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.

[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]