Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'm going to turn it over to the Liberals. Who will speak on behalf of the Liberals?

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Having grown up around friendship centres my entire life, I know the valuable service they provide. I know that the Kelowna accord would have provided some direct investment. Would there have been an opportunity to leverage other funding to realize an economy of scale? Could we have pulled money in from different Health Canada or provincial health funding initiatives, different child care initiatives, which are maybe not directly mentioned in Kelowna, but which may exist in other pots of funding?

It seems to me that the potential for this was great under the Kelowna accord. I know the realities of the friendship centres struggling from month to month sometimes, trying to make sure the funding was there. Could you speak about that potential?

[Vera Pawis Tabobondung]

That is the success of friendship centres. For every dollar, we're able to leverage seven more dollars from different areas. We know we could do better. We could share that with the other leaders and with government to start to build the business case for centres of excellence based on our experiences thus far.

[Peter Dinsdale]

We tried to hold an information rally instead of a demonstration. We had assurances from the Prime Minister in May that there would be accommodation made for service delivery. It didn't occur. We had assurances from the Minister of Indian Affairs and some other ministers at the 11th hour that the accommodation would occur in the implementation. This included an urban focus in the fall, which didn't occur afterward. So there were some accommodations and approaches. That's why in all our communication—which made us less sexy on television—we said we supported Kelowna, but that it was just a beginning.

In Bill C-292, the second clause talks about directing the government to implement Kelowna in its intent. For us the intent is the collaborative approach. It is the investments, the strategic and historic investments, that were to have been made as a beginning. We would then turn our attention to the areas we weren't able to get to. As for the notion that we'd have a distinction-based conversation with this urban lens crossing all the themes, it didn't occur. The lens was a blindfold.

They recognized that there needed to be more work done, and we are going to do that work.That's why we stand here today saying we support Kelowna. It's a beginning, not an end. It's “Kelowna plus”. It's a Kelowna to build on, for the majority of people who live in urban areas and work with federal officials, partners, and other NAOs. It's so people on the ground will have an opportunity to access the program.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

In my area, there is good cooperation between the first nations communities, the reserves, and the friendship centres. There was that economy of scale, that cooperation, the renting of offices, the providing of services to urban people. It had positive impacts in Saskatchewan and was even more effective in the north.

What state are you in right now? I've had a few calls from executive directors back home. How secure are the friendship centres in their ability to provide these key services and ensure those partnerships with the first nations and Métis communities?

[Vera Pawis Tabobondung]

We're talking with Minister Oda about what friendship centres would look like in the future, about the kinds of enhancements they need today to catch up and to continue this work in 2007 and beyond. It's not only about the core operations of the centres. We also need to consider the spin-offs. We're doing this work with all the other levels of government, presenting our business case and advancing our centres of excellence approach to improving the lives of aboriginal people in an urban environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

On the government side, Mr. Albrecht, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to each of you for appearing before us today.

My remarks will be directed primarily to Ms. Tabobondung and Mr. Dinsdale.

You mentioned in your presentation that your first demonstration was in May 2005 and you weren't heard at that time. You said you weren't even able to submit reports. You went on to say you support the measures in the Kelowna accord, and I think our government has been clear that we do as well, as it relates to closing the gaps and addressing the needs of aboriginal people. Twice I've heard the term “Kelowna plus”.

I don't question for a minute anyone's commitment to improving the lives and the lot of aboriginal people. I want you to know I requested to serve on this committee out of the same desire, not because of any expertise, but because of a desire to move ahead.

But it seems to me, in the last six to nine months of Parliament, we have wasted an inordinate amount of time talking about a word, “Kelowna”, and another word, “accord”. We've wasted committee time and we've wasted Parliament's time, and, more importantly, I believe we've wasted a lot of aboriginal peoples' time, especially the institutions that represent those people.

It is clear that our government has taken a number of concrete steps to address many of the needs of both on-reserve and off-reserve aboriginal people: large financial investments addressing housing, education, and water needs. Also, we've tried to begin to address some of the structural issues. The present collaborative approach in addressing matrimonial real property is one indicator of the kind of collaborative process we'd like to move ahead on.

My question is this. With the evidence of the financial investment this government has committed, in addition to addressing some of the structural needs, don't you think we are really wasting a lot of time talking about a concept from a year ago, instead of moving ahead and really getting down to work to address the needs of all Canadians collaboratively and cooperatively? That question is for both of you.

[Vera Pawis Tabobondung]

You can understand that as I am the president of the National Association of Friendship Centres, it is very valuable time. Without looking behind and knowing where I come from, how am I going to be sure where I'm going?

