Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2006

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

There's no timeframe from this committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

No.

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

Then I would propose an amendment to Monsieur Lemay's motion that says, after the words, “that the Chair table this report in the House”, the word “immediately”. I would add the word “immediately”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Préfontaine has to put it together, and “immediately” is vague. You should maybe just say before “the first opportunity” rather than immediately.

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

I don't know about “the first opportunity”. Could I ask how long it would take to prepare the document?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

About the same as immediately.

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

Okay, so within ten days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That's fine.

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

Okay, within ten days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That's okay. Thank you.

Do we want it in the motion, or is it just going to be understood by the committee?

I'm going to close debate on this, because each side has had an opportunity to speak to it and we have witnesses here who need to move forward. I'm going to call for the question.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Could we move on to the orders of the day? We have a briefing on education of aboriginal people. Could I ask our witnesses to come forward and sit before the committee, please?

From the Assembly of First Nations, we have with us Mr. Fontaine, the national chief; Richard Jock, the chief executive officer; Bob Watts, chief of staff in the office of the national chief; and Angus Toulouse, Ontario regional chief.

Welcome to the committee, and thank you for your attendance.

I want to thank you very much for your patience. We had one issue we wanted to deal with before we proceeded with witnesses. As chair, I will assure you that we'll give you ample time to give us your presentation and we'll have ample time for questions. Thank you again for your patience.

I would like to turn it over to you, Chief Fontaine, to begin your presentation.

[Chief Phil Fontaine, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, I thank you, the chair, and the members of this committee for the invitation to be here this afternoon.

As you all know, the Assembly of First Nations is the national first nations organization, representing over 630 first nation governments and communities. I might add that we're a non-partisan political organization. We represent the views of first nations, and that is our responsibility. Our mandate makes it very clear that we are and must remain non-partisan. Our leadership is democratically elected, taking their instructions from the chiefs in assembly. First nations governments represent all first nations people: the 62% who live on reserve and the remainder who live in other rural and urban areas. This goes against the popular misconception that three-quarters of our people live in urban centres. That's simply not true. The vast majority of our people reside on reserve, and a lesser number reside in urban communities.

As I prepared for this presentation, I reflected on the breadth of the issues that I could cover and on the challenge this committee must face in setting priorities. I would like to begin by clarifying a few matters, following the Honourable Jim Prentice's presentation here last week, so that we can move on to the important work ahead of us.

Mr. Prentice spoke of some plans to address his government's priorities. He may have left you with the impression that first nations agree with these priorities and have been consulted regarding them. So I want to clarify this particular matter. While the minister and I have had ongoing and, I must say, productive discussions and we both share concerns on a number of matters, such as education, housing, and issues pertaining to women, children, and families—particularly as it relates to violence against women and children—we are at the present not involved in any working groups. So we would respectfully disagree with the suggestion that we've been consulted on these plans. We've talked about them, yes, but there has been no understanding reached on how we would address these very important issues. So I want to make it clear that we haven't come to the point where we actually support the approach and the priorities that are part of the plan.

I also understand that there has been considerable discussion regarding the outcomes achieved at the first ministers meeting in British Columbia last November. Some people have challenged the understanding reached, as to whether it should be called an accord or whether there was an agreement at all. I want to be absolutely clear before the committee that there was an agreement involving ten premiers, three territorial leaders, the national aboriginal leaders, and the Prime Minister of Canada. It was the culmination of 18 months of hard work. We all referred to it as an agreement, or an accord, most recently at Gimli just a week ago.

The fact is that this government, which values accountability and transparency, must acknowledge that the process in British Columbia last November was a fully public and transparent process. So we truly believe that an agreement was reached with the country, and not with one political party. It engaged 14 jurisdictions, and 14 jurisdictions endorsed our plan, and it was our plan that was the subject of discussion in British Columbia.

The government is certainly entitled to have its own views and priorities. We don't question that; we respect that fact. However, we should not allow the hard work of all concerned, all the good intentions, and the hope born in that agreement to be trivialized in any way.

This agreement was about the future well-being of Canada, and our shared future must not be held hostage to partisan politics. I believe Premier Campbell of British Columbia put it well when he stated the honour of the Crown is at stake.

My concern continues to be how we take what was agreed to at the first ministers meeting and move forward with it, based on the shared objectives and targets the current Minister of Indian Affairs says he supports. This means we need to understand one another in our roles as governments.

