Debates of June 19th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Aboriginal Affairs

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Churchill.

Last November in Kelowna, the leadership and representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial governments, the Métis, Inuit and first nations, both on and off reserve, met to strengthen relationships among themselves and to work in a more effective and collaborative working partnership with mutual respect toward beneficial outcomes.

The first ministers and national aboriginal leaders were launching a 10 year dedicated effort to closing the gap in quality of life that now exists between aboriginal people and other Canadians. The Kelowna meeting grew from a September 2004 special meeting of first ministers and aboriginal leaders. This meeting was dedicated to address the very serious conditions that contribute to poverty among aboriginal people and to ensure that they can more fully benefit from and contribute to Canada's prosperity in the years ahead.

Between the two meetings, all the participants worked extremely hard over a series of thematic meetings and working groups to focus in the areas which were felt fundamental to the overall purpose of closing the gap. All participants worked in good faith. Part of the process of working together was building the relationships as a foundation for success.

The aboriginal people of Canada were represented by the leadership from the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women's Association of Canada. These organizations submitted working papers on the subject themes throughout the process.

They put their most talented people forward to work on concrete plans and ideas in the areas of education, health, housing, including drinking water, and economic development. As we worked on these themes, we also integrated the need for better and newer relationships. Many gatherings were held over 18 months across Canada.

We knew where the problems were. They had been studied, documented and studied some more. This was the journey for solutions, solutions attained by a collaborative, consultative and cooperative effort by all. It was never easy and probably very difficult for some. Trust had been violated before, but the former Liberal government was committed to turn the corner to strive together.

The provinces and territories of all different political stripes came on board knowing this was important and necessary in every corner of Canada. The Government of Canada, representing the people of Canada, gave its word that we would work to achieve the goals of Kelowna.

I quote the member for LaSalle—Émard in the House just a few weeks ago. He stated:

The Kelowna accord is a comprehensive 10 year plan to achieve a clear set of goals and targets. We provided $5.1 billion for the first five years. Let me be very clear. The funds were fully provided for in the fiscal framework. The government has the money. It is a fiscal framework, incidentally, which has, since that time, produced a surplus substantially larger than was originally projected. We made it clear that for the second five years of the program, enhanced resources based on the success obtained would be provided.

The work of the Kelowna accord was televised nationally. It was no secret. Canadians were aware that there were needs to be filled, agreements to live up to. We keep hearing about the government's five priorities. A government should serve the needs of its people, not the needs of its own political partisan agenda.

There is a real need in education, health, housing and economic development. Eighteen months of work developed the plan. Ongoing work would provide the necessary detail. Kelowna did happen. It was real and it will not go away.

Canadians know that the new Conservative government, with budget surpluses sufficient to fully fund the Kelowna initiative, chose not to do so. Instead of a $5.1 billion Kelowna accord, it offered $450 million over two years for education, women, children and families, water and housing, some of which was provided by prior Liberal budgets.

Whatever way the government tries to sell its message, the delivery rings hollow. It is not what was agreed to and developed together. Unilaterally, it has cut off not just the money but the working relationships developed in good faith throughout this process.

In the prior government there was a cabinet committee on aboriginal affairs. As a privy councillor and parliamentary secretary for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, I attended and participated regularly. The former Prime Minister had an aboriginal affairs secretariat. That has been discontinued.

We did the Canada aboriginal people round table process in the spring of 2005 and these resulted in accords between the federal government and the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women's Association of Canada. These bilaterals enhanced the involvement of the distinctive people and their specific issues.

The Kelowna accord broke the money down into five areas: $1.8 billion for educational initiatives, $1.6 billion for housing and infrastructure, $1.3 billion for health, $200 million for economic opportunities, and $170 million for relationship and accountability initiatives.

The Kelowna accord funding built on previous investments by the Liberal government in areas of urgent need for aboriginals including the $2.2 billion compensation for the direct benefit of former students toward a fair and lasting resolution of the legacy of Indian residential schools. I could go on listing other moneys that were there, but this is about Kelowna.

For the current government to say it is moving when it absolutely knows that it is underfunding is even more shameful than if it had never had the knowledge. This was a transformative agreement.

Canadians now understand the needs in our diverse aboriginal communities. These needs are often complicated by ongoing treaty or specific claims negotiations that are longstanding, but nothing happens if there is little political will or nominal political will, or even if a minister wants to make headway and the Prime Minister has little interest and his finance minister has a clenched fist.

