Media.Knet.Ca

Click here to Watch the APTN CONTACT news broadcast for the following story

TRANSCRIPT: APTN INTERVIEW WITH PAUL BARNSLEY AND TODD RUSSELL ON THE LEAKED MEMO TO CABINET

February 4, 2009
 
8:03 P.M. "ON-AIR INTERVIEW WITH PAUL BARNSLEY AND TODD RUSSELL ON THE LEAKED MEMO TO CABINET" (Todd Russell, Liberal MP from Labrador)

Paul Barnsley: APTN has obtained a Memo to Cabinet leaked from inside the Department of Indian Affairs that says the Harper government is getting ready to bring back the issue of First nations governance reform. But this time, the plan appears to be to quietly impose the changes rather than writing them down in legislation and having public debate. It was the fierce public debate that stopped the last federal government attempt to impose reform. From the day former Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault rolled it out on national television in 2001, to the day Prime Minister Paul Martin put it to rest almost two years later, the First nations Governance Act was attacked by First nations leaders from coast to coast. Nault believed he had the solution to the inadequacies of Indian Act, federal legislation first enacted in 1876, and only occasionally updated over the next 126 years. But the Chiefs stopped that legislation, claiming Nault was imposing his views on them from above without adequate consultation. Now the signs are there that Indian Affairs bureaucrats are again working on policy changes. One recent change to post-secondary school funding could change education grants to education loans, which shows that changing one word can make a world of difference. 
 
Cheryl: In studio is Paul Barnsley. He is our Executive Producer. Where did you get this information? 
 
Barnsley: You have to be careful not to reveal this person. A well placed person in Ottawa thought I should have a look at this document. It looks as if the government is going to try some kind of governance reform and we want to make sure people know about this. 
 
Cheryl: How sure are we that this is a draft memo to Cabinet? 
 
Barnsley: I've run it by the bureaucracy. They say it looks like a government document. We are 99.99% certain that this is a leaked document. The Department verified this afternoon that they are going to renew the Treasury Board authorities behind governance support programs at the end of the 2009 - 2010 fiscal year. That verifies that the discussion would be going on inside the government right now. To me that's a pretty reliable confirmation. 
 
Cheryl: So what is actually going on? 
 
Barnsley: Well, here's what we got. The title page of the document that I was allowed to read and take notes from said Memo to Cabinet. It said secret, the title was Engagement of First Nations in redesign of government programs. The title page also said draft, meaning it could be revised or scrapped completely before submitted to Cabinet. I was told the final version is supposed to be presented to Cabinet this spring. A Memo to Cabinet is put together at the highest level of the federal bureaucracy and it's put together for the Minister so he can present it to Cabinet. Discussions in Cabinet meetings are kept secret for 25 years, so it's rare to get an MC. The MC process is how new policies are put out from the central agencies of the government. The Prime Minister's Office, Treasury Board, Finance, Justice will all examine the MC and make their recommendations for the Prime Minister who seek the advice from the Cabinet members. I was not allowed to copy the memo. I took hand written notes. When you read these documents it's clear the Indian Affairs Department is going to overhaul the five support programs. These are Band support funding, a $216 million a year program, Band employee benefits, something DIAND spends $66.5 million a year on, Band advisory services, $2.5 million program, tribal counsel funding a $45 million program that helps the 78 tribal councils across Canada with their governance needs. The most recent is called Professional and Institutional Development. It's a $13.5 million program. Regional offices found this program is in such great demand they redirected $33 million from other programs. There were three options for redesigning the governance programs. Option one involves gradual changes to these programs. Option two is called transformative change. It's not legislation, but it's a major formal retooling of governance programs with the participation of First Nations. Option three is a First Nation Governance Act type legislation with the entire legislative process, the three readings, the Committee hearings and the Commons and the Senate. The bureaucrats recommended approach is choice number one, it's gradual change. That's because it can be done quickly, it can be done without time-consuming consultation and it avoids the kind of controversy that was seen in 2002 and 2003 when First Nations opposed the First Nation Governance Act. It says this in the MC. So there it is. They want it done quickly and quietly. The legislation option is obviously out and the transformative change option because it would reveal how broken and underfunded the governance support system really is. Here's another section that underlines that point. Going back to the legislative solution that was also seen as a problem mostly because it would be seen as the government trying to oppose its needs on First Nations, section 18 now, things might be bad right now, but in the annex they mentioned other factors that will make things worse if there isn't some kind of reform. They point out the First Nations people living on reserve only deal with one level of government which delivers all federal, municipal style programs and services. Other Canadians deal with all three levels of government and this government, as they call it, seen as reserve where the typical population is less than 1,000 people makes it harder to have an effective government. And it's less than equal to what off-reserve residents get. And it can result in possible lawsuits. And the federal government's employer contribution is only 30% of what other employees are getting. That represents a $60 million land fall because of the lack of sound governance mechanisms. And when the Canadian Human Rights Act becomes law, and property legislation starts to take fully affect, money for implementation and better policies and procedures will be required. Right now they seem to have everything but money. The government also has not funded privacy acts for First Nations even though access to those services is required by statute. There's lots of big problems for First Nation governance and the government is planning to do it as quickly and as little as publicity as possible. We believe the public has the right to know that this is going on behind the scenes. 
 
