brazeau speech

8/9/2019 Brazeau Speech

1/28

SSPEAKINGPEAKING NNOTESOTESFORFOR

SSENATORENATOR PPATRICKATRICK BBRAZEAURAZEAU

FFORORANAN IINQUIRYNQUIRYONON

AACCOUNTABILITYCCOUNTABILITY & R& RESPONSIBILITYESPONSIBILITY

ININ CCANADAANADASS AABORIGINALBORIGINAL AAFFAIRSFFAIRS

SSENATEENATEOFOF CCANADAANADA

OOTTAWATTAWA, O, ONTARIONTARIO

MMAYAY 1122, 2010, 2010

CCHECKHECKAGAINSTAGAINSTDDELIVERYELIVERY

1


2/28

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 Canadas Aboriginal affairs.

There are certain factions within Canadas Aboriginal communitywhich continue to take issue with Canadas 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 Canadas

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 Canadas 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 Canadas Aboriginal

2


3/28

peoples in their quest to stake their rightful claim to Canadas

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 Canadas Aboriginal affairs.

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

Canadas 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, its 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 Mtis, 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


4/28

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 Canadas

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 Canadas 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


5/28

Lets 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, representingover 3.4 per cent of the overall budgetary Main Estimates for the

federal government 2009-2010 fiscal year.

Its 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


6/28

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 andassignation of post-secondary education monies.

They deem who does and doesnt 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.

Thats 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. OfINACs $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 governments 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


7/28

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 towhich 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?

Whats 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.

Thats 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 threelevels:

Recipient Managedis 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


8/28

Co-Managementis 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 Managementis 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 indeficit 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 governments accountability and control requirements are often

8


9/28

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 oftennot 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 bandoffice being unable to break away from the welfare mentality as a

result of the pressure from the rest of the community.

Its 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


10/28

With this perceived lack of capacity, INACs 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 Bands 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

departments 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 bands

autonomy away from the Chief and Council, causes tension betweenthe 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


11/28

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 Canadas 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 assistanceto Band management in handling their funding.

Its the responsibility of these officials to evaluate the financial

health of the communities under their watch.

Equally, its 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, its clear that INACs guidelines for

intervention are not being followed. Regional management appears

11


12/28

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 sothat 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.

Whats more, amounts that are disclosed are often incomplete and

misleading.

12


13/28

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 bandsthemselves.

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


14/28

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, effectivemonitoring, judgment and decision-making.

Thats problem number three.

Lets look at this lack of transparency around band finances. As has

been observed, posting of audited financial statements on INACs

website is inconsistent at best.

Whats 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


15/28

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?

Its simple.

We can amend the Federal Accountability Act to ensure that all

publicly funded bodies are subject to the application of the statutes

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 INACs 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 detailsaround 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 Mtis

15


16/28

National Council, the Native Womens 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 Canadas 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 theres 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


17/28

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 believeOttawa 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


18/28

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 tothe 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


19/28

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 Papers 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

governments 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


20/28

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 INACs own polling data that indicated the majority of

grassroots First Nations peoples supported the proposed

legislations 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


21/28

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 feetof 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 were doing well and

what were 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 Canadas Aboriginal citizens directly

benefit from the lions share of Kelownas 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


22/28

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 theproposed 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

Canadas 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


23/28

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 uponaction 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 Canadas 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


24/28

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 countrys First Nations people and our

determination to achieve progress.

Lets 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


25/28

And most importantly, our governments 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, well be there foryou in a generation or two a sufficient response to Canadas 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 Canadas

Aboriginal affairs is a shared endeavour.

25


26/28

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 thebolts on the machinery of government.

INACs 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


27/28

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 wheres 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 isviewed 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


28/28

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

They also serve as a warning that things have begun to change. Its

a realization that litigation, grants and contributions, and bluster-

filled politics wont 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 its 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 Canadas Aboriginal peoples are worth working for

accountably, transparently and responsibly.

- 30 -

brazeau speech

Documents