I read the transcript of the remarks made by the current Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs when he was campaigning for his party at an Assembly of First Nations meeting. The same minister now defends his government's abandonment of the procurement strategy for aboriginal businesses by allowing non-native companies to bid on contracts that would have been designed for aboriginal ownership. His relationships with the aboriginal peoples, he should serve, are now becoming strained.

Over the last number of years of this Parliament I have been fortunate to work with many first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders. The sophisticated legislation that was first nation-led and the self-government agreements completed during the time of our government was work that anyone in Canada would be proud of, and, in fact, was lauded around the world.

Kelowna's objectives really would have most benefited the younger generations, a demographic that is the inverse of the rest of Canada. While birth rates plummet in non-native populations in our country, they are skyrocketing in most of the aboriginal societies.

These young citizens could and should be educated, and be healthy contributors to the workforce in their future. They certainly should get a productive life chance. Kelowna worked toward that goal.

We also had to deal first with the residential school legacy for their parents and grandparents. Thankfully, this was accomplished. Thankfully, the current government could not change that resolution, a court ordered agreement developed by all the parties after very intense negotiations.

From my viewpoint, which I hope is more knowledgeable than the day I stepped into the House because of my parliamentary experience on committee and in the department and through working with stakeholders, the Conservative government does not want to consider the reality of doing the right thing. The Conservatives often work with misperceptions and fears instead of facts. What is lost, what is being lost, in reality is their opportunity.

There is an opportunity to keep the word of the Government of Canada, to keep the faith with our aboriginal partners and the work undertaken together. We are all Canadians, but some of us were here first. They are our first nations, our Métis and our Inuit. There is diversity within us but we are all deserving.

If the Conservatives would embrace an equitable concept of government, they might have budgeted more for real needs in the society we could have. Why would one not want to improve the educational outcomes of all aboriginal learners to build a more prosperous and self-reliant future for all aboriginal people, whether first nation, Inuit or Métis?

We did commit to progress. There was accountability. Kelowna was a series of plans for a brighter future, and we need to implement the plans. Regions were to be further engaged. The implementation would be focused on developing practical approaches through existing tripartite or bilateral processes and creating new ones where required.

All Canadians must appreciate and respect the distinctions among first nations, Inuit and Métis. Inclusive means male and female, young and old, on and off-reserve, rural and urban, inland and coastal. Their experiences are different in Canada and they have different goals and outcomes. We hear their distinctive voices through the round table process. Kelowna was an outcome for the government and there is still time to listen to the united voices and their message.

In closing, Canada is a just society. For many of our aboriginal people, Kelowna would have made it more so for them. I implore the minister and the Conservative government to choose the better path of Kelowna. No one has been looking for something new or different. We need what was agreed to and what was negotiated through hard work, compromise and good faith. The Conservative government must live up to Canada's commitment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's remarks. She made comments like, “The government's promises, the delivery rings hollow”. She also spoke about the clenched fist.

I would like to share a short story about what happened in my riding of Langley. We have two first nations, the Katzie and the Kwantlen. The Kwantlen First Nation lives on McMillan Island in the middle of the Fraser River. For the last 30 years that island has been eroding, disappearing into the Fraser River.

A year and a half ago I began working with the Kwantlen to resolve that. That was working and speaking to the former Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, trying to find the dollars to stop the erosion of the Kwantlen's island into the Fraser River.

I also talked to the critic, who is now our minister. I made him aware of the problem of that island disappearing. There was acre after acre disappearing every year into the Fraser River and the Kwantlen First Nation was looking for help. All I received from the former minister was the runaround, a year and a half of broken promises, as the member talked about, hollow promises, that is all I received.

She talked about a clenched fist. That island kept disappearing which affected the health and environment of that first nations group. It was shameful how the Liberals treated the Kwantlen First Nation. Within a month and a half, the money was there, $2.5 million. It came to Langley and the Kwantlen First Nation is being taken care of.

I ask that member, where was she when I brought it up in the House many times? Where was she then? She talked about a clenched fist. I would like her to answer why her government had a clenched fist against first nations in the last Parliament?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many members in the House on opposite benches came to see me as the parliamentary secretary for INAC. That member did not when he had a problem. This is the first I have heard of that and I was there. I talked to some of his colleagues about other things, so he made that choice, not me.

