Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2006

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

Mr. Chair, I am going to answer the honourable parliamentary secretary in two short sentences. However, before doing so, I wish to acknowledge representatives of the First Nations who are attending today's meeting, listening to us, and who are anxiously awaiting today's decision.

Provincial premiers and national aboriginal leaders are determined to strengthen relations between aboriginal peoples and the federal, provincial and territorial governments. These relations must be built on improved collaboration, strong partnerships, and mutual respect. With this in mind, provincial premiers and aboriginal leaders launched a 10-year initiative in order to close the existing gap between the quality of life of aboriginals and that of other Canadians.

Mr. Chair, communities, the First Nations and the government cannot afford to lose one year. Discussions on this agreement lasted 18 months. We finally arrived at a consensus after endless and difficult discussions. I believe that the time has come to move ahead and vote on this proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Jean.

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

In terms of a procedural matter, the way I read this motion is that the committee would be adopting these recommendations as a report to the House, and the government will then have an opportunity to report back to the committee. That's the way other committees have functioned; once we submit a report, the government then has an opportunity to respond. I believe that would be the procedure here, because this is a recommendation that we submit as a report to the House.

So given the fact that there was this extensive consultation, that the premiers across Canada signed on to this, and that First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples were extensively involved in this process, I think it would be a responsible thing to do to submit this as a report to the House and then allow the government to respond.

Is that the correct procedure, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

That's exactly how you can proceed. We're just checking out the period of time in which the government has to report back to this committee in response to the report.

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

There is a very set timeframe. So that would certainly address Mr. Bruinooge's comments around the government having an opportunity to study the report and respond. Then there would be a response to the committee and certainly a response to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities across this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

I think I heard him say that this committee study it. I don't think he was talking about the government. I think they're probably quite aware of that, but I thought it was this committee that was referred to.

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

Yes, and I'm just suggesting that we circumvent that step, since so much work already went into it, and this would be an opportunity for the government to actually respond to this report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Yes, and they would be required to respond, by way of Standing Orders, within a certain period of time. I think it's 60 sitting days or something like that.

We will have Gary, and then it's over to Colin.

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

Good afternoon, everybody. I agree with the motion as put forward.

There was a criticism of the Kelowna accord from the minister that there were no plans in place, although there was agreement with the targets and objectives. Key here is that the spirit and intent of the Kelowna accord was to come together and collaborate and jointly develop plans. All they could do at the front end was come together and talk about targets and objectives, talk about funding, and talk about how that relationship can move forward, instead of government going off and developing solutions in isolation.

It's critical that this does move forward in its current form and that we work in collaboration with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people in the development of plans to address housing, education, economic development, and health, as outlined in the Kelowna accord. So I think that's the key here. For example, the AFN talked about a joint policy initiative towards the establishment of a First Nations Auditor General. I think that's a landmark; that's hugely significant. This is a solution by aboriginal people to move forward, and we don't want to move backwards to solutions developed in isolation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Okay.

From there, we have Nancy. I'm sorry, we have Colin—my mistake.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My problem is that, as the leader of the opposition said about the budget that was submitted last week, the devil is in the details. I really don't want to minimize the amount of work that has been done in the past by this committee and those who were negotiating provincially and for the First Nations, but I'd like to know what those details are.

My colleague across said that there were just targets and objectives. But without budgeting the costs of those targets and objectives, it's very difficult to make a decision. I would want that information first—what the timelines are, what the actual dollars are—before I could make a good judgment on whether this is a good accord. I just need some time to digest that, and I ask for an opportunity to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Okay. We'll go to Nancy right away.

But first, Jean, I should interject. In answer to your question, we just found out in the Standing Orders that it's 120 days, four months approximately. That could run over the summer, so in effect, if this were moved and passed, adopted today, then it would be sometime in early September when this would have to be responded to by the government. The House may not be sitting at that point, but they would have to respond within that timeframe.

Nancy, go ahead, please.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

I totally agree with the intent of the motion. I'm probably repeating some of the things that Gary said, but when people say there weren't details and there weren't any budgets and timelines, that's not true. I was in Kelowna sitting there as they were making the final agreements on each of the different areas, such as education, health, government, and accountability.

What was significant was the type of relationship that we were then entering. It's not always about dollars and cents, in my opinion. Yes, we need to have the money and the resources to implement initiatives that are agreed to. But some of the most important things that I thought came out of this process were the different working relationships between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office with the recognized aboriginal groups in Canada.

Throughout my whole lifetime we have worked long and hard to be at the same level of discussions and decision-making and being part of the process. What I saw beginning to happen out of that—we've been working towards it for a long time, but it was really I think a turning point for us as aboriginal people—was our being able to be part of the process that makes decisions for our lives. I don't think you can put a dollar figure on that. It's something the new Conservative government is not getting, in my opinion--that respect and understanding of where we've come from and of how we want to be part of the process and make decisions together.

It's not about Ottawa knowing best what decisions should be made that will affect our lives. We've been there, done that, and we don't need to do that again. We were rising to a new level of discussing issues or maybe compromises, because every decision between two sides means a compromise on both sides, if not three.

In this case, there were tripartite agreements between provinces and territories, the aboriginal groups, and the federal government. And what you saw there was an opportunity for all the concerned groups to be working together. That's something that people seem to be missing in the equation. Yes, we were at a time when the final t's weren't crossed and the i's weren't dotted, but there was a budget made for it. The timelines were set for five and ten years to go back and re-assess what the provinces have done, what the aboriginal groups have done, and what the federal government has done, with regard to judging the agreements.

