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

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Agreed.

Was Quebec committed, in Kelowna, to participating financially in improving the living conditions of the communities?

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

I am sorry; I do not understand the question.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Canada and the provinces said than an accord had been reached, but during the first ministers’ meeting in Kelowna, did Quebec commit funding to Aboriginal communities?

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

Are you speaking about the Quebec government?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Yes.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

No.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Which was not the case in Mashteuiatsh, where the Quebec government made a number of commitments.

In your presentation, you said that the housing jurisdiction system does not work. You are proposing changes. I would like you to hear you speak about that.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

We already know that there is a significant gap when it comes to housing; we already demonstrated that with the figures we gave. What we are saying is that if the responsibility was transferred directly to First Nations, with the associated credits, the management of housing programs would certainly be better.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

So, not only would additional funds be needed but there would also need to changes to the method of transferring funds to First Nations.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

It is all part of our efforts to eventually achieve self-government.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Agreed.

I would like to ask a question of Chief Fontaine.

Chief, you've mentioned many times this morning the gap that is a burden for first nations. How do you see the gap? You mentioned that since 1986 it's been a $10 billion gap that's been created. How do you see that gap relating to the discussions that were held in Kelowna? How do you see the stress on first nations regarding the gap? Maybe you would like to comment on this.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully clear up, if I can put it this way, a misconception regarding Kelowna and the suggestion that in order for Kelowna to be given effect there had to be a signed document. I noted in my presentation that there have been 78 first ministers meetings. Only six concluded with a signed document.

What we are witnessing here is that we are being held to a higher standard. It's completely unfair that because there is no signed document, this is still not good enough—even though there was a commitment in a transparent process before the entire country—and that there have to be signatures from 14 jurisdictions in order to give effect to these very important commitments.

We didn't come here to engage in one-upmanship, to beat this party over that party. We're here because we're faced with dealing with the biggest challenge this country has--

[A voice]

That's right.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

--and that's first nations poverty and what do about it. That's why we're here, not to engage in this highly partisan process here. I didn't come here to beat up on anyone. I came here because I believe we can do some good together; that's the simple fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

Unfortunately, we're out of time. We're going to move on to the Bloc.

Mr. Lévesque, please.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming here today. I am very pleased to meet with you again, even if, in Ms. Simon’s view, you are starting to be asked to appear before the committee too frequently. Nevertheless, I am always happy to see you.

Mr. Picard, you mentioned at one point that 8,800 housing units were needed. I suppose that means in Quebec alone. I wonder whether that also includes the 800 housing units in Nunavik.

Before I let you answer my question, I want to say that what is beyond me in this case is that immigrants are being brought to Canada from just about everywhere to meet economic needs, and laws are being passed to respect the cultures of the people of different nationalities who come to live in Canada, but we are forgetting to sustain and train our own nations. We talk about education before housing yet we know full well that if children do not have a house to study and sleep in, it will be difficult for them first of all to go to school and then succeed in their studies.

The big question that was asked a short while ago and that my colleague was alluding to is the following: Do you agree that the Kelowna Accord was, for the First Nations, a nation-to-nation accord?

I would like to hear each one of you answer. Mr. Picard, you provided an answer, but by the time Mr. Fontaine’s turn came around, time had run out. I would therefore like both of you to answer my question and give us your opinion on the Accord.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

First of all, I would like to clarify one thing with regard to the housing issue. The data that we validated reflects First Nations housing needs only, even though we know that the Inuit participated in the socioeconomic forum debate. Ms. Simon was saying earlier that there are housing needs in that area, too. It is easy to show.

That said, with regard to political relations—and what we are really talking about is political relations between the federal government and the First Nations that we represent—I think it is up to us at this point to fully define the concept. We recognize ourselves as such, as nations, and I think that it is the federal government now that has to do its part. The Quebec government takes every opportunity to portray itself as the only government in the country to have gone as far as passing a resolution in the National Assembly recognizing the Aboriginal nations of Quebec in 1985.

That said, between the declaration, or recognition as such, and the actual implementation of the resolution, there is also progress that needs to be made. The ideal has perhaps not yet been attained.

[Marc LeClair]

I think the process itself, the negotiations that occurred leading up to Kelowna...they were no different from the negotiations that would occur between the federal and provincial governments. Given the nature of the changes for the negotiations, organizations and governments hung on every word. So there is a very large degree of clarity on the nature and scope of the commitments that were made in Kelowna, including the financial numbers.

The financial numbers for Kelowna may have come late in the process, in determining exactly what it was going to cost to implement the commitments, but the commitments themselves, in the documents that were negotiated, were negotiated as if they were nation-to-nation, government-to-government negotiations. They were held in a transparent fashion. There was no hiding anything from anybody. The discussions occurred. The compromises were made. In the end, an agreement was reached. The clerk will confirm this. All of the senior public servants who were involved in the process will confirm that these negotiations were transparent and that every word in those documents meant something.

Moving forward, Rod asked the question about the nature of the commitments in the bill. I think Madam Simon is right on. The bill would not be necessary if the government were to take a harder look at this file again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you. We're out of time.

From the government side, Mr. Albrecht, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank each of the witnesses for appearing before us this morning, and I want to address Ms. Simon for a moment.

Recently, you were quoted as saying, “We don't have to call it the Kelowna accord at all. It could be called something totally different. The situation doesn't change. The needs are there.” I totally agree with you on that, and I understand your frustration. In fact, I share your frustration. In fact, at the last meeting, I told the former Prime Minister that I wanted to serve on this committee because I care deeply about the needs of all aboriginal peoples and I want to see that file move ahead.

I believe the federal government totally believes in the principles of the Kelowna accord in terms of closing the gaps and addressing the needs of education, water, and housing. If we look at the recent budget that the government implemented, it shows our commitment to improving the conditions for all aboriginal people: $3.7 billion in new investments over two years. That amount includes $450 million for education for women and families and water and housing on reserves. To address the situation that you raised, $300 million was provided for housing in the territories, $200 million of which was for Nunavut, along with an additional $300 million for off-reserve housing.

My point is simply this. It seems clear that we're committed to moving ahead and addressing the needs. Are we not wasting time by constantly returning to this word “Kelowna”, this name of a city where the negotiations were held? It's clear our government is committed to moving ahead. Why don't we get on with discussions on moving ahead instead of going back to November 2005?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Who would you like to direct that to?

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

Ms. Simon.

[Mary Simon]

Yes, I did say that, and there was a reason. It seemed to us this summer that the word “Kelowna” brought very negative feedback in trying to address the needs our people are facing. I was being interviewed, and I made the comment that I didn't care what you called it as long as the government lived up to its commitment to address and meet the commitments that were made in November last year in British Columbia. That's the extent of what I said.

Minister Prenticealso told me he believes in the principles of Kelowna. The difficulty we are having is that we don't see a comprehensive approach to the issues that are facing us, which were outlined in the Kelowna accord.

We're not trying to attack the government. As Mr. Fontaine said, we would only like some answers to address these very serious issues. It's to say to us and to Canada that we are supporting the principles of Kelowna, but it should also tell us and talk to us about how those principles are going to be implemented in a comprehensive way.

We don't disagree with the announcements that are being made. We're very grateful the housing announcement was made, but it certainly doesn't meet the needs of our people.

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

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Yes, you do.