The other thing I would say is that this is a debate about Kelowna. The Conservatives have a clenched fist when they have the money in the budget and it was booked in the fiscal update to fully finance the Kelowna accord.

There was a choice made by the current Prime Minister, his Minister of Finance and the cabinet because it should have been a full agreement inside the whole Conservative cabinet on what they funded in the budget. What they did not fund, knowing full well that the money and resources were there, was what was agreed to, not just by the federal Liberal government that led the exercise over the last 18 months but by all the governments of the provinces and territories of all political stripes and all the first nations.

We had everybody agreeing. The discordant voice and the clenched fist with not enough money comes from this government, the one the member belongs to.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to quite a few speeches today. I find it more than passing strange that all of the former government members had an epiphany on the way to the election and they called it the Kelowna accord.

Even Grand Chief Phil Fontaine admitted in committee a short time ago that the Kelowna accord technically does not exist. There is no signatory page. So how could we, as a government, or anybody for that matter, put in place an accord that was all pipe dreams and, as I say, an epiphany on the way to the election? There is no signatory page; there is no agreement. How could we possibly put into play this Kelowna accord that does not exist?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously did not listen to my speech. I was at the 2004 meeting. I was a participant when I was parliamentary secretary for justice. Many people were at that meeting. The leadership from all the various areas across Canada was thrilled to get involved.

The hon. member did not listen to the facts. I told him about the bilateral agreements that were signed last spring in May 2005. They were bilateral accords with all of the group and there were plans there. The money came and was set aside.

[Gerald Keddy]

Another Liberal promise.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

If the hon. member does not want the answer to the question, I will sit down.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud to rise today to speak to the motion by the member for Winnipeg South Centre. It is a motion which reflects a commitment by the former Liberal government to continue the commitment to aboriginal people within our country. It is about the nations of people in our country whose nationhood and well-being was central through a process which spoke to a new partnership and a new vision and hope for aboriginal peoples including the first nations, the Inuit and Métis nations.

I am a Cree person. I am from the Norway House Cree Nation of the treaty 5 area in northern Manitoba. On my mother's side I am from the Muskrat Dam First Nation in northwestern Ontario. I am proud to say that I am descended from Chief Samson Beardy who was a signatory to the amendment to treaty 9. My paternal grandfather was Joe Keeper who represented Canada at the 1912 Olympics.

Many members may be wondering why I mention these bits of family history as it may not appear to pertain to what we are debating today. I do so because it is this personal history which is my testament to the strength, dignity and nationhood of who we are as first nations as one of the nations of aboriginal peoples in this country.

It is this knowledge which our elders carried. It is the knowledge of nationhood. This knowledge of nationhood is not a vague or academic concept, it is not a myth and it is not a cause. Nor is it nor should it ever be considered a political football.

We represent distinct nations, cultures and languages from coast to coast to coast, from the Maliseet of New Brunswick, the Inuit in Nunavut and the Haida of B.C. to the Métis nation of the Red River Valley in the heart of Canada. The relationship between aboriginal people and the Canadian government through most of our shared history has been one that has been inequitable, but our nationhood, our distinct identity, our livelihood and our history is of this land.

In Manitoba most of the first nations signed treaties in the numbered treaty process. Indeed their treaty rights have been entrenched in our Constitution, in section 35 respecting aboriginal and treaty rights. This relationship has not ensured that aboriginal peoples in Canada would benefit as Canadians do from the treaty relationship which was to share the land. What was entrenched in our Constitution for the Métis nation, the Inuit and the first nations in 1982 was a marker, a reference point of the basis of the relationship between aboriginal nations and Canada. It was a reference point of the effort by aboriginal people. It was a testament of the nationhood of aboriginal people. The relationship of aboriginal people is one of sharing in the wealth of this country, sharing the land of this country.

We all know that regardless of what has been entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, regardless of Supreme Court rulings to which the member for Churchill spoke, regardless of the goodwill of many Canadians, the well-being of aboriginal people has not improved over the last number of decades.

I would like to speak to this fact because that is what the Kelowna accord was all about. It defined in its process and in its goals a new relationship in which aboriginal people were working in partnership with Canada and the provincial and territorial leaders. It was historic. It was about equity and respect for all the nations involved.

This is the basis on which we need to move forward. It is the means in which we will meet the goals that we set in the Kelowna accord. It is through self-determination. It is the process which becomes the mechanism to achieve well-being.

