Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Neville.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to advise members of the committee that our office has been receiving calls from a number of people who have asked to be included on the witness list. Also, I'm stopped in airports now by individuals who want to be included on the witness list.

I would suggest that perhaps we might work backwards, that the subcommittee have a look at the witness list in some detail, prioritize the list, and see how much time might be required to hear from the key players. I agree that the list is a long one, and it is too long. I appreciate that my colleague's comment is that we have much work to do, but in hearing from some of these people, we will hear about the issues of education, health, and housing, which will provide a foundation for moving forward on further studies and further legislation.

I don't want to define it right now. I don't want the discussion to go on for weeks and weeks, but it is important that it be significant enough that those who have a vested concern in the issue be allowed to be heard.

There is another thing that I might want to suggest to you. Madam Crowder will recall that in a previous committee that we served on we were able to hear from more witnesses by using a format, a kind of round table, which would accelerate it by bringing cohesive groups together.

My preference would be to take a look at it in the smaller committee and then make a decision on how to move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to acknowledge Ms. Neville's motion. But first, I want to remind her that it would be important maybe to complete our recommendation on post-secondary education.

We also studied the possibility of bringing the Committee to make an overview of education from kindergarten to fifth grade. Those are important aspects.

Like my colleague from the other side, I attended the First Nations Socioeconomic Forum. In my view, this is a priority shared by all communities. We have to move on and be open to concrete proposals aimed at solving urgent problems that plague First Nations in the areas of housing and education.

I think we could listen to witnesses for a year or more, but we must have concrete recommendations to hand to the minister in order to induce real and concrete changes in the communities.

I would concur with Mr. Lemay's suggestion. It seems important indeed to listen to witnesses, since this is the wish of the House. However, I suggest that the Subcommittee prioritize the witnesses, since we must set aside two sessions to examine this issue in order to be able to identify priorities in terms of post-secondary education and housing.

Therefore, I propose that these two sessions would be devoted to the review of testimonies, in accordance with Ms. Neville's motion. This is my proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Speaking to that motion, Madame Neville.

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

I'm not sure that Mr. Blaney accurately reflected my position. What I was saying is let the subcommittee meet, identify the individuals that it would be important to hear from, and then come back with a recommendation to the committee on whether it's two sessions, four sessions, eight sessions, or whatever. But let's look at the need to listen to and the need to hear, and then make a decision and look at alternative ways of accommodating the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[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?

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

Yes, I think that two sessions would be sufficient. And I agree that the Subcommittee should identify witnesses to be heard during these two sessions.

I know the Kelowna Accord subject inside out and everybody around this table knows exactly what Phil Fontaine and all the other witnesses are going to tell us: we need 5,2 billion dollars, why haven't you invested it already?

I respect my colleague's opinion. She is entirely right. It seems important for the Liberals to have this bill adopted in the House. It is interesting to have a debate on this in Committee; we can start the process here. However, it is in the House of Commons that the discussion and the vote are important.

So, why shouldn't we take two sessions? We'll meet as a subcommittee to select the number of persons per session, ten overall. Then, we'll make our recommendations

I leave it to the Committee to decide, but now you know our position .

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Might I give a little guidance to the committee?

First of all, the committee has passed a motion supporting the Kelowna Accord, and we submitted that to the House. I shouldn't use the words “Kelowna Accord”, but rather the agreement that came together through the first ministers in Kelowna. A lot of work was completed in those discussions—eighteen months of setting out priorities and needs—and that was identified.

Really, we have supported the spirit of the Kelowna agreement at this committee level, so what is the reason we would carry on for months discussing more of the issues? The priorities have been set out.

Maybe it would be wise to just move on as quickly as possible, instead of holding this bill up. Let's move it on and then get on, as Mr. Lemay has stated, to the specific priorities as set out by the court. If it's the pleasure of the committee to deal with housing because that's the first priority we want to deal with, then so be it. Then we can move on in those discussions as quickly as possible.

I don't see any advantage or really any way we're going to help aboriginal people by regurgitating this agreement for weeks on end. I think we want to move on to the mechanics and see how the priorities, as set out by the accord, can be met.

Those are just some words for discussion from the chair.

Madam Crowder.

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

Just very quickly, Mr. Chair, I think the challenge we have, the reason why so many of us are getting such pressure from the communities to bring witnesses forward, is that there are so many unaddressed needs. People are seeing this bill as a mechanism to address those needs.

