SPEAKING NOTES FOR

SENATOR PATRICK BRAZEAU

FOR AN INQUIRY ON
ACCOUNTABILITY & RESPONSIBILITY
IN CANADA’S ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

SENATE OF CANADA

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

MAY 12
12, 2010

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

1
Honourable Senators I rise to call the attention of the Senate to the
matter of accountability, transparency and responsibility in the
undertaking and delivery of Canada’s Aboriginal affairs.

There are certain factions within Canada’s Aboriginal community

which continue to take issue with Canada’s treatment of its
indigenous peoples. We hear time and again of litanies of how the
federal government stole our lands; how our cultures were taken
from us; how foreign systems of governance were imposed upon us;
and, how Canada purposefully sought to assimilate us in the
interest of colonialism and shackled us to Indian reserves.

These grievances are entirely legitimate.

The important question that needs to be answered is how do we

measurably improve the socio-economic conditions of Canada’s
most disadvantaged citizens?

While we surely cannot change the horrible past, we can certainly

help to shape a better future.

While these views are hardly pervasive they do speak to a malaise

and to an undercurrent in Canadian society which dispossesses the
impact of native history in Canada’s development.

While the descendents of French and the British lay claim to

building this nation, there is scare little recognition of the very real
fact that First Nations were here long before the Europeans arrived
– and that they played a significant role in the settlement of what is
now known as Canada.

While the descendants of these settlers have thrived, what is it,

honourable colleagues that continues to elude Canada’s Aboriginal

2
peoples in their quest to stake their rightful claim to Canada’s
success and take their rightful place in Canadian society?

Colleagues, what is the key to ending the nihilism? What can be

done to help identify the prescription for success?

I believe that there is a fundamental and systemic need for greater

accountability and responsibility in Canada’s Aboriginal affairs.

I am convinced that this issue is at the heart of the problem as

Canada’s Aboriginal community grapples with unrelenting poverty
and lack of opportunity – and I seek, honourable Senators, to inform
this chamber and through it the public at large on the factors that
contribute to this truly human drama.

Attempting to effectively address this issue has been a significant

pursuit of successive federal governments for nearly the past forty
years.

In order to get a better understanding of tackling this challenge

today, it’s important to understand the Aboriginal population, and
the machinery of government through which it is served.

According to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Aboriginal

identity population reached 1,172,785 in 2006.

Of this, 53% are Registered or Status Indians, 30% are Métis, 11%
are Non-status Indians and 4% are Inuit. In total, the Aboriginal
identity population represents 4% of the Canadian population.

Over half (54%) of Aboriginal people reside in urban areas

(compared to 81% for non-Aboriginal population). In major cities,
the concentration of Aboriginal people is highest in Winnipeg (10%)
followed by Regina and Saskatoon (9%).

3
Perhaps most telling is the fact that forty-eight percent of
Aboriginal people are less than 25 years old (31% for non-
Aboriginals). The median age of the Aboriginal population is 27
years compared with 40 years for non-Aboriginals.

From a legislative perspective, under Section 91 (24) of the British

North America Act (1867), Federal jurisdiction was granted over
"Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians".

This changes though, once one leaves an Indian reserve; off-reserve

Indians are then deemed to be under provincial jurisdiction though
there is no clear iteration of this in any policy or legislation.

Federal investments in the domain of Aboriginal affairs amount to

over $10 billion annually, and are spread across approximately
thirty federal departments.

Given this, there can be no denying the sincere and evident desire
of the federal government in its attempts to invest in Canada’s
Aboriginal peoples. The political will is there, to be sure.

But let us examine the machinery of government and the

application of the investments in and around Aboriginal public
policy.

The principle engine of the machinery government in respect of

Aboriginal public policy is Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

In its role, INAC is intended to support Canada’s Aboriginal peoples

in their efforts to: improve social well-being and economic
prosperity; develop healthier, more sustainable communities; and
participate more fully in Canada's political, social and economic
development - to the benefit of all Canadians.

4
Let’s take a closer look at spending of the department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. It is the fifth largest department
in the federal bureaucracy.

Its total budget is approximately $7 billion per year, representing

over 3.4 per cent of the overall budgetary Main Estimates for the
federal government 2009-2010 fiscal year.

