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

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

My point, Mr. Chairman, is that the initiatives our government has announced address in a very concrete way some of the specific needs in terms of housing.

I'd ask one further question. You mentioned many of the gaps that are present in relation to health in the lifespan of the people of Nunavut, and I certainly agree with you on those. You listed a number of different conditions, such as the 68% crowding conditions and the 35%. How would Kelowna have specifically addressed those specific needs? Was there a plan? How would it have had an impact on those numbers?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You have one minute.

[Mary Simon]

As far as I know, there were very specific plans on how the roll-out would happen. There would be further discussions with senior officials of the government. Amounts were set aside for the priorities that were set out in Kelowna. There were very distinct priorities and dollar amounts were tied to those.

In relation to housing, for instance, I think the $300 million that was announced by Minister Prentice partially meets the objectives laid out in Kelowna. It doesn't meet the needs of some of the regions that I represent, such as Nunavik in northern Quebec, as well as Labrador and the Inuvialuit. For off reserve, perhaps some of the funding could fall within the Inuit territory, but we don't know that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Madam Crowder.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the questioning we've heard is starting to point to the fundamental differences we have around the intent of Kelowna and what's currently happening.

I'm going to come back briefly to the advice that was given to the minister in one of the paragraphs when he took over the job. It says:

In November 2005, first ministers and first nations Inuit and Métis leaders agreed to priorities for closing the socio-economic gap for the next 10 years. The plan included five and 10 year targets in the areas of health, education, housing, economic opportunities and aboriginal organizational capacity, and proposed federal investments to achieve specific outcomes in each area.

It goes on to say:

This meeting has no doubt become, for aboriginal leaders and provincial and territorial governments, the reference point against which federal policy approaches will be measured.

I come back to this briefing book that was prepared for all committee members, which contains material from the first ministers meeting on aboriginal issues. There are two important statements in here. It talks about a ten-year commitment and dedicated effort to close the gap in the quality of life, and then it outlines some principles.

I want to reference the transformative change accord that was signed by the Government of B.C., the Government of Canada, and the leadership council representing the first nations of British Columbia. In this document it talks about bringing together these levels of government:

to achieve the goals of closing the social and economic gap between First Nations and other British Columbians over the next 10 years, of reconciling aboriginal rights and title with those of the Crown, and of establishing a new relationship based upon mutual respect and recognition.

So it seems to me there is an intent, a flavour, a notion of true nation-to-nation movement. Whether or not we have one-off pieces of Kelowna being implemented versus the nation-to-nation approach that was inherent in the Kelowna accord, I think that's the difference.

If Bill C-292 passes--and we hope it will--what difference would you see between the programs that are being announced in isolation currently that are contributing to alleviating some of the problems, versus the intent of the Kelowna accord? How would it look different, between these one-off announcements and what you would see if this bill were actually implemented, in the spirit of its intent?

[Marc LeClair]

The important thing to recognize is what everybody has recognized--that the one-off and half measures haven't worked. Like Alice in Wonderland, you have to run in the same spot to stay where you are. We're not there anymore. Things are falling behind. As the national chief said, where we closed some of the gap, now we're not closing the gap.

There are really two major things that this parliamentary committee ought to consider. First is the message it sends in dealing with this bill. It's a larger issue. It might be a very political issue, but the failure to deal with this in an effective way is going to create so much cynicism out there that you do so at your own peril. I don't know that anybody who's ever looked at this file, whether it's in government or outside of government, has ever thought that the one-off type of approaches are working and are effective. Nobody's saying that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Simon.

[Mary Simon]

Maybe I can also respond to that.

When you talk about nation to nation, that is precisely where we're starting from. As original people of the country, we fought very hard to get very basic recognition of aboriginal treaty rights in the Canadian Constitution in the 1980s. We have a relationship with the Crown, and the Crown has a fiduciary responsibility toward aboriginal people. When you look at the relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples, you have to come to the conclusion that this in fact is a process that talks about peoples and the Crown. We are a collective; we have aboriginal rights, and we are the aboriginal people of the country, so I would say, yes, it is a nation-to-nation process.

If Bill C-292 were passed and one-off announcements were continued, we would never oppose announcements. If there is anything to improve the living conditions of our people, we embrace that happily. Although in many instances Inuit are often left out of the process, we still are happy for the first nations and other aboriginal peoples when there are other announcements.

The Kelowna accord not only laid out the nation-to-nation context, it also laid out a vision of where we, as a country, want to go to close the gap of the living conditions of aboriginal people. It's a vision. It's like we are setting targets. It's a plan of action, and as much as I support announcements here and there, I'd like to be part of a process in which we have a vision about how we are going to address aboriginal issues as a country. Kelowna did that. It set out a vision for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We can have just a short comment, because we're just about out of time.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Just very quickly, the value of Kelowna and of the first ministers meeting is that we were at the table in our own right. We were a constructive presence at this first ministers meeting. All of us at the table were there to deal with a comprehensive plan that addressed, in practical terms, the big challenges we face--housing, education, health, and economic opportunity--and to close the gap on those important health indicators. We were all there for the same purpose. We thought that what we achieved there was significant. It was comprehensive, and it engaged all governments in the country with the intent of bringing forward multilateral transparent agreements. That's what Kelowna was designed to do.

As Mary Simon said, we're not opposed to announcements. What we're opposed to are unilateral undertakings. What we need are multilateral, transparent agreements and processes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Chief Fontaine, Chief Picard, Madam Simon, Madam McPherson, and Mr. LeClair. The committee appreciates your coming here today to share with us.

One thing, as a chair, that I've always observed is that when we're talking about reconciliation with the Crown, I think that's reconciliation with Canadians, and that is important. An institution is not necessarily something you reconcile to. It is to the people of Canada. The members who are sitting here represent the people of Canada, so we will do our best to fulfil that desire.

Thank you very much for your presence here.

The meeting is adjourned.