In the past I worked in the area of suicide prevention in aboriginal people. There was a significant piece of research which looked at first nations youth in nearly 200 first nations over the period of a decade. It found that there is a direct correlation between the number of factors of self-determination within a community and a decrease in the level of suicide. Suicide is a health issue which has not been traditional to first nations people. In fact, first nations elders are the only population in North America in which suicide does not occur.

This is significant because it speaks to our nationhood. It speaks to who we were traditionally. It speaks to the strength and resiliency that have helped first nations, Métis and Inuit people overcome the difficulties of a colonial relationship. It is who we are traditionally and who we have been for thousands of years on this land.

The reclamation of wellness is what the Kelowna accord was about. It was about a vision of a new Canada. The Kelowna accord reflected a historic moment and marked a change in the nature of the relationship from the paternalistic approach of the past.

The Kelowna accord was a reflection not only of the Liberal government, but of the efforts of aboriginal leadership and aboriginal people. It was the culmination of efforts by aboriginal nations over many decades to represent the best interests of their own people and the then Liberal government to change its approach to working with first nations, the Métis nation and the Inuit to ensure that Canada represented itself in the way it has been perceived on the world stage, in which human rights, dignity and justice are upheld for all time.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague represents the riding of my birth and the first 20 years of my life. I know that she is genuine in her approach and she intends to represent the people of Churchill well.

My colleague brought up the topic of self-government and self-determination quite often in her statement. The one element I believe that was missing primarily from the first ministers meeting was that topic. When she mentioned how we need to avoid propagating the “paternalistic approach”, does she not agree that this needs to be the primary approach and that the first ministers meeting did not make reference to this?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is from my riding. He referred to his Métis heritage in his maiden speech.

The Kelowna accord was vocal in terms of the vision that the Métis nation had in moving forward in terms of education and housing issues. One of the critical areas in the Kelowna accord was building capacity. The round table process has been mentioned numerous times today. The first nations, Métis nation and Inuit participated in the round table process for over 18 months. They spoke to their vision of moving forward. One of the key areas was building capacity because that is a necessary component to self-government and self-determination. All of the cultural groups within the Kelowna accord process spoke to the self-government process and a self-government framework. For all of those cultural groups, building capacity was a key area in terms of moving forward in that process.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1991 the Progressive Conservative government under former prime minister Brian Mulroney launched the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The commission was set up in recognition of the failure of the aboriginal assimilation policies Canada had been pursuing since Confederation.

The RCAP report issued 10 years ago was the result of the most extensive consultations and research ever undertaken on these issues. It set out a new approach to give life to the right of aboriginal self-government enshrined in Canada's Constitution. It put forward a 20 year plan to improve the lives of the Inuit, Métis and first nations people across the country. However, most of the recommendations were never implemented and the Conservative government was defeated by the Liberal government under Jean Chrétien.

Under the Liberals, the budget for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs ballooned over $8 billion, yet the framework that was identified by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was never addressed, leading to further frustration and despair of the aboriginal peoples and their leadership.

Why was that abandoned by the Liberals back in 1993?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the RCAP was a significant process and a significant report in Canada. In fact on the issue of suicide prevention, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples released a special report on suicide before it actually released the RCAP report because suicide was one of the most critical issues.

I am well aware of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In fact, it was the Liberal government that moved forward on the RCAP report. The Liberals did not abandon it. They made it part of their government policy. They made it part of the framework in which they worked in collaboration with first nations. I am sure the member is familiar with the aboriginal action plan “Gathering Strength”. That policy framework was really important. In Manitoba it was through “Gathering Strength” that we initiated a self-government process.

I agree with the member that the RCAP report was significant, but I would add that it was the Liberal government which took that forward and worked in a non-partisan way to ensure that first nations and aboriginal peoples in Canada could benefit. It is my wish that the current government would do the same with the Kelowna accord.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this debate on the Kelowna accord.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Indian and Northern Affairs. Immediately after I was elected, I was deputy critic for Indian affairs together with a former hon. member, to whom I wish to pay tribute today, and that is Bernard Cleary. He was the first aboriginal person from Quebec to be elected to the House of Commons. He was a negotiator for the aboriginal community for over 40 years. Today, he still works with aboriginal peoples. What went on in the first nations communities was always important to him. He worked very hard for the Inuit, the Métis and so on. He is an extraordinary man with whom I had the great pleasure of working. I would often tease him and call him a great sage because he was a little older and he had a white beard. He thought that was quite funny. I always felt that he taught me a lot about the vision of the first nations since he himself was an aboriginal person, as I indicated.

