 |
|||
 
|
Final Roll-up Report1) IntroductionOn April 19, 2004, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, parliamentarians and Aboriginal leaders met in Ottawa for the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable on Strengthening the Relationship. The objective was to engage in a renewed dialogue that would contribute to transformative change and improve the lives of Aboriginal people in Canada. Four commitments emerged from the Roundtable:
In fulfilment of the second commitment, from November 2004 to January 2005, the Government of Canada convened seven facilitated sessions on the following topics:
This Final Roll-up Report provides an overview of themes and crosscutting ideas noted by facilitators in the different follow-up sessions. Along with the facilitators’ reports from the follow-up sessions and the background papers prepared earlier, the report will serve as a reference tool supporting efforts by Aboriginal organizations, governments and stakeholders to enhance policy and programs on Aboriginal issues in Canada. Members of the facilitation team involved in the follow-up sessions have prepared this report using a template provided by the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable Planning Committee1, integrating its suggestions and drawing on the facilitators’ reports for the follow-up sessions. This Report is not a summary of ideas and recommendations from the follow-up sessions and should be read in conjunction with the individual session reports. It does not present a consensus achieved by the follow-up sessions, nor a consensus of the Planning Committee. In fact, some Planning Committee members have issued their own summary reports, and these should be consulted to fully understand the perspective of these organizations. Planning the follow-up sessionsFollowing distribution of the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable Report: Strengthening the Relationship released on May 20, 2004, the Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat (AAS) within the Government of Canada’s Privy Council Office (PCO) established a Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable Planning Committee to organize the follow-up sessions. The committee included representatives from:
For each session, a similarly structured planning subcommittee was formed, chaired by a lead department (Health Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Industry Canada, or Treasury Board Secretariat). The subcommittee was responsible for:
Purpose and objectives of the follow-up sessionsThe purpose of the follow-up sessions was to identify and explore new and innovative ideas through which the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations could work together to improve outcomes for Aboriginal peoples in the specific sectors under discussion, and to close the quality-of-life gap between Aboriginal peoples and all Canadians. The sessions sought to enhance understanding, and promote development of innovative approaches in priority topic areas (e.g. addressing jurisdiction, improving access, building capacity). The plans called for each follow-up session to divide into First Nations, Inuit and Métis breakout groups. The breakout groups were required to consider the needs and concerns of Aboriginal women and of Aboriginal peoples living in urban, rural, remote and northern settings; these were designated as “crosscutting lenses.” Participants and officialsThe planning subcommittees used a participant identification and selection process developed by the Planning Committee; this ensured a cross-section of leading experts and practitioners, as well as consideration of gender and regional balance within each session. The target was to have approximately 100 participants per session. The five national Aboriginal organizations each selected 10 participants. Generally, half were participants from each organization’s leadership and staff, and half were experts who were practitioners or researchers in the sector under discussion. The rest of the participants were selected by the lead department from the combined recommendations of all members of the planning subcommittee. There were approximately 725 participants in the seven follow-up sessions. The Aboriginal organization members and the government members of the planning subcommittee also designated officials to attend the session. The officials supported the participants and provided their organizations or governments with internal reports on the discussions. The national Aboriginal organizations each had three officials present, the federal government had up to 15 officials chosen from the lead department and other departments, and a total of 15 officials’ seats were designated for participating provincial and territorial governments. Plenary activitiesAt the opening ceremonies of the sessions, the speakers were Elders representing the First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and in some cases the First Nation in whose traditional territory the meeting took place. Some concerns were expressed that the Elders selected did not reflect urban or other Aboriginal constituencies. However, all participants recognized the value of the Elders’ contributions in promoting the openness and cooperation necessary for a thorough dialogue on important matters. For each session, the lead Cabinet Minister for the sector under discussion spoke on the first morning and at a reception for attendees. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, on behalf of his Cabinet colleagues, called on federal officials to embrace the commitment to a renewed relationship and support the changes necessary to implement a new way of working with Aboriginal peoples. There was also a notable commitment to provide full disclosure and a comprehensive listing of all federal funds directed to Aboriginal programs and initiatives with a view of getting the federal house in order. Leaders of the five national Aboriginal organizations or designated representatives also spoke at the receptions. They emphasized the sense of optimism generated in the Aboriginal community by the commitments emerging from the April 2004 Roundtable, particularly the commitment to engage in a renewed relationship. They also reiterated key elements of their background papers, particularly those relating to Canada’s relationship with their constituency, and stressed specific recommendations for action on the issues under consideration at the session. On several occasions, the speakers addressed differences that had arisen during the planning and/or conduct of the sessions relating to such matters as the use of identity rather than ancestry statistics, the level of inclusion in the process and discussions, and concern about pan-Aboriginal approaches. The plenary sessions introduced the background papers that had been prepared in advance by federal departments, by each national Aboriginal organization, and (in some circumstances) by provincial and territorial governments represented on the planning subcommittees. The background papers were intended to support discussions and often responded directly to specific topics on the agenda for each session. In 10 to 12 pages, each paper generally provided an overview of the current environment within a particular sector. The federal and provincial/territorial background papers reviewed current policies and initiatives in each area. The national Aboriginal organizations’ papers reviewed issues and proposed solutions. For example, the Assembly of First Nations consistently stressed the recognition and implementation of First Nations governments as the only path to addressing troubling socio-economic conditions in the long term. The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami stressed Inuit-specific approaches, implementation of land claim agreements, the signing of the proposed Canada-Inuit partnership accord, and an arm’s-length Inuit Secretariat. The Métis National Council stressed respect for Métis governance structures, institutional and capacity-building initiatives, and frameworks to guide the Canada-Métis relationship. The Native Women’s Association of Canada called for the inclusion by all of culturally appropriate, gender-based analysis and responses to the socio-economic conditions of women, particularly violence and gendered racism. