An invitation to the dance

Should three Canadian aboriginal associations get seats at the table when Canada’s premiers sit down with Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on Feb. 4 in Ottawa to work out a new deal to renew the country’s health-care system?

That’s what the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council, and the Assembly of First Nations asked for in a letter to Chrétien last November. In a meeting with Anne McLellan, the federal health minister, they asked for the same thing.

In support of their position, the three organizations are able to make a strong constitutional argument.

Inuit, Métis and First Nations are all recognized as “Aboriginal Peoples” under the constitution. In the past, when Canada’s first ministers have sat down to talk about things that directly affected the special constitutional rights of aboriginal people, they have invited aboriginal politicians to participate. It’s now accepted that the federal government’s obligation to pay for aboriginal health care is a “fiduciary duty” — a legal bond of trust. So it’s reasonable to expect that aboriginal leaders would be invited to participate in any discussions that might affect that special relationship.

For this reason, and this reason alone, the federal government should agree to the request. Not to do so might violate the constitution, not to mention the Liberal government’s stated goals for dealing with Aboriginal Peoples, as set out in at least two speeches from the throne.

And the three aboriginal organizations are able to make strong social policy arguments too. The special constitutional relationship between Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian state isn’t the only thing that makes their situation unique. The appalling state of aboriginal health makes Aboriginal Peoples unique too. It’s likely that no other groups within Canada get sick more often and die younger.

The three leaders included some well-known statistics in their letter to Chrétien, some of which have been reported in this newspaper before: that Inuit life expectancy in Nunavut is 10 years shorter than the Canadian average, that the tuberculosis rate among Inuit is 17 times higher than the national average, and that 60 per cent of First Nations people over 55 suffer from a disability.

So for that reason too, the federal government, and those provinces and territories that serve large aboriginal populations, should welcome aboriginal leaders in their health-care discussions — as a practical necessity.

Unfortunately, though, the argument made by the three aboriginal associations is also weakened — to a varying degree, depending on the organization you’re talking about — by their own lack of political legitimacy.

All three are associations, not governments. Unlike provincial or territorial governments, none are directly involved in the messy, day-to-day drudgery of running hospitals, clinics, nursing stations and health insurance programs. It’s questions about who should pay to run those systems, how much they should pay, and who should be accountable for the money that will dominate the Feb. 4 meeting.

And as aboriginal associations, their claim to “represent” all Aboriginal People in Canada is weaker than they might think. The AFN, for example, has only a limited ability to represent the interests of First Nations people who live off-reserve.

In the case of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, which still calls itself Canada’s national Inuit organization, that claim is extremely weak. In reality, ITK does not represent “Inuit.” Canada’s Inuit population plays no role whatsoever in the election of its president and other senior officers, and has limited influence over its policies and practices.

In reality, ITK represents the interests of Canada’s regional Inuit corporations — because that’s who gets to choose its president and other senior officers. More accurately, ITK represents the vested interests of the small group of elected and non-elected officials who run those six organizations. It’s an association made up of a group of corporations, not a group of people. Depending on the region, some of those leaders enjoy genuine popular support, while others have come to office after beneficiary elections that produced turnouts of less than 50 per cent.

ITK certainly has a right to exist, and to do whatever work it wants to do, provided its officers are accountable for any public money that the government gives them. Corporate organizations like ITK can exercise the Charter right to freedom of association as much as anyone else can. Besides, the federal government has no choice but to invite ITK’s president to attend the Feb. 4 first ministers’ conference — because there’s no one around to play the role of Canada’s Inuit leader.

But ITK’s views on Inuit health care should not be taken as the final, authoritative word. To do so would be to ignore the real knowledge that lies within northern governments.

JB