Evidence of meeting #25 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was martin.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

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.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I thank the minister for putting that before the committee.

I guess my question is whether appropriate protocol has been followed. Have the chief and elders been advised that the committee would like to travel there, and have they been receptive? Protocol dictates that we must be invited before we can actually go to their community.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

That's a good point.

Would it be to the pleasure of the committee that committee members would write the community and ask for that invitation?

Madam Neville.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

My first question is whether the minister has been there himself. Has he conducted an investigation?

I'm wondering whether it would be useful, before we made a decision, to review the record that you have spoken of. Then we can make a decision. I'm aware of some of the circumstances at Pikangikum. It's not an easy environment to move into. I don't know whether, with 12, 14, or 15 people coming in, we will get a realistic picture of what is going on at Pikangikum.

I'd like to see the record. I'm not averse to going in, but I need more information. I strongly agree with what Ms. Crowder says. I don't think it's incumbent upon us to plunk ourselves in without some discussion on it. And I do want to know whether the minister and/or his close representatives have been there.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

Thank you.

Mr. Bruinooge.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB

Based on the information that we have heard on the situation in this community, I think it would be an excellent idea for our committee to try to learn as much as we can, and there's no better way to get a sense for the situation than by actually going to the site and learning first-hand what the needs of this community are.

So I would be, of course, more than happy to take up this task, and I would recommend to the committee that we do so.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

Mr. Lemay.

9:05 a.m.

Bloc

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.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

We have witnesses, so I don't want to prolong this.

I think what I'm hearing from the committee is that, first of all, you would like some documentation on the issues around Pikangikum. Then we'll take from that and look at the request from the minister and respond to that request.

Madam Crowder.

9:10 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

I agree, except that if we're even contemplating this, we must contact the elders and the chief and council to make sure they would even consider our visit. That's an important part of protocol.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

Correct. And would the committee prefer to get the information first, or request the chief and council?

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

I have one small comment, Mr. Chair. My colleague the member of Parliament from that area is in fact visiting Pikangikum today, as we speak. It might be wise to ask him to make a report to the committee before 15 of us jump on a plane and land in a small community. That would be one of my recommendations.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

I'm going to take this under advisement and I'll get back to the committee, because we are taking up too much time of our witnesses and we have something to discuss now.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to see if we could get more information on this request and also some background information. And maybe the committee would consider speaking to the member from this constituency and get his report of where it stands.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Might I put on the record, Mr. Chair, that it is highly irregular for the minister to be trying to direct the work of a committee. If a member of Parliament suggested this in terms of his own riding, or the chief and council asked Parliament to look into this, that would be one thing. I simply want it to be on the record that this is very irregular.

The minister can send us legislation. The minister is not to direct the work of this committee.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

The minister is requesting counsel, and I don't think that's--

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB

[Inaudible--Editor] based on the last 15 years.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

The minister is looking for counsel on this as assistance. He's not looking for direction, necessarily.

I'm going to leave it at that, and we're going to move on to allow the witnesses ample time to make their presentations and to allow you to ask your good questions.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Martin.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

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.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We'll begin with Madam Neville.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

There are two lines of questioning that I would follow or ask you to respond to, from amongst the three of you who are here this morning. I'd like you to expand on the difference that Kelowna made for relationships and the importance of relationships in developing the Kelowna accord and moving forward on the Kelowna accord.

We know many of the items that you have identified, Mr. Martin, are being picked at and small measures are being implemented or are being talked about, more to the point. I would be interested in having something on the record on what Kelowna did in terms of the relationship.

And my second line of questioning is to you, Mr. Goodale, because I want it on the table right from the outset. Mr. Goodale, Mr. Martin was emphatic in stating that the $5.1 billion to implement Kelowna over the five years was indeed provided for in the fiscal framework before the previous government left office. I'm wondering if you, as the then Minister of Finance, could tell us how that provision was made. How explicit was that provision? Was it there in a bulk amount? Was it broken down into various categories described at the Kelowna meeting? And on the document or instrument that has been described by many as the sources and uses table, how easily can it be changed? Was it changed at the Kelowna meeting? Was it changed before or after the turnover? And can you tell us whether you have any corroborating evidence on this issue?

Again, to recap—I've been going on too long—I'd like a comment on the relationships and a comment on the financial aspects of Kelowna.

9:25 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Martin Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC

Thank you, Ms. Neville.