Cheryl: We have the new Liberal critic for Indian Affairs, Mr. Todd Russell joining us from our Ottawa studio. An Indian Affairs spokesperson would not confirm that the document is a memo to Cabinet or MC as they called them, but she did say the Indian Government Support Program will be redesigned in time for the 2011 fiscal year. Do you believe we have an inside look at how the government plans to proceed with this document? 
 
Russell: Well, absolutely. There's no doubt that there's been a substantial amount of work and research already undertaken as it pertains to the revamping of the Indian Governance Support Program. It clearly says in these documents, at least the documents I have, and I haven't had a chance to go through them in great detail, but they have dates, timelines that they have outlined and outlined the options which have been quite well summarized earlier in your program. I find this problematic from a process perspective at this particular point. There should have been engagement and consultation already with the affected First Nations, Band Councils, Tribal Councils, in order to get an understanding of how best to approach this. That hasn't been undertaken. It seems that the government is intent on laying out both the benefits in some cases or the risks to government and then they will choose how to go forward in terms of a process. I think the day has been long gone.  
 
Cheryl: Now, even the author of this Memo to Cabinet warned that a redesign of these programs as opposed to re-profiling the program might trigger a broader rights base development over self government. Do you think this is an indication that the government does not want to talk about the right to self government? 
 
Russell: Well, I don't think we can talk about governance. I don't think we can talk about governance support programs, Indian governance support programs without talking about rights and self government. What I see in the memo and the information that I have is that when they look down through it they do not want to invoke the duty to consult. Whether it's the change approach, or legislative approach, I think it's a stretch to say consultation would not be triggered on any of those. Secondly if you look down through the document, if you deal with gradual change, you're talking about a 25-50 percent increase in government expenditures. If you move to the transformative they're saying anywhere from 50 to 100 increase in expenditures. And if you go to the legislative option you're talking of a bigger increase in expenditures. They want to say let's do it unilaterally, quick and cheap. And this is not a fair approach because it's not reflective of what is needed in the communities. Their own documents themselves say that the programs that exist are 25 years old. They haven't kept pace with the added responsibilities of First Nation's governments. They haven't kept pace with the legal requirements that have now be asserted or put on First Nation's governance and they have not kept pace with things like demographics and the additional programs that First Nations have to take on. So these are big questions and it's problematic and troublesome the way the government has approached this if they continue on the path that they have outlined in this draft Memorandum to Cabinet. 
 
Cheryl: Mr. Russell, before we say good-bye to you this evening, what's a final thought would you like to leave us with? 
 
Russell: Well, I can only say to your caller and to all of your viewers that this document perpetuates a system that disempowers people. There is fundamental change that is required. That's recognized by Aboriginal people, First Nations people across this country. It is going to be the process that helps to empower our youth, that helps to take the skills and the talents of our elders and our youth through more formal western education type systems now to accomplish that. And so what's troubling here is that the government seems to be taking the cheap way out, a unilateral way out, a way that only leads to the change that they want and doesn't objectively get them any further then they want to be obligated. There's a recognition here that they have not lived up to their responsibilities. That's the only thing we have seen in this document. The government has to understand that fundamental change is required in how we are engaged in this process. I don't want to use their word because they use the word engagement to try to get away from the legal obligation to consult. And I say to the government enough window dressing. We need a sincere and genuine effort where all parties are at the table. And there is also a very important understanding within this document that if we do not transform the Indian governance structures and modernize them with Aboriginal people, then all of the investments that we can currently make and that Aboriginals make are at jeopardy and that ultimately means the quality of life for individuals and families and communities.