If I may, I will reread this important motion:

That the House recognize the urgent need to improve the quality of life of Canada’s Aboriginals, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, living both on and off reserve, which requires focused and immediate initiatives by the government in areas such as health, water, housing, education, and economic opportunities and, especially, immediately moving forward with the implementation of the Kelowna Accord with its full funding commitments.

It is important to put back on the table what we are talking about this evening. The first nations were keenly disappointed during the presentation of the first Conservative budget, which purely and simply annuls the Kelowna accord. The government chose to make piecemeal announcements. Take, for example, housing on reserves. The budget allocates only $30 million in reality. If we assume that the government is also distributing the $150 million that was promised for 2006-07, in the four priorities it established for reserves, this equals $30 million for housing. When we consider the needs, this $30 million is a drop in the bucket.

In Quebec alone, aboriginal people have an immediate need for 8,700 housing units, which would require an investment of $1 billion. The Conservative government has spent the day talking about the investments provided for in the budget. I know because I listened to most of the debates. The Bloc has nothing against these investments—far from it. But the first nations in Quebec and elsewhere are extremely disappointed, even devastated. They were expecting to receive $811.5 million for 2006-07. By turning its back on the Kelowna accord, the government is going back on the promise that was made. The fact that another government is in power does not alter the principle of the matter. Giving one's word—and, even more so, the signing of an accord by a government—is extremely important, especially to aboriginal peoples, who keep their word. As I mentioned previously when I spoke about my colleague, Bernard Cleary, these people place a high value on respect for individuals and on keeping promises. They are therefore convinced, and rightly so, that an agreement in due form was reached between their nation and Canada on November 25 in Kelowna, when the first ministers met. To the aboriginal peoples, seeing the government reject this agreement out of hand is another snub, another promise broken.

In Quebec, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women want the Kelowna accord, as ratified on November 25, 2005, to be implemented. The accord provides for investments of more than $5 billion over five years to “close the gap between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians in education, health, housing and economic opportunities”.

Like any agreement, this one is not perfect. Earlier, I spoke about the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women, which had set clear guidelines or expressed reservations about this accord. Today, because the accord was reached, they would like it to be implemented, in spite of everything. As I said, it is not perfect. We have found that it does contain some irritants—that frequently happens when the federal government sticks its nose into certain issues. For example, we have found intrusions into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces over education, of course, where the agreement refers to off-reserve initiatives within the public school system

The federal government has no say in that, and even less in what happens off reserve.

The first nations have also identified some problems with it. The funds announced were not determined with the aboriginal peoples, nor were they equivalent to the required amounts estimated by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. As everyone no doubt remembers, the commission estimated adequate funding to be $1 billion per year for 20 years. That is a lot more than the government was planning to give.

This report was submitted to the federal government ten years ago. This is its tenth anniversary, but I do not think there is much worth celebrating because this is yet another report that the federal government has relegated to a dusty shelf. Not only is the new government keeping it there, it has decided to simply cancel the accord signed last November 25.

This shows to what extent the federal government has abandoned first nations. The Kelowna accord was a step in the right direction—a small step. Unfortunately, the current government has taken a step backwards.

Before the agreement was finalized, the Bloc Québécois supported the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador's position and that of the Quebec Native Women, who, as I said earlier, were critical of the fact that the approach to narrowing the gap between quality of life for first nations and other groups did not address the root causes of the problems aboriginal peoples are experiencing, which causes include the lack of fair access to lands and resources and failure to respect their rights. Furthermore, the pan-aboriginal approach and the lack of community consultations to target certain issues was likely to maintain the first nations' cycle of dependency.

We have not changed our minds. Even though we support the Liberal Party's motion, we, the Bloc Québécois, feel that there must be concrete solutions adapted to the realities facing diverse aboriginal peoples so that the inequalities affecting their communities can really be fixed. As in all things, money alone will not solve all of the problems. The first nations must be part of the discussions so that we can break the vicious cycle of the federal government's paternalistic approach.