I don't think there's any doubt—and I think this will be confirmed by everyone who was at Kelowna—that Kelowna had a tremendously positive effect on relationships. I simply ask you to go back to long before Confederation. The relationship between Canada's aboriginal peoples and the government in Ottawa has consisted of the government in Ottawa telling, dictating, imposing, and the aboriginal Canadians having to accept, with no buy-in. The kinds of problems that we're facing in terms of health care and education, the problems involving our youngest and fastest growing segment of our population, are not going to be solved by a central government or provincial government simply dictating the answer. There has to be a buy-in, and that buy-in only comes if you work together.

That's why Kelowna didn't take place only in Kelowna that day. Kelowna began over a year and a half earlier, when we began to work together in round table after round table—and Mr. Scott can go into this. That's what really built and meant to build its success. And that's why, in fact, the relationship was so strong coming out of Kelowna. It was for precisely that reason: for the first time, there was a true partnership.

9:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Thank you very much.

Ms. Neville, I appreciate the questions, and without getting too abstract about the way the Department of Finance works, let me just say that Mr. Martin has been emphatic about the money issue, and so have I, because it's true.

There is a document within the Department of Finance that is maintained and updated on a regular basis. It is known as the sources and uses table, which you referred to. This is the instrument by which the Minister of Finance keeps a running tally of the revenues coming in and the expenditures going out, especially between the annual budgets and the formal fall update. You could say that the spring budget is the ultimate sources and uses table and that the fall update is the penultimate table. But government has to function all the time, not just twice a year. So the sources and uses table is that ongoing, up-to-date tally of the government's fiscal position.

As Mr. Martin has said, the Kelowna accord was the product of 18 months of hard work and consultation among the Government of Canada, the provinces and territories, and Canada's aboriginal organizations. In the several weeks leading up to Kelowna, the federal cabinet examined and approved the policy ideas that the Government of Canada would put forward at the meeting. They were debated and costed by Mr. Scott's officials in INAC and by my officials in the Department of Finance. The Prime Minister and I agreed upon a financial envelope in the range of $5.1 billion to $5.2 billion to meet the policy decisions that the government had taken.

When I presented the 2005 economic and fiscal update on November 14, the Kelowna meeting of course had not yet been held and the accord had not yet been concluded at that point, but we were at that point able to anticipate where things were headed. So in the update, I signalled the importance of the Kelowna process and the items that would be coming from the Kelowna meeting, and I committed to investing, as Minister of Finance on behalf of Canadians, in the outcomes of the Kelowna meeting, and the money was earmarked for that purpose.

The meeting was held 10 days after the fiscal update, on November 24. The results were exactly what we anticipated. They were announced, as Mr. Martin has indicated, and the booking of the required money in fact occurred on November 24, 2005, in the sources and uses table bearing that date, under the heading “Post Update Decisions”--not plans, not ideas, not suggestions, not vague notions. The word was “decisions”, and the amount booked was $5.096 billion.

It was broken down into the various categories that Kelowna discussed: education, housing and water, governance, economic opportunities, and health. Those are the policy areas that Mr. Scott led in the discussions, and that created the frame for the Kelowna outcomes.

How easily can the sources and uses table be changed? Not very easily. Once something is in the table, it can't be taken out unless you have the explicit concurrence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

If you want to come back to the issue of corroboration at a later stage in the questioning, I would be happy to offer some of that.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Thank you.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes

Thank you.

From the Bloc, Mr. Lemay, please.

9:30 a.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I might—and I apologize in advance—find myself saying Mr. Prime Minister when addressing Mr. Martin, given that he was the Prime Minister of Canada when we worked on the Kelowna Accord and were negotiating nation to nation.

Mr. Martin, I have reread the speech you gave at the opening of the Kelowna meeting. Please allow me to read from it, if only the following short passage:

I am mentioning this simply to illustrate a fact that we can all agree is true, not only in remote Northern communities, but also on too many reserves and in too many cities—the existence of an unacceptable gap between the bright hopes of youth and the life experience of adult Aboriginal people. The gap is all the more unacceptable given that young people represent that part of Canada's youth that is growing most rapidly. We are facing a moral imperative: in a country as rich as ours, and which is the envy of the world, proper health care and a good education ought to be taken for granted; they are the tools that make equality of opportunity possible—which is the very foundation upon which our society is built.

Mr. Martin, do you believe that the current government's failure to comply with the Kelowna Accord is threatening the things you said at the Kelowna meeting?