Summary Of Discussions - Métis Breakout Session

Introduction and Key Messages

It is important to note that the following pages offer an overview of some of the discussions from the Métis breakout group. These excerpts are not prioritized in any way, nor do the comments purport to represent a summary of the discussions or consensus on any particular point. To fully appreciate the two days of discussions, it is critical to read the full 27-page report containing the verbatim transcribed flip charts notes from the breakout group. To begin the Métis breakout group participants offered an introduction and key messages regarding Accountability for Results. While the key messages were reflected throughout the two-day breakout group, some examples include:

• urban Aboriginal issues have to be considered-separate roundtable;
• figure out how both government and Aboriginal organizations need to work on accountability-do things better;
• has to come back to the people we serve;
• Métis structures be recognized;
• structures should not be imposed on Métis;
• place appropriate resources in areas that can improve accountability;
• women have a key role to play-balanced approach;
• non-Aboriginal organizations accessing Aboriginal resources need to be accountable;
• need something to be accountable for-give programs and Métis will be accountable;
• government makes groups four to five times more accountable-needs to level the field;
• report card: solid economic factors; how Canada is decolonizing itself-self-sufficiency, self-government, sovereignty-these elements need to be measured;
• need more mechanisms other than the courts, to ensure accountability; and
• need a way to reduce the burden of tracking-shift to emphasis on helping people.

Accountability in a Métis Context

Three questions were discussed during Day One:

1. What does accountability mean in a Métis context? (A Métis description of accountability)
2. What are the various accountability relationships relevant to the Métis, present and future?
3. What are the critical issues relating to accountability?

In terms of what accountability means in a Métis context some of the responses include:

• For the urban (status and residency blind) people, those living in rural and remote locations, and Aboriginal women accountability means the need for definitions. Some key principles call for an accountability framework that is holistic; culturally appropriate; open; transparent; inclusive; ensures equality; and includes a gender-based analysis. Accountability should seek to demonstrate the greatest good (e.g. link amount of funds to population and need).
• Accountability also means: recognition and respect for Métis institutions; a multi-year federal framework; leveling the reporting requirement field; more block funding; Government has to be accountable to the institutions; Métis ownership of programs and services; and include cultural components.
• Accountability must include the following: ensuring that public funds are used for the purposes for which they are intended; ensure results-based outcomes and improvements in living standards at the community level; elected representatives who report to the people who elected them, the Métis people, who expect to be consulted, engaged, informed in a meaningful way. Accountability also implies that results/outcomes are measured, monitored and reported and this information would be used to change programs.
• Government needs to be accountable to the Métis in the same way it is to First Nations and Inuit peoples. Government also needs to be accountable to the Canadian constitution, where the Métis are recognized as one of the Aboriginal people. Reporting needs to be streamlined, in other words, all funding sources be made accessible equally to all Aboriginal people.

In terms of discussing relevant accountability relationships, both present and future, the participants indicated that:

• Equity between partners is important. Data should be shared with all Métis across Canada. The relationship must be understood as a government-to-government relationship, for example: federal to Aboriginal organizations in the community; organizations to members; funders to fundees.
• Critical relationship issues include: the absence of policy resources with Métis; the federal government needs to establish a fiscal relationship with the Métis; and the current cash flow analysis creates the necessity for Métis institutions to play catch-up with resources at year-end.
• Métis know what is best for Métis issues and Métis leadership must be involved in all aspects of relationships. Different perspectives need to be reflected including: women, youth, disabled, elders, urban people. Processes that are working for other Aboriginal groups can be revised and built upon for Métis specific issues without having to reinvent the wheel.

