Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I would like to open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Tuesday, November 21, 2006.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. I'm going to move the committee business to the end of the meeting so that we can proceed with the witnesses. As I understand it, there isn't any urgency to talk about the Pikangikum issue right away, so we might postpone it to future business. I'll be looking for direction.

Committee members, today we have witnesses from the Assemblée des Premières nations du Québec et du Labrador, Mr. Ghislain Picard, regional chief. We have the Assembly of First Nations, with Grand Chief Phil Fontaine. We have the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, with Mary Simon, president. We also have with us the Métis National Council, Rosemarie McPherson, member of council, and Marc LeClair, lead negotiator. I would like to welcome the witnesses.

Thank you very much for taking the time to be witnesses before this committee. I understand you all know that each group will be given ten minutes.

I will start with Mr. Picard, please.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Chief Picard.

We're going to go to Grand Chief Phil Fontaine from the Assembly of First Nations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members of the standing committee, as you see, I've brought with me a great deal of evidence today, evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that will prove the facts regarding Kelowna. I've watched the proceedings of this committee closely, and I'm happy to be here to once and for all answer every question that may be asked about what happened at Kelowna a year ago.

I will show you that indeed there was a clear plan, including detailed measurements, indicators, and clear accountability; that there was a firm public and national commitment; that there was a clear implementation process; and that, yes, there was money attached to the plan. I will show you beyond any doubt that these are the facts.

Ultimately, however, that is not what I'm here to do today. I'm here to urge Parliament to work with us, to recognize the seriousness of the conditions facing our people, to create opportunity, to instill hope, and to provide justice for first nations people and for all of Canada.

Let me begin by dispensing with the questions.

First, you have heard that Kelowna was quickly thrown together on the eve of an election. To this I take personal exception, and all other first nations leaders take exception. In fact, Kelowna represented the response of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to a very long series of events, processes, and tabled interventions.

Beginning in early 2004, with the first round table meeting, first nations tabled specific action plans on key issues. These plans were refined through our own national policy forums and chiefs assemblies, as well as in meetings with governments. Our work was formally tabled, which led to our inclusion at the first ministers meeting on health in the fall of 2004. Indeed, I personally, on behalf of first nations governments, in July of 2005 issued a ten-year challenge to close the gap in living conditions.

I table with this committee a detailed account of the evolution of this process. This is an 11-page list of key events, meetings, and steps in the careful and deliberate process that preceded the first ministers meeting in Kelowna.

I might add two important events that followed Kelowna. First, the Honourable Minister Jim Prentice attended, as critic for the Conservative Party, our special chiefs assembly in December 2005. At this event he specifically and clearly made a full commitment to supporting the targets and outcomes of Kelowna. Later, on January 18, 2006, I and two regional chiefs, Angus Toulouse from Ontario and Rick Simon from the east coast, met with Mr. Prentice at the Ottawa airport. Again Mr. Prentice acknowledged the importance of Kelowna and committed to the outcomes, to the need, in his view, to put wheels on Kelowna. In fact, he stated very clearly to me that the Conservative Party, if it formed the government, would not be interested in setting aside--and wouldn't--all of the hard work that went into producing the Kelowna accord.

Second, you have heard that there were no details, that there was no concrete plan. I table for the committee, as evidence, this four-page list of key documents. I've brought with me today the detailed action plan. I've mentioned the specific outcomes of negotiation sessions, the concrete plans for implementation, for monitoring and evaluation, as well as the plan for accountability and reporting.

Third, you've heard the criticism that because there was no signature, that must mean there was no agreement and no consensus. But I would point out that, based on information provided by the Government of Canada's Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, there have been 78 first ministers meetings, and many did not issue any kind of document. Some even concluded with a simple communiqué. Only a very small number concluded with a signed agreement. Yet in almost every case there was a clear expression of commitment and a course of action to be followed.

In the case of Kelowna, there were several documents, including a communiqué; the Assembly of First Nations and Government of Canada implementation agreement; the first nations implementation plan; a document outlining the federal financial commitments; and the B.C. transformative change accord, which was to be the first of many signed agreements across the country at a provincial-territorial level to initiate specific plans that would be relevant to the particular circumstances of each region. Here also, we can reference the education agreement signed by this government and British Columbia with the first nations leaders there, which is the direct consequence of the Kelowna accord.

I must also wonder what these questions are telling our people. Do you as parliamentarians really want to tell our people, the first nations citizens, and all Canadians that when every government of this country makes a very public and nationally televised commitment, it actually means nothing unless you see them signing an agreement? Surely this is not what you intend.

The choice of some first nations not to be at Kelowna has also been misrepresented. In fact, the criticism from some first nations was that Kelowna did not go nearly far enough, but almost all first nations agreed to support the outcomes as minimum requirements.

