The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) is the national advocacy organization that represents the rights and interests of off-reserve Aboriginal people living in urban, rural and remote areas throughout Canada. We number more than 800,000 people and constitute the largest group of Aboriginal citizens in Canada. CAP, formally known as the Native Council of Canada, was founded in 1971. It has represented the collective and individual interests of its constituents through member associations in the provinces and territories for the past thirty years.
The Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) was signed on February 4, 1999. It was a slightly vague political and administrative agreement whose purpose was to regulate federal/provincial/territorial relationships on complex matters involved with social policy. SUFA was negotiated and concluded without participation of national Aboriginal organizations and the Province of Quebec.
In intergovernmental negotiations which resulted in SUFA, participating provinces and territories acted as equal partners to the federal government. This process has been described as a new era of flexible federalism or collaborative federalism but it is simply a new generation of the old 1950s and 1960s cooperative federalism. The behind-closed-door nature of the negotiations, without the presence of national Aboriginal organizations, resulted in an agreement that failed to address concerns of Aboriginal people. While not involved in the agenda setting or decision-making for SUFA, we were invited to participate in the three-year review phase. We recognize that the agreement was an important development in the effort to renew and modernize Canadian social policy, however it is unacceptable that national Aboriginal organizations were excluded from the process.
Although the national Aboriginal organizations were not at the negotiating table, SUFA made specific references to Aboriginal peoples. In Section 1, entitled "Principles," it stated:
For greater certainty, nothing in this agreement abrogates or derogates from any Aboriginal treaty or other rights of Aboriginal peoples including self-government.1
In Section 4, entitled "Working in partnership for Canadians," SUFA stated:
Governments will work with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada to find practical solutions to address their pressing needs.2
Two reasons were provided for excluding national Aboriginal organizations from SUFA negotiations: 1) talks involved administrative arrangements rather than constitutional proposals; and 2) delivery of social programs remains a provincial and territorial constitutional responsibility. Lack of political will to include Aboriginal peoples in SUFA negotiations was not in keeping with Recommendation 1.16.1 made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). It stated:
1.16.1
To begin the process, the federal, provincial and territorial governments on behalf of the people of Canada, and national Aboriginal organizations, on behalf of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, commit themselves to building a renewed relationship based on the principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, sharing and mutual responsibility; these principles to form the ethical basis of relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies in the future and to be enshrined in a new Royal Proclamation and its companion legislation.3
SUFA repeats the pattern of intergovernmental frameworks where Aboriginal presence is either low or nonexistent. Even if invited to participate, we lack necessary resources and capacity to engage in the innumerable formal and informal intergovernmental meetings and day-to-day communications between officials.
The lack of public participation in intergovernmentalism was noted by Matthew Mendelson and John McLean:
Many have assumed, with good reason, that intergovernmentalism makes public participation difficult and leads to elite-level decision-making. The contrast between participatory and federal structures is commonly made in Canada, and Canadian decision-making has been dominated far more by elite bargaining than by popular sovereignty. In fact, intergovernmental cooperative arrangements appear, almost by definition, to be inimical to public participation.4
The nature of intergovernmentalism has also made Aboriginal participation a difficult and slow moving process. Elite-level bargaining and decision-making without engagement with national Aboriginal organizations has been detrimental to building an effective working relationship between federal, provincial and territorial governments and Aboriginal people.
The principle of engagement with citizens was an integral part of SUFA. In Section 1, "Principles", it stated that governments were committed to:
Work in partnership with individuals, families, communities, voluntary organizations, business and labour, and ensure appropriate opportunities for Canadians to have meaningful input into social policies and programs.5
The failure of SUFA to engage with citizens was observed by the C.D. Howe Institute. According to John Richards, "...the overwhelming majority of Canadians are unaware of SUFA's existence, and the few who do know of it are largely indifferent about its fate". He also states that "...SUFA's impact has so far been inconsequential: an overemphasis on technical evaluations at the expense of Parliamentary accountability, and a failure to accommodate divergence".6 We agree with these views and believe that the majority of our constituency is similarly unaware of the agreement.
