Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 11 - Evidence - April 16, 2008
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 16, 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 6:20 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This evening we will carry on with our consideration of Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord. We will hear from two panels. The first will be made up of representation from the Métis National Council and the Assembly of First Nations. The second panel will be comprised of witnesses from the Native Women's Association of Canada and the National Association of Friendship Centres.
First, I would like to introduce the senators who are with us this evening.
They are Senator Hugh Segal, Senator Robert Peterson, Senator Larry Campbell, Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas, Senator Elizabeth Hubley and Senator James Cowan.
Please join me in welcoming Mr. Clément Chartier, President, Métis National Council; and Mr. Phil Fontaine, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations.
Gentlemen, we look forward to hearing your views on the Kelowna Accord and once your presentations are complete we will have questions from the senators.
Clément Chartier, President, Métis National Council: On behalf of the Metis nation, I wish to thank the committee for organizing this important discussion today and for the fine work it has done over the years in a bipartisan manner in support of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
I wish to briefly provide the committee with a snapshot of where the Metis nation is today and where it could have been had there not been the impasse in the implementation of the Kelowna Accord. This was the product of 14 months of hard work, negotiations, and ultimate consensus on the part of the Aboriginal peoples, the federal government, and all the provinces and territories.
The 2006 Census shows that the Metis population is approaching 400,000 people, or 34 per cent of the overall Aboriginal population, with nearly nine out of ten Metis living in the Western provinces and Ontario. I have included figures from the 2001 Census that indicate, for selected metropolitan areas, the number of people identifying themselves as Metis among the total Aboriginal identity population.
There is a chart in our written presentation. Basically, of the eight cities identified with respect to total Aboriginal identity population, which averages about 25,000, the Metis single response in terms of identity averages about 11,000, so the percentage of Metis in terms of identity would be about 44 per cent. I just put those statistics there to show that there is a significant Metis population in this country.
The social and economic conditions we live under are comparable to those faced by other Aboriginal peoples. According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation data, Metis households on the Prairies accounted for 50 per cent of off-reserve Aboriginal households in core housing need in 2001, with more than 20,000 Métis households in core need, about one in every five.
Metis people on waiting lists for urban native non-profit housing units in Winnipeg number in the thousands. The prevalence of health problems among the Metis is also comparable to other Aboriginal peoples, with a type 2 diabetes rate three to five times higher than the general population.
Since the military defeat of the Metis nation in the northwest resistance of 1885 and the execution of our revered leader, Louis Riel, we have waged an incessant struggle to secure our place as a founding nation within the Canadian federation. In recent decades the struggle has manifested itself in efforts to establish self-government so we can participate as a distinct people and nation in the federation and develop the capacity to deal effectively with the myriad of problems confronting our people.
There have been some notable accomplishments; in particular the constitutional recognition of the Metis as one of the three Aboriginal peoples of Canada in 1982, the Powley decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2003 recognizing the Métis as a full-fledged rights-bearing people with constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights, and the increased capacity of our governance institutions to deliver social and economic development programs for the benefit of our people.
Yet sadly I must tell you that in 2008 the Metis are still excluded from federal jurisdictional responsibility and from all processes to resolve the rights of Aboriginal peoples, including specific and comprehensive land claims processes. Even the limited test case funding that was made available to us to clarify our rights in the courts has been cut off.
Our support for the Kelowna Accord was built on the commitment of former Prime Minister Paul Martin to overcome historic obstacles in the relationship between the federal government and the Metis nation. The Canada- Metis Nation Framework Agreement of May 31, 2005, signed by the Métis National Council and the Government of Canada, marked a major shift in the relationship of the parties to rights-based negotiations in order ``to engage a new partnership between Canada and the Metis Nation based on mutual respect, responsibility, and sharing.''
The agreement committed the parties to a process of negotiations over five years to resolve long-outstanding rights issues between the Metis nation and Canada outside of litigation and to build the capacity of Metis nation governance institutions to assume responsibility for federal programs and services suitable for devolution. The Canada-Metis nation Framework Agreement set the stage for our strong support of the Kelowna Accord, which would have referentially included the former.
In the spirit of the Canada-Metis Nation Framework Agreement, the Kelowna Accord adopted a distinctions-based approach to ensure that each of the Aboriginal peoples could have their priorities properly addressed. In the case of the Metis nation, this promised an end to ``pan-Aboriginal'' programming, which was never more than a smokescreen for successive federal governments to avoid dealing with the Metis as a distinct people and nation.
Half of the Kelowna Accord document was dedicated to broad commitments in the areas of health care and economic development, but provision was made for distinct First Nations, Inuit, and Metis nation frameworks. The other half of the document was dedicated to specific commitments to each of the Aboriginal peoples in the areas of intergovernmental relationships, education, and housing.
Under the Metis heading, the document resolved the status of the relationship between the Metis and the Government of Canada:
The rights of the Metis, as an Aboriginal people, are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. First Ministers and Metis Leaders acknowledge the special relationship between Metis and the Crown.
The Metis section of the action plan committed Ottawa and the five provinces within the Metis homeland — that being Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia — to work with the Metis National Council and its governing members towards improving educational outcomes and revitalizing Metis housing through a variety of initiatives to be undertaken by strengthened Metis institutions.
The accountability framework built into the Metis Nation Framework Agreement and the Kelowna Accord represented a real commitment by all parties to achieve results by measuring performance, building on best practices and providing adequate funding to provide capacity to get the job done. Moreover, it held all the signatories to account for the result. This is a far cry from the entrenched, dysfunctional state of affairs and programming in which federal bureaucrats are in control of programs their departments do not actually deliver and Metis organizations are delivering programs that they do not control. As a consequence, no one is responsible for the results.
Speaking for a Metis government that prides itself on fiscal responsibility, I find it hard to believe that the present Government of Canada would want to perpetuate the failed practices of the past. No one should. For that reason, I urge the Parliament of Canada to pass An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.
Phil Fontaine, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you very much for providing an opportunity for the Assembly of First Nations to present on Bill C-292.
As you know, the Assembly of First Nations is the national political organization representing First Nations of both genders in every part of the country, on-reserve and off-reserve. I am here to speak in favour of Bill C-292. I wish to explain my reasons for that perspective but I would like to provide some context first.
The timing of our appearance here this evening is significant. It is significant because I have just come from a presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, where I spoke in favour of Bill C-30, an Act to establish the specific claims tribunal.
I spoke in favour of that legislation brought forward by the Government of Canada not only because it is an important step forward our people but also because of the process that led to its development. Bill C-30 is the only bill affecting First Nations rights and interests where this government has engaged First Nations, through the Assembly of First Nations, in developing the legislation.
In our view, that process is an act of respect. First Nations hold the legal right to be consulted on legislation that directly affects us. The engagement process used to develop Bill C-30 begins to recognize that right. Therefore we support that legislation. Respect for our rights is of critical importance.
We also support Bill C-292 because, in our view, a deal is a deal. We entered into good faith discussions and agreement with all our federal-provincial-territorial partners.
For the Government of Canada to reach a very public agreement with us — and there is a record of such an agreement — and then to seek ways to undercut that agreement, brings dishonour on the Crown. This is a failure of the Government of Canada to engage our people with respect. The elements agreed to in the Kelowna Accord remain unaddressed and they remain as important to the future of First Nations citizens in Canada as ever they were.
We need the Government of Canada to recognize the inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights of our people. This government that actually voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, contrary to the over 100 states that adopted it in the UN General Assembly, and now its own Parliament, clearly does not respect our rights.
To vote against a fundamental international human rights instrument is not only a stain on Canada's human rights record, it is a signal to the international community and the international cooperative processes that, in matters affecting indigenous peoples, the current government does not intend to adhere to international standards and best practices.
This is even more troubling when international and domestic legal and political scholars, experts and jurists affirm that the UN declaration does not contravene the Canadian Constitution. In fact, it respects the rule of law and bolsters the principles, values and rights contained therein.
In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Parliament for passing the motion to implement the UN declaration. I would encourage senators to follow the lead of the other place.
I also call to your attention that, at this moment, there is a regional process taking place to draft a declaration of rights for indigenous peoples for the Inter-American Human Rights System.
