Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues and invited guests. As Senator Campbell points out, there is no problem with quorum today and we are ready to begin.
This morning we begin consideration of Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord. With us today is the sponsor of the bill, The Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., Member of Parliament. He is accompanied by The Honourable Ralph Goodale, P.C., Member of Parliament; and The Honourable Andy Scott, P.C., Member of Parliament.
I will introduce the senators at the table. On my left is Senator Cowan. Next to Senator Cowan is Senator Tkachuk. Next to Senator Tkachuk is Senator Lovelace Nicholas. Sitting beside her is Senator Peterson, and next to Senator Peterson is Senator Segal.
On the right we have Senator Gustafson, and next to him is Senator Campbell. Sitting beside him is Senator Dyck and last but not least is Senator Dallaire.
Bill C-292 states:
The Government of Canada shall immediately take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the accord, known as the "Kelowna Accord", that was concluded on November 25, 2005 at Kelowna, British Columbia, by the Prime Minister of Canada, the first ministers of each of the provinces and territories of Canada and the leaders of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Metis National Council, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
I am certain that Mr. Martin, the sponsor of the bill, is eager to give us the background on the terms of the accord. Once Mr. Martin's presentation is complete, I am sure honourable senators will have questions of him.
Without further ado, the floor is yours.
The Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., Member of Parliament, LaSalle—Émard, House of Commons: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I would like to pick up exactly where you left off by thanking you all for inviting us to give testimony this morning as you consider Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.
Any reckoning of Canada's history and any analysis of our progress as a nation will show that Canada's indigenous people have been, quite simply, shut out of Canada's success. The plight of Aboriginal society is our national shame and therein lies our challenge. We know the history and we know that must not be our future.
Shortly after coming to office in 2004, we commenced the Canada-Aboriginal People's Roundtable process and, for a year and a half, all the participants worked to establish the objectives and the targets required to make progress in five crucial areas: education, health, housing, drinking water and economic development.
Furthermore, none of this process was done by federal government imposition or fiat. This point is extremely important. We recognized, for one of the few times in Canada's history, that no answer can be arrived at by the Crown unilaterally; that answers can be found only within the wisdom of the Aboriginal communities themselves; and that lasting solutions can only be the work of partnership between the federal government, the provincial and territorial governments and the Aboriginal leadership in the country.
[Translation]
As first ministers, we were determined in Kelowna to better integrate program and services and to put a stop to the power wars between the different levels of government.
[English]
In the end, the Government of Canada came to an extraordinary framework agreement with an extraordinary group of people. They included the leadership of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the first ministers of Canada's provinces and territories. Together, we developed a 10-year plan to narrow and eventually to eliminate the gaps in outcomes that afflict the quality of life of Aboriginal Canadians. The plan became known as the Kelowna Accord.
The first five years were fully funded within the fiscal framework. The plan is measurable and its results were to be evaluated every two to three years, giving Canadians the ability to hold accountable everyone who is involved.
I note that, despite the current federal government's position on the accord, neither the Aboriginal leadership nor the provinces and territories have turned their backs on its objectives and targets.
For instance, within the last month, Premier Campbell of British Columbia, who played such an important role in the original negotiation, has called for a meeting of all of the participants or their successors to do the evaluation that the accord said should be done every two years, to judge progress made.
Chair, when you and the senators examine the legislation before you, you must examine what Kelowna seeks to achieve. This goal will tell you why so much of the nation's leadership wants it to proceed.
I would like to give you two examples of what I mean.
[Translation]
For the first time in the history of Canada, we were committed to set up a school network for the First Nations that would be under their jurisdiction, in collaboration with the provinces that offer education services to Canadians.
In the public schools, whether they are in urban centres or in the North, we would have ensured that the culture of First Nations, Inuit and Metis nation was an essential component of the school curriculum.
Moreover, we were committed with the provinces and territories to set up centres of excellence for the education of Aboriginals and we wanted to work with our partners in the public and private sector to develop learning programs that would help Aboriginals to have access to well-paid jobs.
[English]
Chair, on reserves, primary and secondary school education is within the federal government's jurisdiction. That being said, the provinces spend substantially more per capita on students within their jurisdiction than the federal government does within its jurisdiction.
If you want to see the results of that underfunding, come with me on a trip through some of the federally funded Aboriginal schools in this country. The unfairness would make you cry. There are a number of reasons why the high school dropout rate among Aboriginals is so much greater than non-Aboriginals but this underfunding is clearly one of the most significant.
Kelowna's goal was to close the high-school graduation gap completely within 10 years. It was to close the post-secondary gap by half. This goal means that 22,000 more students would have graduated from high school over the next five years, and 110,000 more in ten years. Close to 15,000 more students would have graduated from college or university over the next five years, and 37,000 more in 10 years.
What does all that mean? It means that when the current federal government walked away from the Kelowna Accord and offered no alternative education option, it effectively said that the education gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians was none of its concern. That, chair, is beyond the pale.
The second example is that the government says it is interested in accountability. Chair, so are we and so are the provinces, the territories and the Aboriginal leadership. The Kelowna Accord set aside $120 million for action on accountability for results. A joint work plan that set out the agreement on principles and objectives, and 10 specific project areas were identified. These areas included financial certification processes, improved data performance measurement, improved reporting, management capacity development, and the establishment of a First Nations ombudsperson. A related initiative to develop a First Nations' Auditor General was pursued with the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
What is the situation today? All funding for the accountability for results initiative has been gutted by the federal government. Even the funding that would allow the chiefs who wanted to pursue this initiative on their own has been eliminated.
Chair and honourable senators, good governance and accountability are critical. Are there important gaps to be filled? Yes, there are. No one denies it, nor does anyone deny that dealing with these gaps and attacking them upfront must be a priority.
Too often those who raise the issue do so as if the Aboriginal leadership does not recognize the problem or does not want to deal with it. That is the problem. Let me tell you the Aboriginal leadership does recognize the problem and they do want to deal with it.
They wish that those who raise the issue and who are in a position to help would work with them to solve it. Indeed, this point is so self-evident that one wonders when the government, as opposed to others, raises the issue, whether they do not raise it as a diversion from the need to deal with other priorities such as education and health care.
[Translation]
The Aboriginal Canadians, the provinces and the territories clearly wish that the Conservative government commits itself to implement the Kelowna Agreement. The government must admit that, because of its disengagement, it just lost almost two years during which some crucial progress could have made. Time has come for the government to act.
[English]
The negligence of the past should be reason enough for governments to do what they can. However, it is the future that lends even greater urgency to the task. We are, within the global family, a small nation among giants. We now compete with many countries whose populations number in the hundreds of millions in comparison with our 33 million. The modern world demands a more productive Canada: a Canada that cannot afford to squander the potential and talent of even a single one of its citizens; and a Canada that will benefit tremendously from an Aboriginal population that participates fully in our nation's prosperity, a population that is the youngest and fastest growing in the nation.
Furthermore, Canada has always strived to make its progressive voice heard in the world as an advocate for human rights, for the alleviation of poverty, for the raising up of the dispossessed and for the elimination of discrimination. These values are important, noble values, and it is our hope that by pursuing them internationally, we will define ourselves to others as we know ourselves to be.
However, I ask you, what does it say about our commitment to these values when they are not even fulfilled within our own borders? How can we present ourselves as an example to the world for human rights when the world can see how we treat those at home that most need a measure of social justice and the opportunity for a better life?
[Translation]
The offspring of the first occupants of this country must have the same possibilities as other Canadians to work and to benefit from our prosperity. They must have access to the same future, the same dignity and the same quality of life.
Canada has the obligation to right the wrongs committed in the past and to change despair into hope. Our country must not forget the errors made in the past, in order to build a better future. That why we are here today.