I'm of two minds about whether or not we need to have endless hearings, and to what end and what effect. If this is becoming a forum to air these issues that are extremely serious and extremely important, I'm not sure it's the best vehicle, given that this is a private member's bill. When it comes before the House, it will be up to the government as to whether or not they're going to do anything about it.

The intentions have been stated loudly and clearly from the communities on what the issues are, so I would argue that we should shorten the hearing times and get onto some of the other critical issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Merasty, and then I have to move on here.

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

I can understand the concern about rehashing some of the issues, whether they're around housing, post-secondary education, or economic development. These are important to talk about, and we've had a good discussion around post-secondary so far.

What I think we're missing as part of this discussion is what the relationship was between the provincial government and the national aboriginal organizations. That relationship, government to government or nation to nation, is one of the keys that hasn't been talked about with this Kelowna Accord. That relationship will dictate how well we address housing, how well we address post-secondary education, health, and economic development.

I think we definitely need to hear that perspective as we move forward, because as I've stated, sitting at a table in Kelowna the way we did was a high-water mark in aboriginal-state relations in the history of this country. I think that's part of the focus, and it needs to be one of the highlights of this bill.

It's simply not the specific pieces. It was the relationship that outlined the objectives and the pieces, and I think we need to focus on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Neville, as the last speaker.

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

Thank you.

My colleague pre-empted me on the relationships. Rather than being prescriptive with two sessions, I would ask the committee to please look at the witness list and make a recommendation to the committee.

I am not proposing to prolong this for months, but what my colleague just said in terms of the relationships, in terms of the individuals who are coming forward and who want to speak to this committee on the importance of Kelowna for their community, their nation, must be respected. I assure my colleagues that I don't want this to drag out for months, but I don't want to add insult to injury by saying we won't hear from them. If we can refer this to the committee to bring back a recommendation on Thursday or the following Tuesday, that would be the most respectful way of moving forward.

I'm repeating myself, but there is no intent to drag this out. The intent is to be respectful of those who have come forward and said they want to be heard and tell you what this means to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

I'm just going to say that Mr. Blaney has a motion, and we're going to deal with that right now.

When you look at the list, we could be here—

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

For a year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

—for a year. That's exactly right.

Your suggestion is that it would be disrespectful to those we would leave off the list, but you're asking the committee to deal with a situation and make a determination that is not going to make anybody happy. I'm not necessarily in favour of that as the chair.

Mr. Blaney, you have a motion that we limit this for two weeks.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Neville, I think that Ms. Crowder explained the type of dead-end we could be facing: whether the process takes two days or one year, we are not guaranteed to be in a position to present concrete recommendations on priorities set by our minister.

This is my suggestion to you, Madam Neville. You have very important witnesses who have informations to share. However, we should concentrate our efforts on recommendations that will allow government to act. We just mentioned education and housing. These are two important priorities for several groups you identified.

Rather than inviting these groups who will be rehashing various issues that are not part of government's priorities, I suggest that we focus our efforts on government priorities which will gather the support of all committee members. Then, we'll be later in a position to present the minister with recommendations which will translate into concrete actions.

If we go the other way, the result will be totally opposite: we would be listening to witnesses for a year and we won't have any concrete recommendation to send to government. And even if we had one, we know that government has already stated its position on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you. I'm going to ask the clerk.

I'm going to cut off debate, because we have to get on with this. I promised you fifteen minutes, and we're now ten minutes over.

I'm just going to ask Mr. Blaney what his motion is, because we're dealing with a motion that's on the floor.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

To remind you of the motion—and maybe Madam Neville can comment—it is suggested that the subcommittee decide which witnesses are the most appropriate to debate this motion, and to present a list under the schedule that was proposed by Mr. Lemay, which is two sessions. That's what I suggest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That's the motion. Can we deal with that motion now?

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

May we get direction for that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The chair wants the direction of the majority of the committee, and I'm seeking that majority.

I need to know where the committee wants to go with this...first of all, the committee, and then the time limit as far as listening to witnesses is concerned. The committee is not going to be able to review the witness list unless we know how many witnesses are going to be allowed to present to the committee.

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

I'm proposing that we do it the other way: look at the number of witnesses and determine how much time is needed, with a commitment not to extend that time.