Bill C-292 (Historical)

Kelowna Accord Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord

This enactment requires the Government of Canada to fulfil its obligations under the Kelowna Accord.

Bill C-471--Royal Recommendation

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to address the issue of private member's bill, Bill C-471, standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

As the House knows, the Conservatives have raised concerns on this issue in the House arguing that the bill needs a royal recommendation. The government contends that the repeal of the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act, or PSECA for short, requires a royal recommendation because delegating jurisdiction to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to oversee public sector pay equity complaints is “essentially a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations”. We take exception to this argument on two grounds.

First, this repeal is a restoration of the status quo. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal have been charged with these precise responsibilities for nearly a quarter century. This repeal hardly constitutes a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations. They have the expertise and resources necessary to continue to undertake these responsibilities in the short term.

Second, the PSECA has not yet come into force, meaning that Bill C-471's repeal of that legislation would have limited impact on the ability of either the Public Service Labour Relations Board or the Canadian Human Rights Commission to carry out procedures relating to pay equity complaints.

The government further argues that Bill C-471 represents a cost increase to the treasury but nowhere in the 2009 budget does the government indicate that the new PSECA represents a cost savings. It is difficult to evaluate cost implications when the government provided no such information in its own policy change.

Bill C-471 calls on the Government of Canada to ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place by a specific date. The creation of statutory oversight agencies simply constitutes the creation of a framework under which a proper, proactive federal pay equity system could function. Expenditure of public moneys and liability of the Crown need not be considered in the creation of such a timeline. The framework costs nothing.

I am reminded of two rulings made in 2006 that dealt with a royal recommendation in which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled on both occasions that there was no need for a royal recommendation.

Members will remember your decision, Mr. Speaker, on Paul Martin's private member's bill, Bill C-292 regarding the Kelowna accord, where you explained:

...the Kelowna accord tabled in the House sheds light on the plan of action, but it is not clear whether the accord could be implemented through an appropriation act, through amendments to existing acts, or through the establishment of new acts. From my reading, implementation would appear to require various legislative proposals.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling dated September 27, 2006, regarding private member's Bill C-288 on the Kyoto protocol, which had been brought forward by my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier, you indicated:

Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

It would be the responsibility of the government to enact these changes in a manner that does not put a new charge on the treasury. We cannot prejudge how exactly this framework would be established. Once the government establishes the pay equity framework proposed in this bill, cost implications would become factors to consider. As this bill does not actually enact such changes, a royal recommendation is unnecessary.

Bill C-471--Pay Equity Task Force Recommendation Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-471, the pay equity task force recommendations act, on the grounds that it requires a royal recommendation.

Normally, royal recommendation interventions are made before the first hour of debate, which occurred on this bill last night. However, after a request from the Liberal Party, who had an event of some importance last night, we delayed that so that we would not unduly delay the members opposite from attending their most important event.

Let me make my intervention now. Bill C-471 proposes to do two things. First, it imposes on the government a duty to implement the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report that sets deadlines by which this must be done. It is noted in clause 2 of the bill that this includes establishing “all statutory oversight agencies”.

The second component of Bill C-471 is to immediately repeal the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which was passed by Parliament nine months ago in March 2009. I have objections to both of these components and will address them in turn.

Turning to the first component, subclause 2(1) of the bill imposes an imperative duty on the government to “implement the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force set out in its final report”. I have considerable concerns with this provision. While a sponsoring member may attempt to argue that Bill C-471 is similar to the Kyoto protocol implementation act or the Kelowna accord implementation act, which you ruled in order in the last Parliament, there is significant distinction.

In your ruling on September 27, 2006, regarding Bill C-288, you stated:

In a ruling earlier this week on a similar matter, namely, C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, the Chair made a distinction between a bill asking the House to approve certain objectives and a bill asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives. So too in the case before us, the adoption of a bill calling on the government to implement the Kyoto protocol might place an obligation on the government to take measures necessary to meet the goals set out in the protocol but the Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be.

In the case of Bill C-471, the measures are set out in detail in the 113 recommendations of the task force report, which is referenced in this bill. The recommendation is that “Parliament enact new stand alone proactive pay equity legislation”. The other 112 recommendations describe the measures that should be included in that legislation.

As a result, this bill raises grave concerns. It places an impossible duty on the Crown of implementing the recommendations, which can only be done by passage of legislation. It seeks to bind this or a subsequent Parliament to pass this new legislation, which I submit would unconstitutionally undermine the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It would fundamentally alter the relationship between the Crown and Parliament, and that is the heart of the financial initiative.

In your February 24, 2005, ruling, you aptly quoted:

Suffice it to say that those relations are neatly summed up in the phrase, “the government proposes, and parliament disposes”.

Bill C-471 clearly turns that relationship on its head by both proposing and disposing the measures in purposes for which public moneys should be spent. This is made even more apparent by subclause 2(2) of the bill. This provision sets the deadline by which the government must implement the task force recommendations. In particular, it states:

The Government of Canada shall ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place no later than January 1, 2011.

This provision of the bill also distinguishes it from Bill C-288 and Bill C-292, considered in the last Parliament. Neither of those bills dictated the establishment of new institutions, much less as part of its expressed terms. Based on the task force report, the duty in subclause 2(2) entails the new creation of two new statutory agencies as well as a new system of adjudicators. Assuming Bill C-471 is constitutional and the government is bound by its terms, it has no choice but to establish these new bodies.

It is trite to say that such a measure would require the expenditure of new funds to a new purpose. For example, the Speaker's ruling of September 19, 2006, concluded that the creation of advisory committee requires a royal recommendation, since this clearly would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner not currently authorized. For this reason, Bill C-471 requires a royal recommendation to be in order.

The second component of Bill C-471 also clearly demonstrates that a royal recommendation is required. As mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, Bill C-471 at clause 3 repeals, in its entirety, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This repeal would take immediate effect if this bill were to be given royal assent.

The nature of this provision is completely different from anything that was in Bill C-288 and Bill C-292 from the last Parliament.

To fully understand why it has an impact on the financial initiative of the Crown, it is first necessary to understand the purpose of the PSECA. The purpose of this act, put simply, was to remove jurisdiction over public sector pay equity complaints from the Canadian Human Rights Act and to create a new statutory scheme for dealing with public sector pay equity issues proactively.

By the same token, the PSECA removed jurisdiction for dealing with public sector pay equity complaints from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Complaints that arise out of the PSECA process are instead dealt with by the Public Service Labour Relations Board. The grounds for those complaints are defined in the PSECA.

This is underscored in the PSECA's consequential amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states:

The Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with complaints made against an employer within the meaning of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act [related to the pay equity provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act].

The effect then of clause 3 of Bill C-471 is to reverse all of that. This has two distinct impacts. First, it gives jurisdiction over public sector employers to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, whose jurisdiction was expressly removed in the PSECA. Second, it subjects public service employers, that is, the Crown as employer, to liability for new statutory grounds of complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Both of these impacts infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown.

In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc state a fundamental principle of the royal recommendation at pages 833 to 834:

An appropriation accompanied by a royal recommendation, though it can be reduced, can neither be increased nor redirected without a new recommendation...A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.

Mr. Speaker, this principle is reflected in your ruling of February 11, 2008, in which you held that Bill C-474 required a royal recommendation because it proposed to substantially alter the mandate of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The same principle applies to the bill before you today.

The object of the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act was to fundamentally change the structure, process and jurisdiction for dealing with public sector pay equity issues from what existed before the passage of the act. A royal recommendation accompanied the budget implementation bill, which included the PSECA.

Accordingly, repealing the PSECA and giving the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal jurisdiction over public sector pay equity complaints is essentially a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations. No royal recommendation accompanies that change in Bill C-471.

The royal recommendation that accompanied the PSECA cannot be redirected to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, and past appropriations for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal cannot be used for a purpose and jurisdiction that Parliament expressly removed from the PSECA. On that ground alone, Bill C-471 infringes upon the Crown's financial initiative.

In addition, the bill infringes upon the financial initiative on the basis that it exposes the Crown to a distinct liability that would be paid by public moneys. As stated in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, on page 714:

Any proposal whereby the Crown would incur a liability or a contingent liability payable out of money to be voted by Parliament [requires the Queen's recommendation].

In this vein, a June 12, 1973, Speaker's ruling held that a royal recommendation was required for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.

The Speaker noted:

It may be said that the proposal in Bill S-5 does not in itself propose a direct expenditure. It does, however, propose substantial additional liabilities on public moneys.

Similarly, a May 5, 2009, ruling from the Speaker of the other place ruled Bill S-219 out of order because it would change the Crown's liability under the Canada Student Loans Act. As held in that ruling:

The passage of Bill S-219 would expand the range of conditions under which the government would have to make good its guarantee of loans under the Canada Student Loans Act. This would change the existing scheme, since payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund might increase due to the change in possible obligations. As such, the bill should have a Royal Recommendation, and would have to originate in the other place.

This is also consistent with a ruling on February 12, 1988 regarding Bill S-4, an Act to Amend the Canada Shipping Act. In that case, Mr. Speaker, you found that increases to the limits of civil liability of shipowners did not require a royal recommendation because the payment was covered by the authorization in section 30 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

My correction, Mr. Speaker, if you were not here in 1988. You have been for so long, I think of you as being here forever. That is a compliment, and please take it as such.

That act essentially provides that the Crown could be civilly liable in court for breaches of what is known in the common law tradition as tort or property law. Crown liability for breaches of its law of civil salvage is also expressly provided under section 5. Section 30 provides judgments issued by a court against the Crown are authorized to be paid.

The case of Bill C-471 is clearly distinguishable from Bill S-4 in that it creates a new and distinct statutory liability for the Crown under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act does not authorize payments for new statutory liabilities of the Crown. In fact, section 33 states:

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act affects any rule of evidence or any presumption relating to the extent to which the Crown is bound by an Act of Parliament.

Bill C-471 would create a new and distinct statutory charge of the Crown's liability. The more adversarial quasi-judicial setting of the human rights regime is fundamentally different from the proactive and integrated approach of the PSECA.

Under the PSECA, pay equity obligations are integrated in the bargaining process subject to complaint on certain grounds of the Public Service Labour Relations Board. In contrast, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, liability is initiated by individual complaints adjudicated before an administrative tribunal and potentially results in awards for damages. The authority for awarding those damages is the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, through the previous complaints based process under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the government has paid out of public moneys multi-billion dollar judgments. The Crown's obligations are significantly different under the PSECA and a royal recommendation is required to change that.

Before concluding, and I know the wish is for me to conclude quickly, I would like to address a point that may arise during the study of this bill. As we know, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act has been passed by Parliament, but it has not been not been proclaimed into force. Like many other statutes, Parliament delegates to the Governor-in-Council the authority to determine the day on which the act comes into force.

This transitional period, as one of the terms under which Parliament has passed the law, allows the executive time to prepare for the effective implementation of provisions. For purposes of assessing the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-471, it does not matter whether or not the legislation has been proclaimed into force, it suffices that the law has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and that it has received royal assent.

What is and should be most critical and salient is Parliament's decision to make law. In the 21st edition of Erskine May, in formulating the test for whether a charge is new and distinct, it is stated at page 712:

The question may arise whether a proposal for expenditure or for increased expenditure is not already covered by some general authorization. The test for determining this question in the case of a substantive proposal, ie. a provision is in a bill, as introduced, is a comparison with existing law.

In this case, the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act was passed by Parliament on March 12, 2009. It forms part of the Statutes of Canada, it reflects the will of Parliament and it will be implemented under the terms passed by Parliament because that is what the law directs.

As Erskine May puts it, it forms part of the existing law, this is the law against which the provisions of Bill C-471 must be compared. To look at it another way, there would be no purpose for clause 3 of Bill C-471 but to change the law. It follows that in this instance it also changes the purposes and conditions for which the House has authorized expenditures. For that reason it requires a royal recommendation.

While Bill C-471 is a short bill, it has significant consequences and there are multiple reasons for which it requires a royal recommendation to be in order. I should also add that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the sponsor of Bill C-471, has said that he believes Bill C-471 would result in some additional unspecified costs for the government. In other words, the leader of the official opposition, who is the sponsor of this bill, agrees that his own bill requires a royal recommendation.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-207, An Act to repeal legislation that has not come into force within ten years of receiving royal assent--Chapter 20

Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence--Chapter 21

Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts--Chapter 22

Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord--Chapter 23

Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009--Chapter 24

Bill C-59, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009--Chapter 25

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act--Chapter 26

Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day--Chapter 27

Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget--Chapter 28

Bill C-60, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (court martial) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act--Chapter 29

Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act--Chapter 30

Kelowna Accord

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost a year since Parliament passed Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord. Since then, the bill has been stalled in the Senate because the Conservative senators have used tactics of delay and diversion. They have done so in spite of the will of Parliament and in spite of their own election promise to honour the terms and objectives of the Kelowna accord.

In so doing, they have turned their backs on aboriginal Canadians. The Conservatives have denied aboriginal Canadians better health care for their children and families. They are denying aboriginal Canadians a better education and housing. The Conservatives are denying the aboriginal people of Canada the hope of a better life.

The Conservatives like to talk an accountability and transparency game but practise exactly the opposite. They said that they would honour the commitments of Kelowna but they have refused to fund the agreement and are using parliamentary tactics to back out of their commitments.

How can they continue to justify turning a blind eye to the needs of the aboriginal people of Canada? Why does the Prime Minister not show some leadership and order his Conservative senators to pass BillC-292?

Tackling Violent Crime Legislation

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have been much more impressed by the hon. minister's speech had he not first killed his own legislation in order to bring us to this point in the first place. Every element of the bill that is currently before the Senate was in the Senate prior to prorogation.