Critical Issues and Recommended Actions

The initial discussion of critical issues identified a variety of critical issues including:

• Funding mechanisms should be reflective of the track record of the funding recipient. Power imbalances must be addressed between a) Government of Canada and organizations (i.e. Canadian government has to have respect for our processes and seek to understand them); b) organizations and their members; c) men and women, people with disabilities, etc.; d) geographic areas (urban, rural, remote).
• Aboriginal knowledge should be valued as equivalent to Western notions of accountability. Address underlying causes of unequal participation/relationships (e.g. violence against Aboriginal women leads to inequitable representation and participation of women).
• A new fiscal relationship is needed with Métis institutions to meet accountability as current financial system creates a deficit situation. Some questions that need to be addressed include: How do we measure results? What do we do with the measurements? Define the communities and being clear about who and what we are measuring? And we do not all fit into one box (Métis/Inuit/First Nations) we are a multi dimensional people.

How do we measure results?

Recommended actions were developed for the following four critical issues.
Issues identified include:

1. funds are available to carry out programs but there is no capacity to evaluate/measure results;
2. gathering of Métis specific data across Canada is incomplete;
3. difference in definitions across federal organizations and aboriginal organizations; and
4. full consultation with Statistics Canada in development of national Métis statistics with the involvement of Métis leadership organizations.

Measurement recommendations include:

• need to look at best practices;
• need to differentiate between broad indicators and program indicators;
• funding and resources provided;
• recognition that current post-census surveys are not appropriately sampling certain populations (e.g. Métis children, youth);
• need to include questions on Aboriginal identity and address on short form;
• under-representation means Métis are losing out on program allocations and support;
• everything should be done on basis of gender analysis; and
• measurement should be based on outcomes e.g. systemic process, administration short-term and long term results).

Appropriate way for government to deal with scandals

Federal officials are reacting to so-called scandals by imposing more stringent accountability on us through Contribution Agreements. Recommendations on how the issues could be addressed include:

• through partnerships/negotiations and not unilaterally;
• through mutual agreement;
• transparency from the back to the front room;
• a dispute resolution mechanism is essential in relationships where officials want to impose conditions;
• leave program design up to Aboriginal organizations;
• financial integrity of Métis organizations should be assured through standard auditing and accountability to people;
• any additional requirements should be developed mutually and administrative resources provided to meet them (one size does not fit all);
• keep the issue isolated;
• keep the issue with the particular department;
• targets to be streamlined, rather than increased;
• deal with particular people;
• don’t penalize the program; and
• don’t paint everything with the same brush.

Human resource capacity

• The federal government should promote, recruit and retain more Aboriginal employees for all levels of work and should address systemic barriers like racism and gender issues.
• When funding programs and program administration, adequate levels of funding similar to that of government should be provided to Aboriginal organizations.
• Annual report for Feds [Author: federal government] and Aboriginal community on equitable employment level should include a gender-based/disabled analysis.
• The portrayal of women in positive roles in curriculum and research.
• Young women need to be encouraged to pursue careers in the science and technology fields.
• Aboriginal women need to be directly involved in the design, development, and evaluation of Aboriginal-specific curriculum and research to ensure their unique needs are addressed.
• Government needs to fulfill equity legislation requirements with respect to Aboriginal youth-women-disabled people.
• The brain-drain has to be reversed by increasing resources to the Aboriginal organizations in clear, transparent, long-stable, multi-year agreements.

Relationship with Federal Government

Inclusion, meaningful dialogue and consultations with Métis institutions on policy development includes:

• gender-based analysis;
• constitutional accountability of federal government to Métis, rights and interests; and
• redress mechanism.

These actions can be accomplished through:

• nation building;
• teaching mainstream Canadians and new Canadians Métis history and culture;
• be inclusive in decision making that affects us;
• recognize Métis as nations;
• separate issues and resolutions for Métis (not combined with First Nations, Inuit);
• respect the right of Métis peoples to define their own membership;
• accountability framed in federal legislation and tied to performance review;
• a communications strategy to broaden the understanding and knowledge of the accountability agenda for Canadians in general;
• continuity of decision makers at the table throughout the negotiating/implementation process, along with an evaluation process; and
• federal recognition of who the representative authorities are at both national and regional levels with respect to federal/urban initiatives.