We've also heard the criticism that there was no fiscal plan. I believe this has been addressed by previous witnesses before the committee, but I table a letter from the Minister of Finance at the time, along with a document, confirming these commitments.

There was also a question about a lack of accountability in the targets associated with Kelowna. Here again there are clear facts. An extensive set of indicators to measure progress was discussed through a working group process in a draft report table. Commitments were made through a joint accountability initiative. In fact, there were to be specific resources dedicated to ensuring accountability and the pursuit of indicators.

Ladies and gentlemen, if there are possibly any other questions, let me point you to a useful summary of this information provided by your own institution. The Library of Parliament produced this handy summary, and I suggest you use this information at your disposal.

Now, at long last, I turn to the first nations action plan, our plan. This work was initiated well before Kelowna and continues to this day. Indeed, this work cannot and will not stop. Our action plan, the first nations action plan, is an urgent call to address crisis situations in our communities. The plan is a clear, concise statement of what must happen. It also clearly illustrates how this can be accomplished and what the anticipated results will be.

Our plan is not static. We didn't stop at Kelowna because Kelowna was to be the beginning, an important milestone that would set us on a good path requiring effort and expansion, including to ensure the full consideration of off-reserve and urban first nations peoples. But still, and very importantly, Kelowna produced a collective vision of where we have to travel.

The first nations plan aims to create opportunity and a secure future for our people. The plan contains four elements: governing our lands, resources and communities—exercising rights and jurisdiction; achieving justice and our fair share—implementing treaties; strengthening first nations communities—alleviating poverty; and securing opportunity for first nations in Canada and internationally.

Within each of these elements there are clear priorities identified. We have thoroughly considered a framework for policy development and have put forward a balanced and consistent model. The key characteristics of this model are sustainability balanced with structural change. The key processes are first nations engagement and federal, provincial, territorial, and first nations multilateral agreements. And the key mechanisms to deliver results include regional projects to test innovations and performance measurements.

The first nations plan reflects a holistic perspective and a detailed course of action. We've applied the framework to every socio-economic issue facing our communities, and we have produced detailed sectoral plans. The plan also references the relationship between first nations and the federal Crown, through the themes of the recognition and implementation of first nations governments.

We've concluded that three critical steps are required: first, community-based processes and funding for capacity-building leading to capable first nations governments; second, policy reforms to advance first nations governments, including on claims, treaty implementation, and self-government; and third, structural and machinery of government changes, including a diminished role for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which would be restricted to program delivery, a new ministry for first nations-Crown relations, an office of treaty commissioner, an office of fiscal relations, a first nations auditor general, an office of a first nations ombudsperson, and the establishment of an aboriginal and treaty rights tribunal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Chief Fontaine, you're over ten minutes. I'm going to let you carry on if you're close to being....

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I just have the one page, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay, thank you.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Thank you.

Honourable members of this committee, the facts are abundantly clear. The plan forward is clear, and so too is the imperative to act. We all have the responsibility and power to act. I'm very proud of the work we've done--the first nations leaders--to advance detailed plans, to initiate dialogue with governments across this country, and to forge the path ahead despite our many obstacles. And the Kelowna accord was part of this work.

Now the questions must end and the work must begin. Our people, our children, must not suffer the fate of inaction any longer. Poverty, inequity, and injustice cannot be tolerated.

Specifically, I respectfully ask the members of this committee to urge the Government of Canada to honour Kelowna and to commit to three preliminary actions. First, immediately call for a meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of aboriginal affairs. Second, remove the unfair funding caps on first nations core programs and services and commit to funding based on real cost drivers, including population and inflation. And third, mandate regional offices of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada to begin the processes of multilateral engagement to identify targets.

The Honourable Minister, Mr. Prentice, has said that he is prepared to roll up his sleeves and get to work. Well, this is the single biggest social justice issue in our country. It is time for the government, indeed the entire Parliament, to stand up and be counted, to work with us and not against us, and to join in a vision, a plan, and a commitment to real change.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Chief Fontaine.

I'll turn to Mary Simon, please.

[Mary Simon, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Witness speaks in her native language]

Thank you for the invitation.

Before I begin, I want to make an observation. I see a lot of leaders around the table. This tells me something. We're here again to tell you about a very serious situation that's facing our people who are living in the communities. I think that if the seriousness was not something we experience every day, we probably wouldn't be sitting here all together at the same time. I simply wanted to make that observation.

I would like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting me to appear today on behalf of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, which is more commonly known as ITK.

In keeping with the importance of the future of the Kelowna accord, I have prepared a brief that would take longer than the time allotted to allow me to deliver it, so I intend to present to you orally an excerpted version of that brief. But I would ask the committee to accept the entire brief as part of its written record of proceedings.