In spite of all this, and because we are committed to this issue, we have taken concrete action to ensure that the accord is implemented. At the beginning of May, my colleague for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, now the Bloc Québécois critic for native affairs, tabled a motion at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which was adopted. We also supported Bill C-292, a private members' bill pertaining to the implementation of the agreement between representatives of the federal government, the Quebec government, provincial governments and national native leaders.

I repeat, implementing the Kelowna accord is taking a step in the right direction. This is why we should support—and I am calling on all members of Parliament to do so—the motion before the House.

Do I need to remind the House that the unemployment rate for aboriginal people is 19% compared to the national average of 7.5%? The unemployment rate on reserves is far worse—29%. The average income in Canada is $25,000—not a substantial amount—but is only $16,000 for aboriginal peoples.

What about the serious shortage of housing, estimated to be between 20,000 and 35,000 units? Despite claims by the government, which has presented projects or money to help, this housing crisis is actually worsening, with a shortage of 2,200 units per year. Off-reserve, basic housing needs are 76% higher for native peoples. In the north, the figure rises to 130%.

And what about health? Infant mortality is 20% higher among aboriginals. The suicide rate is three to eleven times that of other Canadians. The Inuit are particularly afflicted by this absolutely terrible tragedy.

Will the Kelowna accord solve all these problems, deal will all these inequities? Unfortunately, no. However, native leaders, invited for the first time to the first ministers' table, signed this agreement. The provincial premiers and, of course, the Prime Minister of Canada also signed it.

Thus, it is a question of principle, a question of respect. What is at stake is the respect of aboriginal peoples, the first nations, the Inuit and the Métis for the promise made.

I encourage the House to adopt the motion.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard numerous representations this evening that all parties had a place at the table at the first ministers conference. How can that be when both the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, CAP, and the Native Women's Association of Canada, NWAC, were not allowed to participate with full status? How can that be when representatives of the Quebec first nations boycotted the event?

The member who just spoke mentioned that representatives from the AFN in Quebec supported the accord, but Ghislain Picard, the AFN Quebec representative, was not in Kelowna. How does the member square that circle? How on the one hand can he say that the Quebec AFN supported the accord when Ghislain Picard, the AFN Quebec representative, was not in Kelowna?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

He may be outraged and get all worked up, but I clearly explained earlier in my speech that Ghislain Picard, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, and the Quebec Native Women's Association expressed their reservations about the Kelowna accord and decided not to participate.

I have here a press release issued on that topic. However, as the member is fully aware, once the agreement was signed, there was money on the table and this represented a step in the right direction.

One can express disagreement with an accord and then accept it after the fact, once it is a done deal. One moves forward and, building on this first step, one continues to negotiate to go even further and reach, quickly if one can, the best possible agreement.

Obviously, it is never perfect, but Ghislain Picard is now asking that the Kelowna accord be implemented. Perhaps the hon. member is not in contact with Ghislain Picard, but the Bloc Québécois is. Since we sit in Parliament, we asked that the accord be implemented, on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, and the Quebec Native Women's Association. We stay in touch with them, we know what they want, and they want us to support this motion. The hon. member should do the same.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good. I was listening to the hon. member from the Bloc and I think he is absolutely right.

It is not always perfect, but if we expect perfection we will never do anything. I get the impression that the Conservative government decided to wait for absolute perfection. In that case we will never get anything; we will never do anything with the aboriginal people because it is not perfect. In my opinion, we have to start somewhere and this is an extraordinary start.

What does the hon. member think?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the hon. member for her question.

I would not say it is extraordinary because for years the Liberal government could have done better and much more for the aboriginal people. It is unfortunate that they did not think to conclude such an agreement before the election. However, I agree with the hon. member when she says we must not wait for a perfect agreement, or perfect for the government in any case. This was an important first step for the first nations.

As I was saying earlier, in Quebec, it was felt that this was not a solution and that there should have been more consultation with all the stakeholders, namely the aboriginal peoples. However, once the agreement was reached, the premiers, the leaders of the national aboriginal peoples and the Prime Minister of Canada had nonetheless put something concrete on paper. For once it was concrete, it was real, there was money involved and efforts were made to advance the cause of the aboriginal peoples, the Inuit and the Métis.

Accordingly, I think the current Conservative government should not have torn up this agreement and reneged on its word. It should have kept this accord and even improved it, if it is seeking perfection, as the hon. member says. I think there was, in fact, room for improvement.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech by the former member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

I would like to inform him that Ghislain Picard, of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, is working closely with our government, and is open to dialogue, since he shares another objective of our government, which is to ensure that the funds to be invested in the first nations and aboriginal communities, both on and off reserve, are invested judiciously and taking into consideration the principles of accountability.

