Evidence of meeting #3 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 aboriginal.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
I thought there were two other objectives. One was in respect to economic development or something.
Conservative
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Mr. Chair, I would also like to make the point that the amendment he is putting forward is already contained, I would argue, within this particular motion. I'm sure the objectives of the Kelowna accord are within the Kelowna accord itself. Why would you make another motion?
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I think the difference in my motion is that as a committee and as a government we want to find ways to make the objectives of the Kelowna accord happen. I don't think, however, that only money is needed to do it. I think you need to look at the system and find ways to improve the system to deliver those services. In my opinion, money isn't always the answer.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
A point of order. I don't know if we have a motion we want to debate, but I believe the motion is out of order because it's already contained within the main motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
We'll go to Mr. Albrecht at this point.
We now have an amendment on the floor. Are you speaking to the amendment?
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I am speaking to the amendment, in the sense that I don't think anyone around this table disagrees with the objectives that are generally stated in the Kelowna accord. I certainly want to see social justice prevail as it relates to our aboriginal people.
I don't, however, share Ms. Neville's confidence that Canadians are familiar with the details of this accord. I think we need to remember that while this committee in its previous life may have had some input, we are a new committee, there was a new election, and a number of new members are here who have not had the opportunity to speak to the issue. I think we owe it to our constituents to at least study it here in committee before we come up with the details, which are also included in the news release that Prime Minister Martin delivered following the signing of the accord.
Certainly when I look through the general principles here, the ultimate goal of this effort is to address the serious conditions contributing to poverty among aboriginal people. Yes, I'm behind that.
The next paragraph on measuring progress--of course.
Recognizing and respecting a diverse and unique history and traditions--again, I'm totally behind that.
Respecting regional differences.... We could go on through the entire accord and in general certainly give our approval to it. But when it comes to the details, as my colleague has said, I'm not sure that we as a committee are totally familiar with them, and certainly our Canadian people aren't.
I just want to highlight some of the statements that former Prime Minister Martin made in his news release. He said: “Our plan is built on a foundation of respect, accountability, and shared responsibility”. I agree with that. Part of being accountable is to know what we as a committee are recommending forward to the House.
Many of the veterans here do know, but we new members haven't heard all of the discussions. Yes, I've read through the accord, but I'd like some time to debate it before we advance it to the House. I think that's a duty of any duly comprised committee of this Parliament; otherwise we are simply going to rubber-stamp things that have been done before and continue on.
So I would like us to at least take the time, before we pass this motion, to study in more detail the implications of this accord and the implications of the recent budget, which does include a lot of funding for specific initiatives that are included as general principles in the Kelowna accord.
Those are my points, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Now on the subamendment, in terms of the objectives of the first ministers meeting of November 2005--housing, education, water....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Just a second. I want to get an understanding myself, Nancy, but I'll come back to it right away.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
We would like a copy of the amendment, because I don't think it's right for us to debate a motion or an amendment that none of us has seen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Absolutely. I'll read it again, just so we're all aware. I think Nancy makes a very important and valid point here.
This is the amendment to the motion that was put forward by Monsieur Lemay. It reads:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee recommends to study the objectives of the first ministers meeting of last November, particularly in relation to housing, health, education, water, and economic development.
We'll need to get that in French.
Mr. Lévesque and Mr. Lemay, did you catch the translation there okay? We can get it in writing as well, but we'll need to have some acceptance of moving in that fashion or we'll be kiboshing everything else we do here after.
Mr. Lévesque is next, on the amendment.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Chair, on the one hand, we have begun discussion on an amendment that, to my knowledge, was not seconded.
On the other hand, I do not believe that we...
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
That is fine.
Moreover, I don't think the issue is the content of the agreement, but rather the notion of respect between two nations and respect for a signed agreement.
We want the committee to recommend to the government that it implement a signed agreement; this is a matter of respect between two nations. The First Nations have often been criticized for not respecting agreements or for always begging. What is provided for in the budget is of little importance, because the government prepared the budget when the agreement was already in place.
Given the fact that the parliamentary secretary is a member of the Métis community and that this issue affects him more than it does me, I can only hope that he will support the agreement that was signed by the First Nations. This agreement does not appear anywhere in the government's agenda. As such, we are asking the government to implement this agreement. I do not see why we would amend something that has already been concluded.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
When I was a lawyer, it was our job to know the Criminal Code, the Civil Code, and the common law. I can only hope that all members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development have all read the Kelowna Accord.
I would also remind you that not too long ago, the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development sat at this very table, and defended the Kelowna Accord. Perhaps he was thinking of reviewing some of the administrative details of the agreement, and not necessarily the substance of the accord.
Mr. Chair, I believe that we have to vote against this amendment, because it is not our job to review what has already been discussed, supported and approved. Both the First Nations and the Government of Canada have come to an agreement. We want to impress upon the government once again that it must implement this agreement. I know what the current government will do: it is going to push this back to the furthest extent possible, until the end of the 130 days. We cannot afford to waste any time. We must call upon the government to implement this agreement. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the proposed amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
To Mr. Merasty--and then my apology to Colin--I appear to be a bit of a left leaner here and have not picked up on you. But you've actually been in the batting order well and I omitted you, so here you go.
Gary Merasty is next, and then Mr. Mayes.
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Not to sound too blunt here, but I think it's ignorant to assume that the government is better able to come up with the plans and procedures talked about in the Kelowna accord. The whole spirit and intent of the Kelowna accord from before 18 months ago was to jointly agree on setting the targets and the objectives and then working together to ensure that we hit those targets. That's why there was a recommendation to revisit and have first ministers meetings every two years or thereabouts.
The AFN, the MNC, and the ITK have worked with these issues for decades. Now, I cannot believe that the in-depth review the government may want to do will actually provide the answers to the members opposite here on the impacts of CMHC section 10 and section 95, the constriction that A-base capital has, securitization models being proposed, current construction costs as they relate to isolated and other semi-isolated communities. Do they know the impact of the 1989 post-secondary cap that was imposed? Do they know the impact of the AHRDA agreement being capped and kept as is for the next five-year period? Do they know the impacts of the ROP program in economic development? Do they know the impacts of health care redesignation at the community level, the 2% cap on growth, and the impact on uninsured health benefits, child care, early learning? There's nothing in the budget. Kelowna had early learning child care spaces.
The plans have been in place. If you go to the AFN website, there's talk of plans there. There's a plan outline. If you meet with some of the other aboriginal groups, they have plans. They didn't go into this process with a complete blank slate; they came with decades of experience, knowing what they wanted to talk about. They've been asking for a Kelowna accord type of meeting, a first ministers meeting, for years. To go back and revisit and assume that we know better than they do the issues that they're dealing with on a daily basis is ignorant. That's what they're going to say.
As for the amendment, I don't think we can go down that path. I agree with Mr. Lemay that we agree to vote it down and move forward with this motion.
Conservative
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I'd like to direct a question to some of the colleagues across from me here.
What I'm hearing is that if we were to look at education at $1.8 billion, which is the figure put in the Kelowna accord, you could break that down into the different components. You see, I have three responsibilities. I have a real burden for First Nations and addressing some of those issues that have been with us for many years. But I also have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada, and I have to make sure they're getting good value for their dollar, that there's efficiency, because the taxpayers of Canada want this to happen too. But they want to make sure it does happen, and I think that's the important thing.
So that's my question: is there detail that I can see that will break down that $1.8 million for education, so I know it will all add up and that this is what's going to be done?