In a publication entitled Implementing the Social Union Framework Agreement: a Learning and Reference Tool, the Canadian Centre for Management Development lauded SUFA for consolidating good intergovernmental practices and strengthening the commitment of governments to them.7 The failure of SUFA to develop good intergovernmental practices with national Aboriginal organizations was not addressed.
Three-year Review
In Section 7 of SUFA, "Review of the Social Union Framework Agreement", it states:
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 feedback from Canadians and all interested parties, including social policy experts, private sector and voluntary organizations.8
The communiqué from the December 16, 1999 meeting of the F/P/T Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal, F/P/T Ministers Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and Leaders of national Aboriginal organizations stated:
Ministers and Leaders agreed to develop a process for the three-year review called for in the Framework Agreement. The review process should include consideration of proposals by Aboriginal organizations to strengthen their involvement in the Social Union process.9
The provinces and territories delayed their participation in the three-year review of SUFA in order to pressure the federal government into negotiating a dispute resolution mechanism for the interpretation of the Canada Health Act. The parties had agreed that such a mechanism would be developed under Section 6 of SUFA, "Dispute Avoidance and Resolution". After lengthy negotiation, the federal government and the provinces and territories with the exception of Quebec, came to an agreement. There was no involvement of national Aboriginal organizations in these negotiations and to date we have not received a copy of the agreement.
Three Priority Areas of SUFA
Under SUFA, the F/P/T Ministerial Council decided on three priority areas: 1) the National Children's Agenda; 2) People with Disabilities; and 3) the Values and Principles that Underlie the Social Union.
National Children's Agenda (NCA)
The National Children's Agenda was underway before the signing of SUFA. In 1999, CAP participated along with the other national Aboriginal organizations in the development of a shared vision, values and goals for the NCA. We undertook discussions within our constituency and produced a report on the draft NCA public paper. Our report stated that:
The development of the NCA must be undertaken with Aboriginal political organizations working as equals with the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The federal government must provide the resources to undertake the important work for the development of the Aboriginal component of the NCA.10
The five national Aboriginal organizations contributed Section IV of the NCA Public Paper entitled An Aboriginal Perspective on the National Children's Agenda. Our involvement in the public paper process raised expectations that the NCA would lead to significant developments for Aboriginal children in our constituency.
Early Childhood Development (ECD)
Early childhood development is a policy issue of great importance to our constituency. RCAP made explicit references to ECD in Volume 3, Gathering Strength and recommended that:
3.5.3
Federal, provincial, and territorial governments co-operate to support an integrated early childhood education funding strategy that
On January 20, 2000, a paper entitled Early Childhood Development: A Framework for Collaboration, was prepared for consideration by the Deputy Ministers of Health and Social Services. National Aboriginal organizations did not participate in the writing of this paper, however references were made to Aboriginal children. For example, in a section entitled We Know What Works, the argument was put forward that progress had taken place in narrowing the health status gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. This unproven statement diluted the importance of the Aboriginal case which had been presented in the NCA Public Paper. In another section entitled Fundamental Characteristics of the Framework, the following statement was put forward as a characteristic to guide the development of the ECD framework:
Responsive to the specific challenges facing Aboriginal children and their families: recognizes that the participation of Aboriginal people in decision-making related to the planning, development and implementation of programs for Aboriginal children and families is essential. Strategies need to carry the flexibility required to allow for successful adaptation to the unique circumstances and needs of different Aboriginal communities across the country.12
On September 11, 2000 the First Ministers' Conference released a communiqué on ECD. It stated that with the exception of Quebec, the First Ministers' had agreed on the importance of supporting families and communities in their efforts to ensure the best possible future for children. They set out a vision of ECD as an investment in the future of Canada where future social vitality and economic prosperity depended on opportunities that would be provided to children today. It went on to say that parents and families play the primary role in supporting and nurturing children. First Ministers agreed to work together so that young children can fulfill their potential to be healthy, safe and secure, ready to learn, and socially engaged and responsible. In regard to Aboriginal children, the communiqué essentially repeated Section 4 of SUFA:
Governments will work to find practical solutions to address the developmental needs of Aboriginal children.13
On January 30, 2001 the Speech from the Throne which opened the First Session of the 37th Parliament stated:
Most recently, the Government of Canada and provinces and territories launched the Early Childhood Development initiative to expand and improve access to services for all families and children. The Government of Canada is investing more than $2 billion in this initiative over five years. As part of this agreement, governments will begin reporting to Canadians on the outcomes of their programs and services for children. These reports will give the Government of Canada and its partners the information they need to take whatever additional steps are necessary to provide Canadian children with a better start in life.