[English]
Along with the residential schools settlement, the Kelowna Accord was to be the beginning of a new era. Aboriginal leadership, provinces and territories and the federal government all would be on the same page sharing the same goals.
The day we reached consensus and agreed to the accord, all of us at that table, and from all political parties who were in Parliament, truly believed we had achieved something for the ages. Future generations of Canadians would equate that day with the beginning of a new way. It would be the time and place when everything began to change for the better.
Unfortunately, since Kelowna, we have learned once again something we have learned and relearned without it seeming to stick — governments should keep their word. When the government changed, the Conservatives decided to ignore Kelowna, to dismiss it out of hand, to break the word of the Government of Canada to the provinces, the territories and to our nation's first people.
That was a mistake. Like many Canadians, I will not give up. I know that at some point, if not now, then later, the spirit of Kelowna will prevail. Why? Because Canadians are a fair and just people.
About three years ago, my wife Sheila and I travelled across Canada, north of the sixtieth parallel. We visited communities in each of the three territories. Every single stop was unique and distinct whether it was Inuit, Metis or First Nations. What became familiar to us was the welcome that we saw in the eyes of the children as we walked the streets. A parade would follow us and in their eyes you could see the curiosity and hopefulness they had for the future.
However, there was a counterpoint here as the elders we met painted a different picture. It was one of the intolerable gap between the hopeful promise of youth and the ultimate experience of Aboriginal adulthood. The elders had seen the cycle of despair repeat itself too many times. The elders are right, but in this case, they do not want to be right.
We hold within our power the ability to make these children the first generation of real and positive change — to be the generation that stays in school; the generation that is given the tools and the opportunity to succeed; and the generation that breaks the cycle of poverty.
We must not fail them.
The Chair: Thank you. Honourable senators, I ask you to keep your questions short, and Mr. Martin, Mr. Scott and Mr. Goodale, I ask you to keep your responses concise. We have a lot of senators at the table this morning and I want everyone to be able to pose their question.
Mr. Martin: You know Mr. Scott and I will keep our answers short.
The Honourable Ralph Goodale, P.C., Member of Parliament, Wascana, House of Commons: Is that a threat?
The Chair: I am glad to see that integrity prevails.
This committee has worked historically in a non-partisan fashion in trying to accomplish the goals of improving the plight of First Nations in this country. There is no reason why we cannot continue along those lines.
Before going to the first questioner, I point out that three senators have joined us; Senator Sibbeston who is the deputy chair, Senator Watt and Senator Hubley.
Senator Segal: Notwithstanding what differences of opinion may exist on the legislation, as a Canadian I am delighted to see that as a former Prime Minister you continue to be engaged on an issue that is clearly important to you. It is something that you felt most sincerely about, and I wish more of our former leaders engaged on issues. Too many of our distinguished former prime ministers and party leaders leave office too quickly after a modest setback when they have such an outstanding contribution yet to make.
In the British context, I think of Alec Douglas-Home who was a prime minister that stayed on to be Foreign Secretary, and William Hague, a former party leader who is now the Shadow Foreign Secretary. I hope that in the many choices you have, you do not discount continuing to be involved in public policy and the affairs of this country. It would be a great benefit to all Canadians regardless of their political affiliation.
I have two brief questions. One is a matter of detail and the other is a matter of principle.
When a former Prime Minister comes before us and says that the $5 billion was in the fiscal framework, I believe him, end of story. The budget preceding the November meeting with First Nations that was part of a long process did not particularly provide the $5 billion or a large number within which that $5 billion might have been located. With the dissolution of Parliament after the accord, to be fair, there was no time for the government to bring in a budget to reflect that number.
My understanding is that all the papers that are the purview of your administration are sealed under the protocol between governments. If there is any data or background material with respect to the fiscal framework that would help us to understand precisely where this was placed, I think being able to share some of that information would be of immense value to this committee. I say that in the best of faith.
I want to ask a question of principle. Assume that many people share goals but have different approaches on the methodology, and that people of good faith may disagree on how best to achieve something. If you were Prime Minister today and an opposition bill was put forward that would add $5 billion to your spending requirements, would you view that bill as a matter of confidence in terms of your ability, or the ability of your colleague, Mr. Goodale, to manage the fiscal affairs of the Crown under the traditional parliamentary premises? Or, would you say that the issue was so compelling that the party who has control over the fiscal framework in our parliamentary British system should be of secondary consideration?
Mr. Martin: Thank you for your remarks at the beginning. In terms of the $5 billion, I point out two issues. First, not long after that, the new government announced what was really the last surplus from our government, which was a double-digit surplus, so the money was clearly available.
I will ask the former Minister of Finance to speak to this issue, but the fact is that in his documentation, which any Minister of Finance prepares — obviously they prepare a set of projections for the guidance of the government — the $5 billion was included. He will speak to this point. The only way it would disappear is if there was a decision by the new government to withdraw the money.
With the second question, I had a little trouble with the assumption. First, I would not have cancelled the program; but if that happened, the issue I would look to would be the role and responsibility of the federal government. As I mentioned in my remarks, in primary and secondary school education on reserve, the area in the federal government's responsibility, we see a substantial underfunding, compared to provincial funding to similar primary and secondary schools within the provinces. Therefore, the underfunding is clearly an act of unfairness and discrimination. If you are asking me if I would want to have, as a confidence motion, a motion that said that the federal government was not discharging its responsibilities fairly or equitably because we were providing inadequate education to Aboriginal Canadians, I would not want that motion to be a confidence motion.
Senator Tkachuk: I think Mr. Goodale has something to say concerning the papers Mr. Martin referred to. Perhaps it would be helpful if he could table those papers as well.
Mr. Goodale: The papers are, of course, the property of the Government of Canada, not of any individual member of Parliament. I can describe to you my recollection of those papers, which were obviously within my purview when I was Minister of Finance.
Briefly, in our system, there are two times in the year when the government makes a formal accounting to Parliament and to the public about the financial affairs of the country. One is the budget in the spring; the other is known as the economic and fiscal update in the fall.
On an ongoing basis, however, the Minister of Finance maintains what is known within the Department of Finance as the "sources and uses table," all the puts and the takes. Between those formal public accountings in the spring and the fall, the sources and uses table allows the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister relying on the Minister of Finance, to record the flow of money. How is revenue coming in during the year and what formal commitments are made for expenditures to be made?
The decisions with respect to Kelowna in 2005 came after the fall update. The fall update was on about November 14; the Kelowna meetings occurred around November 24. It was not possible for me, as the Minister of Finance, on November 14 to detail formally what we anticipated would be decided by the meeting in Kelowna about 10 days later.
However, all the homework had been done by Mr. Scott and by officials within the Government of Canada, in cooperation with the provinces, the territories and the Aboriginal organizations. Therefore, the Prime Minister and I had agreed going into Kelowna, first, that I should signal in the fall update that Kelowna was coming and it would involve an extra financial commitment, which I did.
Second, we agreed that I should set aside an envelope in the neighbourhood of $5.1 billion to $5.2 billion to cover what we expected would be the result from Kelowna. That money was there and being held for that purpose prior to the Kelowna meeting.
The Kelowna meeting was held. It went according to what was expected. At the end of the meeting, the Clerk of the Privy Council, who was in Kelowna at the time, phoned me with the results of the meeting and told me specifically what the number was — $5.096 billion. That was the result of the agreement at Kelowna and that is the number, immediately in response to the clerk's phone call, that I booked in the sources and uses table.
Of that $5.096 billion, there was $1.8 billion for education; $1.6 billion for housing and water; $170 million for good governance; $200 million for economic opportunities; and $1.3 billion for health care. Some of those numbers are rounded, but that gives you the final tally of $5.096 billion. That amount was booked in the sources and uses table on or about November 24, 2005.
I assure you that neither the Minister of Finance nor the Prime Minister changed that number after that date. If a change occurred, if that money was removed from the sources and uses table and used for some other purpose, it was removed after February 6, 2006, when the government changed.