For sure, I can whine and complain about what I didn't like, but most certainly we're talking about what we can support. We're prepared to do the work. You and I can sit at the table and know the time we have and know we all have the same 24 hours, but we believe in our commitment, in our ability to change our attitude and move things forward, accepting the mistakes and the strengths of the past.

We were reminded the other night that we didn't get all the things the people advised from our communities from all parts of the country in terms of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. That's all of our fault. It is not just any one individual. We all wear that shame. We all wear that cloak. It's like trying to remove that, trying to remove the cloak of colonialism, to develop a respect for each other as leaders, as a people, so we are all proud to be Canadians. As aboriginals, we don't expect anything less, and we most certainly know if we don't start to hit this poverty thing running on the ground, then most certainly we'll have nothing to be shiny and glistening and proud about. That's not the message that comes from the friendship centre people or the people in our communities.

I could go on, because you could answer the question as a leader, or at least I could, as a mother, a grandmother, and an auntie, but most certainly I think there's lots of work to do.

[Peter Dinsdale]

We were summoned to talk about Kelowna and Bill C-292, which is why our remarks are directed as such.

I would love to have an opportunity to present to this committee on what specific urban aboriginal action plans are required to effect meaningful change for people in communities, but that's not what this is about and that is why our remarks are not about it.

You mention your concrete steps. I don't think there is any question that the residential school announcement, the MRP consultations, the water investments, and education are all vitally important, but let's recognize that they are primarily on reserve. The $300 million housing trust will not affect things off reserve. With respect, we still haven't been involved in any conversations about how we're addressing that other half, so we're still calling for that approach. We'd love an opportunity to have those conversations about the concrete steps in urban communities.

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

I think that just identifies the point I was trying to make, if we were to put that aside for a minute and talk about what concrete steps are needed for us to move ahead, not just for your group but for all aboriginal groups.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

A point well taken.

Mr. Lévesque.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ms. Tobobondung and Mr. Brazeau.

Mr. Dinsdale does not need the interpretation. I believe he has learned to speak French.

I am very familiar with aboriginal friendship centres, as well as the first nations. However, Mr. Brazeau, can you please clarify a part of your testimony. If the Inuit are to be considered as a nation, are they to be included with the first nations, or with aboriginal peoples? Which of these two groups would suit the Inuit better, for the sake of discussion?

I will ask all my questions because we sometimes do not have enough time to ask supplementary questions.

In your proposal, Mr. Brazeau, you suggest that we abolish the Indian Act, but that it be immediately replaced by legislation that may be even more restrictive than the current act, because the new one would take away from various communities the right to elect their own leader.

I, for one, believe that a nation can have several leaders but leaders who get together to choose one representative for the nation. This is, by far, the hightly desirable solution. In Quebec, the Cree form a nation and they have established the Grand Council of the Crees that is represented by a powerful leader. It has been proven that by showing just as much confidence in the first nations as we have in the Inuit, much progress can be achieved more quickly, and we would have to rely less on immigrants to improve Canada's productivity.

Quebec has proven this by acknowledging the first nations as a full-fledged nation, with no conditions attached, in spite of the Canadian or Quebec Constitution. We want all aboriginal nations in Canada and in Quebec to enjoy this status, so long as we remain in Canada. Currently, education and health care, among others, fall other provincial jurisdiction. You're saying that you want to bring the nations together, but abolishing the Indian Act would mean that reserves would disappear off the map. You need land territories. Negotiations to define the land on which a nation is to reside must start. This is a bold vision, and I have difficulty seeing how you will convince someone else to undertake this unification. I believe it is up to your nation as a unified group, to make suggestions to us. I will let you comment on that.

I would like to ask Ms. Tobobondung to explain to us what can be done, because to my mind, it is important to be able to address all of the nations you represent. Can we use one single definition, either that of the first nations or of Aboriginals? I do not know which of these two groups would also include the Inuit.

[Vera Pawis Tabobondung]

Thank you very much for your question.

In our language, as a people, we acknowledge each other with our names. Whether we're Anishinabek, whether we're the Haudenosaunee, whether we're the Inuit, we all have names for each other by which we recognize each other, and we need to maintain that. We need to continue that. There is no way Vera Pawis Tabobondung is the same as anyone else, because that is my name. I have role responsibility for that name, the same as Haudenosaunee people have a role responsibility. Anishinabek people and Haida people, they all have their own name, their own identity. So very clearly, that's how it will be.

When you come to a friendship centre, we don't necessarily ask who you are. You choose to come there, and you will tell me how you want to be recognized.