How can my colleague support an agreement that made no mention of accountability? What does he think of an agreement under which it is not known how the money will be managed and invested, or where it will go, an agreement under which nothing is known of the mechanisms for ensuring appropriate use of the funds by the first nations, so that they are used for the purposes intended?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn that Ghislain Picard, the chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec, is in discussion and dialogue with the government. The opposite would be truly insulting for Mr. Picard. I hope that the government will continue those discussions.

Incidentally, what I said earlier responds to the hon. member’s questions. I said, and I have not stopped saying, that this agreement was not perfect. He has just listed certain shortcomings of the agreement. The Kelowna accord can be improved. We have always said so, as have the aboriginal peoples. The accord posed some problems for a number of them. However, I repeat for the benefit of the hon. member who may have missed parts of my speech: there was a concrete agreement on the table, signed by the first nations, the premiers of Quebec and the provinces, and the Prime Minister of Canada.

There is money and there are elements which advance the cause of the aboriginal peoples in education, in health, and even economically. So why would this government not improve on the accord?

The hon. member is part of the Conservative government. If he has any observations to make, let him make them to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am not the one he should be addressing them to. He is in the government; he appears to be on the right side. Let him go tell this minister and his prime minister that there are certain problems to be resolved in the Kelowna accord: let them correct those problems, let them improve that accord, and we will support them.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on the amount of money for aboriginal peoples this year. The budget suggested that the amount would be $3.25 billion, but if we were take off the $2.2 billion that we had already approved and committed for residential schools, the $300 million for off reserve housing and the $300 million for affordable housing in our Bill C-48, that would leave $150 million. The Conservatives say that it is $450 million but $300 million is for next year, which leaves $150 million. However, because of an increase in the population and inflation, the department's budget increases $350 million a year, which is a minus $200 million contribution.

Does the member think that minus $200 million new contribution for aboriginal affairs is enough for this year?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

No, Mr. Speaker, that is not enough, and I said so in my speech. I gave quite a convincing example regarding housing. It is pointless to make impressive sounding announcements in the budget when in fact, when we look closely, not much is left, as the hon. member just showed. It shrinks, like when I do my laundry. Sometimes I get the wrong cycle and add water that is too hot or put my clothes in the dryer when I should not. There is what is happening here too, when things in the budget shrink a bit.

In the government’s four priorities for reserves, there was maybe $150 million for the 2006-07 year. In the end, all that remains for social housing is $30 million. That is far from enough because just in Quebec aboriginals need an immediate 8,700 housing units, which would require a billion dollar investment. I could extrapolate for all the other priorities too, and the serious shortfalls would be obvious.

As I have already said in other regards during interviews or here in the House, this government came in here after the election with its five priorities. I am our agriculture critic. However, agriculture is not one of these priorities, nor is the environment, and I can say as well that anything related to social programs also does not number among these priorities. It is the same, unfortunately, for the first nations. They too, apparently, are not included in the five priorities of the Conservative government. That is obvious this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and I want to assure the House that the committee is looking forward to recommending policies to the government that will improve aboriginal self-determination.

It gives me great pleasure to speak in the House today to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The debate today is one of utmost importance and allows our government to highlight the steps we are taking to improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians.

Over the last 10 years under the Liberal government we saw the living conditions of aboriginals decrease despite the constant rhetoric from the Liberal Party. During the Liberals' time in office they spoke constantly of concern for aboriginals and yet housing conditions declined and the water on some reserves became undrinkable.

The Conservative government has taken concrete steps to address these concerns. I want to talk about the progress this government made during the first 100 days in office toward the improvement of the quality of life of aboriginal peoples in all parts of Canada. This government is moving quickly to develop real solutions to real problems facing aboriginal people in this country.

During our first 100 days as government, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians has taken decisive steps on several fronts that hold the promise of better lives for aboriginal people, both on and off reserves and for northerners.

In March the minister launched a plan of action to address drinking water conditions in first nations communities. This plan of action includes implementation of the protocol of safe drinking water for first nations communities. The protocol contains standards for design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of drinking water systems in first nations communities and is intended for use by first nations staff responsible for water systems.