The Honourable Andy Scott, P.C., Member of Parliament, Fredericton, House of Commons: For the edification of the committee members, an official from the Department of Finance appeared before the finance committee on May 10, 2006. This quote is from Paul-Henri Lapointe:
The Kelowna Accord was not reflected in the fall update numbers because the accord took place after the update. The funding is coming from the surplus unallocated in the fall update . . . .
This quote confirms what we were saying. Officials from the Department of Finance appeared before the finance committee to confirm this commitment.
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Lapointe was asked how much money that was roughly and he said approximately $5 billion, in that same testimony from the finance committee. I also note one final point. On May 17, as reported in The Toronto Star, the then deputy minister of Indian and Northern Affairs under the new government cited the existence of the Kelowna Accord as an example of making progress on Aboriginal issues. This was in proof that the deputy minister was providing to the Auditor General of Canada.
You have a senior Department of Finance official and a senior INAC official both confirming the existence of the accord.
Senator Tkachuk: Coming from Saskatchewan, we have first-hand experience in dealing with some of these issues, as you all know. It has been a concern of ours for some time, and I am sure of the Aboriginal leadership in our province as well.
In reviewing some of the documentation previous to the meeting that was held in Kelowna, I was struck by the basic nature of the discussion — education, housing, health, jobs and drinking water. It struck me because these items are simple things that Canadians have taken for granted for decades and decades. These things are the responsibilities, and have been the responsibilities, of the federal government since 1867.
I was wondering if you might spend a little time telling us and the Aboriginal people of Canada why so little progress had been made between 1867 and 2005 on some of these issues. You might want to spend time particularly on the years between 1993 and 2005, with which you would be most familiar, and tell us what led to the sudden realization that in 2005, 44 per cent of the students did not graduate from high school.
This has been a long-term historic problem. You might want to spend a moment telling me how this accord was different from what happened previously. Explain to me and all Canadians why this supposed accord is different from the solutions that failed so drastically prior to 2005.
Mr. Martin: Senator, your question is dead on and is an accurate portrayal of the situation. I do not believe that this issue is a partisan one; and your questions demonstrate this view. This issue is not one that any political party that has held government in this country since Confederation can be proud of.
The fundamental mistakes made by federal governments of all stripes was, first, to believe that they could attempt to assimilate a people: to take away their power of decision-making; to take away the ability of their leadership to relate to their own communities; to impose from on-high solutions that bore no relationship to the cultures of the people who were asked to absorb those solutions; and to end up with rational and successful solutions.
That mistake is one we all made. The most glaring example was residential schools, which amounted to both assimilation and a totally ineffective policy that resulted in a problem from generation to generation, for which the government should apologize in addition to the monies that have been paid out.
The second issue, the government simply underfunded and did not understand it. Until 1953, senator, as you know, a status Indian was not allowed to go to university under penalty of losing their status. That incredibly inept policy amounted to assimilation and discrimination, for which we all bear responsibility.
You asked how the Kelowna Accord was different. First, the agreement was not an attempt to impose from on-high. The federal government did not attempt to step in with all the answers and expect Aboriginals to follow its lead. The federal government sat down with Aboriginal leadership in the provincial and territorial governments and asked to work together on the objectives and solutions. That was the first time it had ever been done in that way. Second, we recognized where the federal government does not have skills and where others do have skills. The federal government does not have an education department and, therefore, has no skills in terms of primary and secondary school education, which exists in the provinces. Thus, in the past, the government sat down with the chiefs and the councils and said, here is some money for primary and secondary school education, and we walked away. If someone is a high school principal in downtown Ottawa and has trouble with special needs or anything else, that principal can reach out to a local school board or to the Ministry of Education. However, if someone runs a primary or secondary school on a reserve in the North, that person has no one to reach out to. That person cannot reach out to INAC because it does not have those skills. Therefore, we brought in the provinces, who have the skills, and asked them to work with the chiefs and the councils, but because education on reserves is under federal jurisdiction, the government would compensate them. That is the education money that Mr. Goodale talked about.
Third, we recognized the level of underfunding. Under Kelowna, the government would provide funding equitably. For the first time, the government worked with the Aboriginal leadership to arrive at decisions; brought provincial and territorial skills to the table; and provided the right amount of funding. That is the answer to your question, senator.
Senator Tkachuk: The issues of education, housing, health, drinking water and a good portion of economic development fall under the provinces.
Mr. Martin: Senator, they are not provincial issues on reserves. They are federal issues.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that but my point is that all these issues have provincial jurisdiction and have expertise in the provinces. Yet, until 2005, no one, including the Indian leadership, took advantage of and recognized that the provinces had this expertise.
Mr. Martin: The Indian leadership recognized it and that is why, when we asked them to sit down with all levels of government, they agreed. Obviously, the Aboriginal leadership recognized that the Crown had jurisdiction and could not turn its back on the issues but they also recognized where the expertise was, and they wanted it at the table. We did not proceed into Kelowna by imposing on the provinces or the Aboriginals that they come together at the table. Rather, they both wanted to sit at the table.
I recognize your bafflement by the fact that this approach was not taken before. I too do not understand it. As I said, no one from any political party in this country can feel proud of what went on before. The previous government did exactly what you said — brought in the provinces, funded properly and consulted — after about 140-odd years. Everyone agreed to it and yet the new government is saying that it wants to go back to the old way. Thus, I share your puzzlement, senator. I do not understand how, after so many years of failure, the new government can come in and say no to this first successful attempt at a solution to these issues. This government seems to think that the way it was done during the previous century is the way to proceed.
Senator Dallaire: This is not a test on our history knowledge but was Sir John A. Macdonald the prime minister in 1876, perchance? In 1976, the Indian Act was bought about, which reflects the government's preoccupation with land management of First Nations membership and local government as well as the ultimate goal of assimilation. I do not want to bring history or partisanship into this issue, although it was introduced this morning, but we have a lot of history and the Indian Act is still in force.
Senator Segal: You cannot live in the past.
Senator Dallaire: That is right. I consider the initiative to move this private member's bill forward to be a most innovative approach to eliminating the vacuum created with the new government. Kelowna seems to be the culminating point of many years of various administrations to try to strengthen relationships and close the gap. In that sense, I support the initiative.
I am sorry to see that although many people were involved in the negotiations of the Kelowna Accord, including the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples was not involved. We hope the Senate committee will be involved in the future.
The funding for the Kelowna Accord was $811.5 million in the first year, 2006-07, and it was a five-year program. Funding was not a problem because there were massive surpluses to absorb that amount. Why did the accord not move as a major project instead of as an accord that has many processes but no overarching project director. For example, the government invested for nearly a decade to fund the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Capital projects in which I have been involved have taken over 15 years.
Why would this accord be only five years? Why not indicate that we have a project that will shift our Aboriginal peoples from being in the Third World to the First World; it will take 10 years to move us to this level, therefore this project needs a project office; PCO will run the project; and everyone else will be subordinate? Why not implement the accord as a project office with a full cash line? Why not go through that process versus a methodology that leaves a lot of people a lot of room to slither out of, making the project difficult to implement?
Mr. Martin: Senator, first, I hate to say I do not know who the Prime Minister was in 1876. However, I think your comment about the Senate committee is important. It should have been involved and, given the understanding that has been shown around this table, I am delighted to be here today.
Mr. Scott may want to comment on that question, but it is important to understand what we tried to do here. I will go back to the previous question. We did not want to impose upon the Aboriginal peoples of this country, nor did we want to impose upon the provinces, a fiat from on high. Therefore, Mr. Scott began this process virtually the day after our election. It was 15 to 18 months in discussion. It was so important. We knew if we imposed a fiat, we would be back at the table a year later and nothing would be going on. Therefore, we wanted to move the underbrush out of the way; to have the Aboriginal people say what would work and what they would go along with, and the same for the provinces. That work took 18 months.
