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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You have about two and a half minutes.

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

My same question was to Ms. Simon and to Ms. McPherson as well, in terms of what are the losses experienced by not--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You're coming out to the five minutes right now.

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

Well, then, we'll move on. We'll continue with this and then Mr. Merasty will lead on the next one.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay.

Ms. Simon.

[Mary Simon]

Thank you very much for that question.

Like the national chief...it's very hard to measure how much you've lost. When we were negotiating with the provinces and the federal government for the event in Kelowna, we were looking at the situation as it was in our communities. When you look at the level of graduates coming out of high school, when you look at the level of suicide rates in the north related to many different problems that youth are having at the community level, and when you look at the different conditions faced by families, with the social services, the health services, not really anything has changed. The $5 billion mark was to begin to close the gap. It's very hard to measure in dollars and cents at this point.

The minister did make an announcement on housing for Nunavut. I represent all the regions in the north. We have Nunavik, which has probably one of the highest percentages of overcrowded housing. Then we have Labrador. Although their housing doesn't seem to be as crowded, the condition of housing in Labrador is very grave. They haven't had the same types of housing programs that, let's say, we have had in some of the northern communities. I have to say that one announcement, although it was very much appreciated, does not meet the needs of even Nunavut or other regions.

I think the other point, the integrity and the hope that was tied to the announcement and how people feel about it today, is a big, big part of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Lemay or Mr. Lévesque.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the four of you for coming.

Since I represent a political party that is not seeking to take power in Ottawa, let us speak frankly. The members facing us, and those on this side, were in power at a very important moment for the Aboriginals, First Nations and Inuit of this country.

I have a number of questions to ask and comments to make, but to begin with, I would like to say that today is a rather ironic day. I just want to point that out. Today is November 21. Exactly 10 years ago, the Erasmus-Dussault report was tabled. I know that the Assembly of First Nations will be marking that anniversary this evening. I wanted to draw attention to it because it is both funny and not funny. The Conservatives were in power when the Erasmus-Dussault report was requested and obtained; it was during the Mulroney era. It is both funny and not funny. In 2005, in Kelowna, it was the Liberals who were in power.

There are things I do not understand. I am going to tell you what they are and I would like the answers to my questions to be quite brief. I will start with Mr. Picard.

I know that you held a very important meeting. I want to congratulate you, on behalf of the committee and personally, too, for the work accomplished in Mashteuiatsh. I was there all three days, unlike the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I can tell you that a lot of work was done. It was extraordinary. I hope that you will be able to come, if asked, and present the recommendations to this committee. I do not know if you would agree to come and present them to the committee and tell us what you are going to do with the recommendations that came out of the Mashteuiatsh socioeconomic forum.

I will let you answer that in a few minutes.

Today, I have a problem. I now have confirmation, which I received 15 days ago, with the presence of Mr. Martin, Mr. Goodale and Mr. Scott, that plans had been made in the government budget to add $5.1 billion to the $6.2 billion already available to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Those amounts were already set aside in the budget.

What can we do? I know all of the issues facing the First Nations, Inuit and Métis. I swear I know them by heart because I experience them in my own riding. I want to know how we around this table can go and get the $5.1 billion that you are entitled to following the Kelowna Accord.

That is my only question. I would like you to answer briefly, starting with Mr. Picard.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemay.

You took the words right out of my mouth because I was going to use the opportunity given to me today to ask the committee to read the forum report, once the conclusions are ready and the analysis complete. It is paramount that we find a way to engage the government.

As for your other question, I would like to respond by asking another one: How long are we going to play this game?

I will echo a bit of what Ms. Simon said a little earlier. The number of times we have been invited, that we have appeared before your committees, Parliamentary committees, is getting ridiculous and is unfair to the communities that we are being called to defend. I find it totally unacceptable, and that is part of what led our region to its position vis-à-vis Kelowna, which is not—I will emphasize this again—against the sought-after goals.

A short while ago, you referred to the Royal Commission report tabled 10 years ago. The report’s 10-year anniversary is being marked today. It is important to remember that the commission was established because of a situation in Quebec, a situation that not only was going to, but did in fact, degenerate, a situation that, at the time, involved the federal government and the community of Kanesatake.

You can go back 20, 30, 40 years and find this type of situation. How long will we be content with these episodes that remind us in the end that there is deep injustice in Canada, which reflects on the way the country is viewed internationally. I think it is terrible. There are leaders that I respect a great deal who have spent their careers defending their communities. I have only been doing this for 15 years and I am starting to get tired. I think it has to change.

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

Mr. Fontaine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Actually, we unfortunately don't have any time for another answer, Chief Fontaine.

I'm going to turn it over to Madam Crowder, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank each and every one of you for coming before the committee today. I know this is difficult to have to be repeating things that have been said many times.

I also want to thank Chief Fontaine for the very detailed outline of what led up to Kelowna, because I think it can put to rest any notion that this was written on the back of a napkin somewhere. The extensive documentation that's before the committee certainly provides that background.

Of course, you did mention the fact that the transformative change accord did lead to a signed document here in British Columbia, on behalf of the First Nations Leadership Council and the First Nations Summit. I have that signed document if anybody wants to look at it.