This plan also includes mandatory training for all treatment plant operators, an important step that will affect the long term success of this approach to the problem of unsafe drinking water. The plan addresses the critical need for a regime to ensure that all water systems have the oversight of certified operators. Various initiatives, such as the remote monitoring of water systems and the contracting of independent certified operators to provide necessary oversight, will also be put in place. The plan also includes complete and specific remedial plans for first nations communities with serious water issues, starting with the 21 communities most at risk.

Just last month the minister announced that a panel of experts would advise on the appropriate regulatory framework. Its final options paper for the new framework will be delivered by September 2006. First nations have been waiting for this kind of decisive action on water for a very long time.

As well, this government has given a clear commitment to report on the progress that is made on a regular basis.

The expert panel will hold public hearings beginning this week in Whitehorse. At these hearings participants will have the opportunity to provide their views and suggestions on what should be regulated and what legal framework should be used. The panel's interim report on regulatory options will be submitted to the minister by September 2006.

Our commitment to improve the lives of aboriginal people was stated in the Speech from the Throne:

Over the course of its mandate, and starting with the clear priorities set out today, the Government will work diligently to build a record of results. It will promote a more competitive, more productive Canadian economy. It will seek to improve opportunity for all Canadians, including Aboriginal peoples and new immigrants.

We followed up on our commitment with the federal budget, which will provide $450 million over the next two years for initiatives for education, women, children and families, and water and housing on reserve. It will also provide $300 million for aboriginal housing off reserve and another $300 million for affordable housing in the territories.

Our first budget established a $500 million fund. Over 10 years, this fund will be used to support initiatives from local communities to mitigate any negative socio-economic effects arising out of the Mackenzie gas project.

In total, our first federal budget in 2006 confirmed funding of over $3.7 billion in support of aboriginal peoples and northerners. This was in addition to the many measures in the budget that will benefit all Canadians, including aboriginal peoples, such as $3.7 billion for the universal child care benefit and $370 million for apprenticeships, tradespeople and post-secondary education, which also embraces the aboriginal peoples.

This is in addition to the 2006-07 main estimates of $6.3 billion, which includes approximately $366 million or 6.2% more than last year's main estimates for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Not only has this government made substantial investments in programs and services that will affect the future, as I have outlined, we have announced a major investment to right some of the wrongs of the past.

In May, our government approved the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and immediately launched an advance payment program. This is a $2.2 billion program to address the legacy of residential schools.

As Minister Prentice stated at the time of the announcement, the settlement agreement--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

If I may, I would like to advise all members of the House that we do not name other members of the House by name but by their title or by their constituencies. I have heard this a few times in the last hour and a half.

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

Thank you for the correction, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister stated at the time of the announcement, the settlement agreement proposes a common experience payment for all eligible former students of Indian residential schools, an independent assessment process for claims of sexual or serious physical abuse, as well as measures to support healing, commemorative activities and the establishment of the truth and reconciliation commission.

Cheques for residential school survivors have already started to flow. The government sincerely hopes that this agreement will bring closure to former students and their descendants.

We have also made progress during our first 100 days on the advancement of claims and treaties. In March, the Government of Canada signed an agreement in principle with the province of B.C. and the Yale First Nation under the B.C. treaty process. The agreement in principle lays the framework for final negotiations toward a legally binding treaty.

In May, the Government of Canada tabled an offer to the Deh Cho First Nation of the Northwest Territories toward the settlement of a land and self-government agreement. This offer provides the base for the negotiation of a fair and reasonable agreement that can meet the Deh Cho's interests.

We have been working on many similar agreements and projects that will be added to the economic development opportunities of these respective communities. The Government of Canada has signed trapping harmonization agreements with the Government of Ontario and the first nations of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Lévis--Bellechasse.

During the minister's first trip to the three northern territories, the minister pledged the federal government's support for the upcoming Canada Winter Games by announcing funding for the games' national marketing campaign under the strategic investments in the northern economic development initiative.

The minister also committed a $2.5 million investment in geoscience to support mapping and scientific data collection activities in Nunavut, and more than $1 million in funding toward the geoscience activities in Yukon.

It is the government's intention to work with our aboriginal partners, provinces and territories to build on these initial accomplishments.

I have given a quick overview of the highlights of our first 100 days. Compare this with the former government that delivered 13 years of scandal, indecision, damage control and broken promises.

This government is committed to improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians. We have already taken action and we will continue making concrete progress in the days to come.