The Organization of American States is a vital regional agency committed to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The OAS is drafting a human rights instrument to protect the rights of indigenous peoples of the North and South American continent and small island states of this region.
I regret to report that the Government of Canada has refused to join other nations in accepting the UN declaration text as the starting point or minimum outcome for a draft OAS declaration. In fact, while time does not permit me here to explain more fully, the actions and positions of Canada at the OAS would severely undermine the principle of international cooperation that is a crucial element of the United Nations charter and the OAS charter.
We need better cooperation. We need the Government of Canada to reconcile itself with the First Peoples of this land. We need the Government of Canada to respect the rule of law. Governments across Canada fail continuously in their duty to consult with First Nations on decisions that affect our rights. Canada must consult with us on the development of legislation that affects us and on decisions that affect resources on our lands and traditional territories. This is the law. Failure to meet that duty can be seen by many as a lack of respect for the rule of law. Its consequence can be seen in points of conflict across the country. Actions that have resulted in the jailing of First Nations leaders are a direct result in response to the disrespect for the rule of law that governments demonstrate whenever they assign resource development rights on our lands and territories without first having met their duty to consult and accommodate First Nations rights and interests as required by the laws of Canada.
When I speak about better cooperation and when I speak about trust and honouring commitments, I speak to two important issues that would suggest to me that trust, political goodwill and commitments made are not being honoured. Here I am referring to the promised apology to our people for the tragic and sad chapter of the residential school experience, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
We signed a political agreement on May 30, 2005 that set out the basis for the negotiations that took place that led to the agreement in principle and then the formal adoption of the Residential School Settlement Agreement. In that political agreement, there is a commitment that the Government of Canada would engage the Assembly of First Nations in writing the language of the apology that was promised us in the Speech from the Throne in October, including sitting down with the government to figure out together the appropriate place for this very significant moment in Canadian history. To this date, we have not had any formal discussions with the federal government, consistent with the political agreement.
We are now hearing rumours that the apology will be presented to the nation on either May 21 or 23. I would remind honourable senators here that the worst thing that could happen with the apology is if the government were to apologize to us and the apology was rejected. We do not want to see that as the outcome.
We would urge the government to honour the commitment outlined in the political agreement of May 30, 2005. We want to be engaged and do it right. We want this apology to be of great significance not just to survivors of the residential school experience but to the entire country. Indeed, we want to speak to the world on this matter. This is an opportunity for Canada to present itself as a country that truly believes in the first peoples of the land and that all of the injustices and harms that have been inflicted on our people are accepted for what they are and that the country, through its government, is prepared to apologize to our people.
We also need the Government of Canada to address the fundamental unfairness that First Nations face every day. That unfairness results from policies such as the cap of 2 per cent on funding growth for core programs and services like housing and infrastructure, social and economic development and educational growth. This is happening while growth in services for other Canadians, through health and social transfers, run at three times that rate. This is not a theoretical math problem. It means that while inflation matches that 2 per cent cap, and our population grows at the fastest rate in the country, 3.5 times the national average, our communities fall further and further behind. In the 12 years since this cap was introduced, First Nation governments have lost over 25 per cent in real purchasing power.
Notwithstanding the government's announcement yesterday, over 100 First Nation communities will continue to live without clean water. We cannot say at this time that the new strategy will resolve that situation because it appears that the investment represents monies that were unspent and re-profiled in the recent budget. We understand, based on our analysis, that infrastructure funding in fact will go down and be reduced by $250 million over the next two years.
The cap means that 27,000 of our children end up in state care, stripped of their families and the love that every child has a right to expect. This is three times the number of children that were in residential schools during the height of the residential school experience.
It means that development is stymied and despair continues while people struggle to lift themselves from the grinding poverty that robs them of hope.
While this government has moved to create loans for market housing, and we applaud them for this decision, nothing has been done for social housing. This means that 90,000 First Nations people are without a home and another 90,000 whose houses are badly in need of major repairs to deal with the mould, asbestos and vermiculite that results from the shoddy way in which they were originally built.
We have too many First Nations children and families living in trailers. These are fire hazards. The three First Nations children and their uncle who perished in a house trailer fire in northern Manitoba on March 11 highlight the urgency of the housing crisis for First Nations communities. I was at the funeral. It was a very sad moment for that community because there was no need for this tragic fire to have occurred. The grandmother of these three boys, aged five, four and three, is the chief of that community, Chief Shirley Castell.
The 2 per cent cap means that in 39 communities across this country, children have no school to go to, and in the rest there are insufficient tools for modern education and insufficient funds to pay teachers. At a time when everyone recognizes that education is the single most important element in building a positive and hopeful future, First Nations children are denied by their government, funded at more than $2,000 less per child than other Canadian students.
You have a copy of my written text. I will go to the end of my written presentation now and talk specifically about Kelowna and the agreement that we reached with the Government of Canada and the 13 other jurisdictions, plus five national organizations.
We recognize that the Kelowna Accord was not the total answer, but it represented a significant first step in implementing a comprehensive plan that was the result of 18 months of long, hard work, a process that engaged approximately 1,000 people, a plan that was a direct result of a challenge that was posed to Mr. Chartier and me and the three other national Aboriginal leaders by the Council of the Federation when we went to them for support. They said to us, ``If you can convince us through a plan of the support you need, and if you have a plan that has real outcomes and targets, we will support you.'' That 18-month process that engaged 1,000 of our people had real targets and real outcomes. It was a plan.
A central feature of the plan had to do with accountability and governance, because we understood that accountability was a major concern with a good number of people. We wanted to be able to demonstrate that we were committed to accountability and transparency and good government. We insisted that the plan include work that was related to putting together an institution that would speak to the issue of accountability. One of those institutions was our own Auditor General. That proposition was supported by the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser. We also recommended creating an ombudsman. I apologize for not being politically correct here. In our view, these two important institutions, if properly structured, would have given comfort to many people who wanted us to demonstrate to them that we were committed to governance and accountability.
We wonder now what will occur, because we were promised in the last election that the government would put wheels on Kelowna. They also made it very clear that they agreed with the targets and the outcomes. They did not necessarily agree with the process, but they also said they would work with provincial and territorial governments to give effect to the plan. We still believe that the plan is, as it was then, a good opportunity for us — a process that would enable this country to turn the corner on this issue that has plagued successive governments. This is about First Nations poverty. We, of course, are very disappointed that we have not been able to give effect to this plan. We do not know what will happen. We hope that you will do the right thing and that you will support Bill C-292.
The Chair: Thank you, National Chief. Before we go to questions from senators, I would like to thank you, National Chief. I saw you at committee on Bill C-30 in the other place. You did live up to your word, and a man's word is his bond. I believe that is important. I hope, as we go forward, that the Crown and everyone involved will maintain the same level of integrity. You made a deal and you stuck by the deal.
This committee was quite instrumental in studying specific claims. I certainly do not take any credit for it as an individual but most of the senators at this table were involved in that process. I would like to commend you on that action that you took, National Chief.
Senator Campbell: Chief Fontaine, we had a witness, Patrick Brazeau, who spoke about the Liberals pulling the plug on the accountability framework at Kelowna. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Fontaine: I made the point that the plan that became the Kelowna Accord and was endorsed by 14 jurisdictions and five national organizations had, as one of the central features, accountability and governance. In fact, we were able to convince the 14 jurisdictions that, of $5.1 billion that is committed, $120 million be set aside to deal with governance and accountability issues.
We had undertaken considerable work in this regard. That work progressed well into 2006. It built on the Auditor General's analysis of the issue of accountability. You will recall that in her report, Ms. Fraser pointed out to us that First Nation governments had an onerous burden imposed on them because our governments are expected to provide, on average, 168 reports per year, plus four quarterly audits, including the final audit.
I am going offside here, but I must. People talk about First Nation governments not being accountable. Ninety- seven per cent of all the First Nation governments in the country are compliant. That means they meet all of the accounting and legal requirements according to audits. Only 3 per cent are non-compliant.