In discussions about Bill C-2, the minister indicated he believed first nations governments that have not signed a self-government agreement---and only 17 first nations have signed self-government agreements---have a different constitutional standing from all other governments. I respectfully but vigorously disagree with that position. The courts have repeatedly recognized the inherent and customary jurisdiction of first nations governments in this country that goes far beyond and pre-exists any delegation of authority through the Indian Act. This recognition is captured in section 35 of the Constitution Act.

In the practical sense, our governments have responsibilities equivalent to municipal, provincial, and federal governments. As such, the Assembly of First Nations is seeking an amendment to Bill C-2, put before the special parliamentary committee dealing with this issue, to treat first nations governments in the same way as every other government.

Having said that, we must move beyond the debates of yesterday and focus our energies on improving the quality of life of our first nations people, for our sake and for the sake of this country. The important question is, what produces results? I underline, what produces results? We can learn from the examples of three of our recent achievements: one, the final settlement on residential schools, concluded in May; two, the political accord on the recognition and implementation of first nations governments, signed in May 2005 between our organization and the Government of Canada; three, the agreement reached at our meeting with the first ministers in November 2005.

These achievements represent an important foundation for change. However, there remains an urgent need for the federal government to demonstrate to first nations its commitment to move forward in a concrete and comprehensive manner.

We have suggested a framework for addressing the new federal government's priorities within the context of existing agreements, which we call the first nations action plan. It involves four essential commitments from all governments: one, to create trust and respect in our relationships through action on the political accord on the recognition and implementation of first nations governments; two, to build a functional accountability relationship to ensure the efficient and effective use of resources; three, to remove the fiscal discrimination currently faced by first nations governments that aligns funding with government service delivery responsibilities, and to ensure first nations are fully engaged in all discussions regarding fiscal imbalance, including at the Council of the Federation and future first nations-first ministers meetings; and four, to close the gap in quality of life between first nations and non-aboriginal Canadians.

Within this framework we identified an action plan and priority issues. We also identified the issues that may put the agenda at risk if they are not addressed. In addition, we acknowledge the need to move forward on economic, environmental, and social development issues that have been flagged at the FMM, to the next round of first ministers meetings supposed to take place in two to three years from the date of the first ministers meeting in November.

The first nations action plan is comprehensive and is definitive in its approach. As I stated earlier, this plan requires the active support of the Government of Canada to succeed.

Why this plan and why now? You all know that all governments came together on a process that resolved to close the quality of life gap between our people and non-aboriginal Canadians within 10 years. You all heard the Auditor General of Canada speak of more than 35 years of promise for change and of failure to achieve results. We are deeply concerned that the current government is responding to criticisms about its lack of action on our issues by, in turn, pointing the finger at the previous government and its supposed lack of action.

We should not be debating who is more inactive; we should be taking real action. Real leadership means turning inertia into energy for the betterment of all of Canada. The Auditor General identified seven critical success factors: sustained management attention, coordination of government programs, meaningful consultation with first nations, developing capacity within first nations, developing first nations institutions, developing an appropriate legislative base for programs, and resolving the conflicting roles of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Our plan speaks to these issues. From every perspective this is the right plan, and the time for it is well past due. I find it difficult to speak of the urgency we face without sounding as though I'm being overly dramatic. I want you to understand when I say action must happen now.

I'm speaking of the cost of lost opportunity if the contribution first nations youth could make to answer Canada's demographic challenges is not recognized.

I am speaking of the cost of lost revenue when conflict prevails over cooperation with regard to resource development, especially on megaprojects such as oil and gas pipelines and hydro generation. We understand there are at least seven key resource projects anticipated to be the drivers of the Canadian economy over the next period, and first nations interests figure prominently in each one of these. It is in all of our interests to ensure that cooperative arrangements that build partnership for mutual benefit are in place.

I'm speaking of the cost of doing nothing, in terms of increased social programming and direct payments to react to, rather than prevent, problems.

I am speaking of the need for each of you to hear the facts rather than assumptions about first nations and to act for the good of first nations people in all of Canada.

My recommendations to you today are about how to test what you hear from any witness, including us in our presentation. As parliamentarians....

By the way, this is not a lecture, but I thought I should point this out to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Well, thank you very much. We need a lecture once in a while.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

As parliamentarians, you have an important duty to uphold the honour of the Crown. You must be satisfied that government proposals and policies are consistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act.

