Policy Perspectives on First Nations Issues A compilation of essays by Master’s students in the School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University November, 2017 CONTENTS Introduction iv Territorial Formula Financing in the Context of First Nations Governments Don Couturier 7 Canada’s First Nations Child Welfare Crisis: A Summary and Analysis of Contributing Factors and Recommendations for Nation-Wide Improvements Davina Dixon 29 Indigenous Child and Family Services: An In-Depth Review Amanjit Kaur Garcha 53 A Life Worth Living: Life Promotion for Indigenous Peoples on Reserve Ashley Keyes 73 Reconciliation with Indigenous People Through Business and Opportunity Kristen Sara Loft 93 First Nations Education: Increasing First Nations PSE Attainment Taylor Matchett 111 Indigenous Affairs Third-Party Policy – Can it be Improved? Vaughn Sunday 153 Raising literacy in the First Nations’ Adult Population in the Context of Labour Market Participation Anna Trankovskaya 161 INTRODUCTION The papers in Policy Perspectives on First Nation Issues provide a unique and timely snapshot of some of the most pressing policy issues facing Indigenous peoples in Canada, the Government of Canada and all Canadians. Written as part of the Masters of Public Administration (MPA) or the Professional MPA (PMPA) at the School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, the student authors conducted in-depth research, going far beyond their course requirements. Most of the papers were written for a Directed Reading Course; one paper was written for a Masters Research Project; and one was written out of interest in the issue. The papers were supervised by Don Drummond and Bob Watts with support by Dr. Rachel Laforest, MPA Program Director, and were edited by Ellen Kachuck Rosenbluth. The inspiration for the essays was the importance of current discussions between First Nations and the Government of Canada on a Government-to-Government relationship, a new fiscal relationship and closing socio-economic gaps. The papers were informed by those discussions and the background challenges that led to the discussions. In turn, it is hoped that this collection might ultimately support the process with the aim of improving the well-being of Canada’s First Nations people. Territorial Formula Financing in the Context of First Nations Governments Don Couturier November, 2017 Territorial Formula Financing in the Context of First Nations Governments Don Couturier Problem statement There are at least four deficiencies in the current approach to fiscal transfers between the federal government and First Nations. First, funding is insufficient for First Nations to deliver effective programs and services that will improve outcomes on-reserve and in communities. Second, funding is short-term, and therefore is neither predictable nor sustainable. Third, funding does not allow for growth to address rising costs in service delivery, inflation, and increases in governance capacity. Fourth, the current system of separate grants, each with their own reporting and accountability requirements, creates heavy and unnecessary administrative burdens for First Nations. Provided it is applied appropriately, Territorial Formula Financing (TFF) addresses these problems and provides a financial framework for autonomy and a nation-to-nation partnership. The following paper analyzes the TFF as a new model for First Nations and offers specific recommendations for how this model could be modified and applied. Key Messages • Current fiscal transfers to First Nations are inadequate. Funding is insufficient, unfairly capped and unpredictable. Administrative burdens are also excessive and onerous; • The TFF is grounded in principles that address current problems, and if carefully designed, a modified version could be applied to the First Nations context; • A new formula should aim for reasonably comparable outcomes, should not be capped at 2 per cent, and should be introduced in a full and timely manner for First Nations with the capacity, but gradually in concert with capacity-building initiatives for those that do not; • The “service population” variable of an escalator should be determined carefully; • It is imperative to measure expenditure needs to emphasize macro comparability; and • Timing and sequencing must be carefully considered. Background A brief history of federal-First Nations fiscal relations First Nations played no role in negotiating Confederation or in the drafting of the British North America Act of 1867. Therefore, historically there has been no fiscal role for First Nations governments—no expenditure functions, legislative powers or taxation powers.1 Further, the Indian Act of 1876 omitted governing powers for First Nations, ensuring the fiscal weakness of First Nations governments and communities.2 Band councils, established under this legislation, were clipped by considerable constraints over their ability to self-govern. Unfulfilled treaties also undermined fiscal autonomy through the loss of resources and lands. Programs and services were underfunded, consolidating the weak fiscal position of First Nations communities.3 The shift from tight hierarchical control to more recognition of rights and autonomy began slowly in the 1960s and gained momentum in the 1990s. The shift began in the late 1960s with the transferring of administrative responsibility to individual bands for managing and delivering certain services (e.g., child care, education and social assistance). Control over the budgets and policy frameworks, however, remained with the Department of Indian Affairs. Service delivery was tightly monitored by federal officials, and strict reporting requirements were imposed.4 1 Frances Abele and Michael Prince, “Paying for Self-Determination: Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government and Fiscal Relations in Canada”, paper for presentation at the conference Reconfiguring Aboriginal-State Relations: The State of the Federation, Institute for Intergovernmental Relations, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, 2003, p. 8. 2 Ibid., p. 9. 3 Ibid., p. 10. 4 Abele and Prince, p. 10. 10 Title of book Concerns over funding for First Nations, and the social and economic consequences tied to it, are far from new. In 2005 Canada’s Auditor General noted that spending on First Nations programs increased by 1.6 per cent between 1999 and 2004 while population growth had increased by 11.6 per cent.5 These issues were discussed at length during the Kelowna Accord, which pledged $5.1 billion over the subsequent five years to address fiscal imbalance issues.6 Despite being ratified by all provinces, territories and First Nations representatives, the suc- ceeding government failed to endorse the agreement. Today, fiscal and policy centralization continues, impeding the ability of First Nations governments to deliver adequate public services through sufficient funding that is stable and predictable. First Nations governments are often subject to tight regulation, externally determined priorities, onerous accountability measures, overly complex programs and unpredictable funding flows.7 Calls for reforms began in earnest in the 1980s, but today the most common funding arrangement remains the one-year conditional grant.8 As Frances Abele summarizes so well, “[f]or Aboriginal peoples and their governments, fiscal relations with the Canadian government involves a high degree of conditionality in transfer payments and little taxing powers, underscored by a continuing struggle with Ottawa and provinces over the meaning and scope of inherent jurisdiction and Aboriginal title and rights.” 9 In July 2016, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding to “examine the current fiscal arrangement(s) to identify areas/elements of the existing relationship that are impeding progress in moving towards a government-to-government relationship.”10 Failure to reconfigure the fiscal relationship will have severe consequences Inadequate funding arrangements result in negative social, economic and political consequences for both First Nations communities and Canadian society more broadly. Underfunded, unpredictable and flat fiscal transfers are at least partially to blame for depressed economic and social outcomes in First Nations communities. First Nations experience lower levels of educational attainment and skills training.11 They have worse physical and mental health outcomes.12 Fertility rates are much higher among First Nations women relative to the non-First Nations population.13 Moreover, First Nations people in Canada are less likely to be working than non-First Nations people and, if they are working, they tend to earn lower incomes.14 As long as funding arrangements remain short-term, unpredictable transfers, First Nations governments will be unable to plan autonomously and develop quality programs and services that will improve these outcomes in the medium and long-term. Remedial programs fail to provide solutions to the systemic problems perpetuating these outcomes. They are also costly. Everyone loses when the government is retroactively responding to social and economic harm, including First Nations and Canadian communities. The current situation costs billions in foregone production and remedial programs to deal with preventable issues.15 The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples states:16 5 Emanuel Brunet-Jailly, “The Governance and Fiscal Environment of First Nations’ Fiscal Intergovernmental Relations in Comparative