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.

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.