In addition, we have all of the 168 reports. Clearly, we made a real and serious commitment to the issue of accountability. The plug was never pulled by the previous government. There was a commitment and the commitment was $120 million to enable the national organizations to work with the other jurisdictions to put in place appropriate accountability measures.
Senator Campbell: We had before us Rod Bruinooge, Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He was a good and respectful witness and I appreciate that. He said that the $3.7 billion in Budget 2006 was better than what was offered at Kelowna. I would ask you to respond to that.
Mr. Fontaine: It is important to make a distinction. When you consider the $3.7 billion figure, $2.2 billion of that concerns the Residential School Settlement Agreement. When we talk about that settlement agreement, we are not talking about programs and services. We are talking about settlement monies. It represents a legal obligation on the part of the government through this court process.
I will make the points that $2.2 billion was for the Residential School Settlement Agreement and $600 million was for provincial and territorial governments for off-research housing, primarily. In Budget 2006, there are provisions for $150 million in the first year and $300 million ongoing investments in First Nation programs.
In this budget, there was a reference to $600 million for Aboriginal programs; $270 million of that was new money. That is $135 million for two years. The rest was re-profiled money. This was money that had not been spent and was rolled over. We are not talking about new money here.
If you look at the spending plan as reflected in the budgets, in three years we are talking about approximately $633 billion in spending by the government. Approximately $100 billion of that is for new funding priorities and $37 billion was applied to pay down the debt.
This year, the commitment that we have received is $270 million in new money and the balance of the $600 million is in re-profiled funding.
Senator Segal: I want to thank both the witnesses for making time in their schedule to assist the committee in considering the issue before us.
I wish to say, if I may, to National Chief Fontaine, I recall a speech he made at Queen's University as the gala lecturer not that many years ago. He talked about how much time he spent as Grand Chief visiting reservations and attending the funerals of young Aboriginal men on a regular basis. He said that it was too large a part of his day-to-day agenda as Grand Chief at the time.
In that context, the question that I would like both our guests to reflect upon is whether, for all of our focus on Kelowna and whatever partisan divisions may exist around that question, a multi-year, $5 billion project is enough, considering that, in terms of the actual gap in the standard of living, in the life expectancy and in the opportunities for young people, it does not come close to addressing the question?
Is there not some fear that the engagement on the Kelowna Accord is a diversion from the core issue? The core issue is the denial by successive Canadian governments, for many decades, of the rights of First Nations to their own land, their own territory and their resources and cash flow that would emerge therefrom, which is really the purport of what the constitutional right has always reflected?
I worry that, while this is an important debate about a specific instrument that one government put in place and another government did not put in place, it is a diversion from the more fundamental question; namely, the massive gap that exists between First Nations and other Canadians. A diversion from the fact that there is no evidence — based on all the money that is being spent and the goodwill of many — that that gap is narrowing.
I wonder whether we should, at some point, reflect on the more fundamental question rather than getting diverted by whether government A had the right idea or government B is not being sufficiently respectful of what government A had in mind at the time. The core question is that people's lives are being diminished and, in some measure, constrained, limited, diverted and destroyed while we discuss instruments for multi-year spending which, for most people, does not have much impact in their day-to-day life.
Mr. Chartier: I will try to broach that. It is a very broad question and a very important one. It is one that we have grappled with over the years.
I want to state that we are seeking the right of self-determination as a people and we are seeking to have the constitutional rights brought to life for the Metis nation. We are having a difficult time to achieve this as I stated in my opening comments.
We were getting close to $300,000 per year for litigation funding to assist us to carve out those rights in the courts, but that was discontinued last year. We are still seeking to resolve this at the political level.
In 1992, unfortunately, we did not succeed with the Charlottetown round and with the referendum. We lost a Metis nation accord that we negotiated under the leadership at the time of the Right Honourable Joe Clark and the five provinces within which the Metis nation lives. It would have addressed the issue of land rights, not recognizing a constitutional right, but an accommodation for a land base, self government and financing for the Metis nation.
It would have set that broad framework and paved the way to an amendment to the constitution saying that all Aboriginal peoples fall within the purview of section 91.24 under the generic term ``Indian'' giving the federal government the necessary jurisdiction to deal with us.
We have been trying to get back to that stage. That particular 1992 agreement negotiated with the Mulroney government was the ideal thing for us, but it failed. We have not got there yet and I am not sure if we ever will.
We had something to work with, with the Martin government and the Kelowna agreement, in the number of months leading up to it with the May 31, 2005 signing of the Metis Nation Framework Agreement. We saw a mechanism to address the depressing day-to-day issues that our people are facing. That is also critical to us and we need to address both the rights and needs of our people.
The framework agreement would have led us in that direction. It did not go as far as we would have liked, but it would have been a foundation and would have addressed unresolved legal and constitutional issues in a dialogue outside the court system.
The Kelowna agreement was important because we felt that we were the biggest winners of all the Aboriginal peoples. This was not in terms of the numbers of dollars or programs, but the mere fact that we were recognized as a people and a nation. We were entering into a distinctions-based approach: the Metis nation, First Nations and Inuit. We would no longer have this pan-Aboriginal approach that certain leaders try to continue fostering because it keeps them alive.
We were looking at First Nations governments, Metis nation government and Inuit governments. In the end, that is a way to get to where we need to be. It is peoples and nations that have a right to self government, not numbers of individuals or gender, et cetera. We were on the right road in 1992, and again with the Kelowna Accord that would have seen Metis nation-specific institutions which was an important step toward self government.
If you remember former Saskatchewan Premier Grant Devine in the 1980s said he ``did not want to buy a pig in a poke.'' Therefore, we had the tripartite process to show what self government would be. The Martin initiative under Kelowna would have taken us in that direction. It would have shown this is what we can do if we are given the wherewithal to develop our own programs and services and to control and deliver themselves ourselves.
It would have been important for the Metis nation because it opened the opportunity for a multilateral process to engage the five provinces along with the federal government.
Therefore, it was very important for us although not the ideal or ultimate of what we would like to get. That was what we would have received under the Métis nation accord of 1992. However, it was a good start back in that direction.
Mr. Fontaine: Before I respond to your question, Senator Segal, I wanted to express my thanks and appreciation to Senator St. Germain, the chair of this committee, for his kind words for the work the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations did together. I want to say thank you for your good work and the work of this committee.
I pointed out to the committee earlier today, that we both came to the process with considerable risk attached. We had to trust each other; we had to commit to the success of this process; and we had to bring goodwill to the process. All of those important elements were present throughout the entire process.
That is why we ended up with something as significant and as important as it was, not only to our people that are seeking justice for the many outstanding specific claims, but for the country. The success of this will be to Canada's benefit.
In terms of Senator Segal's question, the biggest challenge that this country faces in my view, is First Nations poverty. Simply put, our people are too poor.
If one were to ask me what do you mean, too poor? I would point them, as Auditor General Sheila Fraser did a few years ago, to the housing crisis in First Nations communities. It is a serious crisis and we need to do something about that.
We do not enjoy the same kind of access that ordinary Canadians have to quality health care. For example, there are four communities in the north-eastern part of Manitoba with 10,000 people where every mother that gives birth has to be flown out of the community because there are no facilities for them to have their babies.
We have some of the highest suicide rates anywhere in the world. I went to visit Matawa Tribal Council and one of the chiefs told me that small community of 600 people has had 26 suicides in the last number of years and there were 278 in that part of the province in northern Ontario. We are losing far too many of our young people and it is usually young men between the ages of 14 and 24. However, in Manitoba now we have kids killing themselves. There were two brothers, aged 8 years and 11 years, that committed suicide. That speaks to the despair in our community particularly amongst our youth.
Too many of our community have poor schools. I went to Atawapascat a couple of months ago. There are more than 400 school-aged children there and their school was condemned eight years ago. They have been told not to expect a new school for at least another five years, if not longer. When the government first condemned the school, the price tag to build a new school was $17 million; today it is $30 million. What will be in five years and beyond — $40 million?
When I was in the community, the kids there came to me at the band office pleading with me to get them a new school. When I came south, I called the departmental officials and told them of my visit and what I had witnessed. They told me that as bad as that community was, there are many more in the Ontario region worse off than this community.