In 2006 the Liberal Party offered to fast track this legislation, but we were refused. In 2007 we offered to fast track it and again we were refused. The bills passed through the House and were sitting in the Senate and being dealt with in an expeditious manner. Then the government killed its own legislation by prorogation.

So what we have here is a minister telling us to pass this legislation, to pass this legislation because we must have this legislation, and all he is doing is recycling his speeches from last year because he likes to make those speeches. For goodness' sake, the Conservative government has wasted a year and a half on its own legislation and now it has the gall to tell the Senate to hurry up.

My goodness gracious me. It is an extraordinary circumstance in which a minister kills his own legislation through prorogation, then comes back to the House and says he has a new package and he wants us to pass it immediately. That is my number one point.

My number two point is about the further hypocrisy of the government. Two bills, Bill C-292 and Bill C-293, have been sitting in the Senate since March 2007. Conservative senators stonewall them, divert them and do everything but deal with them. Therefore, I wonder if the minister's enthusiasm to have the senators move on his own legislation extends to other bills that this chamber has in fact passed.

Kelowna Accord

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, next week the Senate will commence its study of private member's Bill C-292 from the member for LaSalle—Émard to implement Canada's historic Kelowna accord.

Despite the harsh and disappointing opposition from the Conservative members, a majority of MPs passed this critical bill in the House of Commons last year. As important as the investments for first nations, the Inuit and Métis, Kelowna represented a new partnership. It was the commitment to principles which Canadians hold dear: human rights, equity and justice.

The passage of this bill is well overdue and will finally correct a grave error in judgment at the hands of the government. I call on the Conservative members to urge their colleagues in the upper chamber to work together to swiftly pass this bill.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. It appears we have a few moments and to save time later I will inform members of something they are just aching to hear about now.

As hon. members know, our Standing Orders provide for the continuance of private members' business from session to session within a Parliament.

The list for the consideration of private members' business established on April 7, 2006, continues from the last session to this session notwithstanding prorogation.

As such, all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the order paper during the previous session are reinstated to the order paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the first session.

Generally speaking, in practical terms, this also means that those items on the Order of Precedence remain on the Order of Precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to committee or sent to the Senate.

However, there is one item that cannot be left on the Order of Precedence. Pursuant to Standing Order 87(1), Parliamentary secretaries who are ineligible by virtue of their office to be put on the Order of Precedence will be dropped to the bottom of the list for the consideration of private members' business, where they will remain as long as they hold those offices.

Consequently, the item in the name of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Motion M-302, is withdrawn from the Order of Precedence.

With regard to the remaining items on the order of precedence let me remind the House of the specifics since the House is scheduled to resume its daily private members' business hour starting tomorrow.

At prorogation, there were seven private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1:

Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage;

Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; and

Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bills deemed introduced, read the first time, read the second time and referred to a committee)

Furthermore, four Private Members' bills originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bills are deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House:

Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171);

Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord;

Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad; and

Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identification information obtained by fraud or false pretence).

Accordingly, a message will be sent to inform the Senate that this House has adopted these four bills.

Hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. The Table officers are available to answer any further questions that hon. members may have.

I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in this second session of the 39th Parliament.

(Bills deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House)

Opposition Motion--Indian Residential Schools

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the former prime minister was a witness at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs discussing Bill C-292, one of the statements I made was that leadership was about knowing when the talk stops and the work begins, which is one thing our government has moved forward. We are getting the work done. We are taking action to address those needs that were addressed in those negotiations, those discussions, that led up to the meeting in Kelowna.

I would just say to the member opposite that the evidence is there. The proof is in the pudding. We are getting things done for aboriginal people. For instance, with regard to the issue around water quality, we inherited a situation where over 200 communities were on water advisories. We cut that in half within a year. I think that is a great accomplishment that the minister and his department have managed to accomplish over the past year.

Kelowna Accord Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-292 under private members' business.

The House resumed from March 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, be read the third time and passed.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I will proudly vote for the member for LaSalle—Émard's private member's bill supporting the historic Kelowna accord.

It is shameful that the government is widening the economic, educational and social gaps between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians, and there is only lip service and misleading in this House.

Now that former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney says that he supports the Kelowna accord absolutely, will the government reverse itself and support Bill C-292 unanimously?

Kelowna Accord Implementation Act

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-292, the Kelowna accord implementation act.

The so-called Kelowna accord is the product of a meeting held more than a year ago of the former prime minister, the provincial and territorial premiers and several national aboriginal leaders.

The actual document that is represented as the accord, what the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard purports to be a binding commitment of the Government of Canada, is in fact a news release presented by the government of the day at the close of the meeting. The release lists several proposed investments that total more than $5 billion over a period of five years.

Although the former government says that it meant this to be a statement of the amount of money it wished to spend, there was no consensus among participants regarding how the money was to be disbursed. There was no detailed plan on how the government would allocate this new funding and how it would ensure that these resources would be spent wisely and produce measurable results.

Indeed, the provincial and territorial premiers and national aboriginal leaders who attended the Kelowna meeting clearly indicated in subsequent statements that considerably more work was needed to develop specific policies, programs and implementation plans.

The challenges that face aboriginal peoples in our country are simply too daunting to be overcome through unfocused, unaccountable spending. A more considered approach is required if we hope to improve socio-economic conditions and to ensure that aboriginal peoples have a standard of living comparable to that of other Canadians.

Canada's new government has developed and begun to implement precisely this type of approach. It is based on practical solutions, targeted expenditures, clear roles and responsibilities, measurable results and accountability, all fundamental elements of prudent, effective administration.

In the short time this government has been in office, our pragmatic, results based approach has generated tangible results for aboriginal peoples. In fact, the number of achievements is too vast for me to recount in the time that is available to me this evening.

Instead, to illustrate the success of our approach, let me use the last time that the House debated Bill C-292, on October 18, 2006, as a reference point. Let me share with the House just a few examples since that date of how this government has taken concrete steps to begin to improve the quality of life of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

On October 20, Bearspaw First Nation in Alberta opened a state of the art water treatment plant. This achievement stems directly from the plan of action to ensure safe water supplies for first nation communities announced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development last March.

As the House is no doubt aware, soon after this government came into office we learned that more than 200 first nations communities had drinking water systems that were classified as high risk or worse. To address this crisis, Canada's new government devoted some $450 million to address issues affecting quality of life, including safe drinking water.

In addition to this vital budgetary measure, the minister and the Assembly of First Nations appointed a three member expert panel to provide legislative options for safe drinking water in first nations communities.

On December 7, the minister tabled in the House the expert panel's findings and recommendations, along with a report that outlined progress made on all aspects of the government's plan of action. This includes the removal of several drinking water advisories, improvements to a number of water treatment plants, and increased assistance and training for plant operators. The minister is now considering the panel's recommendations and I expect we will be hearing more on the government's initiative.

Along with helping first nations communities to overcome such crises, this government is working to ensure a brighter long term future for these communities. Indeed, when it comes to land claim settlements, we are living through an extraordinary period of Canadian history, particularly in British Columbia.

In recent months, negotiating teams have achieved a series of unprecedented agreements.

On October 29, federal, provincial and first nations negotiators initialled the Lheidli T'enneh final agreement, the first settlement reached through the British Columbia treaty process.

On December 8, the minister was in Delta, B.C. to attend the initialling of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement, the first final agreement for a B.C. first nation whose traditional lands are situated in an urban area.

On December 9, the minister witnessed the initialling of the Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement, the first final agreement in British Columbia that involves more than one first nation community.

I am happy to report that the successful resolution of land claims is not restricted to British Columbia. On December 1, the government signed a land claims agreement with the Inuit of Nunavik resolving a claim over offshore areas in northern Quebec and Labrador that had dragged on for more than 13 years.

Canada's new government has also partnered with first nation groups in Quebec to improve school performance among students from first nations communities in the province.

A landmark memorandum of understanding signed on October 26 will lead to incentives for first nation schools to create stimulating learning environments, enhance teaching quality and improve accountability to parents and students.

Education is also the focus of a historic bill that received royal assent on December 12 of last year. The First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act will enable first nations communities in B.C. to assume increasingly greater control over on reserve education. It is an important step in ensuring first nation students receive a high quality education that respects their languages, cultures and traditions.

On December 13, our new government introduced in the House another significant piece of legislation: Bill C-44. By repealing section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill would ensure that all members of first nations communities will have the legal authority to defend their human rights, a power that all Canadians should be entitled to enjoy.

Despite these and other significant achievements, I readily concede that much work remains to be done to ensure that aboriginal peoples have living standards comparable to those of other Canadians. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recognize this fact but action to help aboriginal peoples achieve this objective does not come from legislation based on a news release presented at the close of a meeting.

Genuine progress is difficult. It requires clear thinking, diligent effort, patience and collaboration. Canada's new government will continue to work in concert with our aboriginal, provincial and territorial partners to achieve this progress. Together, we will create practical solutions. We will allocate appropriate funds. We will establish clear roles and responsibilities. We will set goals and we will achieve them.

Accordingly, I will be voting against Bill C-292 and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is with honour and pride that I speak today to Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, introduced by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard who I am very honoured to have worked with in the past on this issue.

To begin, it is important to understand the context of the Kelowna accord. The Meadow Lake Progress, in its July 23, 2006 editorial, stated it best, “There is no underestimating the importance of the agreement”.

The Kelowna accord represents an historic consensus brought about by the commitment of the previous Liberal government to meaningfully engage and collaborate with first nations, Métis and Inuit leadership, along with the provincial and territorial governments, to address the challenges faced by aboriginal Canadians and by extension, Canada itself.

This effort, initiated by the member for LaSalle—Émard, was unprecedented. It signified a high-water mark in aboriginal state relations. Never before had the political leadership of our country committed to moving together, setting meaningful benchmarks and stable funding relationships.

This historic consensus remains intact. All first nations, Métis and Inuit leadership as well as the premiers remain steadfastly committed to the Kelowna accord. Only the Conservative government lacks the commitment needed to meet its goals.

The support for the Kelowna accord is also unanimous with the provincial political leadership in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Party, the NDP and the Saskatchewan Liberals are all resolutely in support of the Kelowna accord. In fact, the NDP government and the Saskatchewan Party opposition joined together in March 2006 to pass a unanimous motion in the Saskatchewan legislature, urging the federal Conservative government to fully implement the Kelowna accord. Saskatchewan has committed to the accord because it knows the potential of its aboriginal population and the opportunities it presents.

The first nation and Métis population is the fastest growing segment of the Saskatchewan population. By 2045, the aboriginal population is set to be a majority in the province of Saskatchewan. This emerging population is well poised to become the leaders of a prosperous new Saskatchewan, particularly with baby boomers retiring and the economy in Saskatchewan and the west heating up. However, investments and strategies are needed to be put in place for education, housing, health and economic development.

The Kelowna accord made those investments and allowed communities to design strategies to respond to their own unique challenges, something that is absolutely critical in giving and empowering the communities to come up with the solutions because this is from where the best solutions come. This is exactly what the Kelowna accord was designed to do. Moreover and more important, it set the stage for greater collaboration in the future, setting a road map for moving beyond the goals of Kelowna with a relationship based on mutual respect and recognition.

It is a disappointment that the Conservative government does not seem to understand the full opportunity to strengthen the economy in western Canada and engage first nations, Métis and Inuit people to their fullest capabilities.

The July 23 Meadow Lake Progress editorial also captured the risks of abandoning the accord stating:

The accord should have been honoured by [the Prime Minister's Conservative] government after its January election....If the Kelowna Accord is gone for good, it will be this nation’s aboriginals who will suffer the brunt of that decision.

There’s a lot riding on the Kelowna Accord, including the relationships between aboriginals and nonaboriginals—which will deteriorate if the agreement is not honoured...

To allow that relationship to deteriorate now, after it has been slowly evolving and improving over the last 50 years, would be a terrible betrayal of the progress that been made by the first nations, the Métis and the Inuit of our country who at the table with the prime minister and the premiers of our country.

This relationship has moved from first nations, Métis and Inuit being completely ignored by governments in the past to where they stood tall and demanded recognition, to a phase where mutual respect and collaboration became the norm. The Kelowna accord marked the culmination of this relationship building.

The Conservatives' refusal to implement the Kelowna accord and their inability to form any sort of replacement plan is a huge disappointment, particularly because they promised to honour the goals of it.

Unfortunately, the abandonment of the Kelowna accord is only one aspect of a general larger backward trend of Conservatives choosing to become increasingly confrontational, ignoring their fiduciary duty to first nations, Métis and Inuit people. With respect to being confrontational, the Conservatives have adopted a much more adversarial attitude in treaty negotiations and the recognition of aboriginal rights.

The Prime Minister and the Indian affairs minister made repeated attacks on aboriginal rights during treaty negotiations in British Columbia. These attacks began in July with the Prime Minister's letter to the Calgary Herald, in which he used inflammatory language in opposing so-called “race based” fisheries, which are actually “rights based” fisheries, and refused to acknowledge the Supreme Court's affirmation of aboriginal fishing rights.

This is not a race issue; it is a rights issue. I ask the Prime Minister not to focus on the colour of the skin of my people, but to focus on the rights that they have fought so hard their entire lives to advance in our country. Instead, his focus should be on his government's constitutional and fiduciary responsibility to the first nation, Inuit and Métis people of our country.

The Indian affairs minister has also been very insulting and inflammatory in his comments regarding aboriginal Canadians, showing incredible disrespect and refusing to honour his fiduciary duty to work for first nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians. The Indian affairs minister has been vocally attacking aboriginal funding levels and has been very misleading about the amount of money the federal government spends on aboriginal Canadians.