I would also ask you to consider whether what you hear meets the Auditor General's seven critical success factors. And when people tell you that first nations people have been consulted, I want you to apply a test of five criteria that the Assembly of First Nations has developed for successful policy development: is there first nations leadership, national dialogue, independent first nations expertise, government mandate for change, and a joint national policy process?

When people talk about the credibility of first nations information, I would ask you to compare the work I have referenced today--the key elements of the first nations action plan, the process laid out in the political accord on the recognition and implementation of first nation governments, the proposal in our accountability for results initiative, and the five tests in our backgrounder on joint policy development. If these items do not stand up to these tests, then I would respectfully ask you to reject what you are hearing. On the other hand, if these tests are met, then I'm asking for your vigorous support, so that we can establish sustainable solutions to these urgent problems.

I would again like to thank the committee and its chair--you, Mr. Mayes--for this opportunity to address the issues pertaining to the first nation governments and their citizens.

Let us remember that Canadians are watching. Indeed, the world is watching us. Canada's reputation as a beacon of aboriginal and treaty rights has frankly always been built on shaky ground, and it has begun to collapse in recent years under the weight of international scrutiny by the United Nations, Amnesty International, and other international organizations.

Canada's position on the United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples is before this committee for consideration. In the past, Canada played a leadership role on this matter, and I'm talking about years, because this process has been a work in progress for about 18 years, at least. Recent signals that this government will instead align itself with the Untied States, Australia, and New Zealand, the notorious—at least from our perspective—opponents of the declaration, are deeply troubling.

The Canadian people are champions of human rights. It is a Canadian who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration is intended to establish international norms and standards in regard to indigenous peoples and thereby effectively extend such protections to the most vulnerable populations of the world. The current version already contains much compromise on the part of all parties, including indigenous peoples. If this government chooses to change course and oppose the declaration, over 18 years of careful diplomacy will be lost, and most importantly, so will be a critical human rights instrument.

This government has said that it is concerned that rights are expressed in the declaration without context, yet right within the text there are explicit guarantees that this declaration is to be read within the domestic framework, protecting all human rights. In our view, there is nothing to fear from this declaration and much to gain. In many ways, here at home and in the world at large, we are at a crossroads. We can continue down a path of poverty and disparity or we can change tack on a new course towards progress and prosperity, a journey we believe we can make together towards a better future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Chief Fontaine.

We will begin our round of questions. We'll start with the Liberal Party.

Madam Neville.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to share my time with my colleague Mr. Merasty, who has to get away a little early.

Thank you very much, National Chief. You've certainly set out the framework and the environment in which we're currently dealing with a whole host of issues as they relate to aboriginal communities across this country.

We have, as you are well aware, been speaking frequently of the Kelowna accord, the accord signed last November in British Columbia, and the importance of it as an underpinning for all of what you have brought forward today. I wonder if you could speak to the Kelowna accord a little bit more in terms of what it does and does not mean for your communities should it not move forward.

I would also ask what your understanding of it is as it relates to the financial commitment made by the previous government. In doing that, I will table with the chair a little later the blues from the finance committee, where it was made quite clear that the sources and uses tables provisioned for the Kelowna accord, and it has been suggested that the moneys were never booked.

So I wonder if you could speak to Kelowna and what it means.

You've referenced it here. We're gathered to speak about education, and if you'd like to focus on education, that's fine. But that's where my questions are.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the single most important social justice issue facing Canada is the poverty that plagues our people. We've understood this. We've lived it, and we know what poverty does to a people. We've been determined to engage governments, all governments, in a plan that would eradicate poverty in our communities. We've worked very hard to convince 14 jurisdictions to join with us in giving life to a plan that would be designed to eradicate poverty.

We all recognize the manifestations of poverty in our country. It's the housing crisis that challenges our community--a housing crisis that's been discussed in the Auditor General's report. It's the education challenges that our people face. It's about the fact that we can't access quality health care. I mean, we can't even concern ourselves with wait times. What we worry about is making sure we have doctors, nurses, and health care practitioners in our communities, so that our nursing stations--not medical centres, not health clinics, but nursing stations--can adequately serve our people. It's about economic opportunities, and what to do about the tremendous economic activity we are witnessing and the fact that we are still plagued by a 40% to 90% unemployment rate in too many of our communities. It's about the relationship between our governments and other governments.