We need to be back at that point. I know every time we have an election there are groups that fall through the cracks because there's no continuity, and we have to make sure that injustice is not done to us again because of party politics.

I would like to go back to the residential schools agreement and Kelowna and where we were in being able to talk with the Prime Minister's Office. We had a previous Prime Minister who gave a directive to all his cabinet ministers that we were not to see any more cabinet decisions made by cabinet ministers for the people, and that he wanted decisions to be made with the people. And we need to get back to that same level of recognition and understanding. I think putting forth the Kelowna agreement will put us back at that same level and we can go on from there.

How we get there is not always something that we're going to agree on. But I think we all agree as Canadians that the end result is what we all want to strive for. We have to work out the details of how to get there, but it has to begin with mutual respect and understanding.

So I truly think we should put this motion forward and expect a response from the government. It will be a first step, I believe, for us, again, to get to that level that I thought we had achieved by November of last year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

I guess the other thing, as your chair, is that I need to understand that if this motion were to pass today, would that obliterate the need to actually look at some of the Kelowna accord and the preceding round tables and so on? I don't know what the understanding of the committee members is with respect to that. I'm at your pleasure here with respect to that, but I do need to get a clarification of that as well, because we've got a work plan. If we pass this, will something of that sort still be part of the work plan?

We've got Todd first, and then we'll have comment with respect to the motion or with respect to my question.

Todd.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too, want to add my voice in support of this particular motion. I believe the work has already been done, so much of it by aboriginal people, for aboriginal people, and the Kelowna accord, of course, was the result of that.

It was a process driven by aboriginal people primarily that created a confidence in the aboriginal people I represent in Labrador that I haven't seen for quite some time. To be quite honest, it also drove aboriginal people to become more involved in the democratic process we have in Canada, because they saw I think once...well, not just once, but I would say that in a very concrete way they saw something tangible that they could take home. It was about their health, it was about their education, it was about the economic development that was required for our communities to move forward.

I remember sitting and talking to elders, who were telling me that for once there seemed to be a respectful relationship or that there was an increase in the respectful relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. I talked to youth who said, “We see opportunities before us”. Kelowna represents opportunities.

The Kelowna accord wasn't only signed by the premiers, the territorial leaders, and the Prime Minister; it was signed by every single national aboriginal organization. It was signed by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which the minister himself touts now in his own speeches. It was signed by the Métis National Council. The Métis National Council and other Métis groups felt that the Kelowna accord opened a door that had not been opened for quite some time for Métis peoples in this country. It was signed by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Inuit peoples of Canada, because they too saw the hope that exists there, the real tangibles that could affect their lives and their communities. And it was signed by the Native Women's Association of Canada.

All five national aboriginal organizations signed onto the Kelowna accord after 18 months of hard work. I believe we would do a disservice to the aboriginal people we represent in our respective constituencies if we said we'd shelve this now, we'd delay it now, this particular motion and moving Kelowna forward, by further study. We've done the work. The product is there now before us all. It's been there for some months, and in fact it's been debated for some months, in the public venue, during the election campaign. This motion just makes sense, that we put this forward to the government for their response.

So I support it wholeheartedly, and I encourage all members of every party to move forward and vote for this particular motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Thank you, Todd.

Monsieur Lemay.

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

Mr. Chair, I do not want to take up anyone else's time, but as I am of course going to request that we vote on this motion, I wish to have the last word before the question is called.

Mr. Chair, I would remind you that we have to finish discussing the three other motions on the agenda, in addition to future business of the committee by 5:30 p.m. Perhaps we should speed things up. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to respond to a few of the things that have been raised by my colleagues.

I think one thing is sometimes forgotten when we say things like “this government is not recognizing aboriginal people”. I'd like to remind my honourable colleagues that as an aboriginal Canadian I'm very proud of the fact that the Prime Minister has placed me in the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and I think it clearly shows that the Prime Minister is interested in the views of aboriginal people.

I very much take exception to Ms. Neville's insinuation that I'm a colonialist. Of all things, I am surely not that, and as an aboriginal person I find it offensive to be called a colonialist.

We need to think about how to approach the objectives of the Kelowna accord. These are the things that all aboriginal people want to see: they want to see better housing, they want to see better education, and they want to see clean water. There is no doubt that our government wants to see those things occur as well. We would, however, like to improve the system through which these services are delivered to aboriginal people before a major new investment is made.

But having said that, there is new money that we have put forward as a government, but until such time as we are able to ensure that the money actually flows through to the people who need it most, it's difficult to proceed with the budget that was proposed at the meeting of first ministers. When we look back at previous Liberal budgets, there were no new investments for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. In this budget, there is a new investment, and it's something I'm proud of.

I think today we need to look at the objectives of the Kelowna accord. If I were to make an amendment—and in fact, I'd like to—it would be that we as a committee recommend that the objectives of the Kelowna accord on housing, education, and clean water should be the things this government needs to pursue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Okay. You're amending the motion. Can you again state the recommendation, in the manner that you did? I didn't catch all of it. It recommends the objectives of...?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

It's the objectives of the first ministers meeting of November of last year, specifically education, water, and housing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Give us one more shot here, please, Rod. “That recommends the study”, did you say?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

No, we endorse the objectives of the meeting of first ministers in November of last year, specifically in relation to housing, education, and clean water.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Okay. It's housing, education, and water. Did I miss anything? Was there something else?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Going back to my colleague's point, I think he specifically, and others, would like to have the report tabled, if that is the intention of others, to move forward with Mr. Lemay's motion. I think it would be prudent for the committee to receive the report from the Kelowna accord. It seems prudent, but that's not related to my amendment.