Good morning, committee members.
By introduction, my name is Colleen Wassegijig-Migwans. I'm a band member of Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve. That's located on Manitoulin Island in the middle of Lake Huron. I have been associated with aboriginal human resource programming now for over 20 years. I started as a project officer with the Mnidoo Mnising aboriginal management board in 1993, just one year after the official start of the pathways program, which was the initial strategy to address aboriginal employment and training.
In Ontario, those were our glory years, which witnessed the movement of first nation workers into certified training environments with appropriate supports. Doors to employment were opened for our clients that previously were inaccessible, and as the strategy grew we saw more doors opening as time went on. There was accountability to local communities and local decision-making, alongside partnership with our financial co-managers at HRDC, as it was known at the time, for at that time it was still the department that was cutting the cheques.
Here's a brief history. Accessibility to industry and employers has increased for aboriginal people through the eras of regional bilateral agreements, AHRDS-I, and AHRDS-II. I have had the pleasure of working through these strategies in a first nation environment as well as in an urban environment. There have been learning curves associated with each new strategy. They all take time to run smoothly, and then another one comes along.
AHRDS-I started with six pillars. The concept of pillars was quiet during AHRDS-II, and now ASETS has three pillars. I don’t recall that ASETS holders were consulted on what the pillars should be. We were only required to respond to them through the strategic business plans that were submitted as part of the application process.
Through the pre-ASETS period, the first nations technical working group advocated for the concept of parity to be incorporated into the post-AHRDS strategy. Apprenticeship was another key area. That partnership was one of the pillars is so ironic, given that AHRDAs had basically been developing these throughout their history, albeit informal ones.
ASETS holders are basically administrative vehicles. For first nations, the creation of formal partnerships is essentially a political exercise, given that many partnerships are now affiliated with proposed or finalized impact benefit agreements with industry. Adding to the irony is that government has eliminated the funding for the sector councils, just as many aboriginal ASETAs were starting to form meaningful relationships with these entities in the interests of our clients.
The first regional engagement session of ESDC regarding a post-2015 strategy occurred in Little Current, in the territory of the Anishinawbek, at the Ontario ASETS holders quarterly meeting with Service Canada. The session included a presentation on the relationship between government and first nations people. It focused on the history of the relationship that dates back to the Treaty of Niagara, which preceded the Royal Proclamation. It was expected that the tone of this presentation would continue throughout the engagement process, in terms of identifying that the relationship hinges on the fiduciary relationship between government and the indigenous people of this country. Sadly, this is not reflected in the thematic aspect of the roll-up report of the engagement sessions that has been distributed to ASETA holders.
There are only three constitutionally recognized aboriginal groups in Canada. This is where the relationship starts to blur in terms of national program delivery. This impacts how a national formula is dealt with. To address the employment and training issues of these groups, it is imperative that government honour the fiduciary relationship with the constitutionally recognized groups. At our December quarterly meeting, Ontario ASETAs learned that ESDC has met with organizations such as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the National Association of Friendship Centres, and the national Native Women’s Association many more times than with the constitutionally recognized national aboriginal organizations such as AFN, the Métis National Council, and the ITK.
Government needs to recognize that the members of the interest organizations are also members of one of the constitutionally recognized groups. This duplication needs to end, as the interest groups should be able to work with one or all of the constitutionally recognized groups to address their employment and training needs.
In Ontario, as we moved from geographical delivery under the pathways program to a politicized structural delivery, the urban population was left in a difficult position. While the workings of a revised structure were falling into place, a legal battle ensued, which is referred to as the Misquadis case. I was working in the urban centre where and when this occurred. The Toronto client brought a lawsuit against HRSDC for allowing the first nation AHRDA that was responsible for his request to deny his access to training and financial supports for that training. The real situation was that the client had been assessed and recommended for an intervention different from the one he sought. Further, the first nation had also not received confirmation of their budget or cashflow to properly allow for approval of funding. Sadly, the first nation was never called to provide testimony at court.
Eventually, HRSDC in Ontario provided a call for proposals for contract delivery of the urban fund. Wikwemikong responded with a proposal in recognition that half of our population is off reserve and living in urban centres throughout Ontario. Further, it had included a framework for aboriginal apprenticeship program delivery, as well as provision for a regional budget for larger inter-AHRDA projects. Wikwemikong was not awarded the contract, as it was obtained by the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres in partnership with Grand River Employment and Training, the Six Nations AHRDA at the time. The partnership became known as O-GI, which covered all of the Ontario urban, off-reserve areas. Another urban agreement, Miziwe Biik, under the Aboriginal Labour Force Development Circle AHRDA, served the greater Toronto area.
As the Misquadis case concluded, clauses for the inclusion of Ontario first nation clients became incorporated into the Ontario urban agreements. This was essentially a breach to the existing first nation AHRDS agreements. Prior to this change, the urban delivery sites were requesting funding approval from first nation AHRDAs. Accountability was now reduced with the new clauses as the urban delivery agents no longer had to request funding approval from the first nation AHRDAs or LDMs responsible for their member clients. First nation AHRDAs had requested roll-up numbers and dollar amounts from HRSDC for Ontario first nation clients funded under the urban agreements, but we have never received these statistics.
Now, ASETA holders are identified as stakeholders within a renewed urban strategy under AANDC, with a goal of increasing aboriginal people’s participation in the Canadian economy. Of course this would include skills, employment, and training, but this mandate needs to remain with ESDC and the ASETS agreement holders.
It is so disappointing that the department changed its name and increased its mandate without proper consultation with its constituent client groups. The mandates of the original Department of Indian Affairs have become blurred with the inclusion of the two other aboriginal groups. Indian rights differ from Métis rights. First nation rights to education differ from how the Métis administer education through their ASETS agreements.
Measuring results against targets is usually a good exercise if all the numbers are included. In Ontario, two of the largest first nation communities' numbers have not been incorporated into the regional or national roll-up properly.
In 2010 I requested from the region that the Ontario ASETAs be notified when the AHRDS numbers and the ASETS numbers are included in the roll-up. Eventually we were informed that, apart from the database roll-up, the numbers from Akwesasne and Six Nations would be added under an asterisk.
I do not trust that this is adequate. When statisticians obtain their information from electronic data I believe this so flaws the results at both regional and national levels as to greatly flaw whatever funding formulas may be drawn at both levels.