Was the Kelowna deal a dud?

What a difference three months makes.

This past November, aboriginal leaders engaged in an orgy of self-congratulation over the so-called “agreement” they extracted from ex-Prime Minister Paul Martin and Canada’s 13 provincial and territorial premiers at the first ministers conference in Kelowna, British Columbia.

In a press release excreted Nov. 25 by ITK’s communications department, the appointed president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Jose Kusugak, called it “three touchdowns and a field goal,” referring to the Martin government’s commitments on housing, education and something called “relationships,” whatever that is. The field goal, apparently, is for the federal government’s supposed commitments on health care.

Three months later, however, it looks as if the ITK Roughriders are mired in a third-and-long situation after fumbling the ball in their own end zone.

Here, for example, is what they bragged about last November: “Inuit are thankful for the 1,200 housing units promised over the next five years. Funding will flow in time for the 2006 sealift and construction season.”

Here’s another nose-stretcher, taken from an ITK press release dated Jan. 24: “The Kelowna Accord included an agreement to build 1,200 new housing units in the four Arctic regions, with materials on the ships in the summer of 2006.”

Really?

The Government of Nunavut’s 2006-07 budget, unveiled last week, makes no mention of any new federal money for social housing. The GN did manage to scrape up $5 million for new social housing out of its own coffers, enough to build 10 measly duplexes containing 20 new units.

That’s a long way from the lavish promises that are alleged to have been made at Kelowna. It’s obvious that this summer’s Arctic cargo vessels will not be laden with construction materials for Inuit housing.

Indeed, GN officials say that they’re not even close to knowing when, or if, any social housing money will flow from the Kelowna arrangements. They say that, first of all, the new Conservative government must finish reviewing the Kelowna documents. After that, officials must hold more meetings to work out detailed plans for spending the money “committed” at Kelowna, including a meeting of the country’s finance ministers.

Last November, it was obvious that the Kelowna “agreement” was not an “agreement” in any sense in which that word is understood by ordinary people. At best, it was a well-intentioned if somewhat vague statement of principles, a political guidebook to help bureaucrats plan better programs for aboriginal people.

But there’s no detailed plan for the spending of new money on anything. Given that ITK and the other aboriginal organizations claim to have spent 18 months working on the process, this is shocking. What were they doing with their time?

This absence of serious thought is revealed even in the few scraps of real information that the public is allowed to see.

The numbers announced for Inuit housing, for example, don’t make sense. In 2004, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the GN estimated that Nunavut now needs 3,000 new social housing units to meet the current backlog, and that in five years, Nunavut will need 4,000 new social housing units. That’s based on a level of need that grows at a rate of 200 units a year.

But the Kelowna documents state that Ottawa will reduce the backlog by 35 per cent within five years, by building 1,200 new units. These numbers just don’t add up, and you can do the arithmetic yourself. You’ll find that 35 per cent of 4,000 equals 1,400, not 1,200.

And if ITK is to be believed, these 1,200 units will be built in the “four Arctic regions,” not just Nunavut. That means the 1,200 units would be divided up between Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Nunavik, and Labrador. If the distribution is done by population, Nunavut, with about 50 per cent of Canada’s Inuit population, would get about 50 per cent of the units. That’s roughly 600 units, enough to meet a measly 15 per cent of the need.

If this is true, it sounds like a betrayal. What do you think? At any rate, it’s no wonder that Monte Solberg, then the Conservative finance critic, said this past January that the Kelowna arrangements were worked out “on the back of a napkin.”

Meanwhile, Jim Prentice, the Conservative government’s new DIAND minister, said this week in an interview with Canadian Press that an “overwhelming amount of work” must be done before the Kelowna arrangements can be carried out, including the creation of a “rational, sustainable financial plan.”

It’s predictable that Prentice will be excoriated for saying this, but he’s telling the truth. The Treasury Board does not release money without some kind of plan showing where’s it’s going and what it’s for. That’s how the federal government works. It’s astounding that ITK, and other aboriginal organizations never grasped that.

To their credit, GN officials aren’t making any promises based on the Kelowna arrangements. This is a wise course, because for all we know now, the entire deal looks like a dud. JB