Our concerns with the Kelowna accord and the distinction-based approach you talk about are nuanced, because we certainly support the measures they contain.
I'm a status Indian. Throughout the friendship centre movement, many of the people we serve are status Indians, and we want our communities to do well. That means, as an example of education--you asked for examples--the discussion in Kelowna talked about the need for first nations school boards, increased teacher training, and Métis bursaries, all very worthy and needed measures, and those are measures the friendship centre movement didn't disagree with.
The challenge for us is that our approach as a service delivery provider in urban areas would have focused on how a single aboriginal woman in downtown Winnipeg accesses schooling for her and her child. What supports are there for her? What housing programs are available? What level of jurisdiction is responsible? What is the role of all the various players involved?
That for us was the challenge. We supported a distinction-based approach for nation building, and the friendship centre movement hasn't taken any position on nation approaches. I don't think the infrastructure is ready off reserve for that, frankly, and it would be a process that would need time. We're one of the few major urban aboriginal programs that has any longevity in Canada. The infrastructure just doesn't exist.
Our view would be to support and develop the building of the communities we're from. Nation concepts exist. There are regional bodies currently involved that do that kind of conglomeration. The distinction-based approach needs to happen, but we need to make sure the unique needs, and not the rights, are being addressed. We talk a lot about the right to education, the right to housing. We didn't talk about the needs of people in the communities we serve, so that was the challenge for us.