We are talking about children here. These children represent our future. Of course, the expectations placed on those kids are the same that we place on any kids that go to school in Ottawa, Toronto or any city in the country. They are expected to do as well as kids in the urban communities. There is not a chance and, if they fail, we will hold them responsible and their communities responsible. It is so completely unfair.
I talked about safe drinking water and the fact there are over 100 First Nations communities that operate under boil-water advisories. What is the response to that? The first response is to blame chief and council. We did not pollute and contaminate our water sources. Someone else did that but we are expected to fix that. We are expected to ensure that we have trained plant operators, that we have a regulatory regime in place, that we have capacity within our communities to make sure that we have safe drinking water.
We are talking about the health and safety of kids, moms and dads and grandparents, community people. We cannot give that kind of assurance to our people because the housing is so bad, the provision of health care services is so erratic, the schools are in terrible shape, we do not have safe drinking water and so many of our people are unemployed. Those are the manifestations of poverty.
In spite of that, we have tremendous success stories. I am always caught in a real dilemma. What do I speak about when I am asked to comment? Do I speak about these huge challenges that undermine Canada as a country that believes in the human rights of all people, or do I talk about success stories? There are a good number of those. There are 20,000 small businesses owned and managed by our people, close to 30,000 of our people in universities, we have doctors, lawyers, you name the profession and discipline and we have people there doing good work and making a real contribution to Canada's prosperity. However, we can do more.
I realize that it is not simply about more money but that is one of the answers. Look at the military here. We could have argued with them that it is not simply more money, but that is the argument they put and we bought that. Now there has been a sea change in terms of Canadian perspective in terms of the military and it is a far healthier one, at least with many people.
We need to try and create the same kind of transformative change when it comes to First Nations and Aboriginal people so all Canadians can be proud of us, so all Canadians can know that we are being treated fairly and that all Canadians will know that we are being treated with respect. Here I come to you this evening; I am the National Chief for the Assembly of First Nations, representing First Nations people, distinct peoples with rights that are unique to us. We are the only peoples in this land that have treaties with the federal Crown, yet I have to convince the federal government year after year of the legitimacy of the community I represent, the legitimacy and validity of this organization to represent all First Nations people. If I speak out of turn, I will get punished.
What I have face now, this organization that is as legitimate and as valid as you here, senators, representing the Senate, or the opposition parties or the government, members of Parliament and our public institutions here, just as legitimate. I have been told, maybe because I have not been good enough, that our funding will be reduced over the next five years by $5 million, but the expectations that will be placed on us will be just as onerous as they are now. Why should we have to operate in this kind of environment?
Look at languages and culture — important to all peoples. If you lose your language you lose so much of what you are. We had a commitment from the previous government for $172 million to preserve and enhance indigenous languages over 10 years. That was deleted with the stroke of a pen because the money was needed elsewhere. The elsewhere was the $37 billion that has now been applied against the debt in the last three budgets.
I do not think that is fair. That is simply unfair. I do not want to fight with governments, Senator Segal, and other senators here. That is not my job. I am national chief, not to fight with governments, I am national chief to work with government, regardless of political stripe to make a better life for the people I represent, to make Canada a better place, to remind Canadians and Canada that it has to respect the human rights of all of its citizens, that it cannot pick and choose the human rights that it will support.
Why are our human rights of less value? Why are government people saying to Canadians that the chiefs and councils, the Assembly of First Nations, do not believe in human rights because now we are trying to delay the repeal of section 67? That is not true. All we asked for is that we be given the same kind of consideration as all governments were given here when the Charter was brought into force — three years. We were offered six months. Yet we have less capacity than any government in the land to deliver on the requirements and the provisions of the Charter. Look at us here. Who is being painted as the enemy here? It is the chiefs and councils.
We have 109 women chiefs and approximately 800 women councillors. Do you think those women chiefs and councillors are opposed to the repeal of section 67? Of course not, but they also want their governments to be treated fairly so that these provisions will be available to all of our First Nation citizens in the best possible way.
That is the challenge we have together. We do not want more than ordinary Canadians have, but we certainly want to receive what ordinary Canadians expect and in fact receive from their governments.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I do not know if I can speak after that but I will try.
In your view is the government meeting its legal obligations to First Nations people?
Mr. Fontaine: They will, if you are talking about specific land claims under Bill C-30. There is a very clear commitment there. I have already said that Bill C-30 is a vast improvement from the existing system. On other counts, that is more doubtful.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Would it be possible for us to take the government to court?
Mr. Fontaine: You mean the Senate here? Of course you could.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I have been thinking about it because nothing is happening and there are always broken promises. As long as I can remember there have been broken promises to our people and, as a senator I try hard. I just think something should be done.
Senator Hubley: I will ask you to comment on one item in your presentation on page 8, under the second bullet, where it says that the cap means that 27,000 of our children end up in state care, stripped of their families and the love that every child has a right to expect.
Mr. Fontaine: There are two legal entities that are responsible for our children once they are removed from their families and communities. We have the existing provincially run and controlled child welfare agencies, and then those First Nations child welfare agencies that are mandated provincially. My good friend, Clément Chartier can tell you that the Manitoba Metis Council have a Metis child welfare agency and the story is that there are 27,000 First Nation children who are either in the care of provincial bodies or in First Nations controlled and provincially mandated child welfare agencies.
Nine thousand of the twenty-seven thousand are in the care of First Nations child welfare agencies, and that is three times the number of children that were in the residential schools at the height of the residential school experience. That is a direct result of poverty. It is because moms and dads cannot look after their children. They are just too darned poor.
By the way, the other part of this is that these are children that need specialized care, and specialized care is not available in many homes and communities, so the obligation then falls on the child welfare agencies to ensure that care is provided.
Senator Cowan: Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for your presentations. I wanted to follow up on the question that Senator Segal asked you. He was suggesting that perhaps concentration on this particular mechanism or vehicle — I forget exactly what term he used — was a distraction that would take away from the graver underlying problems. There is general agreement around the table as to the depth of those problems.
As I understand the case that you presented and the positions you have taken, while you do not dismiss the $5.1 billion as being insignificant, perhaps a greater part of the significance of the Kelowna Accord to you is the process that led to its signing. I am looking at pages 12 and 13 of your presentation where you talk about this being a respectful process, one that recognized First Nations' rights and interests and their proper role as an equal partner within confederation. The Kelowna Accord also supported fundamental changes to the accountability framework for First Nations programs and services, and it set targets to close the gap.
I would like you to expand on that aspect about not dismissing the importance of the money component. Am I not correct that, from your point of view, the greater importance is the process that led to the development of the accord and a new relationship between the First Nations and the peoples of Canada and the governments of Canada?
Mr. Fontaine: Both Mr. Chartier and I can respond to that. I will take the first kick at this one.
You are absolutely right. The process was of great significance because we were at the table as the equals of all the other representatives of the various jurisdictions. All the ideas that then were incorporated into this plan came from all the approximately 1,000 people engaged in this process over 18 months.
The great significance here is that we were able to bring forward a plan. You cannot just dismiss the plan by suggesting that it is a distraction, because the $5.1 billion is to fund the plan. We were talking about a 10-year plan to close the gap in the quality of life in terms of education, health and housing and to ensure we were able to revitalize our economies. I applaud all of the jurisdictions that were there supporting the process and at the end saying ``yes'' to our plan. That is the first time in Canadian history that I am aware of where we worked together to produce something that is good for the entire country.
Senator Cowan: The $5.1 billion was to fund the plan, not to solve the problem.
Mr. Fontaine: No.
Mr. Chartier: I will not reiterate what I stated to Senator Segal's intervention, but I would say that the Metis experience more exclusion than anything else in terms of the federal government. I am pleased and happy for the progress that the Assembly of First Nations has made under National Chief Fontaine on this specific claims bill. Again, the Metis are excluded from that and the comprehensive claim for various reasons. The apology on the residential schools is coming. I am pleased that there was a settlement reached, but the Metis are excluded from that again, because the federal government says, ``We did not have responsibility for you. We did not fund the church that ran the schools for the Métis. Even though you suffered the same consequences, forget it. We will not deal with you.''