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples emphasized the need for status- and residency-blind approaches, responsiveness to the needs of urban Aboriginal peoples, and inclusion of urban Aboriginal organizations in all processes. Statistics Canada also prepared background papers for attendees at each follow-up session. These profiled Canada’s Status Indian, Non-Status Indian, Métis and Inuit populations. The agency used census data based on identity rather than ancestry to provide statistical descriptions for each population group in terms of gender, age, education, employment and other socio-economic indicators. Other common plenary activities included an overall introduction to each session and a review of the facilitation process to be followed in breakout sessions. At the close of each session, attendees were given an update on the progress of breakout group discussions and a description of next steps, including the reporting process, the planned Cabinet Committee retreat with Aboriginal leaders, and the First Ministers’ Meeting on Aboriginal Issues. Each session concluded with remarks and prayers from the Elders. The session then adjourned without further comment. Breakout groupsA fundamental feature of the process was the recognition of the distinct interests of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. In each follow-up session, most of the time was allocated to breakout groups that were organized according to these three populations. The breakout groups were designed to be discussion forums on the issues as they affected the three groups, not caucus sessions of the specific national Aboriginal organizations. Participants were divided into roughly equal numbers for the three breakout groups. Organizations with constituents in more than one group (particularly urban Aboriginal organizations) often participated in only one group or focused on the First Nations and Métis breakout groups. In the seven follow-up sessions, the First Nations breakout groups had a total of 315 participants, not including officials, or an average of 45 per follow-up session. Inuit breakout groups had a total of 201 participants, or an average of 29 per follow-up session. Métis breakout groups had a total of 215 participants, or an average of 31 per follow-up session. Each breakout group addressed the discussion topics listed on the agenda prepared by the planning subcommittee. Discussion objectives and/or launch questions for each topic were included on the agenda and posted in the breakout rooms. The questions helped focus discussion on issues that supported achievement of the particular objectives of the session. The priority discussion topics included broad issues such as jurisdiction and control, access and integration, and capacity. The discussion topics also included issues specific to the particular sector such as broad health determinants, research and curriculum development, housing supply, access to capital and investment, and improving the reporting processes. Each breakout group had two co-facilitators selected from a list recommended by the NAOs during the planning stage. For each discussion, facilitators used various techniques and exercises to maximize participant input and output. Discussion methods were adapted to the specific circumstances of the particular follow-up session, including the agenda, time allotment, number of participants and participant/official composition within the breakout rooms. Participants were generally asked first to examine the critical issues that they felt needed to be discussed for each agenda topic. Then, working in smaller groups to allow greater participation, they were asked to recommend actions for dealing with or resolving the critical issues. They were also asked to provide insight into how the recommended action could be implemented. Where possible, participants were asked to indicate immediate and long-term time frames for their recommended actions. As mentioned earlier, participants in the breakout groups were also required to consider the “crosscutting lenses” established by the Planning Committee and described on the agenda for each session. The “crosscutting lenses” encouraged discussion of how the recommended actions under discussion would address the unique challenges facing Aboriginal women (including gender-based analysis and discriminatory barriers to equal access), Non-Status Indians, and Aboriginal peoples living in urban, rural, remote and northern communities. During the follow-up sessions, the participants added several more “crosscutting lenses”: Aboriginal persons living with a disability, Aboriginal youth, “two-spirited” (i.e. gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered Aboriginal) people, and Elders. The environment was originally expected to be a “crosscutting lens” in all the sessions. A number of independent conferences and sessions have been and will be held on the environment. Further details are posted on the Web sites of the national Aboriginal organizations. Individual Facilitators’ Sectoral Follow-up Session ReportsThe results from each session are contained in the seven facilitators’ reports. These reports are based on flip chart notes prepared by the participants and facilitators during the individual sessions, and on a template approved by the Planning Committee. The facilitators made every effort to inform breakout group participants that issues, options and/or recommendations must be recorded on the flip charts to be included in the session report. There were over 600 transcribed pages of flip chart notes produced during the sectoral sessions, making it impractical for the reports to reflect every idea placed on the charts. Breakout group discussions also built on the content of background papers prepared for individual sectoral sessions. In certain cases, recommendations included in the background papers were not expanded on during the breakout group or restated on the flip charts. It is therefore important that the individual facilitators’ reports and this Roll-up Report be read together with the background papers and flip chart notes. (The background papers and flip chart notes are only available on-line.) E-LinksWeb-based electronic access to reports and materials has been a consistent feature of the follow-up session process. Before each sectoral session, participants could obtain background papers and other session materials in print form or through the Aboriginal-Canada Portal for many of the sectoral sessions. All reports and materials relating to the sectoral sessions are now available in French, English and Inuktitut through a dedicated Web site (http://www.aboriginalroundtable.ca). Materials available include:
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. |
||
|
|||