I think the challenge I'm coming up against is that in a briefing note to the current minister when he took over, it clearly talked about how meaningful and lasting progress requires fundamentally new ways of doing things. It talked about the commitments around Kelowna. It talked about a focus on outcomes and the fact that the provinces and territories, along with first nations, Métis, and Inuit leadership, were on side and at the table. I think there were a couples of points.

Ms. McPherson made the point that what Kelowna represented, in a way, was a collaborative journey, a collective. And Ms. Simon talked about integrity and honour.

When I'm looking at what's currently happening, what we're seeing is a fragmentation. We have one-off policies that are being announced, such that we have a fragmentation around water, we have a fragmentation around housing. Many of these policies are not addressing communities. Pikangikum, which we're going to talk about later, wasn't even on the list for water.

It seems to me that what we're starting to see is a grave philosophical difference. Kelowna, although it was not perfect, was a step in recognizing a nation-to-nation status, finally, after so many years, but we've seen a backslide. Could you comment on whether, in your view, Kelowna represented a step toward recognizing nation-to-nation status and if the actions that have been taken since are eroding that recognition of nation to nation?

I'll just throw it open.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Who's going to answer first?

Mr. LeClair.

[Marc LeClair, Chief Negotiator, Métis National Council]

Sure. Thank you for the question.

The time for half measures is over. We didn't come here on bended knee to beg for $5.1 billion or for half measures. What we need is for parliamentarians around the room to live up to the obligations they have as parliamentarians and as Canadians.

We've come here for three decades. We've done deals with the Conservative government in Charlottetown. We've done them with the Liberal government. We try our best. This whole gang behind me, many of them have been around a long time, come to Parliament expecting parliamentarians to live up to their responsibilities.

What message are you sending to those young kids who are in gangs in Edmonton and Winnipeg and around the country if you can't live up to your responsibilities that you make in public forums? That's the issue in this bill.

The politics aside, it's not about the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party. It's not about Paul Martin. It's about living up to obligations that have been negotiated with people in a political process, which is the marvel of the world.

To just backslide on this now is irresponsible and a failure of this Parliament to live up to its obligations, and it needs to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You still have three minutes.

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

Does anybody else want to comment?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Yes, I do.

First of all, and I don't want to lose this opportunity with respect to what was lost, in the 2006 budget there's a commitment of $450 million. That represents $100 million in this fiscal year plus $350 million in the next fiscal year.

In Kelowna over two years we're talking about $1.6 billion. If you ask me what the value is, it's significant, just with respect to the difference between what was committed in 2006 and what was outlined in the Kelowna accord.

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

Chief Fontaine, one of the things that has come up at this committee is the fact that the current government says they've actually bookmarked more money in this budget.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Part of it includes what we view as lawful obligations on the part of the federal government. I'm referring specifically to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which is $2.2 billion.

There I would be unfair if I didn't applaud all parties, including the government, for doing the right thing, but that is not a program or service. It's not an investment in programs and services. It's a settlement on a legal obligation, and there's a huge difference.

We're talking about programs and services. There's a vast difference between what is in the budget of 2006 and what we have been able to realize through the accord.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming before the committee today. National Chief Fontaine, I'd like to also thank you as a fellow Manitoban for coming before us today.

My question I guess initially is this. Have you had a chance to read Bill C-292 yet?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I've had my people review it, yes.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay.

There are three parts to the bill, three clauses on two pages. You could correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the key point to this bill is in clause 2, which is:

The Government of Canada shall immediately take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the...“Kelowna Accord”....

My question would be, how, as a government, are we to enact this piece of legislation when it seems difficult, at least from my perspective, to ascertain exactly what the Kelowna accord is? This bill is asking the Government of Canada to implement something that has multiple definitions.

I know you have a perspective as to what was accomplished at the first ministers meeting. I think Mary Simon does, as well as all members of this committee, Rosemarie, Ghislain.... But as parliamentarians, we're voting on a piece of legislation that is calling upon us to do something as a government, so I need to know how we define this. How do we define this part of this piece of legislation, the part I mentioned:

The Government of Canada shall immediately take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the ... “Kelowna Accord”....

What are we implementing?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

First of all, in terms of our attempts to try to understand the Kelowna accord and the details around Kelowna, we have no problem with the definition. It was about a first nations plan, a plan we put to the first ministers as a challenge to join us in the eradication of mass poverty in our communities. The plan was very specific in terms of implementation. It was about closing the gap.

Up until 1996, the gap in terms of quality of life was closing. A two percent cap was introduced on core programs and services. From that period on, until we met in Kelowna and to this day, the gap started to widen. Clearly, that was telling us the quality of life in our communities was deteriorating, and we needed to do something very specific and concrete. We see the Kelowna accord, with all its plans, as being a very specific response to this challenge. That's why we brought this box of evidence, if I can call it that. It was to indicate very, very clearly that we weren't talking about this in generalities; we were very, very specific.

If Bill C-292 is about kick-starting this whole process, why would we argue against that if that's what it's designed to do? If it's less than that, then we're adding to the problem.