We face a number of other issues. We receive about $60 million in total for federal government programs and services, which is not very much considering the needs of our community. I will not go through that. I am not saying that we want to encroach on what little the First Nations community is getting. More needs to be done there as well.
There are fundamental problems, but again, the Kelowna Accord raised a lot of hope and expectation in our communities. It was a severe letdown to people at the community level, because as Metis people, you have to know that we have suffered so long from exclusion and marginalization that having this recognition at the highest political level possible in this country was something that gripped our communities. Again, it was a severe letdown.
I want to say to Senator Segal and yourself, Senator Cowan, that if this government is prepared to call a constitutional conference to deal with our rights as a people, I am sure the national chief and I will gladly participate in that because we need to deal with constitutional rights as well. Again, the current economic and social conditions that are plaguing our communities are also a priority to us. I would like to see both go forward in tandem, not one to the exclusion of the other.
In terms of Kelowna, although it is not in the accord, in the press conference, it is recorded I think in the closing comments that the then Prime Minister Paul Martin did state to the meeting that the federal government was prepared to move forward on the issue of 91.24 and the jurisdictional issue with the Metis and that the federal government under his leadership was prepared to assume that responsibility. For us, that was a very important part of that whole process. We looked forward to that and getting inclusion as opposed to exclusion and moving forward to where we could possibly gain our rightful place within Canadian society.
Senator Peterson: Previous presentations have left the impression with us that there is some question about the Kelowna Accord, that it is somewhat of a myth, that it is not really an agreement but was put together in short order in the dying last days of a government. How do you gentlemen react to that?
Mr. Fontaine: I do not know how one could argue that it is a myth. It was a first minister's meeting that included five national organizations. We all spoke to the nation. At the end of the meeting, we again spoke to the nation. We agreed to proceed on the basis of our 10-year plan. If television lies, then it is a myth. Whoever argues that is being entirely disrespectful and completely misrepresents this process.
As I said to you twice, and I will say it a third time, this process took 18 months. It engaged 1,000 people. We worked with every jurisdiction in the country. We brought our best ideas forward to our best people and we ended up with a plan that we then presented to the country through the first ministers. We had a plan that had real targets and outcomes.
I recall former-Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Honourable Jim Prentice, saying that his government accepted the targets and the outcomes. They were not entirely supportive of the process because some people felt excluded, but they would begin immediately taking the steps to go to the provincial and territorial governments to see how they could give effect to the accord.
That does not suggest a myth; it actually confirms everything that we know is in the accord: The commitments and the outcomes and targets.
Mr. Chartier: To reaffirm the national chief's comments, I am not sure how that kind of comment can be made.
In March, 2004, I recall the national chief, myself and the President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Jose A, Kusugak, had a breakfast meeting with then-Prime Minister, Paul Martin. We discussed where we should go.
It was a very frank meeting. We agreed to engage in a process. We went through a series of roundtables which ended up with the May, 2005 meeting where we signed framework agreements, respectively. This process did include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women's Association of Canada, both of whom are legitimate lobbyist organizations with respect to their respective nations and governments.
From there, we continued the process and ended up in Kelowna. There were many meetings at the officials and multilateral levels and it culminated with the First Minister's Meeting. There was a lot of drafting and meeting back and forth and, at the end of the day, we came up with what all the parties were able to live with.
I would have liked more but we agreed to what we agreed to. Again, to us, it was a good thing. It was not a last- minute decision. There was a long, hard process and a lot of work went into it.
It was the best we could do at the time. It was good, in my opinion.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question.
I have sat on this committee for several years. I certainly do not consider myself to be an expert but, somehow, we must move forward. I listened attentively to the presentation of the Right Honourable Paul Martin when he appeared before us. His focus seemed to be on education. He tied it in with economic development. However, what he spoke passionately about was the educational gap that exists with our First Nations people.
I suppose the present government is taking the position that 200 communities without good water has to be dealt with immediately and that the injustices that existed out there — the horrific injustices imposed on our First Nations people by way of specific claims — had to be dealt with.
I do not know how one would prioritize this, but my interest is this: How do we move forward?
Regardless of what happens here tonight or whatever legislation passes, it is the goodwill in the hearts of people that makes things happen. It is the compassion and the commitment to make things happen.
The biggest problem that I had — and I am not sure these figures are correct — was that only 44 per cent of the dollars that go into INAC for First Nations people gets down to the people. Fifty-six per cent is lost somewhere.
We just came back from the U.S. where we heard Grand Chief Joe Garcia who represents 300,000 people. He sees economic development and education as the road to self-sufficiency.
Would you mind commenting on this? We as a committee are committed. I can assure you that each and every one of us who sits on this committee is committed to improve the lives of all Aboriginal peoples. I would like your comment on the fact that there was such emphasis put on education.
Mr. Fontaine: The emphasis on education and economic development, I think, is an important starting point. That is not to suggest that we turn our minds away from treaty and Aboriginal rights and very important obligations that arise from our treaties. Those are very important.
Unfortunately for us, we often must turn to the courts for remedy. Since I have been national chief, we have been to the Supreme Court of Canada 11 times. We know that the government spends millions of dollars fighting First Nations cases. It is a tremendous cost to us. That is one thing.
In 1952 — and that is not long ago — we had 10 First Nations students in university in all of Canada. Today, there are close to 30,000. I may have made the point that we have our people in every profession and discipline: We have professors, judges, lawyers, dentists, et cetera. These are tremendous success stories. These people succeed in spite of the many impediments that are before our people.
However, we can absolutely do more. In fact, Kelowna was about closing the gap in terms of education. The plan would have enabled us to close the gap in 10 years so that our kids would be graduating at the same rate as mainstream kids.
Right now we cannot because our kids, on a per capita basis, receive on average $2,000 less than mainstream school children. It is a difficult proposition. We will support 100 per cent any effort to close the gap in education and to revitalize our economies.
I will make one final point on this, Mr. Chair. You will recall during the crisis around the flooding of Kasetchewan and the flurry of activity and commitment where $500 million was made to rebuild the communities away from the flood plain. There was then a change in government. A study was commissioned. The study came back and said, ``Here is how you should proceed with this.''
The commitment then was $250 million, half of the original commitment. I do not know how far they progressed but my point here is that there was a lot of public commentary, both from Parliament as well as political pundits, asking the question: Why are people living in those remote places where there is no hope for a future, no economic activity; there is nothing for those people?
What are they doing there? They should be moving to the cities and to the towns. Well, we now have peak oil and the focus is now moving away from oil. We are all anxious about oil and will be for a long time but that is not my point. My point is on minerals. The very same area we were describing just two years ago as remote and asking ourselves why are those people living there, has turned out to be some of the most expensive and most valuable real estate anywhere in the country, if not the world. There is such tremendous economic activity there, for example, exploration, mining, you name it.
There is one area called the Ring of Fire that has been described as having at least twice the economic value of Voisey's Bay. There is no longer a question about why are those people there. The challenge is now how to engage those communities to realize the incredible wealth that is in the ground and in so doing ensure that we protect the environment. It is quite an incredible place. It seems a bit crazy and I hope people have changed their minds because this is an enormous opportunity.
That was a long answer for a short question.
Mr. Chartier: These are two areas that the Metis nation finally getting some traction on with the federal government. In terms of education, under the health field, we are currently receiving scholarships and bursary financing which, again, for the first time has ever happened, through the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch. To us, that was and is a big breakthrough. It is something we commend the government on and we want to build on it because it enables our young people and some of our older people to be trained or educated in some 29 various health fields. That is key and we want to see that continued.
Importantly for the Metis over the past 10 years or so, we have been engaged in the Aboriginal Human Resource Development Program for training and education, but primarily in the training aspect we have many Metis who have been trained and are gainfully employed. That program is coming up for renewal in 2009 and it is something the national chief and I will be talking about tomorrow. That is, how can we ensure that this program is continued. It is a positive program that has been good for us and I believe it is a good thing for the government to be able to embrace to move forward on.