It’s important to bear in mind again that there is an additional $3-

plus billion in annual federal Aboriginal spending over the other
twenty-nine departments from which Aboriginal programs and
services flow.

The legislation under which First Nations are governed is the Indian
Act, enacted in 1876.

There are some who might say that this statute sought to protect
Aboriginal peoples’ interests through law – but it was anything but
protective. Its intended purpose was to assimilate and “get rid of
the Indian problem.”

Honourable Senators, if chamber rules would permit it, I could

speak for days about the prescriptive and colonial provisions of this
act.

Suffice to say that it is this act that is the cornerstone of First

Nations suffering that has been perpetuated for one-hundred and
thirty-four years.

Under the Indian Act, Chiefs and Band Councils answer only to the
Minister of Indian Affairs.

There is entirely no legislative basis for any accountability by them

to the citizens living in the over 600 reserve communities.

5
The Chiefs and band councils gain all of their authority and power
via the Indian Act without having to assume any mantle of
accountability or responsibility for their community members.

For example, Chiefs and councils control the allocation and

assignation of post-secondary education monies.

They deem who does and doesn’t receive it. In addition, there is no
legislative or administrative basis which compels them to provide
any accounting to any citizen who requests information on such
expenditures.

When a band member moves off-reserve, they have little to no

access to certain rights, privileges and/or benefits. This happens
even though their communities receive funding for them.

That’s problem number one.

Now that we have an understanding of the issues of governance, let

us return to the matter of funding these over 600 communities. Of
INAC’s $7 billion, the vast majority of these funds – almost 83 per
cent or $5.8 billion – or for greater point of reference, nearly twenty
per cent of the federal government’s voted transfer payments, flow
directly through to these Chiefs and Band Councils.

These payments fund community infrastructure, education and

social assistance.

In addition to this, there are other pots of funding as well, for things
such as post-secondary education, economic development, claims,
and self-government, among other things.

6
In December 2008, INAC's Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive
commissioned the Institute on Governance to conduct a special
study of INAC's funding arrangements and accountabilities.

Their purpose was among other things, to establish the extent to

which the accountability provisions in these arrangements were
appropriate and effective in achieving the accountability and
reporting needs of First Nations, as well those of Parliament and
Canadians.

The study results found indications that accountability is not

working well. Specifically, there was no reporting or inadequate
reporting on performance; there was no serious, informed review of
the information reported; or there were no appropriate program
changes or consequences for poor performance.

Therefore, how may we determine return upon investment, results

against plan, or gain any idea of the extent to which progress is
achieved?

What’s further, this situation illustrates that there are

accountability issues not only within First Nations, but also in the
administrative framework of the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development which oversees them.

That’s problem number two.

Given such difficulties, invariably some First Nations run into

financial difficulties and intervention by the department is required.

When this occurs, these actions of intervention occur on three

levels:

Recipient Managed is a low level of intervention which is applied

when a recipient is determined to have both the willingness and
capacity to resolve the difficulties that gave rise to the default.

7
Co-Management is a moderate level of intervention which is applied
when a recipient is determined to have the willingness, however
lacks the capacity to resolve the difficulties that gave rise to the
default.

Third Party Management is the highest level of intervention which is

applied when a recipient is determined to lack both the willingness
and the capacity to resolve the difficulties that gave rise to the
default.

Colleagues, let us examine this troubling area in order to illuminate

the extent of the problem.

In ever-increasing numbers, First Nations are finding themselves in

deficit positions as a result of poor record-keeping and lack of
adherence to budgets.

Deficits are the result of a number of factors. These include poor

or, in some cases, no budget preparation, Inadequate accounting
systems and procedures being utilized to track expenditures and
allocate them to the appropriate projects.

A key contributor to the situation is the lack of adequate leadership

and accountability from Chiefs and Band Councils to ensure that
records are kept appropriately, and that funds are expended
according to budgets.

In many cases, government requirements for accountability and

control are not understood by band accounting staff and the
required systems are seldom implemented.

Now, in fairness, a big part of the problem as well as that many of

the government’s accountability and control requirements are often

8
not fully understood by the government staff responsible for the
management and control of the funds;

Budgets are not reviewed and approved in advance of funding, and,

as we have seen, accountability for the results of spending is often
not evaluated.

