Overall Summary Of The Session:

Workshop Methodology

Each sectoral follow-up session provided that the majority of time be allocated to breakout groups where the participants were organized into the three distinct Aboriginal groupings: First Nations, Inuit, Métis. The participants lists indicate that, not including officials, there were approximately 44 participants in the First Nations breakout group; 34 participants in the Inuit breakout group, and 29 participants in the Métis breakout group.

Each of the three distinct breakout groups addressed discussion issues identified by the planning subcommittee and listed on the agenda (Annex A). The Accountability for Results discussion issues were:

• improving accountability relationships in an Aboriginal context;
• establishing the basis of what constitutes good reporting;
• improving the reporting process; and
• moving forward on an Aboriginal report card.

Objectives for each discussion issue were also included on the distributed agenda and posted in the breakout groups. These objectives were a guiding tool to help focus discussion on issues that support achievement of the session objectives. Facilitators used the objectives in tandem with other process questions to support the development of recommended actions.

Each breakout group was facilitated by co-facilitators selected from a list recommended by the National Aboriginal Organizations during the planning process. For each discussion, facilitators used a variety of techniques and exercises to maximize input and output from participants. The exercises included facilitated discussion methods that were adapted to fit the circumstances such as time allotment, number of participants, size of the breakout room and discussion issue. In most cases, the exercises asked participants to work in smaller groupings to gain greater participation from all participants.

In general terms, for each discussion issue on the agenda, the participants in the breakout group identified the critical issues that they felt needed discussion. Participants were then organized into smaller table groupings to develop recommended actions to respond to those critical issues. Participants were encouraged to include the crosscutting lenses relating to the unique challenges facing Aboriginal women, non-status Indians, and Aboriginal peoples living in urban, rural, remote and northern communities in their discussions and recommended actions.

It should also be noted that each workshop day was opened and closed by three Elders representing the First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Their opening and closing remarks and invocations were often instrumental in setting the tone for the workshop and participants.

Overall Summary

Since accountability and reporting requirements tend to be universally applied from governments to organizations and groups, it would not seem surprising that the breakout groups may identify some similar issues. The following summary provides a listing of issues that were identified across each breakout group, First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

Key messages

Participants in all three breakout groups identified that they are striving to create accountability and reporting frameworks that build in traditional values and approaches from First Nations, Inuit and Métis perspectives. New accountability methods must minimize administrative loads and encompass measures for reporting back to the communities. First Nations, Inuit and Métis also want structures to meet the needs and be inclusive of all Aboriginal citizens and groups, including women, and those living in urban, rural, northern and remote communities.

Accountability relationships

All three breakout groups identified challenges with the various approaches and conditions attached to each government program and/or financial contribution. This applies to all governments-federal, provincial and territorial. Another challenge to the relationship is that the system now places much higher value on the accounting for the money and not as high a value on priority outcomes. Further, accountability frameworks do not take into account traditional customs, culture and values within each Aboriginal group. Participants indicated that the two parties do not see the accountability process through the same lenses. There are different perceptions and understandings and this creates problems in reflecting a transparent approach to accountability. All three breakout groups supported the idea that accountability needs to be built from the bottom up and that First Nations, Inuit and Métis must have the control and authority to establish their own relevant frameworks. Relevant data and determinants need to be redefined in order to be helpful in building standardized yet relevant approaches for the each of the groups.

What accountability means in an Aboriginal context

All groups agreed that accountability must be agreed to by all parties in advance-not unlike funding agreements. Accountability needs to be flexible enough to respond to each community’s capacity. Reporting on accountability needs to be simplified by removing different rules and duplication.

Critical issues on accountability

Some of the same critical issues were identified in all three breakout groups. Participants identified the relationship with the Crown-issues stemming from the treaties and court decisions to broadening the relationship with more federal departments than just Indian and Northern Affairs or provincial/territorial governments. Multiple reporting was cited as a critical issue for First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Building community capacity was also seen as a priority.

In responding to some of the critical issues, breakout participants spoke about multi-year funding relationships with greater flexibility within their agreements. Even though many of the recommendations called for a standard to be designed within an accountability framework, it is important to mention that participants do not necessarily want one approach for all (e.g. pan-Aboriginal-one model for all groups: First Nations, Inuit and Métis). There was interest in seeing both federal and provincial/territorial governments and departments coming together and developing a standard for all program funding accountability frameworks that may apply to each group differently depending on their circumstances (e.g. capacity, geographic location, etc.). To be responsive, inclusive and accountable to all their citizens, participants suggested targeting their efforts to also include women, and people living off-reserve or in urban, northern and remote communities. Groups also shared issues about being able to respond to citizens outside of their traditional territories (urban based). Program funding and accountability measures need to be more flexible to enable First Nations, Inuit and Métis and other Aboriginal organizations to have the capacity to respond.

Knowing we are making progress

Participants agreed that long-term, multi-year funding is essential for increased accountability. Shared indicators and flexible guidelines are essential. All breakout groups spoke about the various relationships with the Crown and provinces/territories, and how this needs to be solidified through recognition and agreements such as Section 35, specific protocol agreements and/or recognition of a third level of government.

Elements of good reporting/improved reporting process

Participants identified a number of critical issues pertaining to good reporting that were similar and/or the same. Some of these are the use of data and statistics; results-based approach; building the reporting framework on common principles and understanding; making reporting useful and reciprocal for all parties; and the need for joint processes to establish performance measures that will lead to transformative change. Governments’ inconsistent reporting requirements need to be streamlined for all programs and funding expectations.

Aboriginal report card

Each breakout group provided substantial input into the purpose, content, application and development process for how an Aboriginal report card could provide insight into results, reporting, accountability and relationships. All breakout groups reported that their view of an Aboriginal report card is to hear about what the federal government has accomplished. Other models for accountability reporting were named such as the B.C. Progress Card and others talked about the proposed accountability methods in Royal Commission for Aboriginal Peoples. An independent body, mutually agreed upon with Aboriginal partners is essential. It was also recommended that one report for all groups is not appropriate and that separate report cards may have to be produced so the diversity of each group is reflected.

Application of the crosscutting lenses

As noted the design of the sectoral follow-up sessions included a requirement to address the crosscutting lenses relating to the unique challenges facing Aboriginal women, non-status Indians, and Aboriginal peoples living in urban, rural, remote and northern communities in their discussions and recommended actions. All three breakout groups made reference to the crosscutting issues and in one case, the First Nations breakout group, time was set aside for a specific discussion of the crosscutting lenses.

In all three breakout groups there were strong messages about inclusion but not necessarily consensus about how this could be accommodated. The political and service organizations representing the populations identified as crosscutting lenses emphasized the importance of finding ways to enable direct participation in processes dealing with political issues, policy development, and program and service delivery. First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments and organizations stressed the need for approaches and supports that would enable them to reach out to all their members. There were also suggestions for the development of specific strategies, partnership approaches and joint initiatives. References to the crosscutting lenses are included in the summaries of the three breakout sessions and of course in the flip charts.

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