The finance minister has readily backed up him up, stating that $9.1 billion is the amount spent directly on aboriginal Canadians, but has failed to admit that a large part of that money is being spent on the administration across several departments. In INAC alone, the Treasury Board estimates that $600 million is spent on administrative costs, and INAC admits only 82% of the grants and contributions actually make it out.

The minister is also mixing up the entire amount going to Métis and Inuit as well as first nations and ignores the cuts that have occurred without consultation or notice. For instance, budget 2006 dedicated only $150 million in new money for “aboriginal investments” as $600 million for housing was already dedicated through Bill C-48 and passed by the previous Liberal government. However, spending cuts, totalling at least $220 million directly, were imposed on aboriginal programs, including health and languages funding. This means that first nations, Métis and Inuit actually lost $70 million in funding last year, not even including the terrible loss that the Kelowna accord represents.

Even more disappointing, the Indian affairs minister has made a bad situation worse by neglecting his fiduciary responsibilities. The Calgary Sun reported that a child and family welfare service executive in Calgary confirmed that INAC had been forced to redirect “non-core funding” such as those budgeted for child welfare to deal with the water crisis on reserves. Yet many communities are still under a boil water advisory and the minister has admitted he has failed in achieving his targets.

These meagre amounts in new spending for this year are an even bigger insult. They do not address population growth or inflation rates. They ignore the scope of housing, water, child welfare and health funding concerns evident in the first nations, Métis and Inuit communities. They do not make up for literacy and youth employment program cuts that had been made.

This budget is from a finance minister who is on record saying too much health money was being spent on aboriginal Canadians, who are not real people, and from an Indian affairs minister who is on record for saying that they already receive an awful lot of money. This is gutter politics. This time of confrontation has served no one and threatens to have terrible effects on the communities of our country.

The opportunities are still there, though. We encourage the government to respect and implement the Kelowna accord as it passes the House tomorrow night, as I am confident it will. However, regardless of the Conservatives' commitment to the Kelowna accord, the agreement still lives on as a goal and achievement. More than the funding, more than the benchmarks, the Kelowna accord represents a historic time when first nations, Métis and Inuit were respected and empowered to take leadership on behalf of their communities.

Doug Cuthand, a respected columnist for The StarPhoenix, wrote:

The great failure of Indian policy in Canada has been that other people have been making all of the decisions and deciding what is best for us. Politicians, Indian agents, pundits, missionaries and other various do-gooders have all done their share of thinking for us.

Over 30 years ago our leaders stood tall and fought for their rights in various court arenas throughout the country. They fight again today, using the best skills they have at their disposal, to move forward and respect what the Kelowna accord represented.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

moved that Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, be read the third time and passed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, regarding Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That dispenses with the business to do with Bill C-292. That was very simple.

I would ask Mr. Valley to take the witness chair, please.

Ms. Crowder, before we speak to Mr. Valley, do you want to inform the committee as to what--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Tuesday, December 5, 2006.

Committee members, you have your orders of the day before you. We'll be dealing with Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord. We'll be going through clause-by-clause.

We also have as a witness Mr. Roger Valley, who will be discussing some of the issues around Pikangikum so that we can respond to the minister's letter. I think what we'll do is listen to what Mr. Valley has to say and then discuss whether or how we're going to respond to that at the next meeting.

I have a bit of news regarding the trip to the United Nations in New York. There was a vote that took place, and it has been decided to postpone any further vote until September 2007. So I've instructed the clerk not to further pursue any trip.

Finally, Madam Crowder has brought forward the fact that there's an opportunity to hear from a couple of witnesses, because these people are here in Ottawa right now. She wanted to make the committee aware of the possibility of having these folks in as witnesses on Thursday of this week. What is the pleasure of the committee? I'd like to have some direction on that.

Do you want to leave it until after and discuss it, Madam Crowder?

I have an announcement, too, that I have to leave at 9:30, and I'll be turning the chair over to Madam Karetak-Lindell.

We'll move into our business pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2006, Bill C-292, An Act to Implement the Kelowna Accord. We'll go through the clause-by-clause. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), the preamble and clause 1 are postponed.

How would you like to deal with this? Would you like to have a vote on each clause?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes. The agenda is 9 to 10, Bill C-292, and 10 to 11, Monsieur Valley.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

If the committee could agree to deal with Bill C-292 in an hour, I think we should ask Mr. Valley on December 5, simply because the situation in Pikangikum is in crisis. I would be reluctant to have it dealt with at the end of January.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That's part of our unfinished business.

Then, getting back to Bill C-292, Madam Neville said she thought it might only take an hour of the meeting. The question is, what is the consensus of the committee? Do you want the two hours?

I'll get back to what I started with. The third item I wanted the committee to deal with was Pikangikum and the response to the letter. Are we going to listen to what Mr. Roger Valley has to say about the situation there? What is the pleasure of the committee? Do you want to try to invite Mr. Valley for the Tuesday, December 5, meeting?

Madam Crowder.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Depending on Ms. Hurley's schedule, if we can do that, it would be very positive, and we could deal with it on December 7. What I want to say is that I'm more than willing to deal with Bill C-34, but I do not want it to pre-empt Bill C-292. As long as we have the opportunity to deal with that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'm just looking now. On Thursday we do not have a meeting. On Tuesday we'll be going through the clause-by-clause on Bill C-292. There really isn't a lot there.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

It's very interesting to hear where everyone is coming from today; it's almost like very selective hearing. I believe on Tuesday we heard very convincing testimony that people across the way are totally willing to forget.

We talk about elections and people who are elected to represent people. We heard from three people who are duly elected and who speak on behalf of many aboriginal people. That's not discounting that you're elected also, but I believe it's very selective hearing. It plays right into what I have observed over the years, that people who don't want to agree with what the majority of the people are saying as far as leaders are concerned will pick and choose whom they want to hear, depending on what the message is.

All it brings is an opportunity for a government to be able to say there's no unanimity among these people. As long as they're fighting with each other, we don't have to do anything about the situation. Let's just let them fight over the resources we have, and we'll get nowhere.

I've been sitting here for nine and a half years listening to that kind of conclusion. I thought we'd moved beyond that. I would like to think we've moved beyond it.

I totally agree with where the friendship centres are coming from--that you are serving a lot of people who are falling through the cracks.

Yes, we can call any agreement any name we want, but I think we all realize that the status quo cannot continue. I thought we had moved to a recognition accepting that we need some mechanism so that we can respect the wishes of the people, respect the relationships we have.

It's very disheartening to hear a parliamentary secretary get back onto technicalities, because it doesn't move the issue forward one bit. I understand where you're coming from. You're picking up people who are falling through the cracks. That's really what our reality has been. There have been many cracks, whether it's within our own aboriginal organizations or within the government system. I don't think any of us disagree with that.

But where I disagree strongly with the current government's way of dealing with issues is in the lack of recognition of and respect for the relationships that I thought our aboriginal organizations had graduated to in the last couple of years: they were sitting at a table with the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers and moving forward, recognizing that we need to deal with many issues, and not one of them being how you define who fits where.

I think we're mature enough and have as a people matured to a point where we can state, “This is where we want to be”. We recognize that there is no one fix for all regions of Canada, but we certainly deserve the respect and recognition that we are speaking for certain groups of people and that there have to be different discussions on different levels.

Whether it's a Kelowna accord or something else, I think we have to get past semantics. When I listened to the leaders of Tuesday's presentation, I heard them keep talking about hope, that we have to keep providing the hope for our people that there is room for discussion—and compromise; we will always have to compromise, no matter who the groups are.

We're talking about Bill C-292, to implement the Kelowna accord. Can we all agree that it's a stepping stone to further discussions on dealing with many issues that are multi-faceted?

[Peter Dinsdale]

We tried to hold an information rally instead of a demonstration. We had assurances from the Prime Minister in May that there would be accommodation made for service delivery. It didn't occur. We had assurances from the Minister of Indian Affairs and some other ministers at the 11th hour that the accommodation would occur in the implementation. This included an urban focus in the fall, which didn't occur afterward. So there were some accommodations and approaches. That's why in all our communication—which made us less sexy on television—we said we supported Kelowna, but that it was just a beginning.

In Bill C-292, the second clause talks about directing the government to implement Kelowna in its intent. For us the intent is the collaborative approach. It is the investments, the strategic and historic investments, that were to have been made as a beginning. We would then turn our attention to the areas we weren't able to get to. As for the notion that we'd have a distinction-based conversation with this urban lens crossing all the themes, it didn't occur. The lens was a blindfold.

They recognized that there needed to be more work done, and we are going to do that work.That's why we stand here today saying we support Kelowna. It's a beginning, not an end. It's “Kelowna plus”. It's a Kelowna to build on, for the majority of people who live in urban areas and work with federal officials, partners, and other NAOs. It's so people on the ground will have an opportunity to access the program.

[Vera Pawis Tabobondung, President, National Association of Friendship Centres]

I want to say good morning and meegwetch for the opportunity to be here and present to the standing committee.

I want to acknowledge the Creator for the day he has given us today. I want to acknowledge the peoples whose territory I am honoured to be in today, and most certainly I want to acknowledge all of you for your work, that what has become known as the Kelowna accord can be seen as the most significant aboriginal policy initiative since the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

From April 2004 to November 2005, an historic process was undertaken where the big five national aboriginal organizations were provided unprecedented access and opportunity to address the multi-faceted barriers facing first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples in this country. The entire process culminated in a first ministers meeting on aboriginal issues, where 14 jurisdictions agreed to an action plan.

Despite all this, friendship centres demonstrated outside the meeting, but we did so with a heavy heart because friendship centres support the measures contained in their agreements. We felt they did not go far enough. The agreements failed to adequately deal with the 50% of first nations, Métis, and Inuit people who live in urban areas. The agreements would not provide the programming and resources necessary to meaningfully impact the issues our clients face every day.

Friendship centres background: this is an important distinction. Friendship centres, like the five national aboriginal organizations consulted and present during the first ministers meeting, are service delivery bodies. We do not claim to represent a certain segment of aboriginal people; we serve all of them: first nations, both status and non-status; Métis from all areas of Canada; and Inuit peoples. Friendship centres are in 116 communities across Canada--large, medium, and small communities. They are places of gathering and refuge for aboriginal women to take their rightful place in leadership and governance in our agencies and communities, for our young people to access programming and to become engaged and empowered; they are places to celebrate and practice our cultures.

Friendship centres are places to heal, places to find food when you're hungry, access to training when you need it, and start on the path toward a better life for you, your family, and your nation.

Last year, Friendship centres provided over 1.1 million client services across Canada. Friendship centres possess an impressive capacity to reach the often forgotten urban aboriginal population.

Friendship centre experience: we brought all this experience to the first Canada aboriginal peoples round table on April 19, 2004. There we witnessed from the outside the beginning of over 20 months of deliberations and planning. Despite being the largest aboriginal service to the infrastructure in Canada, we were afforded no opportunity to provide policy advice or insight into matters considered.

During the round tables, we were forced into a distinction-based conversation on how the Métis Nation should address lifelong learning, develop their housing stock, or define and demonstrate accountability. No space was provided in the dialogue for a broader urban aboriginal conversation on how to address education needs, what housing services are required, what level of jurisdiction is responsible for these areas, what is the role of representative bodies, what is the role of service providers. Indeed, a historic opportunity was lost.

Our first demonstration occurred during the May 31, 2005, policy retreat with the leaders of the five national aboriginal organizations and the aboriginal affairs committee. We wanted to highlight the important conversation that was being missed.

The Prime Minister met briefly with us to hear our concerns. He agreed that some role should exist for this conversation to occur and challenged his officials to find one. They failed.

Not only were we not afforded an opportunity to participate in the dialogue, we were not even able to submit reports for consideration. In the days and weeks before the first ministers meetings, the government assured us that Kelowna was just a start, that it was not perfect, that they would look at the specific urban issues in implementation and follow-up.

Still we decided to hold an information rally outside out of the first ministers meeting to remind everyone involved that the work is not done. It was incomplete.

We must come together and address urban issues in the implementation and beyond.

Despite all of this, the friendship centre movement still encourages the federal government to support the measures contained in the Kelowna accord. In part, this is because we recognize the benefits that would accrue to all aboriginal peoples by proceeding with a comprehensive plan, a process rather than a piecemeal approach.

We have also signed an MOU with the Assembly of First Nations that will ensure our involvement in future initiatives and discussions that follow on Kelowna.

It is important that we do not stop there. We must get to work on addressing the issues that our clients face.

If we are to effect meaningful change to the life conditions that first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples face, we must develop some thinking on the urban dilemma. We must get past our jurisdictional divides. We must think bigger than our own organizations.

Bill C-292 is short. It seeks to get this government to commit to the terms of the Kelowna accord.

For us, this includes the text of the plans developed. It includes the approach of working with aboriginal groups on the issues facing our communities. It includes adding to this work to address the urban challenges facing first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples.

It is no secret that Kelowna was not perfect. No process ever is.

Our recommendations: to believe and support it; to believe and support Kelowna; to believe that our work didn't end there; and to believe that we need “Kelowna plus”.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I will open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for Thursday, November 23, 2006.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. Once again, we'll be reviewing Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.

The witnesses today are from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, with Patrick Brazeau. We have the National Association of Friendship Centres, with Vera Pawis Tabobondung, president; Peter Dinsdale, executive director. And we have the Native Womens Association of Canada, with Sherry Lewis, executive director.

I see Sherry is not here yet, but we can get started.

Mr. Brazeau, is the gentleman beside you part of your delegation?

[Mary Simon]

Maybe I can also respond to that.