Last, in terms of economic development, that is important for us. We need it for employment for our people to build a solid, economic base, hopefully, with this year's budget. We just met with Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Chuck Strahl last week. He is willing to engage with the Metis nation in seeing how we can move forward with economic development. It has been an area we have not really had any progress on over the last 10 years. Here is an opportunity and we are embracing that. Hopefully, something will come out of it this year.
Again, we do need to work on all aspects of the challenges that face our life. Education and economic development certainly are areas that we want to embrace on the program and service side, but we do want to embrace the right side as well. Anything we can do to move that forward would also be welcome to the Metis nation.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I thank you as witnesses.
The one thing that I have discovered in my travels, and I think other senators such as Senator Hubley and Senator Peterson, who have travelled considerably, and Senators Lovelace Nicholas, Campbell and Segal, we have found that leadership is key in the success of First Nations right across North America. I feel confident that we have good leadership.
I know it is challenging. Grand Chief Fontaine, I do not know how you do it, covering the whole country, because I travel from British Columbia, but keep up the good work, both of you. We appreciate you appearing before us and we look forward to working with you in the future and improving the plight of Aboriginal people in this country. Thank you.
Honourable senators, our second panel consists of Claudette Dumont-Smith, Acting Executive Director of the Native Women's Association of Canada, and Peter Dinsdale from the National Association of Friendship Centres.
I thank you both for accepting the committee's invitation to offer your testimony regarding the Kelowna Accord. We look forward to your presentations, which will be followed by questions from the senators. Please proceed.
Claudette Dumont-Smith, Acting Executive Director, Native Women's Association of Canada: I am Algonquin from the Kitigan Zibi community located about 90 miles directly north of here.
I would begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak to this committee on this important topic. Our President, Beverly Jacob, sends her regrets. She is attending important meetings and is out of the country.
The Native Women's Association of Canada is a nationally representative political organization comprised of 13 provincial territorial member associations. They are right across the country in each province and territory. Our collective goal is to enhance, promote and foster the social, economic, cultural and political well-being of Aboriginal women within First Nations, Metis and Canadian societies.
NWAC aims to ensure that the unique needs of Aboriginal women are addressed throughout all processes at the national level. Empowering Aboriginal women by facilitating their participation in legislative and policy reforms promotes equal opportunity and ensures that the use of culturally relevant, gender-based approaches result in a more balanced, holistic approach to the issues under consideration.
We are all familiar with the historic process that led to the Kelowna Accord. NWAC especially notes that our presence at the preparatory meetings in 2004, with the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Round Table, marked a new understanding by the other participants of the need to include Aboriginal women in the joint development of balanced, holistic solutions. While our participation at the meeting in Kelowna in 2005 was not all that we had hoped or expected, it was nevertheless the first time we were invited to a first ministers' meeting. We believed we were again making progress, however slow and incremental it was, towards our goal of achieving recognition and inclusion and equality of Aboriginal women into these national processes.
NWAC supported at the time and continues to support a number of elements expressed through the Kelowna Accord. First, the relationships that were developed between the national Aboriginal Organizations that participated in that process continue to inform our work to this day. The development of a shared vision, common goals and an agreed-upon strategy to reach them was a valuable outcome of the Kelowna process.
Second, NWAC supported then and continues to support now the plan that was expressed in the Kelowna Accord. NWAC provided many recommendations, and these were not all gender specific. We urged the government to respect our human and constitutional rights, including Aboriginal and treaty rights, and to address the significant gaps in health and well-being that affected Aboriginal people then and continue to harm them today.
A third valuable outcome that would have derived from the Kelowna Accord was an improvement in the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the federal government. NWAC regrets that this opportunity to move forward with better unity and harmony between the national Aboriginal organizations and the federal government was lost.
NWAC is aware that the opportunity to implement the Kelowna Accord as originally envisioned has not materialized. There is still an opportunity, however, to implement the principles and beneficial actions that were contained in the accord.
NWAC urges the federal government to honour Crown commitments and to take responsibility for the horrific conditions that so many Aboriginal people experience every day. The Kelowna Accord demonstrated our ability to collectively agree upon an agenda and create a comprehensive and extensive plan to address the socio-economic issues facing Aboriginal peoples. A piecemeal approach to addressing only some issues but not others will not bring about long-term, effective change. Unfortunately, this uncoordinated approach that we now experience seems to form the current plan of the federal government. We believe it will not be effective at addressing the ingrained socio-economic issues facing Aboriginal peoples today.
Bill C-292 represents an opportunity for the federal government to take action and stop the cycle of poverty and abuse experienced by Aboriginal peoples, including that of the most marginalized people in Canada, Aboriginal women. It would assist in repairing the relationship between the federal government and the national Aboriginal organizations and the people we represent. It represents a more comprehensive picture of the concept of ``need'' that includes health, social, cultural, economic and spiritual well-being.
NWAC continues to be concerned about the measurements that are being used to evaluate progress towards closing the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. Commonly used statistical indicators that measure quality of life such as education levels and income are important, but they do not measure other issues that negatively impact Aboriginal women's lives such as the impact that violence against Aboriginal women has on their health and well- being.
We have consistently urged that all policy and program changes must respect the distinct cultures, traditions and languages of Aboriginal peoples. These traditions include equal respect for women. It is not enough to consider or analyze the implications of policy decisions on Aboriginal women. We must include the voices of Aboriginal women and their representatives in these processes as we move forward and target this segment of the Aboriginal population for positive change. It is our firm belief that when Aboriginal women are safe and healthy, their children, families, communities and nations will also be healthy.
Canada's Aboriginal population is a young one, with one third being under the age of 25. Without a comprehensive and targeted plan to close the gap between Aboriginal peoples and the rest of Canada, our youth will have no future.
Two and a half years have passed since the Kelowna Accord was endorsed by 19 parties, leaving us with another seven and a half years to meet the targets set at that meeting and close the gap once and for all.
NWAC as an organization was formed in part to address the discrimination that Aboriginal women have faced in this country and the discrimination embedded in federal laws and policies affecting Aboriginal women. We believe that taking measures to advance the equality of Aboriginal women will be beneficial to Aboriginal communities as a whole and to Canadian society as well. We have not completed this task, but we believe that the measures contained in the former Kelowna Accord, and now in Bill C-292, are an important step towards this goal.
[The witness spoke in her native language.]
The Chair: Thank you.
Peter Dinsdale, Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres: I thank honourable senators for the invitation to appear before this committee. Our president, Vera Pawis Tabobondung, was unfortunately unable to attend today, so she sent me in her place and extends her best wishes and apologies for not being able to be here herself.
At the outset, let me say that despite our concerns about Kelowna and the measures it contained which I am about to share with you, we fully support Bill C-292 and encourage the Senate to adopt it.
What has become known as the ``Kelowna Accord'' can be seen as the most significant policy process since the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The events leading up to Kelowna are a matter of public record, so I will get right to the point.
Friendship centres demonstrated outside the first ministers' meeting, and an unresolved issue sparked our demonstration. We believe that there was no space in the Kelowna Accord or its documents for a broader urban Aboriginal conversation on how to address the educational needs of people living in urban areas. What housing services are required? What level of jurisdiction is responsible for these people? What is the role of representative bodies in serving them? What is the role of service providers broadly?
We wanted to highlight the important conversation that was being missed. It was cold and drizzly that day, but we felt our voice needed to be heard even if that voice was in protest. In keeping us distant and silent, a historic opportunity was lost to strengthen Kelowna. While measures contemplated in Kelowna were generally positive and we stand firmly in our belief that they were, they did not go far enough. The urbanization of Aboriginal peoples is a well established demographic fact as a result of a period of relatively rapid urbanization over the last generation. Today, approximately 54 per cent of all Aboriginal people live in urban centres. There was a failure to adequately deal with the majority of First Nations, Metis and Inuit people who live in urban areas. There was no clear commitment to provide the programming and resources necessary to meaningfully impact the issues that urban Aboriginal peoples face every day.