The second thing to understand is that, as again was evident in the questioning around the table, the federal government has no expertise in education, for example. Therefore, it was important to work with the provinces that had that expertise and to work with the Aboriginal leadership. We are not talking simply about teaching someone education as it exists only on the provincial curriculum. The understanding of Aboriginal culture, First Nations, Metis or Inuit culture — the understanding of "who I am" — is important in all this. All that issue had to be worked out.
The last point is this one: The Aboriginal community in this country is not a monolith. Mr. Scott may want to interject at this point. Education systems in this country are divided province by province. We established the targets and funding. However, then we agreed, as with the agreement that was signed with British Columbia, that this education would be negotiated province by province, Aboriginal group by Aboriginal group, reflecting the large differences. That is the reason, senator.
Mr. Scott: The reason the cash flow worked the way it did is because we were reinventing a lot of relationships. The relationship between the federal government, First Nations on reserve, in particular, and the provinces was relatively new in the way it was configured.
Historically, the provinces were fearful that, whenever these discussions came up, the federal government was trying to offload costs and responsibilities. I remember the Saskatchewan Minister of First Nations and Métis Relations, Maynard Sontag, said that if we were prepared to invest in this, the provinces were prepared to participate for reasons of pure self-interest, in many cases. However, he said we needed to invest; otherwise they were not talking.
This relationship was entirely new, therefore the cost of building the relationship as against a capital cost of some bigger project, they would flow from that new relationship.
Finally, in response to other questions, this whole exercise was driven entirely by recognition that most or everything that had failed in the past had been imposed. This was perhaps the first time ever that the Government of Canada simply facilitated a discussion with the community about this problem, supporting the community in discovering the solutions and in bringing in the provinces, generally, with a commitment to funding. As soon as the Government of Canada was prepared to say, "We recognize that the project is underfunded and will ensure it is funded at the level it should be," the provinces were eager. As long as it was underfunded, the provinces were not interested.
Senator Dallaire: I acknowledge that point. I was speaking more of a hybrid project office. We learned that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs does not have a lot of authority over the other players in the Government of Canada, let alone trying to implement agreements when it does not have a cash line. Therefore, the suggestion was more to create a hybrid omnibus project office with the clients, the federal government and so on.
However, my second question relates to this situation: When I look at what had happened with the accord and such, discussion was nation to nation. You spoke to different associations, but there is very much a sense of "nation to nation" in every individual Aboriginal community. You have this negotiation in good faith and a massive commitment from them — a lot of them put careers on the line by being a part of this agreement — and then it crashed.
Would it have been implementable still if the project had simply been shifted to the right? Instead of the milestone starting in 2006-07, could other governments have said, "We cannot handle this item right now, but it is there; why do we not shift the milestones two years to the right and take another look at it"?
The government has been in power for over two years now. Would that option have been possible; to respond to this commitment that the Crown made to all these other nations?
Mr. Martin: Again, Mr. Goodale may want to reply to this question.
On the first question in your preamble, senator, on whether we should have had some kind of a cabinet office to deal with this agreement, let me say, first of all, that at the beginning, as Prime Minister, I gave Minister Scott complete authority and made it clear to cabinet that he had that authority. Second, we sat down with the Minister of Finance.
I think that some of us understand the power of a Minister of Finance within a cabinet. Mr. Goodale was not only the Minister of Finance but was sympathetic because, like the senator, he is also from Saskatchewan and has first-hand knowledge of this issue. He had been the Metis interlocutor. We had two powerful ministers.
A cabinet office was also set up under John Watson. He responded directly to the Prime Minister in case there were any loose ends. We did provide, to a certain extent, what you suggested.
Perhaps Mr. Goodale will deal with this matter, but I am not sure I fully grasp your question. Essentially, the main issue here is that we asked the provinces to deal with a matter within our jurisdiction. They said, "That is great, but it will cost us an extra $5 billion and you need to come with up with the money." If you are asking: Could the government have put that off for two years and then dealt with it, the answer is, sure. That is what we hope they will do in response to this bill: Deal with it.
I point out that at the time this accord came forth, there was a huge surplus.
Mr. Goodale: I will address the method you mention, Senator Dallaire, of simply deferring the commitments. If, for example, the new government looked at those numbers and said they could not cope with all that expense right at the moment. If the government had said they are new and need a little time to get their feet on the ground, and therefore, the initiative is not abandoned but only postponed for a year or two and they will pick it up later on, if that had been their thinking, it would have been feasible. I do not think it would have been particularly desirable, however, because the momentum that had been built up in the previous 18 months would have been lost. We would have had a hiatus of a year or two and it would have been difficult to get the traction back.
If you are asking the question, within the fiscal operations of the Government of Canada, would it have been feasible to postpone rather than cancel, it would have been feasible; not desirable, but feasible.
Both leading up to Kelowna and after, many of us were encouraged by the fact that, apart from the Government of Canada, the other players at the table — the five major national Aboriginal organizations and the provinces and territories — have taken every conceivable occasion to say publicly that they remain committed to the spirit of what was agreed to at Kelowna.
In the case of Saskatchewan, an all-party unanimous resolution was passed in the Saskatchewan legislature endorsing Kelowna. That resolution included every member of what was then the NDP government and every member of what was then the Saskatchewan Party opposition. It was unanimous.
I have correspondence from Premier Gary Doer in Manitoba where he speaks about continuing efforts to promote the Kelowna agreement. As you know, British Columbia signed a document to move forward on the details of Kelowna. The Western Premiers' Conference in 2006 endorsed the Kelowna process. I read the speeches of the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, leadership and its component parts across the country. They continue to reflect the spirit of Kelowna.
It is encouraging that the drive among the other players at the table has not been lost.
Senator Sibbeston: I want to thank Mr. Martin and his colleagues for their commitment, sympathy and support for the Aboriginal people of our country.
I am glad you had a chance to go to the part of Canada that lies north of 60. I am always proud that in the North, the area north of 60, Aboriginal people have a good chance to prosper and do well. It is one area of the country where Aboriginal people are involved in the government because they are the majority in some parts. Their destiny is in their own hands. This is true in Nunavut. It is also true in the Northwest Territories where the population is about 50 per cent each for Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals.
Aboriginal people in those areas of our country are involved in all aspects of society — government, industry, education, et cetera. We have made great advances in these areas.
I think Canada can look to the Northwest Territories and Nunavut as areas where Aboriginal people can succeed, and look at what makes it possible for Aboriginal people to succeed in society. Those things include having control and being part of government, being involved in industry, and the land claims too.
I commend all governments in the past 20 years for having concluded land claims. They are significant in empowering Aboriginal people. Those agreements provide them with land, resources and self-government in some cases.
I have compared the expenditures for the period from 2006 to 2010 that would have been provided by the federal government under the Kelowna Accord and what has been committed by the Conservative government for Aboriginal people. Education would have received $1.251 billion under Kelowna and will receive $171 million under the Conservatives. Housing and infrastructure would have received $1.325 billion under Kelowna and will receive $1.231 billion under the Conservatives.
I give credit to them. That is the only area where the Conservative government, at the moment, will spend money similar to that which would have been provided under Kelowna.
Relationships and accountability would have received $131 million under Kelowna and will receive $15 million under the Conservatives. Economic development would have received $160 million under Kelowna and will receive $90 million under the Conservative government. Health would have received $984 million under Kelowna and will receive $147 million under the Conservatives.
Except in housing, the monies are very different in what the two schemes would provide to Aboriginal people.
Your private member's bill, Bill C-292, an Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, has limits as a private member's bill. It cannot provide money. You are asking that the government provide that money. What do you hope to accomplish? What is your hope in advancing this bill?