Thus, audit costs soar and what little accountability there is tends
to be in terms of expenditure allocation, demonstrated only at year-
end.

Throughout the fiscal year, interim reporting to government funders

is often inaccurate, contrived or incomplete.

As a consequence, the transparency which the government expects

in the reporting of band operations is seldom achieved.

Cultural conflicts, community politics and peer pressure are also

factors contributing to financial difficulties in certain First Nation
communities.

There are many examples of residents who are working in the band
office being unable to break away from the welfare mentality as a
result of the pressure from the rest of the community.

It’s important to note that most communities are made up of a

handful of families – and in the spirit of nepotism the families of the
Chief and key councillors are often favoured with administrative job
positions ahead of more capable persons from other family groups.

The effects of these factors include increased year-end audit costs,

suspension of funding as a result of late or inadequate reporting,
and precious little demonstration of accountability.

9
With this perceived lack of capacity, INAC’s next step is to demand
that a First Nation in financial difficulty appoint a co-manager,
selected by the Band council, to assist in the day-to-day operation
of its finances;

However, in situations where a Band has accumulated deficits

exceeding 8% of its INAC funding, the department has established a
requirement that control of the Band’s finances is removed from the
Chief and Council and handed over to an INAC-appointed third-party
manager whose selection is made by an INAC tender issued to a
restricted list of INAC-approved suppliers who have met the
department’s specific standards.

Colleagues, permit me to be frank: Third-party management is a

temporary and quite frankly distasteful solution to the
accountability problem.

It is an expensive solution, costing anywhere from $15,000 to

$50,000 per month per community. It takes much of the band’s
autonomy away from the Chief and Council, causes tension between
the Band and the government, and has a number of side effects --
the result of which is deterioration of the necessary relationships
between Aboriginal people and the federal government.

However, it is often the only remedy that is available to force a

community to adhere to its budget and to dig itself out of debt (this
is especially important given that much of the debt run up in such
situations is to local suppliers and businesses whose livelihoods
depend on those bills being paid).

Where Third Party Managers have been placed in control of

communities for financial reasons, the eventual result is generally

10
that First Nations are handed back a balanced set of books with the
deficit reduced to within tolerable limits, as a result of the
development and implementation of a Remedial Management Plan
that restricts expenditures in programs, generates surpluses, and
uses such surpluses to pay down accumulated debts.

When officials are questioned as to the number of communities that

are operating under third party management, the lack of accurate
data is readily and, quite frankly, alarmingly apparent.

As I just pointed out, the departmental guidelines are specific in

terms of the conditions under which Third Party Management is
mandated.

The financial condition of Canada’s 630 reserve communities is

reported by the auditors of those communities to INAC on an annual
basis; in the meantime, within INAC each community is assigned a
Funding Services Officer who is paid to monitor the financial
condition of the First Nations and provide guidance and assistance
to Band management in handling their funding.

It’s the responsibility of these officials to evaluate the financial

health of the communities under their watch.

Equally, it’s the responsibility of the Regional Intervention

Committee to recommend to Regional management the imposition
of third party management, as indicated by the established criteria
laid down by INAC headquarters.

As proven by audit findings, it’s clear that INAC’s guidelines for

intervention are not being followed. Regional management appears

11
to be either manipulating data or ignoring it in order to keep
communities out of Third Party Management.

When I questioned a former Third Party Manager practicing in

Manitoba on the topic, his response was:

“I believe there are either 4 or 5 communities in Manitoba.

INAC (Manitoba Region) is working frantically to get them all
out of Third Party Management. They're still doing the tricky
"sole-signing authority co-management thing". This allows the
Region to report to Ottawa that they have virtually no one
under Third Party Management (and thus officials collect their
bonuses) but essentially keep First Nations under Third Party
Management. I believe at last count roughly half of the 63
bands in Manitoba were either under Third Party Management
(4 or 5 in total) and the rest (about 25 or 30 First Nations)
were under co-management.”

INAC requires that Bands’ audited financial statements be posted so

that all community members can have full and unfettered access to
reports on how their funding has been spent.

Yet this requirement is in many cases not followed. Similarly, the

requirement that audited financial statements be made available to
taxpayers through the INAC website is often ignored as well.

