Evidence of meeting #27 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reserve.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Patrick Brazeau
The case deals with the federal government's responsibility towards all aboriginals. Therefore, the responsibility of provinces towards aboriginals living off reserve is not clearly defined at the moment.
Patrick Brazeau
Exactly, but in that regard, the Prime Minister sent us a letter in January indicating that he wanted to work on legislative measures to transfer funds to the provinces in order to assist aboriginals living off reserve.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Could you table that letter? Is it possible to have a copy?
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Yes, but I would like to obtain that letter, Mr. Chair. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could table it.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today.
I think it's a little troubling that we're actually not dealing with Kelowna. Since we seem to have deviated, I'm going to continue to deviate. I'm actually going to go back to the Kelowna agreement--or accord. It seems to have a number of names.
In the Kelowna accord, the preamble in the introduction did talk about:
The Aboriginal peoples of Canada includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. This is inclusive of all Aboriginal peoples, who may reside on reserves or settlements, in rural or urban areas, or northern and Arctic regions.
In my own province of British Columbia, there was then an agreement signed, which was the transformative change accord. It also talked about the fact that:
The parties understand that new resources will be required to close the gaps and federal and provincial investments on and off reserve will be made available pursuant to the decisions taken at the November 2005 First Ministers' Meeting.
It seems to me that we are presuming how money would unroll in the absence of any information. We're presuming that offers would not have been considered.
I want to come back to Ms. Tabobondung and to Mr. Brazeau. I have a question that I want to frame in the context of something that came from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In recommendation 2.3.2 it says that “All governments in Canada recognize that Aboriginal peoples are nations vested with the right of self-determination.” Then they go on to talk about how aboriginal peoples identify themselves as nations. It seems to me this is the crux of the question that you are both raising. It says:
Aboriginal peoples are entitled to identify their own national units for purposes of exercising the right of self-determination. For an Aboriginal nation to exercise the right of self-determination, it does not have to be recognized as a nation by the federal government or by provincial governments. Nevertheless, unless other Canadian governments are prepared to acknowledge the existence of Aboriginal nations and to negotiate with them, such nations may find it difficult to exercise their rights effectively....
They then go on to say that:
The federal government put in place a neutral and transparent process for identifying Aboriginal groups entitled to exercise the right of self-determination as nations, a process that uses the following specific attributes.
I won't continue to read it. There were a lot of criteria set out, and this was an extensive consultation process.
I'm uncomfortable, in the absence of other representation.
Mr. Brazeau, you have specifically talked about abolishing the Indian Act, and I think part of the problem we have as a country, Canada, and Quebec, is that people behind closed doors in committees like this have made unilateral decisions that have excluded first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples from the decision-making at the table.
You talked about the fact that there were distinction-based conversations that, it seemed to me, excluded groups of people. In effect, because this work wasn't done from 1996, I don't know how you address this distinction-based conversation in the absence of all this other work that should have been done.
Could you both talk to that specifically? I would really appreciate it if it was focused on solutions rather than talking about the alleged deeds of other groups of people. I don't think that's helpful in this context.
President, National Association of Friendship Centres
I believe, as a friendship centre movement, that we provide the opportunity for people to come together, that we do understand that we do have a relationship, for example, with the Anishinabek Nation. They very clearly have a number of friendship centres in their territory. They too are beginning to understand that we are part of the solution, and they have afforded us the opportunity to be at least an observer in some of the tables. Clearly, in other areas we also have that relationship with the first nations communities, or that community, to come together and to be part of that whole nation-building process.
It's a process, and it's relatively new to some of us and to some of the clients who are part of the friendship centre movement. But this is not to say that they don't want to be included.
How would it look for us as a friendship centre movement if we had nation houses or changed how we look? That, in itself, would have to mean a discussion amongst the friendship centre people to say, “What would that look like?”, “How could we interact?”, “How could we improve?”, and “How could we ensure that the people on the ground were the ones who were engaged for those kinds of discussions?” Because most certainly the solutions would be to their benefit.
Peter Dinsdale Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres
Our concerns with the Kelowna accord and the distinction-based approach you talk about are nuanced, because we certainly support the measures they contain.
I'm a status Indian. Throughout the friendship centre movement, many of the people we serve are status Indians, and we want our communities to do well. That means, as an example of education--you asked for examples--the discussion in Kelowna talked about the need for first nations school boards, increased teacher training, and Métis bursaries, all very worthy and needed measures, and those are measures the friendship centre movement didn't disagree with.