[Chief Patrick Brazeau]

With respect to your comment on the Indian Act, it must be pointed out that the Grand Council of the Crees is not subject to the Indian Act, which is a good thing. This is the direction we must take. True first nations must be formed. It is not necessarily true that territory borders must be negotiated, because the territories already exist. If we look at the current reserve system, there are communities already living on a specific territory. It is not a matter of moving a community in order to form another to create a true first nation. It is a matter of remaining where they are and negotiating agreements as a full-fledged nation, of building partnerships so that they can begin laying the foundation for economic development, thereby reducing dependence on the federal government and beginning to ensure our own funding.

This is not a matter of eliminating the reserve system, this is a matter of abolishing the Indian Act and thereby eliminating various communities and their leaders. The people must come e together within a true nation so that it can draft its own constitution according to its own customs and history. It is a matter of creating a governance system to determine how the population will choose or elect its leaders, establish accountability criteria to be met by its representatives, and get into a debate. This is an important matter. Currently, this system and status quo simply do not work. Debate must be engaged. The solution that I am proposing is perhaps not the only one, but at least the debate must be engaged. The leaders cannot all be right, and the system is no longer working.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

I want to turn to Mr. Bruinooge, please.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

National Chief Brazeau, did you bring a copy of the Kelowna accord with you today?

[Chief Patrick Brazeau]

I have the press release of the accord.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'm interested to hear about this press release, because so often I've been told at this committee that there is in fact an accord, and it's nice to hear that at least someone is talking about the truth, in the sense that “accord” did not exist. There was no signature page.

Having said that, the Government of Canada does want to move forward on behalf of aboriginal Canadians.

Perhaps you could talk to me a bit about the approach that you talked about, which is system change. That's one of the biggest issues I've had with the discussions that occurred at the first ministers meeting of last year. In fact, there were no ideas presented about system change, about improving the structure for which benefits are delivered to aboriginal people.

This is something that you've been a large advocate for. So perhaps you could tell us about how you attempted to bring that to the debate. Were the parties that set up this first ministers meeting at all interested in your ideas?

[Chief Patrick Brazeau]

I will just bring up a couple of points of clarification.

I think it's important to note, because I haven't heard it here today, that Budget 2006 does indicate that this current government is supportive of the discussions and commitments that occurred in Kelowna. Let's not lose track of that. That's very important. It is in Budget 2006.

The big question is not the set of guiding principles we discussed in Kelowna. I think nobody disagrees with that, regardless of political stripe. The big issue is the $5.1 billion. Is that going to go a long way in eradicating poverty? There are 1.4 million aboriginal peoples in this country. Over a five-year period, $5.1 billion divided by 1.4 million people is not going to eradicate poverty. I'm not a mathematician, but that's not a whole lot of money to eradicate poverty.

What this Kelowna process did.... I'll go back to the Constitution. Section 35 defines the aboriginal peoples of Canada as being the Indian, Inuit, and Métis. It doesn't say in that same Constitution that those peoples will be represented by--I won't name them--other organizations. That's important to me, because I'm the leader of one organization that advocates on behalf of the rights and interests of aboriginal peoples.

To make a long story short, we are getting shafted in terms of the funding commitments that came out of Kelowna. That's what we have a problem with. That's where the discussion should be. It's not the principles. It's not a question of an accord. There are principles. Yes, the language is beautiful, it includes everybody, but at the end of the day, this was just going to benefit a minority of aboriginal peoples. It wasn't going to go very far in doing what it was intended to do.

Having said that, earlier, Mr. Albrecht asked what we can do in the meantime; we've wasted a year. Yes, we've wasted a year, but we haven't been wasting here. We're coming up with solutions, we're putting them on the table, and we're trying to raise the level of debate. It is angering a lot of people, but we are also getting a lot of support across this country for some of those ideas.

As I mentioned earlier, maybe eliminating the Indian Act is not the solution. Tell me what's better. Is the status quo going to work? Is it working for the people? A lot of people across this country, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, are putting a lot of faith in and giving a lot of implicit power to these chiefs. Yes, they are elected, but what are they doing for the people? I should mention that there are a lot of good chiefs across this country, but there are a lot of bad ones too. That's what we're trying to fix. Those are the real problems in the aboriginal world in this country.

I don't care what political stripe we are, we all have a responsibility to provide hope for the people living in those communities, whether they're on reserve or off reserve. That is our job. Having these partisan debates over a set of guiding principles is wasting people's time. Is this the hope we're trying to provide for people? The aboriginal issue has become a partisan issue within political parties. That, to me, is nonsense. We are wasting people's time.

With the aboriginal issue, we have to target the real problems. That's accountability, transparency, representation, and legitimacy of those peoples. Our nations existed before European contact. Now you have chiefs across this country saying let's not eliminate the Indian Act because the system is working pretty well for me.