Requirements for financial disclosures to include amounts paid to

Chiefs and Band Councilors are not followed.

What’s more, amounts that are disclosed are often incomplete and
misleading.

12
At the same time, the once-rigid requirements set out for firms to
meet in order to qualify as third party managers have been softened
to allow what would seem to be inappropriate organizations onto
the list of approved Third Party Management candidates – a blatant
example of this is the inclusion of operations run by Tribal Councils
made up of the very Chiefs who are responsible for their
communities being in financial trouble.

Are we beginning to see a pattern emerge here?

Another contributor to the lack of success is the lack of

accountability for how training dollars are spent. For example,
HRDC allocates roughly $28 million in training funds to the 63
Manitoba bands.

The funds are sent to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, which

forwards them to Regional Area Management Boards, who fund
Local Area Management Boards, who in turn fund the bands
themselves.

At each of these levels, administrative fees are taken which thereby

reduce the funds finally available for training.

I am informed that reports detailing how funds have been spent,

how many individuals received training, graduation rates and
eventual job placements have been impossible to obtain, either
from the bands or from HRDC.

As mentioned previously, a February 2009 audit by INAC on its

intervention policy identified an overall and systemic weakness in
quality control and quality assurance.

13
It also found an overall lack of coordination in monitoring
compliance.

These observations support the conclusion that management's

controls are not adequate to ensure program compliance, effective
monitoring, judgment and decision-making.

That’s problem number three.

Let’s look at this lack of transparency around band finances. As has

been observed, posting of audited financial statements on INAC’s
website is inconsistent at best.

What’s more, such detailed information delivered in accounting

parlance is of little to no use to a grassroots community member
who simply wished to know what his elected officials are being paid
and where all the money is being spent.

With regard to salaries, information recently forwarded by

grassroots First Nations people to the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation gives evidence to a situation that is shocking in the
extreme.

In two recent examples, it was shown that certain Chiefs’

remuneration was at rates higher than those for the Prime Minister
of Canada and the Premier of Alberta respectively – while citizens in
the two communities cited were at income levels below the poverty
line.

Let us all remember too, that in 2006 when the Federal

Accountability Act was under study, the AFN with the determined
effort of the Opposition, successfully lobbied to have First Nations
and their representative organizations exempted from oversight by
its provisions.

14
These same Chiefs also suggested that the legislation breached
Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Honourable Senators, I must emphatically disagree; there is no

such Aboriginal or treaty right entitling us to not be accountable.

How do we propose to put an end to such avarice?

It’s simple.

We can amend the Federal Accountability Act to ensure that all

publicly funded bodies are subject to the application of the statute’s
provisions.

We can also for greater certainty request that the department

revise its policy and increase its oversight so as to ensure that all
Chief and Band Council salaries fully funded through taxpayers
monies are highlighted on INAC’s website – and that failure to
comply will result in a suspension of funding.

This is an absolute fundamental with which public official should

comply – every Aboriginal citizen has a right to know specific details
around the remuneration of their leaders, in the clear pursuit of
accountability and transparency.

If we are to undertake due diligence in this matter, we must also

attend to the examination of funding for representative
organizations in the Aboriginal community.

For the most part, these organizations provide little to no services

directly to the Aboriginal community.

Over the past six fiscal years, these five organizations – The
Assembly of first Nations, the Inuit Tapirriit Kanatami, the Métis

15
National Council, the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples-- have received nearly $239 million.

They serve principally as advocates for their respective

communities.

Colleagues, let us call a spade a shovel. These are lobby groups

who seek to influence the direction of Canada’s Aboriginal public
policy. I know them well, for I served as a duly elected leader of one
of them.

I have to tell you, Honourable colleagues, one cannot help but

wonder what the application of nearly $239 million over six years
could do to directly benefit people at the grassroots level rather
than to fund government relations.

How much housing, education, social services or economic

development might these resources bring about if directly applied?

Of this nearly $239 million, for example, the representative body for
the Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations, received over
$136,196,896.

Over and above this, the regional bodies of the AFN and their tribal
councils received even more resources.

These multiple bodies are also advocacy groups that purport to

speak with one voice for the regional interests.

