Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a new member on this committee. In one of my first meetings with Prime Minister Harper, I requested to serve on this aboriginal affairs committee not because of any specific expertise, but because I have a strong desire to see aboriginal issues advanced, to see issues of poverty, education, shortfalls, and so on, addressed.

I actually thought that when I came to this committee, we, as a committee, would sit down and work collaboratively to move ahead on addressing many of the changes that need to be made. Instead, week after week, month after month, we've been here for I don't know how many meetings, and we have spent inordinate amounts of time discussing this so-called Kelowna accord. We've ignored all of the positive things that our government has brought forward in terms of budgeting initiatives and studies that we could have been doing. Instead we're wasting all of this time not only at this committee, Mr. Chair, but in the House, talking about a so-called accord that does not exist, an accord that does not have clear benchmarks—at least I have not seen any—in terms of accountability and expectations.

I have not heard a stronger message in terms of wanting accountability than that coming from our aboriginal groups in these last number of months. So, Mr. Martin, my question is how you could recommend that we proceed with a bill that has no clear measures of accountability and reporting.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Precisely because that's what Kelowna is designed to do.

I really do believe you're sincere in wanting to deal with this, so I just don't understand why the government insists on making Kelowna a partisan issue when no one else in the House of Commons wants to do it, yet we're all from very different political parties. So let me just go back.

Why is Kelowna important? It's important because the result of that year and a half of work was that all of the aboriginal leadership went back to their people and there was a huge involvement. All of the provinces and territories were onside. This doesn't happen. Having spent a lot of time on federal–provincial relations, I know it doesn't happen all the time that you get that total unanimity of opinion. Now you have that. You have that structure. You have that national will expressed through Kelowna, which could go on.

Now, when you talk about the measurement and you talk about what is supposed to happen and what has not happened for the last nine months, it is being done region by region, province by province. There's no doubt that the targets and the way you go at in British Columbia may be different from that in Quebec. They may be different in Newfoundland and Labrador with the Innu than they will be in Saskatchewan with the Cree, or with the Inuit. There's a specific set of targets for the Inuit, as for the Métis nation.

So what Kelowna says is to work out the individual plans as long as the result is to achieve the national target, and then to do measurements every two to three years. That was a request of the provinces.

You're right in your question, so let's get at it. Let's stop wasting time.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Martin, at different times you've accused us of denying reality. During your presentation, I heard you say at least three different times something to the effect that each of the aboriginal groups, all of the aboriginal leadership, all governments....

I just want to go on record, Mr. Martin, as saying that is not factual. Not all aboriginal groups were there. In fact, some of the aboriginal groups stood around in protest to be allowed admission into the discussions at the last minute. The Province of Quebec, represented by Ghislain Picard, was not there.

So how can you say all of these groups were there? How can I trust the rest of your presentation when you continually say all of the groups were there?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Well, the five national organizations were there. The fact that not every community was there...obviously, there was no hall big enough to have held every community. The five national organizations that were speaking on behalf of their memberships were there. We all understand that. I understand the way these committees work.

Why do you deny the objectives of the Kelowna accord?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The question's going the wrong way here.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I know, but what the heck....

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You're confusing me.

Actually, Mr. Albrecht, we have run out of time and I'm going to move on to Madam Crowder, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you once again for your patience with this process.

I want to reiterate a point that was made earlier. I'm very disappointed that the committee and the House spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about whether Kelowna was a signed legal document or whatever.

In my experience and in my understanding of working with first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, many of the first nations people rely on an oral tradition and, hence, these long discussions that took place face to face, in a respectful way, led to an expectation that, whether or not there was a signed legal document, there was a spirit and an intent around what happened that signalled to first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, the provincial government, and the federal government that there was an intention to move forward.

Much has been made about the fact that there were no timelines and what not. I won't read this entire document, but this is the B.C. tripartite Transformative Change Accord in which the leadership in British Columbia--the first nations leadership and the Province of British Columbia--actually sat down and took the discussions that happened in Kelowna and documented clear, concrete, detailed steps, such as K to 12 completion rates, the number of first nations teacher, and K to 12 curriculum models, and said, we trust that Kelowna happened and that it's going to become a reality.