Mr. Martin: Before answering, I want to make two comments.
Given your background, the conditions in the North as you described them are true. I think we can feel proud in many ways of what is happening in the North.
To digress, there is an enormous amount of discussion now about Canada's sovereignty in the North. I think we all understand that there are many ways to secure that sovereignty, whether it is surveillance, Radarsat or military. However, clearly the best way to exercise our sovereignty is in the quality of life people have in the North, and the responsibilities and powers they have. I think this issue is an important part of that debate and I thank you for raising it.
Your numbers are clear. I believe Canadians are a fair people. The Kelowna Accord is a name and people are not sure what is in it. I do not expect every Canadian to know what is inside every piece of legislation. That is why the committee hearings of the Senate committee are so important.
However, I believe that Canadians understand that education and health care are essential components of people trying to raise themselves from poverty. I also believe Canadians do not find the current situation acceptable. They need to understand the degree to which health care and education are underfunded. If they understood the discrimination against Aboriginal peoples in those two fundamental areas alone, I think the Canadian people would not allow this to happen.
This bill will provide the government with legislation that says they should implement Kelowna. How they implement it will be up to them. If they are able to do it without money, so be it. I do not know how they will do that, but I think the Canadian people will insist, and that is important. Not only Aboriginals in this country but Canadians from coast to coast to coast will say, these are not the ethics and values on which this country was built.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Mr. Martin, I also thank you for your continued concern for First Nations people.
My people are still in dire need. When the Kelowna Accord was discussed, for the first time, I saw that it gave people hope. I would like you to tell the committee what implementing the Kelowna Accord would mean for my people.
Mr. Martin: The past is the past and history will write it as it is. In this room, we can look to the future. I think the residential schools settlement has gone a long way to, at least, compensating people financially that went through those schools. The acknowledgement and the apology is an essential part of that whole healing process.
There is no doubt that the youngest First Nations people in this country also suffered from it, as the trauma was transmitted from their grandparents and parents to them. Although they did not go to those schools, something equally unfair is happening to them.
They are asked to go to schools that are not comparable to the schools other Canadians go to. They are provided with a level of health care that is substantially inferior to that of other Canadians. Therefore, when we ask the youngest and fastest growing segment of the population that possess the capacity to rise out of poverty, we are not giving them the tools.
Essentially, Kelowna would have said, we will give you schools as good as any schools that other people go to. We will give you a level of health care, so you can take control of your own destiny. That is what this accord is all about.
Canadians want to help, but we all know that it is only your own individual decisions that can make you do it. However, we have to do as we have done with all other Canadians — give them the tools. That is what Kelowna would have done.
Senator Dyck: Good morning to you all. I also reiterate that I am thankful to you, Mr. Martin, for the tremendous work you have done on behalf of all Aboriginal peoples.
In the Kelowna Accord, one thing that struck me was the identification of the gaps, and the action plans that were put forth to close those gaps. In your comments this morning, what really struck me was when you talked about the gap between the hope of the youth and the reality that was experienced by the elders within a community. That is a real gap.
As you also mentioned, we know the Aboriginal population in Canada is primarily a young population. In Saskatchewan currently, in the 2006 statistics, 15 per cent of all Aboriginal people reside in Saskatchewan and about half the Aboriginal population is 25 years and under. That gap is huge, when we look at the youth. We will look to these people, especially in Saskatchewan, for the economic and social well-being of our province.
You talked about the cycle of poverty and how you might interrupt that cycle. As you know, education is one tool that allows people to get out of the cycle of poverty. In fact, a recent study has indicated that a post-secondary education also increases lifespan by as much as seven years.
You mentioned there was a difference in the level of funding between on-reserve schools and the public school system. With regard to an individual Aboriginal youth, a person living on a reserve, what do you think the greatest barriers are to that person graduating from high school and obtaining a post-secondary education? What are the barriers and what can be done?
Mr. Martin: Let me pick up where you left off. Looking at where the barriers are, I think an enormous amount of good work is being done in our universities and colleges concerning the transition to university — people coming from a different background than most Canadians, and what must be done to enable them to succeed in university. Obviously, our universities and colleges could do a lot more, but we must be proud of what they are doing.
People then say, why are more people not going to post-secondary education? They must graduate from high school to get there. Why are more people not graduating from high school to get there? They need a good primary school education, which relates directly to your question.
If their grade school is inadequate, if their teachers are underfunded and they do not have the programs that are available, and we put that situation against the background of all the other problems that we know about that are not related directly to education, when it comes time to go to high school, they will not be able to make it. First, if they have gone to a grade school that is not as good as the rest of the grade schools that kids going to high school have, they will find a great deal of difficulty going to high school.
Second, what if their high school is far away from where they live, in a different community with a different background, and they are asked to spend two to four hours a day traveling to that high school? Or, what if they must leave their community and live somewhere else to go to that school? If they are 14 years old or 15 years old and they are asked to live in a boarding house, they face a huge transition.
I am involved in a reserve school in Thunder Bay, where kids come from fly-in reserves on Hudson Bay. These kids come in from communities of 300 to 400 people. They come to Thunder Bay at the age of 14 or 15 for the first time in their lives and they are asked to go to school. Those kids show tremendous courage. Most of them succeed but it takes a lot of courage to do it. I am not sure, at 14 or 15 if I had been through that situation, that I would have been able to do it.
Probably I know a lot more about this issue than I did several years ago, but essentially teachers tell me that it is around grades 5, 6 or 7 that they start to see that the really bright kids who are doing well may drop out. The biggest single barrier is at that important age — from grade 5 and 6 to grade 10 — we are not putting the effort in.
Senator Dyck: In terms of investment in education, should more money be invested in the education portfolio because the potential payoff or benefit is tremendous?
Mr. Martin: Absolutely: Let me put your question even more directly; I do not think it should be only a question of money. This question is one of fairness, and the kind of country we want to build. However, if we want to look at it strictly from the point of view of money, there is no doubt that a dollar spent on education will save $10 in incarceration rates later on.
Senator Campbell: I welcome the honourable members. It is an honour to see them here today. I also welcome Senator Tkachuk to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. Although he is not officially on the committee, he spent a number of years on it, and the wealth of knowledge he brings here inspires me.
I want to help him by echoing some of the things that Mr. Martin said — that it does not matter that in 1993 we took over a government from the Conservatives that was bankrupt. It does not matter that the Conservatives took over from a Liberal government with huge surpluses. What matters is that we correct the wrong that has been happening in this country since 1867.
I think the best question today came from Senator Segal and I want to follow up from that. Senator Segal basically said — correct me if I am wrong — we do not necessarily disagree on the goal we want to reach out there — education, health, housing, economic opportunities and equality. Those are the goals for all of us. Where we disagree is on the plan of how to reach that goal.
The question I have for all you gentlemen because you sit in the other place — we have an interim leader, a former leader and a minister of the Crown before us —is whether there a plan at the present time to achieve these goals of education, health, housing and economic opportunities? If there is, maybe the Kelowna Accord is being taken care of already. I do not think so, but I would like each of you to comment.
Mr. Martin: The question is dead on. There is no plan. If the debate were our plan versus their plan, I think that debate could have been a healthy one for the country.
I do not understand why the current government came in and cancelled the Kelowna Accord, especially since members of their party nationally — and all the members of their party provincially — supported Kelowna at the time. All their provincial people continue to do so. I think the reason they do is because there is not an alternative plan; they have not forward put any other option.
Nobody expects a new government coming in to heap praise on the previous government. It would have been nice, but I did not think it would happen. If they had come in and said something along the lines that Senator Tkachuk said, which was, it is about time — you have taken it this far but we do not think you have taken it far enough and we will build on this — I would have jumped up and said, hallelujah. I might have modified it a bit but I would have done it.