When you talk about nation to nation, that is precisely where we're starting from. As original people of the country, we fought very hard to get very basic recognition of aboriginal treaty rights in the Canadian Constitution in the 1980s. We have a relationship with the Crown, and the Crown has a fiduciary responsibility toward aboriginal people. When you look at the relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples, you have to come to the conclusion that this in fact is a process that talks about peoples and the Crown. We are a collective; we have aboriginal rights, and we are the aboriginal people of the country, so I would say, yes, it is a nation-to-nation process.

If Bill C-292 were passed and one-off announcements were continued, we would never oppose announcements. If there is anything to improve the living conditions of our people, we embrace that happily. Although in many instances Inuit are often left out of the process, we still are happy for the first nations and other aboriginal peoples when there are other announcements.

The Kelowna accord not only laid out the nation-to-nation context, it also laid out a vision of where we, as a country, want to go to close the gap of the living conditions of aboriginal people. It's a vision. It's like we are setting targets. It's a plan of action, and as much as I support announcements here and there, I'd like to be part of a process in which we have a vision about how we are going to address aboriginal issues as a country. Kelowna did that. It set out a vision for us.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the questioning we've heard is starting to point to the fundamental differences we have around the intent of Kelowna and what's currently happening.

I'm going to come back briefly to the advice that was given to the minister in one of the paragraphs when he took over the job. It says:

In November 2005, first ministers and first nations Inuit and Métis leaders agreed to priorities for closing the socio-economic gap for the next 10 years. The plan included five and 10 year targets in the areas of health, education, housing, economic opportunities and aboriginal organizational capacity, and proposed federal investments to achieve specific outcomes in each area.

It goes on to say:

This meeting has no doubt become, for aboriginal leaders and provincial and territorial governments, the reference point against which federal policy approaches will be measured.

I come back to this briefing book that was prepared for all committee members, which contains material from the first ministers meeting on aboriginal issues. There are two important statements in here. It talks about a ten-year commitment and dedicated effort to close the gap in the quality of life, and then it outlines some principles.

I want to reference the transformative change accord that was signed by the Government of B.C., the Government of Canada, and the leadership council representing the first nations of British Columbia. In this document it talks about bringing together these levels of government:

to achieve the goals of closing the social and economic gap between First Nations and other British Columbians over the next 10 years, of reconciling aboriginal rights and title with those of the Crown, and of establishing a new relationship based upon mutual respect and recognition.

So it seems to me there is an intent, a flavour, a notion of true nation-to-nation movement. Whether or not we have one-off pieces of Kelowna being implemented versus the nation-to-nation approach that was inherent in the Kelowna accord, I think that's the difference.

If Bill C-292 passes--and we hope it will--what difference would you see between the programs that are being announced in isolation currently that are contributing to alleviating some of the problems, versus the intent of the Kelowna accord? How would it look different, between these one-off announcements and what you would see if this bill were actually implemented, in the spirit of its intent?

[Mary Simon]

I didn't have an opportunity, and I'll be very brief.

I think Mr. Bruinooge raises a very important point. I think that if the government would honour the Kelowna accord, we wouldn't need Bill C-292. It wouldn't be necessary. Bill C-292 doesn't recite all the specific pieces of Kelowna, but it makes it clear that the commitments in Kelowna must be honoured.

People bring up the fact that it wasn't signed. Probably, in that package of documents, you will see documents that were negotiated by representatives of first nations, Inuit, and Métis and deputy ministers of the government and assistant deputy ministers of the government. There's a blueprint on health. There are other documents that start to lay out the relationship that would be built around the partnership envisaged in the Kelowna accord. Everything, as usual, would be negotiated between the federal government and aboriginal peoples.

We've always been very open to negotiating agreements. So there is no reason, if the commitment was made by the government to implement Kelowna, why we could not move forward on discussing what initiatives are needed to implement the funding that has been approved, although we have identified many of those issues ourselves. There are very specific recommendations in the reports that came out of the round tables, which included representatives from all sectors of, in our case, the Inuit community. There are very specific recommendations on education and curriculum development. There is a lot of material, so to speak, that wouldn't be very difficult to put forward if that were the thing we had to do.

Thank you.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

That's my question, though. What is this piece of legislation designed to do? The role of this committee is to review the bill that is now before us. That's why you've been called as a witness to the committee. We're here to review Bill C-292, and that is the crux of our question today. What are we adding to this bill to define the Kelowna accord? As you've witnessed, there wasn't a specific document that could be pointed to that was signed off as saying this is the accord.

The Charlottetown accord was referenced by Mr. LeClair; that was a document signed off by multiple parties. It ended because Mr. Elijah Harper from Manitoba decided aboriginal people weren't at the table and hadn't signed their name to that accord. Nonetheless, a tangible document was signed off and that was what would have been....

For instance, if we look back to the nineties, we would have had a bill to implement the Charlottetown accord. That is my question. What are we attaching to this bill? What tangible document is going to be used for this bill?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

First of all, in terms of our attempts to try to understand the Kelowna accord and the details around Kelowna, we have no problem with the definition. It was about a first nations plan, a plan we put to the first ministers as a challenge to join us in the eradication of mass poverty in our communities. The plan was very specific in terms of implementation. It was about closing the gap.

Up until 1996, the gap in terms of quality of life was closing. A two percent cap was introduced on core programs and services. From that period on, until we met in Kelowna and to this day, the gap started to widen. Clearly, that was telling us the quality of life in our communities was deteriorating, and we needed to do something very specific and concrete. We see the Kelowna accord, with all its plans, as being a very specific response to this challenge. That's why we brought this box of evidence, if I can call it that. It was to indicate very, very clearly that we weren't talking about this in generalities; we were very, very specific.

If Bill C-292 is about kick-starting this whole process, why would we argue against that if that's what it's designed to do? If it's less than that, then we're adding to the problem.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming before the committee today. National Chief Fontaine, I'd like to also thank you as a fellow Manitoban for coming before us today.

My question I guess initially is this. Have you had a chance to read Bill C-292 yet?

[Rosemarie McPherson, Member of the Council, Métis National Council]

Good morning.

I'm Rosemarie McPherson. I have Marc LeClair with me. We are going to be representing the Métis National Council.

I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for inviting the three national organizations that represent first nations, Inuit, and the Métis Nation to make presentations on Bill C-292 today.

The Right Honourable Paul Martin's private member's bill to implement the Kelowna accord is a topic of fundamental importance to the Métis Nation.

The Métis Nation offers its unqualified support to ensure Kelowna's implementation. As one of the Métis leaders who had the privilege of participating in the process leading up to the Kelowna accord and who had the opportunity to take part in the historic first ministers meeting held last year, this issue is near and dear to my heart.

By way of background, the Métis National Council is represented through province-wide governance structures from Ontario westward. These regional Métis governments include the Manitoba Métis Federation and the Métis Nations of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. Each maintains a membership list or registry of citizens, based on our national definition for citizenship, and holds province-wide elections for their leadership at regular intervals.

Based on these mandates, the Métis governments represent the interests of their respective constituents. Further, these Métis governments have well-established records of delivering effective and accountable programs and services to our people in urban, rural, and remote centres across the Métis Nation homeland. In total, Métis governments administer a combined amount of over $250 million annually in federal and provincial resources, along with self-generated revenues from various economic development initiatives.

Our regional governments come together to form the Métis National Council, which is mandated to represent the Métis Nation at the national and international levels and is governed by a six-member board of governors. The board of governors consists of the presidents of the five regional Métis governments as well as our elected national president. The women of the Métis Nation and the Métis National Youth Advisory Council also participate in all meetings of the board of governors.

Our modern-day governance structures are the contemporary expression of the century-old struggle of the Métis Nation to be self-determining within the Canadian federation. Our history demonstrates that we have consistently stood up to protect our rights, culture, language, and way of life in this country. Unfortunately, Canada's longstanding approach to the Métis people has been one of neglect, wilful blindness, and denial. As a result, our people have been marginalized from their lands and resources and have sensed that the gap between our quality of life and that of other Canadians has widened.

However, in the last few years, our people have witnessed many positive developments that signal a change from our difficult past with Canada. In 2003, in R. v. Powley, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed our existence as a distinct aboriginal people with constitutionally protected rights. In May 2005, our leadership signed the Métis Nation Framework Agreement that committed to a process to resolve many of the longstanding issues that have created challenges in our relationship with Canada.

Of course, in November 2005, our people witnessed the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agree to implement the Kelowna accord in partnership with aboriginal peoples.

In order for this committee to fully appreciate the importance of Bill C-292, the Métis Nation believes it is essential for the committee to understand what Kelowna is and what it's not.

Kelowna represents the culmination of over eighteen months of dedicated consultation and efforts that involved all levels of government in Canada, including aboriginal ones. More importantly, it involved the engagement of front-line workers, youth, community leaders, experts, and practitioners in order to bring forward the best ideas and solutions to begin to close the gap between aboriginal people and other Canadians.

The Métis people, like other aboriginal peoples, participated in this process because we believed we were on a new collaborative journey with governments, a journey where our opinions and knowledge had value, a journey where government was going to work with us, a journey where we collectively set targets and goals and measured results. For the Métis Nation, Kelowna also represents a leap of faith forward with respect to long-standing challenges that our people have faced.

As you know, the federal government's long-standing legal position is that it has no responsibility for the Métis people under section 124 of the Constitution, 1986. The provinces take the opposite legal position. This convenient positioning on the part of government leaves the Métis people being a political football. As a result, the Métis people are denied programs and services available to other aboriginal peoples, resulting in our people falling further behind other Canadians and in some instances behind other aboriginal peoples.

With Kelowna, rather than getting bogged down in the usual jurisdictional wrangling that usually arises in Crown-Métis relations, governments and the Métis Nation agreed to move past these legal stumbling blocks in order to craft a forward-looking agenda to deal with unique socio-economic challenges that Métis people face. Prior to Kelowna, when ministers of the Crown repeated the standard line of their desire to work through jurisdictional issues on the Métis file, nothing ever happened. Kelowna represents a part solution to this stalemate. Instead of worrying about petty legal positions, we focused our efforts on worrying about actual people. Simply put, Kelowna moved through the jurisdictional logjam for the Métis and worked with the communities on Métis-specific initiatives and processes to address our unique needs.

Kelowna also represents so much more than a concrete plan for closing the gap between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians. It represents hope, trust, respect, and compromise on the part of all parties. Kelowna is an attempt to reconcile the claims, interests, and ambitions of the Crown with those of aboriginal peoples. The importance of ensuring that the Crown fulfils its obligations to aboriginal peoples as a part of this reconciliation process cannot be understated. In numerous cases, the Supreme Court has emphasized that it's always assumed the Crown intended to fulfil its promises to aboriginal peoples.

Reneging on Kelowna would be a new symbol of dishonour of the Crown and would only further entrench a mistrust that exists between the Crown and aboriginal people. An entire generation of aboriginal young people will grow up knowing that even if you see your leaders on television with the Prime Minister and every premier in the country agreeing to a plan to improve your future, you cannot place any trust in that.

This is not acceptable. It is not honourable. It is not consistent with Canadian values.

Moreover, Kelowna is not about one man, one government, or one political party. It is bigger than individuals or legacies. It is a solemn promise made by the Crown to aboriginal people to move past old and difficult grievances in order to improve the quality of life for first nations, Inuit, and the Métis people.

Leaders of every political stripe from across this country came together with aboriginal leaders to chart a new course of hope and opportunity. This should not be politicized by partisan politics. It should be embraced for what it is--

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard, Regional Chief, Assemblée des Premières nations du Québec et du Labrador]

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to address Bill C-292, the Kelowna accord Implementation Act.

I bring to you today three key messages. My hope is that you can have a positive impact on your institution, Parliament, and that in turn it can force the federal government to act with honour and urgency on the AFNQL's concerns.

The three messages are these. The first is that the first nations that make up the AFNQL have the plans to raise our standards and living conditions, including the priority actions required. It is called Mission Ten Thousand Possibilities.

Second, we are not receiving the cooperation and support that we expect of the federal government; that is, to review and discuss our plans with us and support their implementation, according to the government's obligations.

Third, I respectfully request on behalf of the AFNQL that your report include a separate section that reflects the AFNQL's approach to improving socio-economic conditions, and that is separate and distinct from the Kelowna discussions. Please allow me to elaborate.

The AFNQL and its sectoral commissions have worked hard over the years, with limited funds, to develop plans and proposals to boost first nations jurisdiction or control, program funding, and operational capacity.

On October 25, 2006, I announced, on behalf of the AFNQL, Mission Ten Thousand Possibilities. It focused on obtaining federal and Quebec government commitments to act on at least three large priority areas. It aims to create 10,000 new jobs over five years, to get 10,000 of our children back in school, and to see the construction of 10,000 new homes.

However, the short time allotted to me today requires that I highlight only two key examples.

A good education is the passport to self-sufficiency and quality of life. The federal government has accepted first nations control of education for 30 years. The problem is, it has never had the will to support first nations education to the same extent as mainstream public education. First nations third-rate education suffers from the diseases of federal avoidance and indifference.

The federal fiduciary of the first nations has never followed up on its platitudes and pronouncements. In 30 years, since the federal announcement on Indian control of Indian education, there is still no clear legal framework to underpin first nations control of education. Our schools and teachers suffer chronic underfunding; poorer equipment than mainstream schools; lower salaries and benefits than mainstream schools; little or no second-level services; little or no professional development; extremely low support for culture, language, and arts; no sports or recreation funds; no opportunity for vocational training at the secondary level; and no solid plan to fund school Internet connections past 2007.

Last Friday, November 17, we heard that the Indian Affairs department has made a decision on special education that will severely limit the education opportunities for our children with special needs. The current Minister of Indian Affairs has made education a priority. We will believe it when we see it.