Similarly, tribal councils represent the interests of local groups of

First Nations.

Seems to me that there’s a heck of a lot of advocacy going on at

three levels, at the macro and micro levels yet all directed at the
federal government.

16
Sounds to me like a perfect storm of overlap and duplication.

Each of these organizations receives federal funding which permit

Chiefs to get together, develop strategy, and to prepare workplans
and proposals for the federal government as to how they believe
Ottawa should improve the living conditions of Aboriginal peoples.

Given the convoluted system of national, provincial, regional and

local bodies this potentially represents funding an awful lot of
meetings on the same issues.

From experience, I can tell you that the outcome of such meetings is
often a call for more money – rather than the deliberation and
delivery of strategic, results-oriented and accountable
undertakings.

Where things go even further awry from an accountability

perspective is in the twist and turns of bureaucratic process.

The Chiefs all earn a salary yet in most cases, they all receive
additional per diems or honouraria to attend these various meetings
in addition to having all their travel costs covered.

Let us not forget as well, that as an organization that represents

the Chiefs, the opportunity for any grassroots participation by
ordinary citizens is thwarted for all intents and purposes.

Sadly, this reality applies to almost all of the other national

Aboriginal organizations.

Any calls to end poverty by some of these organizations seem rather

hollow in the face of such evident largesse.

17
As we look at new models and the need for new funding sources, I
believe directly reallocating some of these not inconsiderable
resources is an idea whose time has indeed come.

Let us redirect resourcing to the people in the greatest need and to

the areas in which it is most required.

As for representative groups, we should leave the decision as to

whether a collective body is required at the national, provincial,
regional or local level – or if at all – up to individual First Nations,
Aboriginal groups, and citizens. Clearly, the choice to find such
advocacy should be left for the people to determine.

Having said this, and despite this shell game, we know undeniably
that at the grassroots level real poverty and lack of prosperity do
exist.

So then, where do we go, what can be done to ameliorate this

situation that is so inextricably linked to the suffering of grassroots
Aboriginal people?

Over the years, there have been efforts to try and effect systemic
change.

In 1969, the Trudeau Liberal government, in an attempt to include

Aboriginal peoples its "just society," introduced the White Paper on
Indian Policy, as the means to do just that.

The legislative and constitutional basis for discrimination of our

peoples would be ended with the repeal of the Indian Act, the
abolishment of the Department of Indian Affairs and Indian
reserves, and the transfer of many federal responsibilities for Indian
affairs to the provinces.

18
First Nations people would receive the same services, through the
same government agencies, as other Canadians.

The government shelved the Paper in 1971. This was because we,
as Aboriginal peoples rigorously opposed this – and rightly so.

The White Paper’s effect was to politicise many Aboriginal peoples

who saw the Paper as simply a reaffirmation of the long-standing
policy goal of assimilation.

Aboriginal peoples were no longer remotely content to have

governments formulate and apply policies that governed their lives
and stripped them of their heritage, their self-determination and
their rights on the basis of colonial prescription.

The next major attempt to bring improvements to First Nations

governance began in the early part of this decade with the Chretien
government’s tabling of the proposed First Nations Governance Act
in 2002.

The proposed Act was intended to remedy significant gaps in on-

reserve governance that prevented First Nations communities from
managing their own affairs effectively and responsibly, by providing
tools that would enable First Nations communities to develop
economically and to exercise autonomous decision-making power
with reduced government involvement.

This would have been an important and crucial first step towards
increasing accountability, capacity and transparency.

The proposed legislation put the power where it should have always
been – in the hands of the people and not just in those of the power
elite.

19
So then, what happened to the proposed First Nations Governance
Act?

Despite an unprecedented degree of consultation with grassroots

First Nations peoples;

And despite the investment of over $10 million in communications

support from INAC;

And despite INAC’s own polling data that indicated the majority of
grassroots First Nations peoples supported the proposed
legislation’s objectives;

And despite the support of two of the three national Aboriginal

organizations representing elements of the First Nations
community;

And despite the fact that the legislation was tabled by a majority
government under which its passage would have almost been
guaranteed……….the Martin Liberal government caved in to
pressure from First Nations leadership elites and torpedoed the
proposed bill.

