from provincial and territorial governments regarding the inclusion of First Nations in SUFA.
In accordance with the 2001 Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's quest for Social Justice for Aboriginal peoples, Aboriginal-specific programs should be the focus of the overall social policy focus of SUFA. It is this kind of focus that is required to make it possible for First Nations governments together with the other levels of government in Canada to overcome the social and economic challenges that define many of the lives of First Nations people.
First Nations development must be clearly accommodated within the political and administrative structure of Canada. Direct and equal participation of the leaders of the First Nations communities in SUFA and its implementation clearly offer an important avenue for strengthening the role of First Nations peoples to help themselves and to work with other governments to achieve mutually beneficial results.
viiSpeech From The Throne To Open The First Session Of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament of Canada, January 30, 2001, Pg 9.
viiiReport of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Looking Forward, Looking Back, vol. 1 at Pg xxv
ix"Aboriginals are Securing a Role' by Michael J.Prince, Policy Options, April 2000, Pg 45
xGathering Strength, Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan, 1997 at Pg 19xi"The Social Union Framework Agreement and the Role of Aboriginal Peoples in Canadian Federalism" by Gurston Dacks, The American Review of Canadian Studies, Vol 31, No.1 &2, spring and Summer 2001, Pg 301-315
xiiGathering Strength, Pg 7
xiiiSurpa note 8
The following agreement is based upon a mutual respect between orders of government and a willingness to work more closely together to meet the needs of Canadians.
1. Principles
Canada's social union should reflect and give expression to the fundamental values of Canadians - equality, respect for diversity, fairness, individual dignity and responsibility, and mutual aid and our responsibilities for one another.
Within their respective constitutional jurisdictions and powers, governments commit to the following principles:
All Canadians are equal
Meeting the needs of Canadians
Sustaining social programs and services
Aboriginal peoples of Canada
2. Mobility within Canada
All governments believe that the freedom of movement of Canadians to pursue opportunities anywhere in Canada is an essential element of Canadian citizenship.
Governments will ensure that no new barriers to mobility are created in new social policy initiatives.
Governments will eliminate, within three years, any residency- based policies or practices which constrain access to post- secondary education, training, health and social services and social assistance unless they can be demonstrated to be reasonable and consistent with the principles of the Social Union Framework.
Accordingly, sector Ministers will submit annual reports to the Ministerial Council identifying residency-based barriers to access and providing action plans to eliminate them.
Governments are also committed to ensure, by July 1, 2001, full compliance with the mobility provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade by all entities subject to those provisions, including the requirements for mutual recognition of occupational qualifications and for eliminating residency requirements for access to employment opportunities.
3. Informing Canadians - Public Accountability and Transparency
Canada's Social Union can be strengthened by enhancing each government's transparency and accountability to its constituents. Each government therefore agrees to:
Achieving and Measuring Results
Involvement of Canadians
Ensuring fair and transparent practices
4. Working in partnership for Canadians
Joint Planning and Collaboration
The Ministerial Council has demonstrated the benefits of joint planning and mutual help through which governments share knowledge and learn from each other.
Governments therefore agree to
Reciprocal Notice and Consultation
The actions of one government or order of government often have significant effects on other governments. In a manner consistent with the principles of our system of parliamentary government and the budget-making process, governments therefore agree to:
Equitable Treatment
For any new Canada-wide social initiatives, arrangements made with one province/territory will be made available to all provinces/territories in a manner consistent with their diverse circumstances.
Aboriginal Peoples
Governments will work with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada to find practical solutions to address their pressing needs.
5. The federal spending power - Improving social programs for Canadians
Social transfers to provinces and territories
The use of the federal spending power under the Constitution has been essential to the development of Canada's social union. An important use of the spending power by the Government of Canada has been to transfer money to the provincial and territorial governments.
These transfers support the delivery of social programs and services by provinces and territories in order to promote equality of opportunity and mobility for all Canadians and to pursue Canada-wide objectives.
Conditional social transfers have enabled governments to introduce new and innovative social programs, such as Medicare, and to ensure that they are available to all Canadians. When the federal government uses such conditional transfers, whether cost-shared or block-funded, it should proceed in a cooperative manner that is respectful of the provincial and territorial governments and their priorities.
Funding predictability
The Government of Canada will consult with provincial and territorial governments at least one year prior to renewal or significant funding changes in existing social transfers to provinces/territories, unless otherwise agreed, and will build due notice provisions into any new social transfers to provincial/territorial governments.
New Canada-wide initiatives supported by transfers to Provinces and Territories
With respect to any new Canada-wide initiatives in health care, post- secondary education, social assistance and social services that are funded through intergovernmental transfers, whether block-funded or cost-shared, the Government of Canada will:
Each provincial and territorial government will determine the detailed program design and mix best suited to its own needs and circumstances to meet the agreed objectives.
A provincial/territorial government which, because of its existing programming, does not require the total transfer to fulfill the agreed objectives would be able to reinvest any funds not required for those objectives in the same or a related priority area.
The Government of Canada and the provincial/territorial governments will agree on an accountability framework for such new social initiatives and investments.
All provincial and territorial governments that meet or commit to meet the agreed Canada-wide objectives and agree to respect the accountability framework will receive their share of available funding.
Direct federal spending
Another use of the federal spending power is making transfers to individuals and to organizations in order to promote equality of opportunity, mobility, and other Canada-wide objectives.
When the federal government introduces new Canada-wide initiatives funded through direct transfers to individuals or organizations for health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, it will, prior to implementation, give at least three months' notice and offer to consult. Governments participating in these consultations will have the opportunity to identify potential duplication and to propose alternative approaches to achieve flexible and effective implementation.
6. Dispute Avoidance and Resolution
Governments are committed to working collaboratively to avoid and resolve intergovernmental disputes. Respecting existing legislative provisions, mechanisms to avoid and resolve disputes should:
Dispute avoidance and resolution will apply to commitments on mobility, intergovernmental transfers, interpretation of the Canada Health Act principles, and, as appropriate, on any new joint initiative.
Sector Ministers should be guided by the following process, as appropriate:
Dispute avoidance
Sector negotiations
Review provisions
Each government involved in a dispute may consult and seek advice from third parties, including interested or knowledgeable persons or groups, at all stages of the process.
Governments will report publicly on an annual basis on the nature of intergovernmental disputes and their resolution.
Role of the Ministerial Council
The Ministerial Council will support sector Ministers by collecting information on effective ways of implementing the agreement and avoiding disputes and receiving reports from jurisdictions on progress on commitments under the Social Union Framework Agreement.
7. Review of the Social Union Framework Agreement
By the end of the third year of the Framework Agreement, governments will jointly undertake a full review of the Agreement and its implementation and make appropriate adjustments to the Framework as required. This review will ensure significant opportunities for input and feed-back from Canadians and all interested parties, including social policy experts, private sector and voluntary organizations.
Quebec is not a signatory to the Social Union Framework Agreement.
Additional Reading:
"The Social Union Framework Agreement: Lost opportunities or new Beginning" a paper presented by Harvey Lazar in August 2000 at the School of Policy Studies.
"SUFA and Citizen Engagement" by Susan D.Phillips, Policy Matters, December 2001 Vol 2,no.7 http:/uni.ca/socialunion.html "Shifting Sands: Exploring the Political Foundations of SUFA" by Roger Gibbins in Policy Matters, July 2001, Vol2, no3, Pg 3.