But the criticism rests not only on the current wardens of our prison of neglect. The last 30 years of Liberal and Conservative governments, progressive and otherwise, are littered with federal inaction. We have become vaccinated against broken federal promises.

The First Nations have a common goal and a plan to have jurisdiction over a comprehensive and independent school system within five years. Our hope is that Parliament—you who are gathered here—will take action in a non-partisan manner to get the federal government to meets its obligations to support that goal wholeheartedly through concrete action.

Among the many matters requiring immediate attention is the key issue of quality housing. It is a known fact among community planners that healthy and adequate housing conditions are the core and foundation of a good education, healthy citizens and productive workers. For years, the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador have experienced and continue to experience a housing crisis of gigantic proportions.

Since 2000, the AFNQL has been compiling its own housing data, and a recent update indicates a current need for 8,800 new units. That need is constantly growing and is based on a number of key factors. The First Nations have the following targets: decrease overpopulation so as to achieve the same occupancy standards as elsewhere in Quebec; bring back people who have left the reserves mainly because of the housing shortage; build a new community in Kitcisakik and replace the houses that were declared uninhabitable, a number of which are still occupied because, regardless of the situation, people need a roof over their heads.

The federal government’s response seems to indicate that it is willing to allow First Nations people to live in third-world housing conditions.

Despite our considerable efforts in recent years to convince governments of the need for more money, we continue to receive laughable amounts that do not meet our needs.

Two hundred and ninety-five million additional dollars were set aside nationally in 2005 for housing, and the Quebec region’s share fell from 12% to 7%. The annual federal amounts allocated to housing in the Quebec region is $21 million, yet the Quebec and Labrador region needs $1.5 billion, and the need keeps rising.

In September, the AFNQL presented a 10-year plan to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, emphasizing once again that it had made the plan one of its priorities. We are still waiting for a response.

The AFNQL’s plan, which is made up of two parts, requires an immediate investment to alleviate the huge build-up of needs. It also proposes a bargaining process to develop and implement a housing jurisdiction system under First Nations’ authority within 10 years, to replace the current housing approach, which is not working at all.

In education, like housing, there is enough blame to go around for everyone. Federal aid for housing has been rather stagnant in the past 25 years, with only two injections of new money, neither of which became permanent or ongoing.

Committee members, there is a severe lack of federal co-operation and support. For example, less than one month ago, the AFNQL hosted a major tripartite conference in Mashteuiatsh. We worked on it for over a year. The conference’s overall goal was to bring together the federal and Quebec governments and the First Nations, with a view to getting the Quebec public involved, and to planning, committing to take action and developing partnerships in order to improve socioeconomic conditions for First Nations people.

The federal response was disgraceful. It committed some money to education, housing and other areas, but the amounts were so negligible compared with the needs that it was embarrassing. The lack of commitment on the part of the federal government to help us and meet the needs of our children and families is consistent with its refusal to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The huge federal surpluses are being spent on debt reduction and supporting increasing militarization, while a large percentage of our children live in poverty. You can be sure that in two days, Minister Flaherty will tell Canadians that the federal government’s economic forecasts are on track, thanks mainly to its financial policies. We would be very surprised if he paid attention to the living conditions of First Nations people, conditions that the United Nations described as the greatest blemish on Canada’s record.

Until now, this government has not shown itself to be our ally. Nevertheless, we urge it, once again, to enter into a sincere dialogue with us to support the action needed to improve the socioeconomic conditions of our members.

If the committee is interested, I can send it a copy of our development plans.

The AFNQL did not participate in the Kelowna discussions, and we would prefer to dwell on our needs and plans. However, the record must be clear. The AFNQL fully supports our sister regions of the AFN in their goals, which include the implementation of the Kelowna commitments. The AFNQL respectfully requests that this committee include in its report to Parliament the recommendation that the federal government act urgently to invest and support the AFNQL's plans and that it enter into the high-level discussions and negotiations with us that are required to reach our goals. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, released ten years ago, generally match our proposed solutions. Today's focus, however, should be on the future and on the federal government, which has the power to improve conditions if the will is there.

In closing, I note that the end of the last “whereas” clause of the bill before you indicates that it is incumbent upon the Government of Canada to honour its word and its commitments. Although the AFNQL officially does not object to the Kelowna commitments, I would hope that Parliament would hold the government accountable to its obligation to the first nations and not just to its promises.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

First of all Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the other members of the committee for having invited me in connection with the review of Bill C-292.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for the opportunity you're providing Mr. Goodale, Mr. Scott and me to speak to you as you commence consideration of Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.

What is the accord about? First and foremost, it's about reducing the shameful gaps between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians, gaps that exist no matter where they reside, gaps in health, in education, in housing, in clean water and economic opportunity.

It's about working better. It's about governments and aboriginal leaders, working in partnership and in collaboration, finding new, innovative solutions, holding ourselves accountable by setting targets and by reporting on results.

Each of the policy areas agreed upon in Kelowna was subject to careful cabinet consideration. They were fully costed and built into the fiscal framework. I want to state without any equivocation--and I'm sure the former Minister of Finance who was with me will confirm this--that the $5.1 billion committed to in Kelowna was fully within the fiscal framework. Any suggestion that we had not accounted for these expenditures is without foundation.

The Kelowna Accord was what triggered a specific commitment: over a 10-year period, to take steps to reduce an unacceptable socioeconomic divide.

The accord commits the government authorities, whether federal, provincial or territorial, to develop implementation plans and to set objectives for each of the provinces and territories, working together with the appropriate Aboriginal authorities in each province and territory.

Mr. Scott and I, for example, following Kelowna, were able to conclude with the Government of British Columbia and the British Columbia first nations leadership the Transformative Change Accord, which is a focused action plan that sets out specific shared goals and the steps to achieve them, all in the areas, as I've mentioned, of education, clean water, health, housing, and economic opportunities. This was the first of what would have been action plans in each part of the country to allow us to tailor approaches to the unique circumstances of aboriginal Canadians in each province or territory.

Mr. Chairman, the question really is partnership and collaboration, innovative solutions, hard targets, and reporting on results. Why does anybody want to shy away from this? Why would anybody object to hard targets, to all of the governments coming together to deal with the very issues that are at the foundation of the shameful poverty in which aboriginal Canadians find themselves?

On September 12, 2004, first ministers and national aboriginal leaders met to address important aboriginal health issues. At that meeting we made a federal investment of $700 million in the aboriginal health blueprint. This was to help build modern, integrated health services for first nations and other aboriginal Canadians, and to train aboriginal health professionals to work in nursing and in medicine.

At that time, the first ministers and aboriginal leaders agreed that there should be a first ministers meeting directed at the root causes of aboriginal poverty. This was the beginning of a journey that 14 months later led us to our destination--the meeting held in Kelowna, British Columbia.

Those short months allowed all governments and each of the aboriginal organizations to consult academics, community professionals, and experts. Those months allowed all of the aboriginal leadership gathered under the various organizations to ensure that all who were present were equipped with the best solutions, both in and out of the box, going into the meeting.

As first ministers, we were determined in Kelowna, Mr. Chairman, to develop better harmonization of programs and services, recognizing the central role of aboriginal governments and service providers in this whole area and seeking to end the jurisdictional turnstile that limits program efficiency and effectiveness.

For instance, the aboriginal health blueprint was designed to ensure for the first time that we had a seamless harmonization of our health delivery systems for aboriginal Canadians in every province and territory. Officials and ministers worked to ensure that the issues of aboriginal women were front and centre, and we committed at Kelowna to hold an aboriginal women's summit to move forward on issues too long ignored. That summit should have been held by now.

We worked to ensure that no longer was the Métis nation excluded from intergovernmental processes and that all governments were committed to ensuring Métis-specific adaptation of programs and services. We worked hard to ensure programs for the Inuit that were tailored to work in the unique conditions of northern Canada, and we worked to ensure that for the first time ever, federal funding was available to assist provinces and territories in adapting approaches to serve the very pressing needs of the growing urban aboriginal population in very significant ways.

All of the governments agreed that education was essential for any progress to be made, and that it was the key factor in improving the economic status of Aboriginal Canadians, and for providing them with better employment prospects, for giving them the means to exploit economic opportunities, and in general improve their health and living conditions.

We agreed under the Kelowna Accord to establish a regional school system for the first nations and to provide them the support they desire in addition to the legal authority needed to implement modern institutional structures and to manage institutions responsibly so that young Aboriginal people can be provided with a quality education.

The provinces and territories committed to this and agreed to cooperate in setting up such a system, to ensure that it would mesh with the existing public education system and train future teachers and education professionals to work in these institutions under the authority of the first nations. They also made a commitment to take various measures to improve learning conditions for young Aboriginal people in the pubic education institutions that most of them attend.

These measures include the following: encouraging family participation in education; establishing local objectives about the number of young Aboriginal people completing Grade 12; facilitating the transition of public education systems to the new first nations education system and vice-versa; working together with Aboriginal educators and parents to meet the needs of children encountering learning difficulties and on curriculum development; lastly, and this is every bit as important, to increase the number of teachers and education professionals who are Aboriginal people and to increase the Aboriginal content of programs of study dispensed in each province and territory.

Mr. Chairman, I could speak to the other innovative aspects of the Kelowna accord. Undoubtedly, we will get into this in the discussion to follow. But given the time constraints, let me close by speaking to a very different area of importance. That is the agreement that all governments, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, are to hold themselves accountable to reporting publicly on progress.

Governments have never been short on rhetoric when it comes to the aboriginal file. Setting agreed-upon objectives, establishing regional targets, and public reporting were designed to ensure that all governments—aboriginal and non-aboriginal, federal, provincial, and territorial—were accountable for progress. In this way, the results, not rhetoric, become the objective. Despair would be replaced by hope as we move forward. We set ambitious targets to eliminate the gaps in educational achievement and housing and to make significant strides in health care and clean water. Mr. Chairman, these targets are fully achievable with the right innovation, investment, and partnership.

A new forum of federal, provincial, and territorial ministers, and aboriginal leaders would ensure progress and keep us on track. The accord specified this forum would meet annually and that it would be mandated to take corrective action. This forum, Mr. Chairman, should be meeting now. The days of empty promises were over, to be replaced by a focus on the results achieved and the successes won. What all of us believed is that we had to establish an accountability framework, and that the setting of goals, the reporting of data, and the court of public opinion would ensure that each government and each organization would challenge its respective officials and institutional partners to make progress. In that way, real results would benchmark the track that we were on, to share the best practices based on what each jurisdiction was doing better than another, to bring progress everywhere, and to ensure that no one was left behind.

Parliament and parliamentarians now have the opportunity to act. All the parties to the Kelowna accord—the aboriginal leadership; provincial and territorial governments, of all political stripes; and all opposition parties in the House—support the Kelowna accord. They support its goals and its principles.

Mr. Chairman, the Government of Canada gave its word in Kelowna. So let me just say that first ministers, aboriginal leaders, and Canadians across the country are watching us. I would encourage all members of this committee to support the speedy passage of Bill C-292.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we were asked—and that includes the minister—to go to that location. If we are to go there, then I would like to read the documents and find out about the minister's position. I have no intention of going to a place I do not know without even knowing the background. I would not want us, the committee members, to show up as tourists in that community, which appears to me to be in serious difficulty.

We have work to do today concerning Bill C-292. In any event, my position and the position of the Bloc Québécois is the following: we need to be provided with relevant information and then decide at the next meeting. However, I find that deciding this morning on a precise date to go there is definitely premature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you.

Today, to look at Bill C-292, an Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, we have as witnesses the Right Honourable Paul Martin, LaSalle—Émard; the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Wascana, and Mr. Goodale apparently will be here about 9:30; and the Honourable Andy Scott, Fredericton.

Committee members, before we move to hearing from the witnesses, I have an urgent letter from the minister. Because of the nature of the letter, I'd like to read it to you. It has to do with the Pikangikum.

He says:

I am writing to ask your Committee to carry out an immediate investigation regarding the circumstances faced by the Pikangikum First Nation in northwestern Ontario. I am asking the Committee to travel to Pikangikum as soon as possible, and I am requesting that you meet with representatives of that Community and carry out all other necessary hearings and investigations. I would ask that you then report back to me on the difficulties that this community has encountered in the past in relation to infrastructure and governance. I am advised that an extensive record exists, documenting the difficulties faced by the community and the Department vis-a-vis road access to the community, the absence of electrical service, the availability of water hook-up, and the adequacy of community school facilities. I understand that there has also been a prolonged and divisive dispute between the Government of Canada and this First Nation relative to governance and related financial and managerial issues. These questions are of concern to me and I would appreciate the benefit of the thoughts of your Committee members following a visit to the community and a review of the historical record. I would appreciate receiving your advice as quickly as possible.

The letter is signed by the Hon. Jim Prentice, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Committee members, I would like to ask if you would respond to that letter, please.

Madam Crowder.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Let's proceed slowly.

Between now and Thursday, the Subcommittee will meet to review the witness list. We agree on this. On the 7th, we will give our instructions. So, on Thursday the 9th, there is no reason why Mr. Martin could not appear before the Committee.

In any case, we'll begin our review of Bill C-292. I understand perfectly that the sponsor of the Bill should appear before us. Mr. Martin is proposing a date that seems appropriate. Our Committee sits on Thursday, November the 9th, and Mr. Martin asks only to appear before us, so pourquoi pas? I don't see any problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'm taking direction from the committee now that we're not going to have any more witnesses for post-secondary education.

November 7 will be instructions, so be prepared for that. Be prepared, of course, for the Thursday meeting, November 2, on the estimates. Have your questions prepared for that also. You will be getting briefing notes on the estimates and what will be coming forward from the department. That will help you out in preparing your questions.