I was there. I watched it happen, first-hand. I saw a legitimate

undertaking that sought to do the right thing for people in need
purposefully and wilfully undermined in the interest of partisan
politics.

As a weak consolation in the face of such unmitigated failure, the

Assembly of First Nations in 2004 undertook to effect its own
improvement of on-reserve governance.

20
Six years later, grassroots First Nations people are still waiting for
delivery of the promised change – who is accountable for that? Who
is responsible for that?

I can tell you that there is absolutely no blame to be laid at the feet
of the people who continue to plead for progress.

There was also the fabled – and I must emphasize “fabled” --

Kelowna Accord.

In the minds of some, Kelowna was to have been the cure for all
ills, a financial panacea and an end to Aboriginal suffering.

There were promising words at the outset of the process leading up

the First Ministers meeting that was Kelowna. Former Prime
Minister Martin promised much when he said, and I quote:

“We must hold ourselves to account – in what we’re doing well and
what we’re not doing so well. We need a manageable and
transparent Aboriginal Report Card to set clear targets for
achievement – and to measure our progress and success in getting
there.”

So then, Honourable Senators can I tell this chamber that the fabled
accord fully included accountability measures for a report card?

More importantly, would Canada’s Aboriginal citizens directly

benefit from the lion’s share of Kelowna’s investments as promised
by Mr. Martin?

Were there specific measures to bring about certainty about

grassroots peoples’ needs being met?

The sad truth can be summed up in two words: Absolutely not.

21
In the end, Kelowna was all about money, and lots of it thrown
towards Aboriginal leaders and their organizations in return for
their political support.

Worst of all, the pursuit of any type of accountability around the

proposed investments was purposefully and quietly extinguished
just days prior to the First Ministers meeting by the former Martin
government.

This is the sad truth around the fiction that is and was the Kelowna
Accord. Again, I speak with conviction on this matter as I was there
and actively engaged in the process around it.

In the face of this frustrating reality, I had occasion as a member of

the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples to ask
Canada’s Auditor-General, Ms. Sheila Fraser, how we, as
parliamentarians can try to effect that type of policy change from
within so that First Nations individuals are assured of benefit -- so
that progress under different programs can be measured, and so
that we may know with certainty that people are truly and
measurably progressing from the significant investments being
made.

Before sharing the essence of our dialogue with you, Honourable

Senators, I believe it is important to the context of this endeavour
to note that since 1986, the Office of the Auditor-General of Canada
has undertaken no less than thirty-two studies relating to the
review of Aboriginal affairs. This domain is well known to the Office
of the Auditor-General.

So then, given the depth and breadth of experience of her office,

when I sought the advice of the Auditor-General as I did, I took her
counsel to heart – she suggested that as Canadians become more

22
aware of what the situation actually is, through political pressure
we should begin calling upon the department in to answer to this.

They need to be held responsible for respecting the engagements

and commitments they have made. They must as well, deliver upon
action plans committed to and to provide specific indications of
progress and holding them to account for that.

Honourable Senators, there is a difference between responsibility

and accountability: Responsibility is the obligation to act;

Accountability is the obligation to answer for an action.

Accountability is the obligation to demonstrate and take
responsibility for performance in light of agreed expectations.

It is abundantly evident that Canada’s Aboriginal affairs require

greater accountability – from First Nations leaders to their citizens,
as well as from Indian Affairs continue to almost entirely oversee
the reserve system.

It is equally and compellingly clear that the machinery of

government desperately requires re-engineering so that its mantle
of responsibility for effective oversight and the creation of
conditions for measurable success can be as robust as it most surely
should be.

This is an endeavour which goes far beyond partisanship. This is

about more than politics – it is a moral dilemma.

I respectively challenge anyone who advocates throwing more

money at this inherently and thoroughly broken model of public

23
policy to tell this chamber, in precise and clear terms and with full
benefit of data just what best practices exist in Indian country?

Show us the myriads success stories replete with year-to-year

improvements in any of the program areas.

Colleagues let me make one thing clear: This government, this

Prime Minister and this cabinet is nothing but sincere in its
commitment to our country’s First Nations people and our
determination to achieve progress.