The challenge for us is that our approach as a service delivery provider in urban areas would have focused on how a single aboriginal woman in downtown Winnipeg accesses schooling for her and her child. What supports are there for her? What housing programs are available? What level of jurisdiction is responsible? What is the role of all the various players involved?
That for us was the challenge. We supported a distinction-based approach for nation building, and the friendship centre movement hasn't taken any position on nation approaches. I don't think the infrastructure is ready off reserve for that, frankly, and it would be a process that would need time. We're one of the few major urban aboriginal programs that has any longevity in Canada. The infrastructure just doesn't exist.
Our view would be to support and develop the building of the communities we're from. Nation concepts exist. There are regional bodies currently involved that do that kind of conglomeration. The distinction-based approach needs to happen, but we need to make sure the unique needs, and not the rights, are being addressed. We talk a lot about the right to education, the right to housing. We didn't talk about the needs of people in the communities we serve, so that was the challenge for us.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We're out of time, so unfortunately, Mr. Brazeau, you cannot answer.
Mr. Blaney.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning and welcome to our committee.
Ms. Tobobondung, I would like to thank you for being here. You represent a major association. Of course, my colleague Marc Lemay alluded to statements made yesterday recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation. Aboriginals form several nations and are often cited as an example. And yet, we all live together here, in Canada.
The Erasmus-Dussault report was published 10 years ago. My first question is the following: Do you find that the progress made over the past 10 years has met your expectations? Do you believe there are major challenges that have not been addressed? I think you spoke about some of them, but I would like to know what your major priorities are. What are the two or three problems that you would like our government to solve in the short term?
You have already mentioned that we have committed funds, but clearly this is not only about money. Mr. Brazeau spoke about a change of approach. I would first like to hear your comments. What are the three measures that could be taken immediately, over the next year? We know that our department has proposed to reform on-reserve matrimonial rights. In your opinion, what lasting solutions could truly bring about sustainable changes to first nations?
Patrick Brazeau
First of all, my presentation contained three recommendations that speak for themselves. Of course, the Indian Act is becoming a priority, because there are currently too many chiefs in Canada. If we undertook to group our true nations, I believe that we would be giving hope to Aboriginals and our young people, which is very important. Young people make up almost 50 % of Canada's aboriginal population. So we have to stop the talk and start to walk.
If we abolished the Indian Act and, instead of having 633 chiefs across the country, grouped Aboriginals by their true nations, we would have between 60 and 80 true chiefs representing their respective nations. With regard to land claims, if an entire nation makes a claim, that nation speaks on behalf of all its people. At present, a given nation is made up of various reserves, which have claims on the same tracts of land, making for overlapping claims. If there were a true nation, that would simplify negotiations for the government, the community or the aboriginal nation. I think that this is a priority in Canada; people have long been asking that the Indian Act be abolished.
You are absolutely right, it is not a matter of investing more money in a government-managed system. We need our own system, but we have to adopt measures and be in a position to begin this discussion.
Concerning governance, as I indicated earlier, we worked with the federal government in 2001, on the first nations governance bill. We were the only national aboriginal organization to support the bill, because its goal was to make changes for people living on reserves. That is the heart of the matter: we have to think about the people, not only the elected representatives and chiefs. We have to think about the people who are truly disadvantaged, who really have no hope. We have to give hope to those people. That is our common task. That is my duty as a national leader. We need to increase transparency, governance and responsibility in our aboriginal community to deal with the problems out there. I am aware that there are also problems in non aboriginal communities, but we have to look in our collective mirror and act accordingly. We have to be more accountable to the people we represent, and that is what we are currently doing.
My third point is that we need to address the responsibility issue. As I mentioned earlier, the federal government is responsible, under the Constitution, for Aboriginals living on reserves, as well as the Inuit. The responsibility for the majority of Aboriginals, those living off reserves, has yet to be defined. We therefore have to adopt a definition, make clarifications and determine who is responsible for Aboriginals living off reserves. They account for the majority of the population.
I would like to come back to the famous Kelowna accord: 90 % of the funding was to go to people on reserves. People on reserves are a major consideration. I believe the intention was good, but if we want to fight poverty, we have to consider the entire population, not only a minority, because the statistics ultimately, will not change. So, with regard to the Kelowna accord, after 18 months of consultations, I think we all agree on the fact that we have to reduce the poverty level of Canadian Aboriginals. However, we won't get far if we only give funding and hope to a minority of people, and we will not have done our work as we are supposed to.
Conservative
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
We're out of time.
Well, thank you. I wish we had more--