Friendship Centres, unlike the five national Aboriginal organizations consulted and present during the first ministers meeting, are not a representative body. We are a service delivery body. We do not claim to represent any single segment of Aboriginal people. We serve all of them: First Nations, both status and non-status, Metis from all areas of Canada and Inuit people. Friendship Centres are in 116 communities across this country, and they possess an impressive capacity to reach the often forgotten urban Aboriginal populations. We noticed that witnesses before you made compelling and passionate arguments for identity-specific policy and programs and investments embodied in Kelowna as a better way forward, sometimes as the only way forward. It has been argued that there should be a separate stream for First Nations, Metis and for Inuit peoples. Quite often in the development of nations and their history, this is entirely appropriate.
However, in an urban community where there is much less heterogeneity, it is unlikely that this argument is practical. It has been our experience in over fifty years that the urban Aboriginal community, with First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples, have a shared belief in the community's well-being when living in urban areas. Our strength and success, which is grounded in our ``status blind'' approach has helped many people over these years. We provide services to all of Canada's constitutionally recognized groups, yet it is unclear how we would fit into an approach or other urban service providers would fit into an approach embodied in Kelowna that does not maintain any status blind approaches whatsoever.
We are concerned that when a program area becomes too narrowly defined people and women will fall through the crack, women and their children will fall through the cracks, and how can any of that benefit anybody?
It has been suggested that status blind approaches means ignoring our unique histories and perpetuating existing failures. This is often a deliberate distortion. We do not believe that the Aboriginal communities are homogenous. A status blind approach does not mean identity blind service delivery. Inclusion among the vast richness of the Aboriginal family, First Nation, Metis, Inuit and the non-status is respected and honoured. Inclusion is a core belief celebrated in every Friendship Centre from coast to coast to coast.
We have come together the take the best of our beliefs, visions and compassion to craft the health and well-being policies that meet the needs of our diverse and complex communities.
We all take pride in its commitment to a shared vision of a healthy community for all. Our doors remain open to the hundreds and thousands of Aboriginal peoples — First Nations, Métis and Inuit — who come through our doors in search of warmth, kindness and community. Aboriginal peoples have sought support and a sense of community in our 116 Friendship Centres for over 50 years. The story of Friendship Centres from Canada's largest cities to its smallest urban centres continues to be one of resilience, hope, dedication and hard work. Given that the Aboriginal population is the fastest growing segment of the Canadian urban population the importance of our network will continue to grow.
It is our hope that the honourable members here will support Kelowna, despite our concerns. It was a historic opportunity and one not to be lost. We have lost too much time since Kelowna closed down. ``Putting wheels on Kelowna'' looks like it was meant to be ``not move this thing forward at all,'' and it is tragic. It is time to end the cycle of broken promise; it is time to end the urban Aboriginal exclusion and it is time to commit to Kelowna plus more.
The Chair: Thank you both for your presentation, and now we have questions starting with Senator Hubley followed by Senator Segal.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much, both of you for your presentation this evening.
My question will be for Ms. Dumont-Smith. From a woman's perspective, did you feel there were some principles and beneficial actions within the accord that were more important to the Aboriginal women?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: I have worked specifically on the health blueprint. Within that health blue print, we stressed that throughout everything that was being presented that there would have to be culturally relevant gender-based analysis process in all the implementation strategies of the accord, so that was a big plus for us. That is what we want, and that is what we are working and trying to achieve to this day because we feel if that is in place, then our concerns will be addressed.
Senator Segal: First of all, I want to express my thanks to both witnesses for their very thoughtful and straightforward presentation, very helpful in many respects. I particularly want to underline my appreciation for the distinction they make between their general support for the Accord, on the one hand, and their specific concerns about inadequacies that may still exist, on the other. I would like your perspective on those inadequacies.
Different governments do things in different ways,, and it is not a surprise, it strikes me, that a government that was not elected on the basis of the Kelowna Accord might take a different approach than the one that was involved in the negotiation for better or for worse. One of the problems with democracy is that governments change, and people have different perspectives.
I worry about the results of what you are saying with respect to our First Nations brothers and sisters who live in the cities. I am deeply troubled, as a parliamentarian, supporting a proposition that will by definition leave out 54 per or more of the population. I am troubled about a proposition that, however well intentioned and well-funded, may only in fact — and I think Chief Brazeau said this before the House of Commons Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development — put money into an existing system which does not in any way address meaningfully what First Nations people living in our cities require.
I am also concerned that aspects of the traditional band council system have not been heretofore as respectful of the legitimate constitutional rights of Aboriginal women as individuals in our society as we would all want to see transpire. The last thing I want to do unwittingly or otherwise, is support a proposition that threw $5 billion into a system that disrespected First Nations women, that left out people living in the cities. This is not to suggest that the $5 billion could not be helpful spent in other ways, but I am troubled by leaving out such a large part of the First Nations population. I want you to help, if you could, with why you would say with all that, which you are all good enough to underline in your presentation, you still think passing the Kelowna Accord would be the right thing to do.
My worry is it could, in fact make, some of the inequalities worse, create greater injustices that would not have been the intent of all of those who were part of it. The intent of all of those who were part of it was to do something constructive, helpful, respectful and genuinely supportive. What I hear from parts of your presentation is you are supportive of passing it, but you are worried that there are these big pieces that still need to be somehow addressed.
Ms. Dumont-Smith: NWAC's position from the outset is whether it be Metis, Inuit or First Nation, whatever stream, that Aboriginal women be at those tables as equal partners. That way, our concerns will be addressed from the women's perspective. Yes, we are in favour of the Kelowna Accord because of what it says it is supposed to do, but we want to be full and equal participants at all these tables, and that is why we are so staunch about putting forward that culturally relevant gender-based process because it is based on principles of equality.
Senator Segal: On that point, would it be helpful to you if this committee, in dealing with the Accord, also offered observations that reflected the concerns that you have addressed? That is, in our observations, we go on the record as saying that we want parity and equality for female Aboriginals in all the discussions that go forward pursuant to the Accord, should it be passed.
Ms. Dumont-Smith: It would be very helpful. NWAC has been fighting for that for years. That has been our position and it was our position with the Kelowna Accord. It was before that and with it and still is.
Mr. Dinsdale: When we draft these comments, there is always a balance between being respectful of what we believe should occur and being honest in our concerns. The last thing we want to be seen is being a divisive body playing into the some of the challenges that are being brought forward here sometimes.
If you ask the Assembly of First Nations or the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami whether or not they serve their citizens when they live in urban areas, they will tell you that they do. We would not agree with the assumption that the accord does not fully represent the needs because I am sure they were well represented.
Part of our challenge is translating the rights based notion of the ``right to an education,'' and the right to an education framework and the right to a First Nation curriculum to the needs we are seeing in communities of single Aboriginal women in downtown Winnipeg who are trying to graduate from high school. That was a big part of our discussion, namely, how we will see what has been presented to us in these packages and the implementation package and how this will impact our clients every day.
I think a distinction between the focus on money versus the focus on outcomes needs to be made. We want to focus on outcomes. $5.1 billion is one number. Maybe it would have ultimately cost more. That is unclear. It is more important to focus on the outcomes of people graduating in urban areas and how many people are living in poverty, and so on, in terms of reductions.
When we first demonstrated May 31 outside the policy retreat, because we had limited engagement in this process, we had a brief meeting with Prime Minister Paul Martin around our concerns and why were we demonstrating outside when these historic policy accords were being signed. We talked about our frustration of being part of the round table process and where it was leading to. The Prime Minister then tried to find some accommodation for us in the process leading up to Kelowna but he was not able to persuade his officials.
In the days leading up to Kelowna, we had last minute meetings with Andy Scott, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and our minister, and others, to try to find an accommodation of urban concerns. At that time, there was recognition of a deficiency in the agreement as it stood and was coming forward. The proposal was to have some urban process emerge after the next election.
When we demonstrated outside Kelowna, Jim Prentice joined us on the lines and expressed his support for our concerns, for the needs of the urban process and what we were standing for. To put wheels on Kelowna would mean looking at urban areas of that development.
The new government did not pick it up and that is a big part of the challenge. They also did not pick up an alternative process to address the same outcomes from our perspective. We want to be anything but a divisive body. We wanted to highlight what we thought were concerns in the agreement. The people that were there would they tell you they represent their citizens. We think there also needs to be accommodation for the people we serve every day and we did not see that in the text.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you for being here.
