Debates of June 19th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Aboriginal Affairs

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

My apologies to the member, but I have to allow enough time for a response.

The hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate the fact that the member opposite has a great understanding of aboriginal issues and has worked very hard to improve the status of aboriginal, Inuit and Métis in our great country. I would like to commend her for the work she has done.

We all know that a tremendous number of issues face us when it comes to aboriginal peoples and we have talked about a few of them. We have talked about environmental and water issues. What could be more important to our communities than having clean drinking water? We have talked about health care and women's issues with respect to matrimonial property rights. These issues are important to all aboriginals.

The member opposite asked about different projects. These projects are continuing and progress has been made. The residential school agreement is one example of that progress. There have been Improvements in drinking water. Commitments have been made to that as has money. The member opposite also--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I do want to allow some other members to participate in the question and comment process.

The hon. member for Trinity--Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know what needs to take place. We know we need to resolve the lands claim dispute through an independent claims commission. We know we need to invest in infrastructure, health, housing and water. We know aboriginal people need to have good healing circles and self-governance. We know what we need because of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the 1983 Penner report on Indian self-government.

We know that 50% of aboriginal children live in poverty. Why did her government's budget cut $25 million to child care, specifically to aboriginal children to help them take care of their kids? That seems to be missing in the budget. If we are so concerned about children, especially aboriginal children, would she restore that funding so their kids could also get some support?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the member say that we all know what needs to be done. She addressed several of the issues we have talked about today. I think we are all in agreement that there has to be action taken. I am really heartened when I hear agreement from members of all parties that we need work in cooperation. That is extremely important.

The previous member asked about some of the acts that were in place and whether we were aware of those. Of course we are aware of those acts. They are all part of the negotiating process. The minister is dealing with all these issues. He is dealing with poverty, with women's issues and with environmental issues.

I am heartened when I hear members from all parties say that we need to cooperate and work together, rather than blame. That is wonderful news. If we all throw our support behind the minister, we can get this job done.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time standing to give a formal address to the House, I want to say what a privilege it is to speak on such an important issue as our aboriginal people. I am pleased to speak in response to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

Aboriginal Canadians contribute a great deal to Westlock—St. Paul, the riding I represent, and to Canada as a whole. We owe it to them and to Canada to find real solutions to poverty many aboriginals face.

The government has consistently recognized the need to improve the quality of life experienced by first nations, Inuit and Métis. We are keenly aware of the importance of reducing aboriginal poverty. We are taking action in a targeted, tightly focused fashion on priorities, action that will yield prompt, visible and measurable results. We are also laying the foundations for sustainable long term improvements to make life better for aboriginal people in Canada.

Past policies, as all members of the House should recognize, have produced dependency, hopelessness and despair in many of our aboriginal communities. That is why the government will not follow the practice of throwing money at the problems. Success is not and should not be determined by how many billions of dollars the Government of Canada spends. That is not a new approach. That should be a thoroughly discredited approach. The government is committed to finding real solutions, as its actions since taking office can attest.

I would like to speak specifically to our actions in the area of drinking water on reserves. We have designed and are implementing a plan of action that will make real improvements in people's lives. It is universally acknowledged that safe drinking water is a fundamental need. Within weeks of coming into office, the government launched an action plan to address long-standing drinking water concerns in first nations communities.

This comprehensive plan consists of four immediate measures: first, identify the first nations communities most at risk from unsafe drinking water and complete and implement detailed remediation plans to fix the specific problems of water treatment and distribution systems in these communities; second, ensure that certified operators oversee all treatment plant facilities and require mandatory training for all treatment plant operators; third, implement the protocol for safe drinking water for first nations communities, a series of benchmarks for local operators that establish clear standards for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of treatment facilities; and fourth, determine options for a regulatory framework for water in first nations communities as the basis for sustainable solutions. Together these four actions will inject much needed improvements into the current system, but the actions are only the centrepiece of a much larger effort.

To appreciate the impact of these actions, though, it is important to point out that under the current system the leaders of a first nations community, typically a band's chief and council, are responsible for the operation and maintenance of water treatment facilities and for the delivery of safe drinking water to residents.

Our plan of action means that the government will ensure that first nations community leaders have access to the tools and resources they need to deliver clean water to their residents. We are working with those communities most at risk to develop remedial plans to reduce their risk level and assess what resources are required for long term solutions.

This collaborative effort will help address the most serious water quality problems, to establish national standards for the operation of treatment facilities and to institute clear rules for the people responsible for water quality. The ultimate goal is to ensure that residents of first nations communities enjoy the same protection afforded other Canadians when it comes to drinking water.

More recent, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations announced the establishment of an independent three member panel of experts to examine options for this regulatory framework. The expert panel will host public hearings in the coming months across Canada to obtain suggestions and advice from people with technical expertise and experience in the operations and management of water systems. At these hearings, participants will have the opportunity to provide their views and suggestions on what should be regulated and what legal framework should be used. I am pleased to note that the hearings are starting tomorrow in Yukon.

The panel's interim report on regulatory options will be submitted to the minister by September 2006. A report on the panel's findings to date will be submitted to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in September of 2006.