There's one thing I want to make a statement on. I'm not influencing the committee at all with regard to this, but we have been contacted, the clerk and my office, with regard to Mr. Martin, who has put forward Bill C-292 and would like to speak on the 9th. That works for his schedule. It doesn't necessarily mean it works for our schedule.

Does the committee want to open that door, or do you want to wait until we have information from the subcommittee on the witness list?

Mr. Blaney.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I think what Mr. Blaney was motioning or attempting to suggest was in relation to what Mr. Lemay had talked about, and that was a timeframe to discuss this before we move onto some of our other priorities. We identified a long list of priorities. Earlier this year we moved forward with the post-secondary study, which, being a new member of Parliament, I think has gone relatively well, and we're going to be transitioning into a report on that.

Mr. Lemay indicated housing--of course, that's an issue he's very close to--as being a potential next item that we look at. So I think perhaps as part of this discussion right now we do need to identify how much time we're going to be allocating to this bill. Mr. Lemay mentioned a few sessions for witnesses, and I think that's reasonable as well.

I think once we get through the November break we'll have a number of meetings there to be able to wrap this up quite reasonably before Christmas. So perhaps we could talk about a timeframe of early December in which to have our work on Bill C-292 complete.

Is that what you're thinking, Mr. Lemay?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We'll resume the meeting, please.

I just want to first say to the committee that the purpose here is not to look through the list of witnesses that has been supplied by the various parties. Simply, the chair needs direction from the committee with regard to two issues, I believe.

First, how do you want to deal with the witness list? Do you want to do that with the subcommittee, or would you rather do it as a committee of the whole?

Second, on Bill C-292, what sorts of timelines do you want on the witness opportunities?

I am going to open it up.

Madam Crowder.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Indian Affairs responded to my original question on the Kelowna accord, he made the unfounded accusation that the previous Liberal government did not incorporate its Kelowna commitments into the fiscal framework.

I would like to reiterate, as the former finance minister, the hon. member for Wascana, has said, the Kelowna accord and the federal government's financial commitments resulting from that accord were fully accounted for in the federal government's fiscal framework.

As he made clear, on November 24, 2005, the date on which Kelowna was signed, the fiscal framework of the Government of Canada included $5.096 billion to address the federal government's obligations arising from the accord.

In the former Liberal government's 2005 economic and fiscal update on November 14, 2005, the Kelowna meeting was specifically mentioned, together with an undertaking to provide the financing needed to implement the impending Kelowna agreement.

As the former finance minister pointed out, the fiscal treatment of the Kelowna accord was quite similar to that of the $755 million farm sector package. Both Kelowna and the farm package were signalled in the fiscal update and the necessary flexibility was built into our fiscal framework to cover the anticipated expenses. By November 24, 2005, both initiatives had become ready to go. Announcements were made and the money for both was booked.

I do not know where the current minister is coming from when he says that Kelowna was not provided for, and I also do not know why the Conservative minority government could proceed with the farm package on this basis at the same time that it has scrapped Kelowna.

In June, my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre brought forward a motion calling on the government to move forward with the implementation of the Kelowna accord with its full funding commitments. This motion was passed despite the opposition of the Conservative members opposite on June 20. My colleague, the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, has brought forward Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.

His speech introducing the bill at second reading was a powerful restatement of his commitment to aboriginal people, a commitment that he demonstrated when finance minister and especially as Prime Minister of Canada. Kelowna would have been a very proud part of our Canadian legacy and I can only hope that it is not petty partisan politics that has led to the Conservatives reneging on the deal.

Just last week, my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River also moved a motion on the Kelowna accord, but again, it was opposed by the Conservatives. The failure of the Conservative minority government to honour Kelowna is the greatest of its failed and bankrupt aboriginal policies, but unfortunately, it is not the only one.

The government also opposed an international treaty on recognizing the rights of aboriginal people throughout the world. The Prime Minister himself has made inflammatory statements concerning aboriginal fisheries, statements which have not served to improve relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishers, but it is the Kelowna failure which stands out, even against this sorry record.

During the summer the premiers and aboriginal leaders met in Corner Brook. At this meeting Premier Williams, as host premier, said:

We, as a group of leaders, sat around the table, we came to conclusions, we reached decisions, we made commitments to aboriginal people and we intend to live by those commitments.

Premier McGuinty of Ontario said that the Kelowna accord was “in a state of suspended animation at this point”. Aboriginal leaders agree. Provincial and territorial premiers agree. The three opposition parties in the House agree. Kelowna must be honoured.

The current Minister of Indian Affairs was in Kelowna. He has had a long involvement in aboriginal issues. He knows full well what was agreed to in the fall of 2005 and what is at stake if his own government fails to live up to what Canadians and their government leaders agreed to with the Kelowna accord.

Premier Campbell of British Columbia has been very critical of the Conservative position on Kelowna, stating that in his opinion “the honour of the Crown is at stake”. The honour of the Crown, of course, is a very important principle in aboriginal law under our common law--

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I'd like to raise two points.

First, with respect to the First Nations Socio-Economic Forum, we clearly can't leave before the vote in the House. There will be a very important vote on Wednesday. If my colleagues opposite want to leave, that won't bother me too much. However, we clearly can't leave before the vote is held. In addition, we've planned that Mr. Gilles Duceppe, Mr. Michel Gauthier, my assistant and myself will take a chartered flight at 7:00 p.m., after the 5:45 p.m. vote.

Second, as regards Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, I wonder whether a meeting of the subcommittee or committee members should be convened to discuss the witnesses we want to hear. I'm not sure that 15 minutes will be enough to discuss that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I call to order the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for Tuesday, October 24, 2006.

Committee, before we go into the orders of the day I wish to report on a few items. The first one is of course that we will not be having a meeting on Thursday of this week.

Secondly, I have met with the clerk and the research staff, Madam Hurley. We talked somewhat about possible witnesses in the future, when we're dealing with Bill C-292. Madam Hurley has put together a list of a few suggestions, and we are circulating it.

It Is not “the” list, just some suggestions put forward, without any influence by any political person. You are welcome to add to the list, and a memo has been sent out to each committee member. Please forward information to the clerk. I will be discussing this at the Tuesday meeting for 15 minutes.

On Tuesday we're going to deal with the presentation from Mr. GooGoo from 9 o'clock until 9:45; then we're going to take 15 minutes to talk about the list of possible witnesses for Bill C-292, and I will make sure it's only 15 minutes. Then we're going to deal with Madam Neville's motion from 10 o'clock to 11. Is that okay?

[Technical difficulty--Editor]

Aboriginal Affairs

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the House voted on a private member's bill, Bill C-292, the Kelowna press release. In typical Liberal fashion, all but one of the Liberal leadership candidates could not be bothered to stand up for the occasion.

If they were concerned about aboriginals' well-being and actually believed in the Kelowna press release, they would have supported it, would they not?

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell us how Canada's new government is taking real concrete action to improve the lives and well-being of aboriginal Canadians?

Kelowna Accord Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-292 under private members' business.

The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak to Bill C-292, a very commendable private member's bill from the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I am also very honoured to have been involved in the discussions and preparations that went into the Kelowna accord. There was over 13 months of work by the Inuit organization and other aboriginal organizations in Canada. For the party across the way to oversimplify that is very discouraging. For people to say that it was not an agreement or an accord, that it could be disregarded because there was no signed agreement and no budget for it really is oversimplifying the situation. It also adds insult to all the preparatory work that people did on the agreement.

I was in my riding last week speaking with different groups that are suffering badly from the recent cuts to the social programs. The various cuts announced by the Conservative government affect literacy programs, the museum assistance program, and women's groups. The cuts are really affecting the work that communities have been trying to do at the ground level. The Conservative government does not realize the impact these cuts are having on communities. This solidifies my belief that the Conservatives do not understand what reversing the Kelowna agreement has done to our people. I speak mainly for my riding of Nunavut because that is the region I understand the best, but I have spoken with people all across the country and they believed that the Kelowna accord would give them the tools for them to provide their own solutions. They believed that the government of the day recognized their ability to run their own affairs, to come up with their own solutions and to put into play ways of governance that had been there for them in the past.

The recent history of this country has made it very difficult for people in the communities to practise their own ways of governing, their own ways of reconciling differences, their own ways of educating their people, which really are not very different from those of the rest of the country. It is just that we have learned to look at things through a different lens. We all have the same end goals, but the way to achieve those end goals can differ from one part of the country to another, or from one cultural group to another. As I said, the end goals are the same, and they are to provide a good future for our children and to take advantage of this country's resources, which every Canadian should be able to access. How we reach those goals can be different.

We certainly have different ways of looking at things and understanding things as a native people, but at the end of the day we all want what is best for our children. We all want to achieve those goals in a way that works for us. It means understanding that we have to do things our own way and, yes, make our own mistakes. Since Nunavut has become a new territory, we have certainly experienced challenges and have made mistakes along the way, but at least they have been our mistakes.

The Kelowna accord gave us the tools, the mechanisms and the resources, because we do need investments in a different way than has worked for people in the south. Education is a very strong component. The Berger report indicated very strongly that we need to educate our people in a way that is different from that in the rest of the country. It is not to say that we are any less able to be educated but that we need to look at different ways of reaching the knowledge that people have.

The Kelowna accord was certainly a step in the right direction for this country. I ask members in the House to support this private member's bill because it would put us back on the right track to where we were going before. We have been derailed but I certainly hope that we can get back on the right track with this accord.

I thank the members of other parties who have indicated they will support this private member's bill. Again, I urge all members to support this bill. I give credit to my colleague for bringing forward this private member's bill. I know he truly believes this is a way we can bring a group of people from our history back on a level playing field with the rest of the country. I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who have been very strong in their support. I certainly will be supporting this private member's bill.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on the second reading of Bill C-292.

I commend the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard for providing us with another opportunity to discuss and consider the issues of importance to all Canadians and especially aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

Although I welcome this occasion to speak, I cannot support the proposed legislation for a very good reason. The previous Liberal government, after 13 years, clearly neglected aboriginal people all across Canada.

I am very proud to say that our new government and our new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is interested in doing the thing the previous government was unable to do and that is to look at the structural changes needed to actually bring benefits to the people in the communities, the people who have not seen benefits in the past, and are the ones who need it; We will not be growing the bureaucracy and not growing the system like the previous government would so love to do.

I would like to point out two other objections today. First, the bill is poorly conceived. It is not proposing a clear detailed policy and blueprint but rather a series of broad political commitments in a unilateral press release. Furthermore, it purports to extend statutory recognition to a one-time event and create a vague legal obligation to fulfill a series of wide-ranging commitments, a dubious proposition at best and certainly one which is unenforceable.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 25, you yourself mentioned that Bill C-292, in clause 2, does state that the government shall take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the accord, but it does not provide specific details on those measures. You said that the measures are simply not described.

In addition, Bill C-292 provides members with absolutely no idea of what obligations it would impose on government, nor whether those obligations would also apply to provinces and territories. That is an important issue for many of my colleagues in this chamber.

The second objection that I have is that Bill C-292 is redundant. Since taking office and in collaboration with our aboriginal, provincial and territorial partners, the new government has undertaken a new approach that will produce real solutions to the problems facing aboriginal people in Canada.

The approach focuses on moving aboriginal people from dependency to self-reliance through targeted efforts in four areas. The first is to empower individuals to take greater control and responsibility for their own lives through directing investments toward housing and education. Next, we are working to accelerate land claims. We are also promoting economic development, job training, skills and entrepreneurship. Finally, we are laying the ground work for responsible self-government by moving toward modern and accountable government structures.

We are already achieving results. Earlier this year, the government developed and launched an action plan to address drinking water concerns in first nation communities. This comprehensive plan consists of measures to identify communities at risk from unsafe water, ensure treatment facilities are managed by certifying operators, and implementing standards for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of treatment facilities.

Furthermore, there is a three member panel of experts who are conducting public hearings across the country to examine and provide options on the establishment of a regulatory framework to ensure safe drinking water in first nation communities.

We are also moving forward in collaboration with first nations people, the provinces and territories to reach workable legislative solutions to resolve the challenges presented by the current situation regarding matrimonial real property on reserves which affects a disproportionate number of women and children on reserves, particularly those experiencing family violence. Matrimonial real property on reserves is obviously a pressing equality issue and one we are committed to resolving.

Unfortunately, members from the party opposite, including the member for Winnipeg South Centre, have indicated that perhaps this is not something we should be proceeding with as soon as possible. I find that to be rather surprising coming from this member whom I thought was very concerned about this issue. To that end, this government has recently announced a national consultation process aimed at resolving the difficult issue of on reserve matrimonial real property.

In this day and age, it is unacceptable that women and children, families and communities on reserve are still struggling with an issue that has been long neglected, and it is a shame. This situation is the result of a legislative void because provincial and territorial laws that deal with the matter elsewhere in the country do not apply on reserve. The federal Indian Act, which governs practically all aspects of life on reserve, is very silent on this issue.

As a result of this legislative gap, legal rights and remedies that are applicable off reserve are not available to individuals living in first nations communities. As a consequence, many women are subjected to discrimination and denied basic human rights that other Canadians all take for granted. It is essential that we deal with this issue as soon as possible because clearly, after 13 years, the previous government made no efforts in that area.

Education is yet another area in which our government is enabling real change for first nations people. In July we signed an agreement with the province of British Columbia and the British Columbia first nations education steering committee to enable first nations in B.C. to assume meaningful control on reserve elementary and secondary schools in areas such as curriculum, educational standards and teacher's certification. This means that first nations children in British Columbia will be able to obtain an education that meets provincial standards but that is also culturally relevant. That is essential.

As we know, first nations individuals all across Canada, in fact all aboriginal people, are just as capable of learning, but learning is something that requires a cultural sensitivity that we have not seen in the past. I am proud that our government is moving forward in this area.