Senator, you are absolutely right: The current government came to power and cancelled the education funding, which is the area where I am most involved now. Senator Sibbeston's numbers are clear: The new government simply cancelled the Kelowna Accord without providing any other option.
The government did that in area after area with no alternative plan. When I say that the purpose of this bill is to implement the Kelowna Accord, I am not hung up on what we said but I am hung up on the fact that this plan was arrived at in conjunction with the Aboriginal leadership, the provinces and the territories. If someone comes along and says they will achieve these goals with a better plan than this one, then I say, Godspeed.
Senator Peterson: It is evident from the material before the committee that a great deal of work went into this agreement. This work took place over an 18-month period. The agreement was not cobbled together over a couple of weeks, as some would have us believe. It is also evident that the funding was in place. As we move forward with Bill C-292, what is the status of the agreements or understandings? Are they still in place or do they need to be revisited?
Mr. Martin: There have been a couple of changes in provincial and territorial governments since the Kelowna Accord. I cannot speak for those new governments but I would be surprised, given that these new governments are in the territories and Saskatchewan, where there are large Aboriginal populations, if the positions were any different; but they might be so.
I have discussed this issue with premiers from coast to coast to coast, and, without exception, premiers and first ministers have called for Kelowna. Former Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, did that right after the election. Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador has said the same. As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, it was only within the last month that Premier Gordon Campbell, of British Columbia, asked for a federal-provincial meeting to determine what progress had been made on the Kelowna targets and objectives.
Obviously, we have heard from the Aboriginal leadership that they are solidly behind the agreement. It is my belief that if the government decided to proceed with the Kelowna Accord, there would be an immediate take-up.
Senator Hubley: Mr. Martin, I congratulate you on the work that is being done and on the vision you have for the partnership between Canadians and Aboriginal peoples. The Kelowna Accord has shown Canadians a new approach to governance. There was a sense of joy in seeing that it was open and transparent and nation to nation, with equal players at the table. We felt that the Kelowna Accord was the way that things should be done.
You had put into place the infrastructure within the government to make the accord a success so that it no longer dealt with a process that had been in place for years. The problem was recognized and the government came in partnership with other stakeholders to put those things in place, including the funding. The provincial governments are still there and our Aboriginal governments are still there, but the federal government is no longer there; and that is a problem for me.
How does this missed opportunity for governments reflect, in 2008, on the credibility of the federal government to be a negotiator in good faith?
Mr. Martin: To answer that question, you have to look not only at the accord but also at the 15 to 18 months that Andy Scott, Ethel Blondin and others were involved because this accord was not arrived at easily. The in-depth negotiation process looked at real needs. The reality is that the federal government under Minister Scott and the supporting machinery to which Senator Dallaire referred, every province, every territory and the Aboriginal leadership, who operate on pretty tight budgets, devoted a massive amount of time to this process.
The Canada-Aboriginal people's round tables were right across the country. They looked into all kinds of things, including accountability — which people talk about and which, I believe, is so important — health care and education. Senator, when you go through that kind of a process to arrive at an accord on a non-partisan basis, and the federal government simply says, too bad, so sad, we are walking, it reflects enormously on the government's credibility.
I might add that Canada speaks to human rights internationally. I was in Mexico not long ago to meet with the Government of Mexico. Subsequently, I met with a group of Indian legislators to discuss the UN declaration on human rights. One of the first issues they raised with me was how Canada could talk about human rights, given the way in which we treat indigenous Canadians. The question is a tough one to answer.
Senator Watt: I have followed the Kelowna Accord process closely from the beginning. You initiated the idea that we need to do something about the situation. Even outside of Canada, it has been said of our Aboriginal peoples that they live in a Third World country, and I truly appreciate the fact that you made a huge effort to do something about it.
You spoke to the actual needs, with the help of the Aboriginal leaders, and the money that is required to close the gap in the fields of education and housing, while understanding that we have a number of social problems right across the country. Many of those social problems rest on the fact that there is lack of education and work for Aboriginals. It is about time that parliamentarians move in the right direction to alert not only the Aboriginal people and parliamentarians to the situation but also the general public of Canada.
Mr. Martin, I am concerned that we have failed again on this agreement. Where do we go from here? There is no sense in talking about the past. We are trying to move forward while keeping the past in mind.
Continuously, year after year, we fail to address a number of issues. From our past experience, we have made huge mistakes thinking about what we do next. Why are we failing here? Why are we not making the situation clear and creating a "football toss" between the two political stripes, if you want to call it that?
This will continue, even if your bill is passed. I am trying to be helpful.
The only place we have addressed the situation, without taking it into the legal arena, is in the political arena. Maybe we should seriously consider taking it to the general public of Canada.
I have only one question, Mr. Martin. If, once again we do not somehow get this message across and do the job, are you prepared, as a former Prime Minister, to go to the general public of Canada to address this issue? The issue is an important one. Will you try to solicit support from the general public of Canada?
If you do not achieve this goal, it will continue to drag the Canadian economy down. You said this a number of times in the past. The economy will not improve until we have properly addressed and dealt with this issue.
Mr. Martin: Senator, absolutely I would be prepared to do it. In fact, I think that is what we are doing here today in front of what is an important and knowledgeable committee. Yes, I would be prepared to be public about it in any forum across the country.
I think the message is clear. We must deal with the constituent elements of the accord. If you went to the Canadian people and said, for the sake of discussion, that we will provide an inadequate, unsatisfactory and unfair level of education to everyone in the country whose last name starts with A, I think there would be a huge outcry. That is what we are doing. We are saying that if you are an Aboriginal, we will provide you with an inadequate, unsatisfactory and unfair level of education and health care.
If the Canadian people had the issue put to them in that way, I do not think they would tolerate it.
Senator Gustafson: Thank you for appearing this morning. I have sat on this committee for a while and, being a practical person, I have often wondered why things were not accomplished. However, on the other hand, this committee has probably been one of the best ones. Minister Prentice and Senator St. Germain bend over backwards. Senator Sibbeston is nodding his head that he agrees. Yet, it seems that when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of the situation, it becomes a political football. I do not think that is good.
This question is a hard one but I will ask it. Prime Minister Chrétien was in power for 13 years prior to three years ago: Mr. Martin, was there communication between you and the former Prime Minister to the extent of laying out a program that would do the things that you say are laid out in this plan? Some say it is in the plan. Others ask why it was not introduced in the House; why it was introduced through a private member's bill. I want to know the answer to that question.
We can lay blame here for the next 20 years and nothing will happen. This problem is becoming larger and larger. My understanding is that a thousand cases are before the courts to be settled. If they had one lawyer in each case and we projected the kind of money that these cases will cost the taxpayer, one wonders whether they can ever be settled.
I hope that situation is not the cause. However, I think it is important that we become practical regarding what we are trying to achieve here in this committee. I will say this committee is a good one.
Mr. Martin: Under Prime Minister Chrétien, as you know, a $350 million healing fund was set up under Minister Jane Stewart to deal with a number of these issues. A cabinet committee was set up under Stéphane Dion, essentially to lay the groundwork for dealing with some of these issues.
Therefore the answer to your question is, yes, there were discussions between Prime Minister Chrétien and myself. I think that Kelowna is by far the most complete answer that has been provided by any government so far. I go back to my answer earlier: I think are you absolutely right; this issue should not be a partisan one. It should be an issue on which we are all able to come together.
Believe you me, senator, I would rather this bill be a government bill than a private member's bill.
Mr. Scott: From the practical perspective, if nothing else comes out of this meeting than the consensus or the understanding that First Nations and Aboriginal education is underfunded, that step forward will be huge.
Historically, the perception put forward is that underfunding in education is not the case. Learning this situation was one of the great revelations of the process. Previously, in everything I was involved with, government simply prepared a per capita expenditure of non-Aboriginal students and a per capita expenditure of First Nations and Aboriginal students. Since the number was comparable or even a little higher, there was no recognition that the cost of delivering education in First Nations communities is probably twice as expensive as delivering it in other communities.