The governments will also take immediate action with their partners where the challenges are greatest.
In securing a better future for Aboriginal children, the Government will work with First Nations to improve and expand the early childhood development programs and services available in their communities. It will also expand significantly the Aboriginal Head Start program, to better prepare more Aboriginal children for school and help those with special needs. 14
While the federal government promised to work with First Nations (on-reserve status Indians) to improve and expand ECD programs, it was silent concerning the needs of Aboriginal children living in the CAP constituency. How the investment of $2.2 billion in ECD would be spent over five years was subjected to intergovernmental bargaining reserved for F/P/T governments. By doing so, both levels of government failed to meet their commitment in Section 4 of SUFA and undermined the consensus secured in the NCA. The ECD initiative has come to represent a lost opportunity for SUFA to assist Aboriginal children in our constituency.
CAP views ECD as a federal responsibility with no differentiation between services for on-reserve, off-reserve, non-status and Métis children. A culturally sensitive approach to ECD remains a priority for our constituents. The goal of all Aboriginal ECD initiatives must be the restoration and preservation of Aboriginal culture and traditions. This means that programs must be compatible with Aboriginal family structures and practices, methods of learning, and languages. The present system is failing because:
From the beginning ...services have derived from non-Aboriginal perspectives and beliefs, they've been designed and delivered by people who live outside the communities, and they've been imposed upon Aboriginal families in an attempt to 'correct' or 'improve' conditions in relation to non-Aboriginal standards. As a result, the values inherent in the services provided are alien to the social structures, culture and understanding of humanity's place in the universe with which Aboriginal people identify.15
The ECD initiative was a failure in providing CAP an opportunity to be meaningfully engaged in policy development, design and implementation. Effective policy designs need to take into account the political, social, cultural and economic circumstances of our children. Policies imposed from the outside have never been and will never be effective.
The failure of the ECD initiative also included Aboriginal children with disabilities in the CAP constituency. These children face a confusing web of programs and eligibility requirements which need special focus and attention in SUFA intergovernmental processes. Currently, there is no intergovernmental process to understand how their needs are being dealt with by F/P/T governments. These Aboriginal children face deplorable conditions including poor nutrition, sub-standard housing and sanitation, poverty, discrimination, racism, violence, inappropriate or absent services and high rates of physical, social and emotional illness, injury, disability and premature death.
Disability
Disability is a significant policy issue for CAP since it is estimated that thirty percent of Aboriginal adults have a disability. This figure is almost twice the national rate and among the 15 to 34 year old age group, the disability rate is estimated to be three times the national average. F/P/T decision-making concerning Aboriginal people with disabilities in the CAP constituency is informed by incomplete information from Statistics Canada. By focussing on the population who identified themselves as Aboriginal rather than on all persons who reported Aboriginal ancestry, Statistics Canada underestimated the size of this sector. In addition to incomplete information, this complex issue is multifaceted involving human and indigenous rights, justice, health, housing, transportation, employment, training and cultural heritage.
In 1996, the F/P/T governments identified persons with disabilities as a collective priority in the pursuit of social policy renewal. Their collaborative efforts resulted in development of In Unison, A Canadian Approach to Disabilities Issues. This document outlined a shared vision promoting full citizenship for Canadians with disabilities which would build on past initiatives.