Financial system creates a deficit situation

There is a need for a new fiscal relationship. Existing funding should not be up for grabs by government. We need to collectively identify indicators/issue and shift away from issue managing. Equity of funding between Aboriginal peoples is a major issue. Timeliness of contribution agreements-leads to disruption of cash flow-and this forces the spending of all money in last few months/weeks of fiscal year.

Recommendations include:

• building strategic objectives to meet the needs of Métis/federal/provincial-build upon jurisdictions strengths;
• committed funding must be secure;
• adjustments for inflation and increasing program costs;
• multi-year funding and sustainability;
• funding for women on an equitable basis;
• targeted strategies for marginalized groups (e.g. people with disabilities, sexual minorities, seniors);
• carry-forward must be allowed;
• federal government should eliminate/forgive debt of NAOs (one-time);
• federal government should disclose lapse funding program by program and official reasons why;
• federal government should disclose amount of Aboriginal program dollars consumed by federal bureaucracy.

The Report Card

The following were suggested as general elements that could focus discussion on a report card:

• expenditure data-devolution; core funding
• the relationship measure; grade; rights, process and partnership
• quality of life indicators-national; provincial; local; national, cultural retention
• who and how/when to grade, report on progress
• service utilization-Canadian Health and Social Transfer (CHST); measuring how we get access; institutional access; constitutional access

The final day of the breakout group focused exclusively on the report card and produced seven pages of recommendations on content, process, measurements and indicators in response to the above critical issues. It is impossible to summarize these adequately. The facilitators direct the attention of the reader to the transcribed flip charts (Annex C) to fully appreciate the depth and breadth of these important and insightful recommendations.

During the discussion some of the points raised related to:

• Métis women and youth and disabled should be at the table in all forums/process;
• measuring the quality of the relationship between federal departments and urban Aboriginal programs (e.g. Headstart);
• measure Canada’s knowledge of Métis;
• Canada should be measured against International human rights instruments and commitments that Canada has made (i.e. United Nations and Organization of American States; Draft Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights);
• report card requires grass roots interest group participation; and
• meaningful consultation with Métis leadership.

Following the development of the detailed recommendations, the participants discussed the purposes for which a report should be used. In their entirety, the listed purposes include:

• needs to tell a useful and interesting story;
• needs to be contextual, and used to inform the communities;
• give hints for government action;
• to change government relationships with Métis people and urban groups;
• tell the Métis story;
• used to inform and influence public policy;
• to increase equality among Aboriginal groups, between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people;
• will assist government in continually improving what they are doing;
• be basis of discussion for forming/developing consensus;
• part of monthly departmental discussions on priorities and objectives;
• a standing strategic planning item in all departments;
• tabled in parliament and Métis assemblies;
• reflect lenses: women (application of gender-based analysis), disabilities, geographic;
• plain language to transmit to everyone;
• translated to French, English, Michif;
• used for international audiences (e.g. UN)
• Human Development Index at UN for comparative purposes;
• to hold the government accountable for what they are doing for Métis; urban Aboriginal groups and follow-through on past commissions and inquiries; and
• to hold all parties accountable.

The participants also provided guidance about their ideas for how a report card should not be used, which included ideas such as:

• rhetoric
• remember a report card won’t tell you everything; one more piece of puzzle
• external factors

Final Key Messages

To conclude the discussions, the participants in the Métis breakout group were provided a final opportunity to identify a key message they wanted to emerge from these discussions. The final key messages are:

• Urban Aboriginal groups have to be recognized in this process including friendship centres (e.g. service organizations) and NWAC (e.g. political organizations).
• When you look at governance and self-government you have to recognize and deal with organizations that represent the peoples concerned.
• There is a role for urban Aboriginal organizations such as friendship centres in policy development; this role needs to be defined.

Table of Contents

The documentation contained on this website does not necessarily represent the views of any government or National Aboriginal Organization. The purpose of this website is to share information related to the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable: background papers, Facilitator's sectoral and final reports, agendas and media announcements.

Top of page