As I am certain many honourable members may have questions to ask and comments to make, I will keep my remarks brief.
The Kelowna accord was introduced in the last moments of the last days of the last government. It is important to look at it for what it is and for what it is not.
The first ministers meeting in Kelowna, held almost exactly one year ago, was the culmination of a process that began in April 2004 through the convening of the Canada aboriginal peoples round table process. This undertaking was a significant one and was an effort that sought to avoid the prescriptive “made in Ottawa” approach to aboriginal affairs, which has virtually ensured the failure of previous attempts at dealing with the reform of Canada's aboriginal affairs.
A new approach was called for, one that promised collaboration, cooperation, and accommodation. I cannot sit before this committee and say that our organization did not welcome this news at that time. In our view, there is no aspiration more noble than to commit to ending aboriginal poverty.
There can be no better goal than to ensure that all of Canada's aboriginal peoples are able to stake their share in our nation's abundant prosperity. We all have an obligation to provide hope for our youth and the next generation of aboriginal peoples to come. Given this, we must end the rhetoric and act now.
On the basis of this promised partnership with the government of the day, and with the full hope that the congress and its member communities would be equal participants in this historic undertaking, we set forth on an 18-month process that promised to yield results for a generation. Thus, at least at the outset, what Kelowna was to CAP was an offer of inclusion and accommodation and a pursuit that aimed to rise above partisan politics, both at the parliamentary level and across the aboriginal horizon in conjunction with the five national aboriginal organizations.
CAP also viewed the round table process and the first ministers meeting as an opportunity for outreach and education to politicians and officials alike, providing them with the facts around the off-reserve, including status, non-status, and Métis realities in respect of Canada's aboriginal affairs.
The numbers around this constituency are very telling. l'd like to share them with you today, as I have been doing for months now, and will continue to do with other parliamentarians, senior officials across the bureaucracy, and members of the parliamentary press gallery.
The Government of Canada census indicates that 79% of Canada's aboriginal people live off reserves. Of the status Indian population, 51% live off reserves. Yet, despite these figures, out of the over $9 billion spent yearly by the federal government on aboriginal programming and services, for every $8 spent on reserve, only $1 is spent off reserve.
Surely the Canada aboriginal peoples round table process would have addressed this. Certainly the investments that were to have flowed from the Kelowna commitments would have reflected this obvious demographic reality. The answer to both of those questions is, sadly, no.
In fact, 90% of the so-called funding commitments were to benefit primarily on-reserve peoples. What Kelowna sought to do was to throw more money at a system that has failed first nations people for over 130 years. The fact remains that off-reserve, non-status, and Métis peoples outside the so-called homelands are equally legitimate and deserving of the same degree of attention and accommodation.
Poverty, sickness, and despair know no geography and need no distinction. Unlike the rights of first nations people, which end at the reserve borders, suffering is indeed a portable issue. In my view, Kelowna provided false hope for grassroots people, people with real needs, while enriching organizations and the aboriginal elitist groups.
We trust you will agree that building real and sustainable hope for a generation requires more than partisan politics. We ask this, since, based on this evidence, it is clear that the Kelowna process was not about inclusion. It was not about recognition and accommodation. It was about considering hundreds of thousands of people, including me, who don't live on these small tracts of land called reserves, as less important than others who do.
We learned of the Kelowna commitments the same way members of the press did—through a news release issued at the conclusion of a news conference held at the closing of the first ministers meeting. We believe the current government has made its position on the Kelowna investments well known. Though they support the objectives of the commitments, they see the need for a more concerted strategy and plan in respect of their resourcing and delivery to ensure that no one gets left behind.
We are asking the current government to move at this time and provide real, practical, tangible results to better the lives of aboriginal peoples.
In the meantime, our people await real hope and the relief that only real change can bring to improve the lives of aboriginal people. Specifically, it is our counsel to this committee that you determine with certainty how the proposed $5.1 billion in funding would be disbursed across the provinces and territories, the extent to which the investments will be allocated on and off reserve, and what measures would be taken to ensure that national aboriginal organizations have the necessary capacity to assist in its delivery. Further, and perhaps even more fundamental, is the need to ensure that appropriate report card mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability, responsibility, and transparency in their use by the provinces, territories, and national aboriginal organizations.
Accountability is essential in our crusade to eradicate poverty. Public funds fuel this crusade. Canadians both need to and deserve to know whether we are making real progress or if changes to an approach are required in order to ensure success.
Over the past year, I have met with many of you, from all political stripes and across this land, in an effort to ensure that we share an understanding of the challenges our people face. Our aim has been, and remains, to engender debate, provoke sincere bipartisan discussion, and hopefully, through this, bring about meaningful and sustainable progress.
I hope this committee, in its study of this proposed bill, will send a message to aboriginal people from sea to sea to sea that Parliament speaks for all those in Canada who seek a share of its boundless prosperity, and that, similarly, this Parliament chooses hope, through inclusion and accommodation, over partisanship and politics on the backs of this country's most disadvantaged.
In closing, I'd like to offer for debate three potential solutions that I believe will make a real difference in the lives of aboriginal people. One, eliminate the Indian Act and replace with it with a nation recognition legislation—again, the concept of nation. Two, address the issue of jurisdiction and responsibility for Canada's aboriginal people. Three, introduce measures to ensure greater accountability, responsibility, and transparency by aboriginal organizations and band councils throughout this country to those they represent.
I invite your questions.
Thank you. Merci . Meegwetch.