In Appendix C of In Unison, entitled Profile of Aboriginal Canadians with Disabilities, three issues were identified: 1) Aboriginal persons with disabilities share the same problems as other Canadians with disabilities, but these are worsened by jurisdictional issues; 2) the lack of disability-related services available on-reserve often forces Aboriginal people to abandon their communities in search of these supports; and 3) once off-reserve, Aboriginal persons with disabilities face jurisdictional barriers in accessing supports and services.
The F/P/T Council on Social Policy Renewal undertook the following actions which focussed on Aboriginal people: creation of the federal Aboriginal Technical Committee on Social Policy; organization of the Aboriginal Reference Group on Disabilities Issues; and selection of a site for the National Clearing/Connecting House on Aboriginal Disability Issues.
The Aboriginal Technical Committee on Social Policy was to engage national Aboriginal organizations in discussions at the technical level related to the three priorities of Social Policy Renewal: 1) children; 2) disabilities; and 3) values, principles and objectives that underlie the social union. This process involved a series of intermittent meetings with minimum resources for the national Aboriginal organizations.
The Aboriginal Reference Group on Disability Issues (ARGDI) was formed on April 9-10, 1997 at a meeting of the Aboriginal Technical Working Group Round Table on Disability Issues. The primary objective of ARGDI is to ensure that Aboriginal persons with disabilities, their families and support institutions have an avenue to engage and provide input into the development of policies and programs specifically within HRDC. ARGDI has reported on the lack of detailed and timely information regarding policy and program initiatives designed to address day-to-day concerns of Aboriginal people with disabilities. Information gaps were reported to be most pronounced in rural, isolated and remote communities especially North of 60. ARGDI has met on an infrequent basis and currently there are no resources for the National Secretariat on Aboriginal Disability Issues which supports the work of the committee.
The vision of an Aboriginal clearing/connecting house was set out by ARGDI. It was to include all Aboriginal individuals, groups, organizations and institutions, regardless of status or residency. It would collect and disseminate disabilities related information for on and off-reserve status Indians, non status Indians, Inuit and Métis. It was to be built upon an existing Aboriginal based organization with service delivery mechanisms. Also, it was expected to have linkages to Aboriginal service delivery networks and mechanisms providing disabled as well as mainstream programs and services. Finally, it was to be linked to disability service delivery networks and mechanisms providing services to Aboriginal individuals and communities as well as the mainstream population.
The National Aboriginal Clearing Connecting House on Disability Issues has failed to meet the expectations of ARGDI. There are two major criticisms of this organization: it does not deliver services to all Aboriginal people because it is focussed on status Indians living on reserve; and secondly, its services are provided in English only, which excludes a significant number of Aboriginal people.
Jurisdictional conflicts between F/P/T governments continue to affect Aboriginal persons with disabilities' access to employment and income support, generic services, and disability supports. SUFA has not been a successful mechanism for finding practical solutions to the pressing needs of Aboriginal persons with disabilities.
Residency-based Mobility Barriers
The mobility provisions in Section 2 of SUFA were intended to address the need for all Canadians to have access to essential social programs and services of reasonably comparable quality wherever they live or move in Canada. The various Ministries agreed to submit annual reports to the Ministerial Council identifying residency-based barriers to access and providing action plans to eliminate them. These undertakings were part of the accountability mechanism within SUFA.
The March 2001 federal government annual report on mobility within Canada found that federal policies and programs do not create residency-based barriers to their access. This report included the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy. The February 2000 British Columbia annual report indicated that it would give consideration to the impact of mobility provisions in SUFA as they relate to Aboriginal people moving off-reserve. These reports were undertaken without consultation or engagement with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or its affiliates.