Much remains to be done on defining an enduring and adaptable partnership between Inuit and the Crown within Canada, but we have made some promising starts. I am mindful of being both an Inuk and a Canadian. I know that Canadians everywhere are conscious that aboriginal peoples are one of the distinguishing features of Canadian life. I know Canadians everywhere regret those things that inhibit and compromise a sense of unity and solidarity between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

What Canadian isn't appalled at images of the squalid, crumbling, overcrowded housing that characterizes so many aboriginal communities in both the southern and northern reaches of this country? What Canadian isn't aware that the rest of the world takes note when a country that consistently ranks in the top half dozen for overall living standards nevertheless throws up the ugly incongruities of gas-sniffing epidemics in aboriginal communities and of roadblock confrontations?

These are not only aboriginal problems. These are not only aboriginal issues. These are Canadian problems and they are Canadian issues that demand and deserve the attention, energies, creativities, and resources of all of us, no more so than the Parliament of Canada.

I would similarly like to commend members of the House of Commons as a whole for referring this bill for a more detailed review by this committee. The fate of the Kelowna accord is too important to be mired in short-term or petulant politics. Bill C-292 is more than a private member's bill. It is proof that the death of the Kelowna accord, to use a famous phrase, has been greatly exaggerated. Kelowna lives.

The Kelowna exercise culminated, after more than two years' work by 19 parties, in the Government of Canada pledging to invest $5.1 billion to begin—and I emphasize “to begin”—to deal with the profound gaps in health, education, and housing that cripple aboriginal peoples and that shame our country. I was the Inuit facilitator for all of those round tables, so I know firsthand what people had to say in those round tables. The situation is still the same today. Not too much has changed.

Abandonment of this promise, combined with an absence of any alternative plan, is not a mere detour; it would be a self-declared admission of defeat. A focused, federally funded attack on the social problems that beset aboriginal people is a necessity, not an ideological indulgence. The striking gaps in social and economic well-being that inspired the Kelowna accord are not closing themselves.

Kelowna has four enormous strengths, from an Inuit perspective. First of all, it proceeds from the proposition that the profound gaps that separate aboriginal and other Canadians in the core areas of health, education, and housing are of fundamental importance to both aboriginal and other Canadians, and the responsibility of closing those gaps is shared.

Secondly, it acknowledges that making progress on closing these gaps cannot rely on a one-size-fits-all model.

Thirdly, the Kelowna agreement committed to solid blueprints for achieving progress in the critical areas of health, education, and housing. Regrettably, a number of myths have arisen in relation to Kelowna, including the myth that the entire accord was somehow conjured up in a back room in the absence of facts, figures, or reasons. This is not true. The accord and the blueprints associated with the accord were the product of a multi-year, multi-party effort that featured a lively, intensive, and informed discussion of options and priorities.

Fourth, and finally, the Kelowna accord committed to the achievement of targeted outcomes and allowed for a high level of accountability to the public in the measurement of progress towards those outcomes.

Permit me to give you a few sample facts about the acute social problems facing Inuit. The average lifespan for Inuit women is 14 years less than the average for Canadian women. Tuberculosis rates among Inuit are 70 times greater than the Canadian rate. Data showing similar gaps in the fields of housing and education are also available. For example, as of 2001, 68% of Inuit in Nunavik, which is where I come from, lived in crowded conditions; in Nunavut, 54%; in the Inuvialuit region, 35%; and in Labrador, 28%. The Canadian average for crowded housing is approximately 7%.

The process that culminated in the Kelowna accord did not shy away from these painful realities. Rather it confronted these realities with blueprints for action.

Inuit are a small population in Canada. We are only about 55,000 people. Yet we occupy a very large proportion of the land and marine areas of Canada. Delivery and service challenges are very significant, but they are not insurmountable. For example, mental health is a major concern among Inuit. Although crisis counselling is part of the federal non-insured health benefits program, Inuit cannot readily access this service. Annual cost drivers increases for Inuit health programming have been measured at the 14% level, while Health Canada is struggling with a 3% program cap.

The Kelowna accord is a frank acknowledgement that in a monetized economy, money may not solve all the social problems, but the absence of targeted and creative investments in basic social infrastructure and programming will guarantee their persistence.

The national chief talked about their action plan. We also have an Inuit action plan. Our regions have developed this national action plan together and we have submitted it to the Government of Canada. We have been talking to the Government of Canada about how we might be able to implement it.

I'd like to talk about another interest in implementing the Kelowna accord. There has been much talk in recent years in the courts and elsewhere of the honour of the Crown, and about how the honour of the Crown is engaged when the Crown, representing the people of Canada, interacts with aboriginal people. To Inuit, and I think to Canadians generally as well, acting honourably means beyond anything else keeping your word. The word that was pledged at Kelowna on the federal side was not the word of a particular individual or a particular political party. It was the word of the Prime Minister of Canada, the highest-level servant of the Crown and of the people of Canada and an important custodian of the honour of the Crown and of the honour of the people of Canada.