That's what we have to fix in this country. Those are the real problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Crowder, please.

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

I am not even sure where to start. I think it's unfortunate that we end up with an either/or conversation. We have the Kelowna accord. With respect to my colleagues across the table, I think we've beaten this one to death. We've talked about an acknowledgment, an extensive process, that led to this understanding in Kelowna. There's grave concern across this country—first nations, Métis, Inuit people, on reserve, off reserve—that there are some serious systemic problems. We see it in report after report. If we had just moved ahead with the Kelowna accord as presented, and honoured the process, the extensive consultation, the people's involvement, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We would be focusing on off-reserve urban peoples, instead of having this divisive conversation about on reserve and off reserve. It's unfortunate, because we're not moving forward.

I want to come back to the friendship centres. You have a mandate, a structure that's clearly identifiable, delivery mechanisms. It's troubling that I'm hearing from some friendship centres that they're having a hard time keeping their doors open because they are reliant on so many sources of funding. Take the SCPI funding. I know Tillicum House in my riding is offering homeless youth a place, and their funding is going to run out.

Could you comment on the variety of sources of funding and whether some sources are in danger?

[Vera Pawis Tabobondung]

I had the opportunity as an observer to watch honourable men, honourable leadership, compromise, talk to each other, and agree on something that would walk us forward as aboriginal people and the Government of Canada. I was able to witness that, and I am thankful for it. I know that other people have made great sacrifices for me to be able to sit here. If I have to spend the rest of my life sacrificing for what I have seen, observed, and understood, then that will be my work.

Peter, do you have anything further on Jean's question?

[Peter Dinsdale]

Thank you. For every dollar the friendship centre receives from the federal government for our core funding program, we've leveraged seven additional dollars for other areas of programming. This year, we have about $114 million in revenue spent through the friendship centre program. About a third of that comes from federal government sources, primarily health and employment and training. About another third comes from provincial sources, and it's really varied depending on the region and how active that region is. About another third is other municipal, like the healing foundation, other foundations, things of that nature.

The friendship centres across the country are in many ways similar to other non-profits in that we have an increasing reliance on contract staff because of Treasury Board guidelines around contribution agreements and the Financial Administration Act. That really is an over-reliance for us, and it creates new funding paradigms for all these communities.

You mentioned the SCPI program, the national supporting community partnership initiatives through the National Homelessness Secretariat. Friendship centres across the country have open shelters and delivery agencies, and they're all threatening to close down with the funding cycle, like many others across the country. Tillicum House called me yesterday about their CAPC program and the issues they're having with the administration of that program. There is a lack of leadership on any level to be responsible for program delivery in urban areas.

There is a real void in that area. There is a very piecemeal approach. Friendship centres struggle every day to write their proposals and jump through the hoops. We're professional hoop dancers to get funding into the program to people where they need it on the ground.

We recently engaged in a process with this government, with our minister, and she's been very receptive and very open and very accommodating in talking about these challenges to the friendship centres. We haven't had an increase in core funding--and this is our sob story, and I know everyone has it--since we had an expenditure review cutback in 1995, a 40% reduction in real-term spending in local community centres. They bill you for Tillicum House to hire an executive director, to have a bookkeeper, to keep their place open to serve the expanding issues of homelessness and a growing aboriginal population.

I don't think anyone at this table disagrees with that. Our other national aboriginal organizations are under similar pressures from their programs, but it's a real, on the ground, where the rubber hits the road kind of issue. People come to our agencies. They're hungry. They need their bellies to be full. They're looking for a place to sleep at night. We're talking about poverty. This isn't a distinction-based conversation. This isn't a rights-based agenda. This is about the needs of people in communities: education, housing, and health care.

We have engaged, and this government has been very accommodating in engaging us, in that conversation. We're hopeful some of these long-term issues will begin to be addressed. So I think there has been action. It hasn't been sitting for a year doing nothing. We're all making our plans and trying to be active where we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you. You're out of time.

The chair is going to take the opportunity to ask a question. A few nights ago I attended the report on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and it was interesting because some of those issues about structural change were included in that report, and for the most part your report was an F for fail. Now we have this bill coming forward and referring to those discussions and priorities and the programs and the funding set out in the discussions of the first ministers and aboriginal leadership. Even so, some were excluded.

What I see in what was done in Kelowna is that they addressed it as they had prior to the RCAP, which is programs--throw money at it, but no structural change in the way we do things, given that empowerment and making that framework, so aboriginal people in this country can take on their own challenges and set their course, set their priorities.

I would just ask, Mr. Brazeau, how you feel about the comparison between the RCAP and the priorities and recommendations from Kelowna.