Conclusion
"In every generation Canadians have had to rework the miracle of their political existence. Canada has been created because there has existed within the hearts of its people a determination to build for themselves an enduring home. Canada is a supreme act of faith.16
These reflections of noted Canadian historian, Arthur Lower, allow us some perspective on the SUFA process. Clearly, SUFA is of central importance in the development of Canadian federalism. Unfortunately for Aboriginal people, "reworking the miracle" means little in regard to progress towards Aboriginal self-government. Existing social programs imposed on Aboriginal people are a failure. Our involvement in designing and delivering social programs is integral to the concept of self-government as well as ensuring that programs are effective in attaining their objectives. The current delivery of social programs remains well entrenched and has not been changed by SUFA. We recognize that "Democracies change their policies almost entirely through incremental adjustments. Policy does not move in leaps and bounds."17 Policy change is a complex and slow-moving process but it is critical that it be undertaken with the full engagement and support of Aboriginal people at both the political and bureaucratic levels.
According to Dr. Alain Noël, the federal government is the winner in SUFA since its flexibility and control in social programming have increased over the last three years. He concludes that the federal government has chosen policies that have lessened its commitments while leaving as much flexibility as possible. Dr. Noël suggests that the result of this has been a growth in insecurity for provinces and Canadians as a whole. He feels that the uncertainty stems from a "sharp and growing vertical fiscal imbalance between the two orders of government."18 If provinces are feeling insecure as a result of SUFA, then the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and other national Aboriginal organizations must have every reason to feel apprehensive. SUFA promised that governments would work with Aboriginal peoples of Canada to find practical solutions to address their pressing needs, but little has been achieved. SUFA's qualitative failure for Aboriginal people is essentially a problem of framework design and political will. National Aboriginal organizations were excluded from the agenda setting, the agreement, and most intergovernmental decision-making processes. Being invited to participate in the three-year review holds some faint hope for change in the renewal of this initiative.
Recommendations
A companion Accord should be negotiated and concluded between national Aboriginal organizations and federal/provincial/territorial governments and attached to a renewed Social Union Framework Agreement.
Adequate and stable funding is required to sustain CAP's ability to be engaged in intergovernmental activities surrounding SUFA.
NOTES
1 Social Union Framework Agreement, Section 1, Principles, 1999, 2.
2 Social Union Framework Agreement, Section 4, Working in partnership for Canadians, 1999, 5.
3 Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 1 Looking Forward, Looking Back, Canada Communications Group Publishing, 1996, 695.
4 Matthew Mendelsohn and John McLean, SUFA's double vision: Citizen engagement and intergovernmental collaboration, Policy Options, April 2000, 43.
5 Social Union Framework Agreement, Section 1, Principles, 1999, 1.
6 John Richards, The Paradox of the Social Union Framework Agreement, Backgrounder No.59, March 2002, 1.
7 Geoff Dinsdale and John McLean, Implementing the Social Union Framework Agreement: A Learning and Reference Tool, Canadian Centre for Management Development, 2000, 11.
8 Social Union Framework Agreement, Section 7, Review of the Social Union Framework Agreement, 1999, 8.
9 News Release, Meeting of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal, Ministers responsible for Aboriginal Matters and Leaders of the National Aboriginal Organizations, Ottawa, Ontario, December 1999.
10 National Children's Agenda: A Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Report on the Public Paper, 1999, 16.
11 Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Report, vol. 3 Gathering Strength, Canada Communications Group Publishing, 1996, 684.
12 Early Childhood Development: A Framework for Collaboration, Prepared for Deputy Ministers of Health and Social Services, 2000, 16.
13 Social Union Framework Agreement, Section 4, Working In Partnership for Canadians, 1999, 5.
14 Speech from the Throne, First Session of the 37th Parliament, 2001, 7.
15 Lee Sto-Thomas, Native Child Care, The Circle of Care, Native Council of Canada, 1990, 2.
16 Arthur R.M. Lower, Colony to Nation: History of Canada, Longmans, Green, 1946, 567.
17 Lindblom, Charles E., The Science of "Muddling Through", Public Administration Review, XIX, 1959, 84
18 Noël, Dr. Alain, Collaborative federalism - with a footnote, Policy Options, May 2000, 44.