We were able to convince the 14 jurisdictions of the validity and legitimacy of this plan--a plan that was considered by all as reasonable, doable, and achievable. It was a plan that was designed to close the gap in the quality of life between our people and the rest of Canada.

One of the problems in this struggle--and I say “struggle” because it has been a struggle--is that our governments and our communities have faced a 2% cap on core programs and services since 1996. This 2% cap has resulted in a 14% loss in purchasing power.

Health suffers from a 3% cap. Consider what transpired in the February 23, 2005, budget, where first nations health programs suffered a cut of $269 million while provincial and territorial health systems received a one-time injection of $255 million. It's obvious the real need exists in our communities. I don't have to cite all the statistics about what poverty does to our people and how it's manifested in our communities.

When we went forward before governments with our plan, it was really to put to them a challenge to join with us in beginning a process to eradicate poverty in our communities, because the cost of poverty, as I've outlined in my presentation, is enormous. In 1996 it was pegged at $7.5 billion. By 2012 it will be $12 billion. That's an enormous burden to be shouldered not just by our people, but by the country. It makes better economic sense in our view to buy into the plan that we brought forward to the first ministers in November.

Here is our understanding of the resource commitments that were achieved there. We knew that the fiscal update brought forward on November 14 would not have reference to the outcomes we achieved in British Columbia, because that first ministers meeting only took place on November 23 and 24. But we understood that the money for those commitments was secured.

We've checked a number of sources, and everywhere we've been, we've been told that the money was secured. In fact, we were informed back then that the first draw on the surplus would be to address those commitments made at the first ministers meeting in British Columbia--the first draw. What we've witnessed now, with the budget being tabled, is that those commitments are not part of the proposition that is before the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Chief Fontaine, I have to apologize, but I have a schedule and a speaking order I have to follow.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I was just getting carried away with my own story.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That's okay. No problem.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I'll try to make my answers a little briefer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Lemay, are you going to speak, or Mr. Lévesque?

Go ahead, Mr. Lemay, thank you.

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

Good afternoon,Chief, and good afternoon to your team. Thank you for being here.

First and foremost, I want to say that you can continue where you left off, because what you say is of great interest to me.

As a spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois, I was very surprised to see that the Kelowna Agreement was set aside. For myself, many of my colleagues, definitely all of my fellow Bloc Québécois colleagues, and I assume for many of my colleagues in the Liberal Party and the NDP, this agreement was between two governments. I have always claimed that when a government signs a document, it must respect its signature. The Prime Minister at the time happened to be Mr. Martin, who was merely the government's envoy.

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. You saw the same budget I saw. As of now, what is being done? I am quite troubled. I looked at the figures tabled by the government. They repeat several times that $400 million was set aside for on reserve communities, when we were actually expecting more than $1.2 million... I do not know where you are headed, I do not know where we are going.

Nonetheless, I ask myself a question that I in turn want to ask you, chief, and your team. We are going to begin a study. I am happy that you are here with us today, because we have met the minister and senior departmental officials. We are beginning to get a better idea of things and to talk about education. I have always said and will always continue to say that the eradication of poverty starts with education.

Today is June 7^th. It seems as though the government will not put in more money. What are you recommending we do? What can be done with what the government, to this day, has given?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Mr. Chair, of course we would like to see the full support of the House to move forward on our plan. As I pointed out to the committee, this is a reasonable plan. It's achievable; it's doable. It's about the eradication of mass poverty in our communities. It's designed to address the housing crisis, education, health, and economic opportunities.

For example, with housing, there's been an attitudinal shift that's occurred in our community. At one time, you would never hear of private ownership when we talked about the housing crisis. Today there's a willingness, and indeed a strong interest, in looking at market housing as one of the answers to deal with the housing crisis, keeping in mind that social housing is still the biggest single demand and need in our communities.

It's the same with education. We want a more effective delivery system for first nations education. We want first nations control to be given a more significant expression. And we certainly are interested in talking to provincial governments in terms of how we establish governance-related institutions that give greater effect to first nations and their responsibility to the delivery of education.

So we believe the answer rests with our plan, and we are prepared to sit down and see if we can craft an appropriate approach to ensure that we meet the objectives of this plan.

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

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect and without counting my time, since we are expecting another group at 4:30 p.m., I will skip my turn so that we can speed things up because we do not have time for two rounds. If we are called to vote at 5:30 p.m., I would like for us to hear from the others.