Another issue which is very important, again left by the previous government at our feet, is a process that our minister has put forward to accelerate land claims. There is a huge backlog of claims which is completely unacceptable and indicates that the current system is clearly not up to the task.

Settlements are about justice, respect and reconciliation. More than coming to terms with the past though, settlements are also about building a better future for communities that are sometimes isolated and far from our current economic setters. Each settlement clears a path to strengthened governance and will also strengthen new economic and social opportunities. Settlements can also mean that valuable resources are spent on communities rather than courtrooms.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I are steadfast in our resolve to work with aboriginal partners on shared priorities to develop effective, sustainable approaches to overcome the pressing challenges in our aboriginal communities.

The government's approach to resolving aboriginal issues, including water, matrimonial real property, education, housing, women and children is all focused on tangible results and clear accountability. Bill C-292 proposes an approach characterized by vague promises and general objectives, something that the previous government was excellent at doing.

Accordingly, I will be voting against Bill C-292 and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of Bill C-292 and the New Democrats will be supporting this private member's bill. However, it is a sad statement that we need to bring forward a private member's bill to deal with some very serious and pressing issues in first nations communities from coast to coast to coast.

Lest we think that these conditions are new ones, the conditions that are currently in place in first nations communities are a result of decades of neglect and need to be laid, not only at the doorstep of the current Conservative government but also points to a failure of the previous Liberal government to deal with these issues.

I want to talk about some statistics that the Assembly of First Nations has put forward and the fact that it has launched a “Make Poverty History: The First Nations Plan for Creating Opportunity” campaign. The conditions it is talking about have not arisen since January 2006. These conditions have accumulated over decades. I will only talk about a few of these numbers because they are depressing and a shameful legacy for this country to be talking about the kinds of conditions that exist in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities across the country.

Let us talk about children. We often talk about family values and how important children are to our country. We talk about needing to protect our children and yet in first nations communities one in four children live in poverty compared to one in six Canadian children. The rate of disabilities among first nations children is about one in eight and is almost double the rate among Canadian children, and over one-third of first nations households with children are overcrowded.

Let us talk about homes. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan many homes on first nations reserves are contaminated with mould and yet we seem to have very little action that addresses the crying need in these communities to have safe, clean, affordable housing. About one in three first nations people consider their main drinking water supply unsafe to drink and 12% of first nations communities have to boil their drinking water and mould contaminates almost half of all households.

In my own community there is a band called Penelakut on Kuper Island and its water source is below a decommissioned dump. The reserve has cases of rheumatic fever and the physicians in the area say that they have not seen rheumatic fever since they were in third world countries. Some of the band members talk about turning on their taps and having brown stuff come out.

I live on Vancouver Island where we have some of the cleanest water in Canada. The Cowichan Valley says that it has the cleanest water in Canada and yet the people of Penelakut cannot access clean water on a regular basis.

Let us talk about our communities and how we rank internationally. According to the AFN “Make Poverty History”, applying the United Nations human development index would rank first nations communities 68 among 174 nations. Canada has dropped from first to eighth due in part to the housing and health conditions in first nations communities. Most first nations, 80%, have personal incomes below $30,000 per year and half of all households have total incomes below that level. When people do not have the incomes to even attempt to improve their living conditions, how can we expect people to bring themselves up out of poverty?

Much has also been made about how much money is spent on first nations people. The section entitled “Fiscal Imbalance: The Truth About Spending on First Nations” states:

Per capita spending on First Nations is half the amount for average Canadians (between $7,000-$8,000 compared to $15,000-$16,000). Spending on First Nations through core federal programs is capped annually at rates lower than inflation and population growth.

A recent Auditor General's report talked about the fact that funding only increased at 1.6% per annum whereas population increased significantly more than that.

Those were just a few statistics of the reality in first nations community and it is no different for the Inuit peoples in the north, the Métis people and the off reserve and urban aboriginals.

In any other country we would be pointing to these figures, facts, conditions and quality of life and saying that it was a shameful statement on that country. In our own country we continue to have those conditions and we ignore them daily.

The Conservatives have said that the Kelowna accord was signed on November 25 and that it was scratched out on a napkin somewhere. That is a total disrespect for the 18 months of work that went into the Kelowna agreement, 18 months of people from across the country coming together to lay out a framework and address the very serious and pressing needs in communities.

In my province of British Columbia, the premier and the then prime minister took it to heart. They saw the agreement as being something real and something that Canadians, including aboriginal peoples, wanted implemented. In fact, they signed a tripartite agreement. The first nations leadership from British Columbia, the prime minister and Premier Campbell, in good faith, signed the agreement called the transformative change accord and it was between the Government of British Columbia, the Government of Canada and the leadership council representing the first nations of British Columbia.

This agreement was done with a great deal of responsibility, fiscal, social, environmental and economic. People recognized that what happened in Kelowna was a framework that would allow people to move forward. It was a commitment on the part of the Liberal government of the day and the first nations peoples and they fully expected the future government to honour that commitment.

Recognizing that people wanted to see accountability and responsibility, the agreement laid out specific items. It laid out benchmarks for improving relationships by supporting a tripartite negotiation forum to address issues having to do with the reconciliation of aboriginal rights and titles. Numbers of treaties and increased awareness by public diversity were talked about. Benchmarks were laid out for closing the education gap and for improving housing.

Nothing in that agreement said that it was a fictional exercise in Kelowna. People expected some action but instead they got a Conservative government that rolled back the work that had been done.

The Conservatives have indicated their commitment by rolling back the Kelowna accord, by failing to invest in those key areas that first nations peoples said were critical and essential to their health and well-being and they have further demonstrated their lack of commitment by failing to look at the declaration on human rights for indigenous peoples.

I just want to go back to my own riding for one moment. The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group is a group of six nations that has been involved in treaties and it is currently looking at the dire circumstances in many communities. Under Canada's community well-being index used to examine the well-being of Canadian communities, the six Hul’qumi’num communities score between 448th and 482nd out of 486 communities surveyed in British Columbia. They could not get much farther down the list in terms of well-being. It is a shocking statement that this continues in this day and age.

The Kelowna accord was a good first step but it failed to address land claims, treaties and specific land claims. I would urge all members of the House to support the private member's bill but I also would encourage every member of the House to push for much more fair and equitable treatment in the country.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, introduced by the member for LaSalle—Émard. I will mention a few of the reasons why.

The Kelowna accord is not, was not and will not be a cure-all for the problems faced by aboriginal communities. What the Kelowna accord was and will be is merely a way to alleviate the major problems of these communities. On Monday, May 8, 2006, in support of the accord, I tabled a motion, on behalf of my party, to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development recommending the implementation of the Kelowna accord reached by representatives of Ottawa, Quebec, the provinces and national aboriginal leaders.

The tabling of this motion and Bill C-292, which we are debating today, remind us that, once again, the federal government has not respected its commitments and has not taken its responsibilities toward the aboriginal people. I would like to read the motion that I tabled and that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development adopted:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee recommends that government to implement the Kelowna agreement, entitled Strengthening Relationships and Closing the Gap, which was reached on November 25, 2005 between the First Ministers and the National Aboriginal Leaders.

That the Committee adopt these recommendations as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

We must not kid ourselves: the Kelowna accord is only a temporary measure that will not improve the living conditions of native people in the long run.

The accord would represent $5.1 billion over five years for education, health, housing and economic opportunities for aboriginal peoples. If we consider that those funds are to be divided among federal, Quebec, provincial and territorial governments before reaching first nations, Inuit and Métis, where the needs are critical, we realize that that is very little to really reduce the gap.

Quebec's first nations have tremendous needs, particularly in housing. Currently, they need over $700 million to provide the 7,000 housing units they lack—a figure that grows by hundreds of units every year. As we know, this housing deficit has extremely severe human and social consequences. Some health problems are linked directly to the housing shortage. We must quickly put a stop to increasing incidences of poisoning, infection, tuberculosis, and so on. The incidence of diabetes, fetal alcohol syndrome and suicide is also very worrisome.

Suicide is a serious problem. Even though rates vary considerably from one community to the next, they are too high overall. Suicide rates among first nations youth are 5 to 7 times higher than among non-aboriginal youth. The suicide rates of Inuit youth are among the highest in the world—11 times higher than the Canadian average. We must therefore invest time and resources without delay.

As far as education is concerned, if the government finally decided to tackle the problem, it would take 27 or 28 years to close the gap with other Quebeckers and Canadians, according to the 2004 Auditor General's report. That is very serious.

A number of reports from the Auditor General, as well as findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and, more recently, the latest report from the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the living conditions of the aboriginal people of Canada, are alarming.

Many recommendations supported by aboriginals, Quebeckers and Canadians have been presented to Ottawa and have fallen on deaf ears.

On the eve of the conference of first ministers, the Bloc Québécois publicly supported the common position held by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and the Quebec Native Women's Association, who rejected the government's initiative.

The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and the Quebec Native Women's Association deplored the fact that the approach to narrowing the gap between the living conditions of first nations people and those of Quebeckers and Canadians did not address the real causes behind the first nations' situation, which are the lack of fair access to land and resources, and respect for their rights.

The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, and the Quebec Native Women's Association also deplored the fact that the objective of the Kelowna agreement, through its blanket treatment of all aboriginals and lack of consultation with the communities to identify the real challenges, would maintain the cycle of dependence of the first nations.

The Bloc Québécois feels that concrete solutions are needed that are adapted to the reality of the various aboriginal nations to correct at the foundation the inequalities that affect their communities. In addition, these measures must come out of discussions with the first nations, because money alone will not solve the problem. On the contrary, it perpetuates the paternalistic approach of the federal government toward aboriginals.

Now we know, here in this House, that the federal government has an obligation to meet the great needs of the aboriginal people, among other things those related to housing, infrastructure, education and health care.

The Bloc Québécois continues to make sure that Ottawa does not shirk its obligations as a trustee. The federal government should assume its responsibilities as long as all aboriginal nations do not have the tools for self-government. The first indications of this government's handling of the aboriginal issue are not very reassuring. For example, the initiative for a protocol for safe drinking water for first nations communities is commendable in and of itself. However, when the initiative sets aside communities with the greatest needs, those that still do not have a drinking water system and are still hauling their water in buckets, there is cause for concern.

I have just two minutes remaining, but I could talk about this for hours without putting this House to sleep. I will wrap up quickly.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-292. The commitments made by the federal government in Kelowna mark a first step toward bridging the gap between aboriginal nations and Quebeckers and Canadians. Let me be clear: this is a first step.

Aboriginal people must have all the tools to develop their own identity, namely the right to self-government and the recognition of their rights.

In closing I want to say that in a few days a socio-economic forum of the first nations will be held at Masteuiash in the Roberval area. It is an exceptional location for the current federal government to show a little more empathy toward the first nations and to announce, in Masteuiash, important decisions for those first nations. We must prevent the things we are currently seeing in the media. An article on October 7 said that aboriginal peoples are the most overrepresented group in Canada's prisons. This must stop. We believe that the Kelowna accord was a step in the right direction. We want to reiterate in this House that we will support this accord and this bill.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to finish sharing my views on Bill C-292

I rise today in opposition to Bill C-292, an act to implement the Kelowna accord.

As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, I commend the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard for providing members with the opportunity to discuss this issue that is of great importance to all Canadians. It is a pleasure to see the member for LaSalle—Émard in the House today.

This issue is important for all Canadians. Although I welcome the occasion to speak to this pressing matter and listen to the contributions of other members, I cannot support the proposed legislation.

My opposition to Bill C-292 is rooted in two main objections. First, the bill is poorly conceived. It is not a precise, detailed policy blueprint but a series of broad political commitments. Furthermore, it purports to extend statutory recognition to a one-time political event and create a legal obligation to fulfill a series of wide-ranging commitments.

As I mentioned earlier, the short text of Bill C-292 provides members with absolutely no idea of what obligations it would impose on the government, nor whether these obligations would also apply to provinces and territories. This is an important issue for many of my colleagues in this chamber.

Until members are provided with clear details on the nature of these programs and the related accountability measures, and until a long term sustainable financial plan to fund these programs has been approved by Parliament, I cannot see how this House can approve or support Bill C-292. So it will come as no surprise to members of this House that I continue to speak today in opposition to this bill.

The health and prosperity of aboriginal and northern communities is critical to the health and prosperity of our entire nation. Thus, we must take concrete steps to address issues of aboriginal women, children and families, education, water, and housing.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 25, you yourself mentioned that Bill C-292, in clause 2, does state that the government shall “take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the accord”, but the bill does not provide specific details on these measures. You said, “The measures simply are not described”.

Bill C-292 fails to establish a clear plan of action to resolve these issues. It fails to assign responsibilities. It fails to detail financial arrangements. It fails to adequately define procedures to achieve its targets. In other words, the bill before us today is not a fully developed strategy and could not be legally enforced.

With $3.7 billion allocated for aboriginal and northern programs, the budget created by Canada's new government includes targeted investments in key areas. Those key areas include aboriginal housing, water, education, and economic development. The returns on these investments will deliver real improvements in the quality of life for aboriginal and northern peoples.

Those investments will fortify relationships with provinces, territories, aboriginal leaders and organizations and create a more promising future for all Canadians.

It is important to note that the government's $3.7 billion investment in aboriginal and northern peoples is in addition to increases to aboriginal health programs, as well as increases to the budget of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

This number, $3.7 billion, also excludes budget initiatives already aimed at both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal peoples deserve no less than the same opportunities we all seek for our families, for our communities and for our country. We are committed to securing these opportunities for aboriginal Canadians.