If we went to the Province of Saskatchewan, which is what I did when I was Minister of Indian and Affairs and Northern Development, and found out what formula they use in the Province of Saskatchewan to distribute money for education, the formula could be used elsewhere. In using and applying that exact same formula to the demographics that our department was dealing with, it was revealed immediately how badly under-resourced First Nations education was in Canada.
The minute that happened, I pulled out the policy arguments to convince my good friends, also from Saskatchewan, coincidentally and happily, that this was the case. Therefore we could make a solid argument in favour of increased resources. The minute we increased resources as a commitment, we could draw the provinces in because they did not think this matter would now be one of off-loading.
A momentum was created around certain revelations, and if those revelations can occur once again, today, in this room — it has been said a number of times, without challenge — if that can go down the hall and people recognize that is the case, then we will make great progress.
Mr. Goodale: I have one brief comment about an aspect of Senator Gustafson's question. He said it was unfortunate that the Kelowna Accord was not presented in the House as a government initiative, and instead has come forward as a private member's bill. I want to comment briefly on the sequencing of events that occurred in 2005. There had been a critical 18 months of discussion and negotiation leading up to November 2005. It engaged all the departments of the Government of Canada, all the provinces, all the territories and the five national Aboriginal organizations. That work was an essential part of the foundation that was being laid for Kelowna.
When I formally delivered my fiscal update on behalf of the Government of Canada on November 14, 2005 before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, I made specific reference to the Kelowna meeting that would take place 10 days later. I said, on the record, that whatever agreements were reached in Kelowna would be accommodated fully within the accounts of the Government of Canada. Therefore, it was on the record of the Finance Committee in November 2005.
When Kelowna took place and the agreements were finalized, the money was booked in the accounts of the Government of Canada. However, that was after the fiscal update.
As you know, four days later, there was a confidence motion in the House of Commons and an election was called. Therefore, there was no further opportunity to present it to the House of Commons. However, it was referenced explicitly in the fiscal update on November 14, 2005.
The Chair: I have been honoured to chair this committee for the last couple of years, working closely with Senator Sibbeston. Along with others such as Senator Hubley, Senator Peterson, Senator Segal and Senator Dallaire, we have been able to move away from partisanship.
I work closely with Minister Prentice, as does Senator Sibbeston, hoping to achieve things. The priorities for the new government are different. I do not think they said, so sad, we are walking away. They needed to deal with a safe-drinking-water crisis as they came to power, and then we went to specific claims that have not been mentioned. I think specific claims are critical.
First Nations peoples have lost lives in situations like Ipperwash and Oka. People died because this issue has been neglected by governments. This issue is not partisan; it is a horror story. These claims have existed for years and it may take 20 years to settle them. Did this matter come up in discussion as a priority during the Kelowna talks?
There is the aspect of specific claims and also, the economic development aspect. I do not want to go into economic development because it will sound like a partisan issue. However, I believe the government and this committee were trying to deal with the issues staring us in the face that were obvious injustices.
The water situation is horrific and totally unacceptable, as are the specific claims that have not been resolved. We are now in the process of trying to pass legislation that, hopefully, will expedite these situations that lead to frustration, and young Aboriginal persons continually go to jail in Ontario as a result. This situation is totally unacceptable.
I would like your comment on that.
Mr. Martin: I will comment, but I would like to ask Mr. Scott who was involved on the specific claims issue to respond.
Mr. Scott: I take everyone back to the original round table in April 2004 when 495 national Aboriginal leaders and organizations were brought together with the entire cabinet for one day. The exercise we went through that day determined the issues that we wanted to address. The community was driving the agenda. We were accommodating and financing it, but were, respectfully, allowing the community to drive it.
The community wanted to establish a better relationship with government, feeling that all the other elements of comprehensive, specific claims and even Indian residential schools would flow from a better relationship. Therefore, we established, as one of the six areas, the relationship between the Crown and the Aboriginal community.
The community made that choice, and the discussions around specific claims were part of that area. They specifically and deliberately wanted to improve the process within which all those issues were to be dealt with, rather than dealing with them first. That was the expressed desire of the community.
That point is critical because this whole exercise and formula is driven by five events. It is hard to understand Kelowna without recognizing those five events: the round table in April 2004; the health agreement in September 2004; the policy workshops that filled it out; the meeting with the provinces in March 2005; and the Indian residential schools agreement in May 2005.
The health agreement lent credibility because it was the first time the community was at the table at a first ministers meeting. The meeting with the provinces provided an opportunity to inform them that we had something coming to ensure they did not believe they were being blindsided.
When the Indian residential schools agreement was reached in May 2005, trust was improved significantly in going forward. Mr. Martin would remember that the policy agreement was reached on May 31, only a week later. After all the policy agreements were reached, it was a question of filling out the details with the provinces.
To answer the question specifically, the choices around priorities were made by the community and we supported their choices.
Mr. Martin: To pick up and complete that answer, remember that water was one of the specific items in Kelowna and there was an agreement on that item.
Regarding partisanship, I share your view. Where Minister Jim Prentice or Minister Chuck Strahl have done a good job, I think they should be given credit. Minister Prentice was at the meetings of the Kelowna Accord. He was there and stood up after it was over to say he thought it was a great initiative. I would be delighted to compliment the government, and where they are doing a good job, I would do that.
In terms of health care and education, the plan was there. I think you and the members at this table understand better than almost anyone that education is the key to economic development. It is the key to the success of the next generation. It has to be dealt with, and the plan was there to deal with it.
Senator Tkachuk: I think we will let our minister speak for himself when he is here. The majority of members here are Liberal so they will have lots of opportunity to ask him about what we are doing as a government.
I think we have established that there has been a failure of governments to deal with many of these issues. Nunavut was a proud achievement of the Mulroney government. However, there was an attempt by your government when you were Prime Minister, to resolve some of these issues and I commend you for it. In the meantime, there was an election, and a new government is in power.
Senator Campbell: It is a minority government.
Senator Tkachuk: That is fine. That means there are more opposition members than government members so if they wish to defeat the government and have an election, they are more than welcome to.
On the money and plan part of it, when Minister Goodale said he booked this item and that there was a plan, what was the plan? For example, in education, you say money was booked. How was it to be distributed? Was there a per capita agreement, say for kindergarten — how was the money to be distributed? What would have been Saskatchewan's share? What was the plan exactly? Obviously, you did not just write a cheque. What was supposed to happen here for that cheque?
Mr. Goodale: Obviously, I did not have the opportunity to make the investment because events went in a different direction a few days later. However, the various amounts for the areas that I mentioned — education, housing, water, governance, economic opportunity and health — were specified in the financial bookings, based upon cabinet documents and cabinet decisions in each area.
Mr. Scott led that process in developing the game plan in each area, but they were not numbers just plucked out of the air. They were planned by officials in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and double-checked by the officials in the Department of Finance.
The programming details are in the purview of Mr. Scott, but they were not just hypotheticals. They were based on explicit cabinet documents that went through the full cabinet process prior to November 2005. In fact, each individual one received cabinet approval.
Mr. Scott: Specifically, take education, as an example, as I said —
Senator Tkachuk: Or water, whatever you want.
Mr. Scott: For education, as I said before, it was not an impression, a belief or part of the Canadian understanding that the education system was simply under-resourced. The first fundamental decision is that everyone in Canada should have access to an equivalent level of education as it means paying teachers, and funding facilities and infrastructure — all the things you would think of. Beyond that decision, however, what was most innovative in the education program was the building of educational systems, because these schools are isolated.
In my experience and that of my children, education is no longer a series of schools; it is a comprehensive system with all kinds of professional development. One can go outside for specific skills from time to time — all kinds of things like that. None of that system existed, or little of it existed.