My first question is to Ms. Dumont-Smith. Your funding was cut last year or the year before that is that correct?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: Native Women's Association of Canada is not on parity with the other national Aboriginal Organizations. We get funding from different government sources. We do not get any operational funding per se in comparison to the other organizations. We deal a lot on project funding from Health Canada, for example. Status of Women Canada has given us money to address the Sisters in Spirit initiative of the 500 murdered and missing women. Finances or funding is always a struggle with our organization. We are funded much less than other Aboriginal organizations.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes; I know that, but I had to ask.
If the Kelowna Accord were to be passed, would not that solve some of the issues women are having in First Nations communities — not all, but some of the problems?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: We have said since the early 1990s that if women are at the tables where decisions are made, policies are made and programs are developed, especially those geared to Aboriginal peoples, I do not think we would be in the dilemma that we are in now.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Why are you not invited to these round tables?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: We were involved in the Kelowna process but, as you know, it took a distinction-based approach. That is how it happened.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Who are the people that say, ``We do not want the native women here?'' Is that simpler? Who are they? Is it the AFN? Does the Atlantic Policy Congress not want you sitting at the same table as they do?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: No, I do not think it is that blatant. We are invited to these tables but we do not have the same recognition, I suppose. We heard that with the national chief a while ago. They specifically work for their constituents.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Are not you part of a constituency that he represents?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: No. We represent all Aboriginal women in Canada.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes, I know, but the question I am trying to ask is this: He represents Manitoba or New Brunswick. Do you live in any of those communities that he is a national chief?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: I am a First Nations from Kitigan Zibi; yes, I am.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I have a question for Mr. Dinsdale. You mentioned that there was no space provided for dialogue for urban Aboriginals. To my understanding, housing funds were specifically set for people living in urban areas.
Mr. Dinsdale: I am sure that was in a budget after Kelowna and not within the context of the agreement itself. There were notions that they would try to find accommodations in the housing agreement, if that is your broader question.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes. I know that for a fact that, in Fredericton, a lot of people that live in the city applied for housing and they got housing for next to nothing.
Mr. Dinsdale: They are fortunate. I think the experience across the rest of the country is nowhere near that; hence, the $200 million commitment it offers for housing. I am not a housing providing here to be an apologist for the housing policies that the federal government has maintained. However, if you look across the country you will see incredible housing disparities in urban areas. The challenges that Kelowna presented for us was not an opportunity to have a meaningful dialogue. What is the appropriate role of all the people involved in developing housing policy? What is the role of the communities being impacted day-to-day? People talk about the right to housing, but who will serve the homeless? These are the questions that we were trying to engage in a broader debate about Kelowna.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I am asking these questions because I do not think most of my colleagues know this. I was born and raised in a First Nation and you cannot comprehend what goes on unless you are there.
Senator Campbell: Mr. Dinsdale, I was the mayor of Vancouver, so I have some intimate knowledge of the urban Aboriginal community. I am confused at the thought that you do not think the five national organizations represent urban Aboriginals. I may be missing something here. If I am, I am sorry.
However, I had the sense that they were in and you were out. You thought you were representing the urban Aboriginal community. Is that correct?
Mr. Dinsdale: No, sir. Our read of the Accord was that it would not address the issues that our front-line people serve every day, which we discussed during the round table process where we attempted to work with the Prime Minister to get these issues addressed in the context of the development of the agreements coming through. All those opportunities were rejected.
Our read of the text of what was happening in Kelowna and the process gave us concern about the impact at the end of the day on urban Aboriginal peoples; not that they did not represent their constituents where they live, but the impact of the agreement that would result.
Senator Campbell: The Kelowna Accord included housing, education, virtually everything that I, as a mayor, would be looking at to go to the federal government with; for instance, with the urban Aboriginal Friendship Centre in Vancouver, with the chiefs, with the Aboriginal women's organizations, the Aboriginal Mother Centre in Vancouver. There were things in there that, if brought to fruition, would have made a significant change in the landscape of the urban Aboriginal population.
Mr. Dinsdale: I am not sure I agree with your assessment. I think our support of passing Kelowna was because there were things in there that would have significant impact on First Nations communities, on Metis and Inuit communities, and some recognition that the plight of urban women was changing.
In the text of both the announcement and the agreements being developed, we fought to talk about the service delivery provision in urban areas, specifically what you are talking about. We could not get agreement on having that text included. I think it is a hypothesis, what they say will happen in the implementation.
For us, given the strength of relationships which had previously existed with urban Aboriginal people, we were not assured of that. Our concern was such that we wanted to highlight what we felt was a significant exclusion, despite our best intentions, because of what you are suggesting would occur. There was no certainty that it would occur.
Senator Campbell: I have two short questions. Minister Prentice marches with you and then becomes the minister.
Mr. Dinsdale: We said the same thing.
Senator Campbell: Second, have you ever seen a perfect agreement, where everything is in there that you want?
Mr. Dinsdale: Absolutely not.
Senator Campbell: I am sitting there as a mayor, saying I can do something with this. I can go down there and gather these organizations that are within the city. Yet, you think there is no chance of that. I have a real problem with that thought, because it was like all of this money would flow out to rural First Nations and there would be nothing coming into the cities. You know and I know that the majority of First Nations live off-reserve in our communities, and I have a difficult time seeing that $5 billion flooding out into the rural community.
Mr. Dinsdale: When the Liberal government created a $360 million fetal alcohol syndrome program to address the needs of Aboriginal children with that syndrome, not one cent was spent off-reserve. For the development of Aboriginal human resource development strategy funding, the vast majority, 10 per cent of funding is earmarked on- reserve, which is an incredible accomplishment in terms of these federal programs. The vast majority of Health Canada's programs are not available in urban areas in terms of programming dollars.
I do not share your sense of optimism. Mayors in Regina and other communities that have tremendous Aboriginal issues have tried, as you have, to coalesce with the development of the urban Aboriginal strategy for other programs. It had limited success in engaging the federal government, for two reasons. First, there is a limited agreement as to who has jurisdiction for First Nations people when they come to urban areas. One of the failed opportunities for Kelowna was to begin to examine and get to the root of that jurisdictional challenge.
Senator Campbell: I do not deal with the federal government when I am the mayor. I deal with First Nations because they are a level of government, as I am. For instance, if I see there is a big problem with Haida or Gwich'in or whoever, I go to the First Nations and say: We have a problem here. What will we do about it?
Some of that money that is flowing to the reserve has to come on. It is not enough; there is no question about it. You are pushing a rock up a big hill; I know that. However, I have difficulty believing that all the money would flow there. We can agree to disagree. I think you do a tremendous job. I have spent a lot of time in the Vancouver Friendship Centre, and it is a terrific place. Right now I am working on trying to get an urban native youth friendship centre going. Maybe when you are talking to Indian Affairs and Northern Development Minister Strahl, you can put in a word for that.
Senator Peterson: Would you agree with me that the Kelowna agreement was a very comprehensive framework agreement? I think it brought in the elements that you referred to earlier on the jurisdictional problems because it included the provincial ministers there, so that was a start. I think you have to agree it was going to be a living document. It was over a 10-year horizon to work out.
Do you not think that your concerns and your observations would have been recognized during that period? Either one of you can answer.
Mr. Dinsdale: No, we did not, which is why we took the move to demonstrate outside the policy retreat. In the intervening months after we met with the Prime Minister on May 31, we tried to submit policy briefs and documents to inform about how we thought the education, health, lifelong learning and economic development aspects could be addressed in an urban area. We were not even allowed to submit documents for consideration to the planning committee groups. It goes to show the extent of the opposition to participation. Given the environment we were in and given the previous relationships we had, we did not have the same sense of optimism you have here today.
Senator Peterson: Where do you get your funding from now?
Mr. Dinsdale: We receive $16.1 million a year in core funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The Chair: I would like to thank you, Ms. Dumont-Smith and Mr. Dinsdale, for your excellent presentations and your forthright answers.
[The committee resumed.]
It is time to deal with Bill C-292.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will now proceed.
Shall the title stand postponed? Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Segal: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall the preamble carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Segal: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Is it agreed that I shall report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.