I want to come back to a comment you made in your earlier statement about leadership. Back in the RCAP report, there were any number of recommendations around leadership, around nation-to-nation status. For example, one of them talked about this: “The federal government, following extensive consultations with Aboriginal peoples, establish an Aboriginal parliament whose main function is to provide advice to the House of Commons and the Senate on legislation and constitutional matters relating to Aboriginal peoples.”

I would argue that unless first nations, Métis, and Inuit leadership are at the table on an equal basis, not only in the consultation process but in the actual decision-making process...because too often what happens is that we come out and we ask lovely questions and we have a great consultation process and then we shut the door on people's faces and say, you're not at the table when we're actually going to make the decisions.

I'd like you to comment on what elements of leadership you see that are absolutely essential for us to move forward the spirit and intent of the Kelowna accord and to make sure we can be addressing those very critical issues in first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I think you've actually summarized the situation very well. Aboriginal leadership has to be at the table. If we've not done as well as we should, which is understating the situation over these last 150 years, it is because they were not at the table and they didn't buy in. In fact, the decisions were made by people who really did not understand the conditions under which aboriginals live.

We did--and Andy can go into this--as much as we possibly could. For the first time, we had a cabinet committee at the very beginning meet with the aboriginal leadership for precisely the reason that you have given, which is to say that they have to be at the table and might as well be at the table, not just with the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs but with all of the other ministers who make decisions that impact upon them.

And that's what Kelowna says. Kelowna says, here's how we work together. What should now be happening is, rather than denying Kelowna, as you have said, we should now be doing that and working together.

Can I just pick up on your opening point? You talked about the oral tradition, and Mr. Merasty talked about it as well. You're dead on. I've talked to the aboriginal leadership, and they said this is the way we make decisions. I'd like to add something to that, about the way in which we make decisions, because you've just spoken, and I think quite well, for the aboriginal leadership. All of the provincial and territorial leaders were around that table. I have attended many meetings with provincial and territorial leaders, both as finance minister and as Prime Minister. At the end of a meeting, when somebody gives you his or her word, you don't ask them to write it down.

I gave my word, as the Prime Minister of Canada, not only to the aboriginal leadership but to the provincial and territorial leaders of this country, and they were entitled to take my word, and they gave me their word, and I didn't ask them to write it down. When the premier of a province or of a territory gives me his or her word, I'll accept it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Can we move on to Mr. Storseth, please.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can see the honourable member has an ample amount of experience with question period. I have to say, though, that I find this to be a bit of a sad day to see a former Prime Minister so desperate to rewrite history and to grasp for a legacy that he is willing to do it through a private member's bill.

Can you point to any factual information for this committee that would validate your promises made in the press release tabled by your House leader on June 1, 2006?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Goodale says he would like to answer, but I would like to answer the first part of your question.

First of all, a former Prime Minister does it through a private member's bill because the current government does not appear to respect the word of the Government of Canada when it gives it to the leadership of the aboriginal peoples in this country and when it gives it to premiers and territorial leaders.

Second, a former Prime Minister is really quite proud to do it through a private member's bill. I happen to think that members of Parliament play a very important role in this country. I have never believed that Parliament was a body that was some kind of afterthought. I think that the Parliament of Canada and these committees play an essential role.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

With all due respect, sir, I'd like to hear the factual information you have that's going to lead up to it.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I would suggest that if you don't want the answers to the questions, perhaps you shouldn't use them in your preambles.

Mr. Goodale, you'd like to answer.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

This goes directly to the issue of corroboration, and let me give you three.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Excuse me, sir. Mr. Goodale is a learned member of this House, but with all due respect, I would like to hear from your former boss, who was also a finance minister and I am sure can answer this question.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

It's an amazing effort at obfuscation. It is truly remarkable that you've been given these crib notes from your communications department to malign and insult and abuse, rather than listening to the facts. It's appalling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Excuse me, there is a question--

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

You obviously don't want to answer the question.

You talked about the sources and uses--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Storseth, I am the chair of the meeting. Please listen to me.

The question has been asked, and I will ask Mr. Martin to answer that question.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Do you want to re-ask the question?

I'm quite happy to answer it, Mr. Chairman.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

It is my understanding that the sources and uses table you talked about cannot be changed unless you get express written consent from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. Is this true?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Yes. You don't need written consent, but you're absolutely right that the sources and uses table cannot be changed unless the Minister of Finance, presumably with the full accord of the Prime Minister of the country, okays it. I can tell you that the Minister of Finance did not ask me, and I did not authorize any change in the sources and uses table.