That is why having the provinces on side was so important. Depending on the community, perhaps they offered elementary school and that is all; perhaps the community offered everything through high school. A series of different circumstances all had to be treated as different circumstances but the relationship between the community, the province and the federal government around these issues was established and understood.
We had meetings on education from before Christmas the previous year all the way through to November. I think I attended most of them myself. I did not know any of these things when I started. As a result of the exercise, we learned together what the problems were, what the solutions were, who the partners needed to be to achieve the solutions and what resources were necessary.
Senator Tkachuk: For example, in Meadow Lake, where they have their own school system — I am an old schoolteacher as well — what did it mean to them?
Mr. Scott: They would have had more resources, for sure. Depending on the circumstances, they would have been part of a broader system that would be either regional or provincial, depending on the community's desires. For example, in my case, we have two First Nations in New Brunswick and they tried to decide whether to have two systems or one, and how those systems would relate to the provincial government. Those discussions were well away; they had not been finalized in many cases.
Senator Tkachuk: They had not been finalized at all, had they?
Mr. Scott: They were finalized in British Columbia and Nova Scotia, and they were beginning to be finalized in Saskatchewan.
Senator Dallaire: The aim of Kelowna is strengthening relationships and closing a gap, and to forge a new relationship between the parties. I want to bring in a security matter here.
In 1995, I commanded the province of Quebec and saw all the Aboriginal areas in the province. There was a real problem between the Cree and Hydro-Quebec because Hydro-Quebec wanted to put half the province under water.
Senator Dyck has indicated, and demographics reflect, that the number of youths in the Aboriginal community is significant. They are spread out in 680-odd sites in the country. Generally speaking, they are feeling disenfranchised and are realizing they are behind the eight ball on education, et cetera. We have heard about the Aboriginal day of action.
Is the internal security risk rising as the youth see themselves more and more disenfranchised? In fact, if they ever coalesced, could they not bring this country to a standstill?
Mr. Martin: Senator, you put the issue very graphically. My answer, and the only one we all have, is we would hope not; and that we would hope not because government will react before that happens.
I think the Aboriginal leadership has shown enormous restraint. There is a degree of hopelessness, which has been brought on partially by the refusal to implement Kelowna. People are saying to themselves, wait a minute, is anyone going to deal with the health problems and the education problems? I think, by far, the best way to avoid what you have said is to show that we understand, and that we will deal with those issues.
Senator Segal: One brief question, which is about what troubles me the most about the Kelowna Accord on efficacy and humanitarian grounds.
Our own census indicates — and this was Chief Brazeau's testimony before the House of Commons committee — that 79 per cent of our Aboriginal population live off the reserve. Of the status Indian population, 51 per cent live off the reserve. Over 90 per cent of the $9 billion spent annually by INAC is spent for Aboriginals living on reserves.
The concern is that there was nothing in Kelowna for the vast majority of First Nations people who live in our cities. Whether it is Senator Dallaire's concern or those of others about education, substance abuse or socialization, et cetera, that is a huge gap in Kelowna.
For better or worse, the present government has taken the view that through fiscal stabilization, providing more money for the provinces so the provinces and municipalities can discharge their constitutional obligations — health care or whatever — and through sorting out treaty agreements, where there has been more success than there was in the previous administration, that is an answer that is as constructive as Kelowna might have been for the vast majority of Aboriginal fellow citizens who live off reserve in our cities.
I am interested in your response to that view.
Mr. Martin: First, if you look at Kelowna, the fact is that Kelowna did recognize the off-reserve issue substantially. In housing, as an example, there is a specific plan to eliminate the housing crisis that is affecting Aboriginals off reserve.
Second, in terms of schooling, a lot of First Nations youths on reserve go to high school off reserve. We must deal with the primary schools on reserve so they can go to high schools. However, part of the answer was to deal with the culture issue in off-reserve high schools. We all understand the importance of identity and culture. Therefore, that fundamental issue, which is a derivative of the residential school issue in terms of the destruction of identity, would have been dealt with.
Senator, I do not disagree with you at all about your focus on the off-reserve population. However, I can tell you that Kelowna dealt with those living off reserve. If the government wants to say we did not deal with that group sufficiently and they are prepared to deal more with it, we will certainly support them; but the fact is that the off reserve population was very much part of what we brought to the table.
Senator Segal: It was my great privilege, with bipartisan support, to sponsor the B.C.-First Nations education authority bill through the upper house, after it passed in the other place. It was a way for provincial, federal and First Nations people to work together to raise the standard and ensure comparability in a way that was within the framework of provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Scott: The fact that the provinces had as much interest as we did in off-reserve status and non-status Indians and Metis, and that they celebrated this bill demonstrated to what extent it dealt with those issues of health care, special programs for Metis specifically, post-secondary education and access to post-secondary education. For example, with regard to access, a status Indian attached to a First Nation or reserve has access to all the post-secondary education money available. As well, the bill informed us of our need to engage the provinces in the process because of the reality you speak to. Finally, I refer you to the chief representing the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples at the time the agreement was signed who said that it represented for them at the end of the tunnel.
Senator Sibbeston: I have a statement rather that a question. Canada is a great country full of generous, caring and conscientious people. People need to take the time to know one another, as people in the North do where they live together, and develop an empathy and understanding for one another. The plight of Aboriginal people in Canada requires focus and attention. It is within our means, energy and ability do something real and substantive so that every member of Canadian society has the same level of opportunities and success. Some of our attention and energy is left outside and spent outside our country. For example, the billions of dollars we spend in Afghanistan, the money that we give to poor nations and immigration policy take some of our energy and resources away. Give us your views on whether we can achieve success for the Aboriginal peoples in our country and still do these other things.
Mr. Martin: Obviously, it depends on the time period in which you are dealing with these other issues, senator. Although I will not go into detail, if you are asking whether we can maintain an active foreign policy at the same time that we accomplish these things for our Aboriginal peoples, the answer is yes.
We cannot discriminate against one segment of our population in terms of education, health care and clean water. The issue of accountability and good governance did not come up at this table, senator. There is a myth that Aboriginal leadership does not believe in good governance and accountability. Throughout the Kelowna negotiations, there was a table on good governance and accountability, and they were the ones who asked for it, and were the most insistent about it. Yet, the funding for it has been cut. Good governance and accountability cannot be used as a reason for not dealing with health care and education, because they want it as much as everyone else wants it.
Senator Dyck: Going back to the issue of underfunding to First Nations in education and health care, Mr. Martin, you said that we cannot discriminate against one segment of our population. Yet, we do discriminate. Do you agree that because we discriminate against First Nations, it is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35, in that it is discrimination on the basis of race?
Mr. Martin: That question is an intriguing one, and one that I have raised as well. I am somewhat surprised that there has not been much more work done on that. The issue certainly has to be dealt with.
Mr. Goodale: Chair, Senator Tkachuk, who unfortunately had to leave, asked for a statistic on the share of the Kelowna Accord that would have been expected to go to his and my province of Saskatchewan. The amount was roughly $800 million.
The Chair: Thank you for the information, Mr. Goodale.
Mr. Martin, we had a short public discussion on how much money is allocated to education under the existing system. A minister of the Crown made a statement that $16,950 is spent on each First Nations person. However, one First Nations chief said that only 4 per cent of that spending filters through the system to the people. That has always been a concern of mine. If the system were left the way it is, and government were to add $5 billion, but only 4 per cent of it reached the constituency we are trying to serve, then that concern would continue.
You have tried to go beyond simply throwing money at the problem, as a solution. These are things that this committee wrestles with. We will not ignore, in any way, shape or form, the recommendations that you have brought forward because you have thought them through carefully.
I thank you for your thoughtfulness and your leadership, Mr. Martin, and the way in which you presented yourself before the committee this morning.
The committee adjourned.