Let’s consider the achievements we have made:

Funding of Aboriginal affairs is at record levels;
Investments in housing are being made both on- and off-reserve and
in the North;

Significant improvements have been made to on-reserve drinking

water systems;

Specific claims legislation has been passed;

Legislation was passed in order to provide people living under the

Indian Act with the same human rights protections as all other
Canadians;

A commitment that our government will examine means of

endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples;

24
And most importantly, our government’s historic rendering of its
apology to the survivors of Indian Residential Schools, to name a
few.

Let me also make something else equally clear: There are First
Nations who are making progress – while I highlight the difficulties I
by no means seek to paint all with the same brush.

There are communities where accountability is a common practice.

There remain many others who can learn from them.

Incremental progress is being made, Honourable Senators, on many

fronts. But this is despite the public policy model and most
assuredly not because of it.

And of what benefit are increments to the fastest growing

demographic segment in Canada?

Is the answer to the “when” question, “hang on, we’ll be there for
you in a generation or two” a sufficient response to Canada’s First
Nations peoples?

What would tell your grandchildren or your children if you were

asked to explain why so many of their contemporaries chose to take
their own life than rather than live in Third World circumstances?

Honourable Senators, contending with the practically overwhelming

challenge of increasing accountability and responsibility in Canada’s
Aboriginal affairs is a shared endeavour.

25
It will take the best and most sincere efforts of leaders in First
Nations and the machinery of government to effect real and
sustainable systemic change.

There are options as to the way and nature of the manner in which
that change will take place. Perhaps a legislated solution such as
those that I have described today is in order whereby band councils
as a condition of funding must account to their citizens.

Perhaps a solution is to provide funding directly to First Nations

families and let them control their own destinies if band councils are
not prepared to do so accountably and transparently.

Perhaps it is time that we listened more clearly to the messages of

RCAP and begin winding down the department of Indian Affairs
altogether.

In the meantime, I can tell you, Honourable colleagues, with an

unwavering conviction, that we must most certainly tighten the
bolts on the machinery of government.

INAC’s own evidence from its own audit undertakings compels us to

do so. If we do not, all of the sincere efforts of any politicians are
for naught.

If we are to work in a true government-to-government relationship,

we all must all take on the mantle of responsibility, accountability
and transparency – and to get there will mean bidding adieu to the
ways and attitudes of the past on both sides.

26
The rigour of accountability and responsibility must be equally
applied to both the funder and the recipient. Oversight, checks and
balances are required on both sides of the equation if it is to work.

No more “where’s my envelope?” No more turning a blind eye. No

more nepotism. No more outrageous salaries for Chiefs while their
citizens live in squalor. No more.

We, as parliamentarians, need to be equally rigorous in our

oversight and to realize and consider the depth and breadth of what
is in fact the Indian industry in this country.

It is an industry whose dividends and deficits ultimately affect the

most underprivileged people in this country at the grassroots level –
and those for whom we have a deep and abiding responsibility.

We can quite simply have no more of this.

Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Band in British Columbia is

viewed as an innovative native leader in Canada. He is a prime
example of what can work well in First Nations communities when
the will is there.

Let us here some of his wise counsel to his people, and I quote him:

“My first rule for success is ‘Show up on time.' My No. 2 rule for
success is follow Rule No. 1.”
“If your life sucks, it's because you suck.”
“Join the real world — go to school or get a job.”
“Get off of welfare. Get off your butt.”

27
These words are a wake-up call to the communities.

They also serve as a warning that things have begun to change. It’s
a realization that litigation, grants and contributions, and bluster-
filled politics won’t save lives or change a generation.

But changing the perceptions, hearts and minds of leaders,

throughout the machinery of government and within the power
structures throughout Indian country will.

When I determined my path in life would be in Aboriginal politics,

the term “accountability” was rarely spoken of. Colleagues, it took
only a handful of Aboriginal leaders – myself among them – to
change this.

We did so because the need was so desperate. We did so because

the people deserve it. We continue to do so because it is the right
and moral thing to do.

Honourable Senators, we all have work to do – and it’s time we got

to it. People are waiting. People are in need.

My people – the grassroots people -- are looking for hope and

action.

After all, fulfilling peoples’ dreams is all being willing to work for
them. I think Canada’s Aboriginal peoples are worth working for –
accountably, transparently and responsibly.

- 30 -

28