Three hundred million dollars will go directly to affordable housing programs in the territories, benefiting both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. Nunavut, where the problem is most pressing, will receive $200 million. Yukon and the Northwest Territories will receive $50 million each.

Another $300 million will be used to improve housing through the off-reserve aboriginal housing fund.

Furthermore, $450 million has been set aside to fund initiatives for water, housing, education, and women, children and families. Through education, aboriginal communities can successfully battle poverty, while initiatives to improve the quality of life for women will nurture healthy children and families.

A settlement agreement that was signed on May 10 launched an advanced payment program for seniors who suffered abuse while in residential schools. Victims will share in a $2.2 billion fund to help them deal with the emotional and psychological trauma that many of them continue to experience to this day.

We do not believe that money and ad hoc remedies resolve the challenges facing aboriginal peoples. We must take on the hard work of renovating our laws and our institutions. This new Government of Canada is identifying and implementing effective and lasting solutions through collaboration and mutual respect.

I strongly advise my hon. colleagues to join me in voting against Bill C-292.

The House resumed from June 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. government House leader on June 16, 2006 in relation to the procedural issues relating to Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

I want to begin by thanking the hon. government House leader for having raised this matter and by thanking the hon. members for Mississauga South, Honoré-Mercier and Winnipeg Centre for having made contributions on this matter.

In his submission, the government House leader argued that this bill commits the government to significant expenditures and therefore requires a royal recommendation. In support of this fact, he referred to the spending which was included in the supplementary estimates for the 2005-06 fiscal year by the previous government. Parliament was dissolved in November 2005 before the appropriation act emanating from those estimates could be voted on, and subsequently the moneys were authorized through Governor General special warrants. The House leader therefore concludes that it is evident that this bill entails considerable spending and so requires a royal recommendation.

In a ruling earlier this week on a similar matter, namely, C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, the Chair made a distinction between a bill asking the House to approve certain objectives and a bill asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives. So too in the case before us, the adoption of a bill calling on the government to implement the Kyoto protocol might place an obligation on the government to take measures necessary to meet the goals set out in the protocol but the Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be. If spending is required, as the government House leader contends, then a specific request for public monies would need to be brought forward by means of an appropriation bill, as was the case in 2005, or through another legislative initiative containing an authorization for the spending of public money for a specific purpose.

As it stands, Bill C-288 does not contain provisions which specifically authorize any spending for a distinct purpose relating to the Kyoto protocol. Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

As Bill C-288 stands, however, the Chair must conclude that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and may proceed.

Private Members' Bill C-292--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the points of order raised by the government House leader and the hon. member for Wascana on June 1, 2006 in relation to Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.

At the outset, I wish to thank both hon. members for having raised their concerns early in the legislative process for, in so doing, they have afforded all members an opportunity to become better acquainted with this initiative and its procedural implications.

I also wish to thank the government House leader and the hon. member for Wascana for tabling the Kelowna accord, thus adding to the material available to me in preparing this ruling.

The Chair has also noted that the hon. member for Wascana has explained that, in November 2005, as the then minister of finance, he had made provision in the fiscal framework for the implementation of the Kelowna accord. That said, I must make it clear that while the machinery of government could not operate without such planning, it is irrelevant to the question before the Chair.

Hon. members will know that, as Speaker, I can only address procedural issues and that these issues are separate and distinct from fiscal management issues.

The Chair must judge, not whether funds were set aside to meet the government's obligations, but rather whether this specific private member's initiative, Bill C-292, seeks authorization to spend funds. In other words, does Bill C-292 actually propose to spend public funds for a distinct purpose?

The contentious section is in clause 2 of the bill, which reads as follows:

The Government of Canada shall immediately take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the accord, known as the “Kelowna Accord”, that was concluded on November 25, 2005 at Kelowna, British Columbia, by the Prime Minister of Canada, the first ministers of each of the provinces and territories of Canada and the leaders of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Metis National Council, the Native Womens’ Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Chair must decide whether clause 2 is a provision that contains a clear authorization for funds to be drawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for a distinct purpose. If clause 2 does seek such authorization, then I must be guided by House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which explains on page 709:

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General.

In other words, the bill would require a royal recommendation.

As I stated in a decision on March 21, 2005, at page 4373 of the Debates:

--a bill effecting an appropriation of public funds or an equivalent authorization to spend public funds does so immediately upon enactment. Once Parliament approves a bill that requires a royal recommendation, there should be nothing further required to make the appropriation.

So, in the case before us, we need to ask what specific spending is contemplated?

Bill C-292 in clause 2 does state that the government shall “take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the accord”, but it does not provide specific details on those measures. The measures simply are not described. In the absence of such a description, it is impossible for the Chair to say that the bill requires a royal recommendation.

This conclusion may seem somewhat surprising and may well lead members back to a question raised earlier by the government House leader: namely, if Bill C-292 does not require a royal recommendation and the bill were to pass, what would be the obligations of the government in terms of implementing the Kelowna accord?

As I read it, the Kelowna accord tabled in the House sheds light on the plan of action, but it is not clear whether the accord could be implemented through an appropriation act, through amendments to existing acts, or through the establishment of new acts. From my reading, implementation would appear to require various legislative proposals.

In any event though, this is more of a legal question than a procedural one. The government House leader's legal advisors are best placed to reply to that question. As my predecessors and I have said on many occasions, the Speaker does not rule on matters of law. When, or perhaps if, enabling legislation comes forward, the Chair will, as usual, be vigilant in assessing the need for a royal recommendation.

In summary then, Bill C-292 can continue through the legislative process and the Chair can put the question at third reading since this bill does not require a royal recommendation.

I thank the House for its patience in allowing me to review this rather complex matter.

Kelowna Accord Implementation Act

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

moved that Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, on too many reserves and in too many cities there is an unacceptable gap between what ought to be the hopeful promise of youth and the experience of aboriginal adulthood, a gap made even more unacceptable by the fact that aboriginal Canadians represent the largest segment of our youth and the fastest growing segment of our population.

We face a moral imperative. In a country as wealthy as ours, a country that is the envy of the world, good health and good education should be givens. They are the pillars underpinning equality of opportunity, which in turn is the foundation on which our society is built.

I rise today because the descendants of the people who first occupied this land deserve to have an equal opportunity to work for and to enjoy the benefits of our collective prosperity. Today the majority do not because of gaps in education and skills, in health care and housing, and because of limited opportunities for employment. Put simply, these gaps between aboriginal Canadians and other Canadians are not acceptable in the 21st century. They never were acceptable.

Last fall the Government of Canada came to an extraordinary agreement with an extraordinary group of people. These included the leadership of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the first ministers of Canada's provinces and territories.

Together we developed a plan to narrow and eventually eliminate the gaps that afflict aboriginal Canadians. It became known as the Kelowna accord.

The history of aboriginal communities is heart-rending. For a year and a half, we worked to establish objectives in order to make progress in five crucial areas: education, health, housing, drinking water and economic development. Our goal was to make a real difference, to do everything in our power to change what is a harsh reality for many of our fellow citizens through investments that would bring about real change in the daily lives of aboriginal peoples.

We began by studying the gap in education. Giving young people the chance to reach their potential is essential to all of the other initiatives we set out. This means building schools and training teachers. This means ensuring that students complete their studies. This means making all types of post-secondary education available to young people. This means encouraging them to get professional training so they can get better jobs. We must ensure they have the means to succeed at all of these pursuits.

This is why the government committed to establishing a network of first nations school systems run by aboriginals in cooperation with the provinces, which are responsible for education. Our plan also included making aboriginal, Inuit or Métis culture an integral part of the curriculum in certain urban public schools.

The number of major economic projects underway in the north is staggering. Employment opportunities are abundant, and the number of well-paid jobs is remarkable. Aboriginal people will really be able to benefit from this, but only if training starts now.

This is why we committed to working with our public and private sector partners to create the apprenticeship training programs Canadian aboriginals need to get good jobs. The goal of the Kelowna accord is to close the gap between aboriginals and non-aboriginals within 10 years. The accord will ensure that the aboriginal population has the same proportion of high school graduates as the non-aboriginal population, and it will halve the post-secondary studies gap. That is just the beginning.

In terms of health care, the gaps that persist between aboriginal health and the health of most Canadians are simply unconscionable. The incidence of infant mortality is almost 20% higher for first nations than for the rest of Canada. Suicide can be anywhere from three times to eleven times more common. Teen pregnancies are nine times the national average. It is evident that these heartbreaking statistics and facts speak not just to health care. They speak to the psychic and emotional turmoil in communities, which we must find ways urgently to address.

We started this effort two years ago when aboriginal leaders participated in the first ministers meeting on health care. There we recognized the need for a new health framework and we began work on an unprecedented document, the aboriginal health blueprint, a comprehensive plan for the delivery of reliable health care in every province and territory on and off reserve.

We aimed to double the number of aboriginal health professionals in 10 years from 150 physicians and 1,200 nurses today. We aimed to focus on core measures of health, which we can monitor and improve upon in each community. We set goals to reduce the gaps in key areas, such as infant mortality, youth suicide, childhood obesity and diabetes.

This is only a start. No one will be satisfied until these gaps are closed completely.

We addressed the issue of clean water and housing. Housing is about more than having a roof over one's head. It is about dignity. It is about pride of place. It is about having a stake in the community and an investment in the future. We recognize the need to reduce these gaps significantly with a comprehensive effort to expand the skills of first nations, Inuit and Métis to manage their land, infrastructure and financing. It is estimated, by implementing the Kelowna accord, that we could realistically close the housing gap on reserve by 40% within 5 years and by 80% within 10 years.

The Kelowna accord is a comprehensive 10 year plan to achieve a clear set of goals and targets. We provided $5.1 billion for the first five years. Let me be very clear. The funds were fully provided for in the fiscal framework. The government has the money. It is a fiscal framework, incidentally, which has, since that time, produced a surplus substantially larger than was originally projected. We made it clear that for the second five years of the program, enhanced resources based on the success obtained would be provided.

It is a measurable plan, with targets to be attained and evaluated every two to three years, giving Canadians the ability to hold everyone who is involved accountable. It was developed through a non-partisan, collaborative approach in concert with the aboriginal leadership. All political parties and government across the country, Liberal, Conservative and NDP, were at the table. The Government of Canada, on behalf of the people of Canada, gave its solemn word that we would work to achieve these goals.

Aboriginal Canadians, provinces and territories have made it clear that they want to see a commitment from the new government to honour the Kelowna accord. Despite this, five months later, after inheriting a very healthy balance sheet, one much better than it had anticipated, the new government refuses to say whether it will support the nation's commitment to these goals and objectives. Its budget did not confirm the funds necessary to attain those goals.

Wherein lies the problem? Is it that the government disagrees with the goals that are set out in the accord? Is it that it does not want to work with the provinces, territories and the aboriginal leadership, all of whom share these goals?

On the other hand, the government agrees with the objectives that are laid out in the accord. Why will it not take advantage of a plan that was developed over 18 months by experts in 14 governments across Canada and in our aboriginal communities?

Let us be honest, we have consulted long enough. We have studied enough. The time has come for the government to act. Why will the government not recognize that, because of its lack of commitment, it has already wasted precious months, precious months in which critical progress could have been made toward the attaining of our interim targets?

The goals and objectives of the Kelowna agreement will not go away. This was never a partisan issue. The premier of British Columbia, speaking recently in his legislature, said the following:

I characterized that agreement as Canada's 'moment of truth.' It was our time to do something that has eluded our nation for 138 years. It was our chance to end the disparities in health, education, housing and economic opportunity. All first ministers rose to that moment of truth alongside Canada's aboriginal leaders to undertake that challenge....

Similarly, this week during their meeting in Gimli, western premiers said the following:

Having previously made an extraordinary national commitment, failure to follow through on that commitment will only make us poorer as a nation.

That is the premiers talking about a commitment.

The premier of Manitoba, who chaired that meeting, added that it would be morally wrong to walk away from the accord.

It is because of this that I have taken the unfortunate necessary step of introducing the bill entitled an act to implement the Kelowna accord. I do so with only one goal in mind, and that is to provide the government and the House with the opportunity to reaffirm what was, by all accounts, a historic agreement for Canada, for Canadians.

The bill is about confirming national commitment lest it be lost. It is also about another potential loss, the loss of the goodwill and the optimism that characterized the Kelowna meeting, the positive spirit, which played a huge role in helping us reach an agreement. All of us at that meeting left imbued with a new sense of hope for the future. That hope was underpinned by an expectation that all the parties to the agreement would live up to their commitment.

Unfortunately, for aboriginal Canadians, new hope has been replaced by doubt. Goodwill has been displaced by worry as the government engages in red herring after red herring. Too many aboriginal Canadians today endured crushing poverty in one of the world's most prosperous countries. That is why I chose, as a new prime minister, to make it a central issue for my government.

The new government is responsible for making a clear commitment to aboriginal peoples. It must respect the promises made and honour the Kelowna accord.

We need a clear commitment, not just in words but in action. We need a clear commitment to meet the challenges facing our aboriginal people by living up to the Kelowna accord.

I ask the government and the ministers here present to rise above partisanship. I ask them and all members of the House, for the sake of our aboriginal people and the future of our great country, to support the bill.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has signed a historic agreement with the provinces, territories and leaders of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to close the gap between the quality of life of aboriginals and that of non-aboriginals.

The Government of Canada entered into a historic agreement with the provinces, the territories and the leadership of Canada's aboriginal people to close and ultimately eliminate the gaps between our aboriginal Canadians and non-aboriginal Canadians in the areas of health care, education, housing, access to clean water and economic opportunity.

I believe and we believe it is vital that the Government of Canada honour its commitment. That is the purpose of this bill.

The government must keep its promises. That is the purpose of this initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)