It has been argued that the Kelowna accord can be discarded because it was not signed, but that is misleading. Everyone at Kelowna understood that commitments made at Kelowna were not intended to constitute a legal contract, but everyone believed the commitments carried great political and moral authority and momentum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Ms. Simon, you have one minute. You're actually over ten minutes, but if you could summarize, I'd appreciate that.

[Mary Simon]

Okay.

A great deal has been said in recent times about the need to make accountability a central theme of political decision-making. I urge this committee and all parliamentarians to demonstrate their commitment to keeping faith with the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I urge this committee and all parliamentarians to demonstrate their commitment to unity and solidarity among all Canadians. I urge this committee and all parliamentarians to support this bill by voting for it, thereby making its provisions part of the laws of Canada.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Madam McPherson, are you going to make the presentation, or will Mr. LeClair?

[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--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You have one minute left, please.

[Rosemarie McPherson]

--a collaborative effort to address the shameful conditions that aboriginal peoples face in this country today.

I did not even want to address the issue that because the Kelowna accord was not formerly signed it cannot be implemented. Governments make political commitments that are implemented all the time. The public trust demands it. The special trust relationship that exists between the Crown and aboriginal peoples also demands the implementation of Kelowna.

If aboriginal people cannot rely on the implementation of a written document that was agreed to by consensus by every order of government in this country on national television, what can we actually rely on? The honour of the Crown must mean something. If it does not, where does it leave us? More litigation, more political posturing, a lost generation of hope. This is not in anyone's interest.

We ask that this committee do everything it can to ensure that Kelowna does not become synonymous with one more broken promise on the part of the Crown. As members of Parliament, we believe the onus to ensure this promise is fulfilled falls on each and every one of you. The promise of Kelowna is larger than one minister, one political party, or one government. It falls to the Crown to ensure its implementation.

Once again, on behalf of the Métis Nation, I would like to thank the committee for providing us an opportunity to speak with you today on this issue of national importance.

Merci. Thank you. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Madam McPherson.

I notice there are one too many Liberals.

Madam Neville, I know you are leaving.

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

No, I am not leaving, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Keeper has not signed in. She has just joined us at the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That's fine. I would just make the rest of the committee aware of that.

Who is going to lead off?

Madam Neville.

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

I'll lead off, Mr. Chair.

I have seven minutes. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That is correct.

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

Could you tell me when we're at five minutes so I can share two minutes with Mr. Merasty, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Sure.

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

Let me begin, first of all, by thanking each and every one of you for coming today. I believe the evidence you presented is important in terms of establishing what Kelowna was to each organization and the processes that led up to it.

I'm going to ask questions of each of you, and then I have a particular question to the national chief.

What do you estimate the losses to have been, by first nations communities, by Inuit communities, by Métis communities, in the fact that the Kelowna agreement has not been honoured?

To you, National Chief, I would ask what you see is the role of first nations governments in the implementation of the accord.

Can we perhaps begin with the national chief?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Thank you very much.

We've been very careful about our statements regarding Kelowna, including facts related to Kelowna, because we want to be fair in our public expressions to all concerned, including to the government. We knew we were dealing not just with Kelowna, because Kelowna is a $5.1 billion commitment. There are other considerations, including the fact that we've had to operate with a 2% cap on core programs and services since 1996, so now we're ten years.... We estimate that has cost us $10 billion. That's the loss we've experienced as a result of the cap. So that's one important consideration here.

Now, on the $5 billion, if we're talking about money, the fact of the matter is that the RCAP report pegged the cost of poverty in 1996 at $7.5 billion. By 2016, if nothing is done to eradicate poverty, the cost will be in the order of $12 billion. So we're significant, just strictly in dollar terms.

In terms of lost hope, how can you put a dollar figure on that? It's nearly impossible. That's what we are dealing with here. We shouldn't have to talk about the poverty and what poverty is doing to our people; we should be talking about all of the good things that we've been able to achieve. When we talk about poverty, when we talk about problems and all of the ills that have plagued first nations communities, that burden is placed not so much on the shoulders of first nations leaders but on young people, our children. There isn't a single child who should have to shoulder that kind of burden. We believe that's the biggest challenge we face as a country.

As far as the role of first nations governments at the local level is concerned, first nations chiefs and councils, the significance of the Kelowna accord process is that all of the implementation would take place at the regional level, meaning at the community level. At the national level we would have been responsible for reporting and monitoring the progress at the community level. So this was not going to be a top-down process; it was very much going to be about communities at the local level, including our people who reside in urban centres.