The establishment of the independent expert panel is definitely a step in the right direction. It is in keeping with the tone and direction of our action plan to address drinking water concerns in first nations communities. It fulfills a commitment made in the recent federal budget to improve water supplies in first nations communities. It is demonstrable proof that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs are steadfast in their resolve to continue to work with our aboriginal partners to establish clear priorities and develop effective, sustainable approaches to overcome pressing challenges in our aboriginal communities.

A focused effective approach to addressing challenges is exactly what my constituents have asked for. They ask and expect their government to find practical common sense solutions. They want to know is it practical, is it affordable, and does it achieve results?

The people of my riding of Westlock—St. Paul know that past policies toward native people have not worked. This government is taking action that is practical, affordable and will achieve real results.

The government's action plan on water is focused on tangible results and clear accountability. It is a sterling example of this government's determination to effect positive change in aboriginal communities and to bring about the change in a focused effective manner.

To make everything a priority is to make nothing a priority. Our priorities have been and will continue to be set according to the most important and urgent needs. Moreover, our priorities will change because action will have been taken to address those needs, not because a new opinion poll will have been taken.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's description of what the government proposes to do to improve water supply. In fact, it is a ringing endorsement of what the previous government was planning to do and had under way.

I would like the member opposite to comment on the appropriateness of draining money from school projects to fund water projects. I would ask him to comment on what he would say to the people of Big Horn and Sunchild in Alberta whose funding for their school capital projects is being deferred so that the water work can be done. We know that condensation has been causing leaks. We know that the carpets are torn and need replacing. We know that the schools do not have a gymnasium.

We talk about education as a priority here. It is a real concern. The government has not lived up to the commitment of the $400 million that had been allocated under Kelowna for water which would not result in the draining of funds from education projects to water projects.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's devotion to this subject.

It is important to realize that this government is taking a new approach. We are taking an approach that is focused on working with our aboriginal, Inuit and Métis people. We are taking an approach that is focused on getting effective results, not simply making promises, not simply committing to things prior to an election and then never actually putting them into a real budget.

It is very important to recognize the $450 million that we have put into this and which is actually being utilized to help with things such as education and water treatment facilities on reserve.

I respect the hon. member's question because it is a simple fact that the best way to get any area of our population out of poverty is by continuing and advancing the educational levels of those people. That has to be a priority for everyone and it is a priority for this government.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps water and education are not mutually exclusive. We know there is a need for the education and training of children, young people and adults. Much of that can be done through employment projects and training programs. If we are to put in water treatment programs and plants, et cetera, I wonder if the hon. member could consider how many jobs and how many training programs could be provided for young people on the reserves. They could learn and build their skills in order to find jobs for themselves which would build respect. They could learn these skills on one reserve and then use those skills to help other reserves to deal with their water situation. This is a whole question of community empowerment and community development.

Does the hon. member see that as a possibility in order to move forward? No matter what is done on these reserves should be done by the local people themselves.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about this issue, it is very important that we talk about accountability. It is very important that we talk about giving the money to the people who need it most. That is something that has been lacking for far more than 13 years.

My riding of Westlock—St. Paul has a large number of first nations people. My riding also has an unemployment rate of under 3%. What we need to do and what we are doing in the town of Bonnyville is working at creating a first nations training centre, one of the largest first nations training centre in all of Canada to help employ more people and to help educate the first nations people so that we can continue to help with the infrastructure needs of Alberta and Canada.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the well-regarded member for Labrador.

I am very pleased to speak to the motion which has been brought before the House by our distinguished colleague from Winnipeg South Centre. Certainly I and many others, as evidenced by some of the comments this afternoon, were aware of the hon. member's long-standing interest in and sensitivity to issues that affect our aboriginal population. I am grateful to her for having the opportunity to speak to her motion.

My riding of Brant in Ontario contains the most populated aboriginal community in Canada, the Six Nations of the Grand River and New Credit reserves. Approximately 12,000 individuals reside on Six Nations of the Grand, and there is an equivalent number who reside off reserve, many of whom reside in the city of Brantford.

Since being elected in June 2004, I have had the privilege of getting to know many members of the Six Nations of the Grand and New Credit reserves. I can say unequivocally that they are people of generosity, people of dignity and people possessed of a deep spirituality.

I had heard from many individuals, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, from the latter part of November 2005 up to several weeks ago. All spoke positively about the Kelowna accord and that at last, long term, creative solutions had been proposed for the difficulties faced by so many of our first nations, Inuit and Métis persons.

It is recognized by anyone who has any solid knowledge of the history of Canada that our aboriginal peoples have been treated at various times with a lack of respect, with a lack of honour and quite frankly, with a lack of morality. Previous governments have been complicit with certain churches in attempting to effect cultural genocide. Not so many decades ago it was the deliberate intention of government in concert with some churches to prohibit aboriginals from speaking their language, from following their traditions, from maintaining their culture. The history of residential schools is not a shining example of the much vaunted Canadian values of tolerance, generosity and respect for all persons, for their beliefs and for their traditions.

The Kelowna accord was a recognition that our aboriginal citizens require long term assistance and that the plight in which so many of them now find themselves is not of their own doing. Hence there was the recognition within the Kelowna accord that unique solutions necessarily had to be implemented once and for all to improve the living conditions of our aboriginal peoples, their health, their education, their economies and their very way of life.

Renowned journalist and social activist June Callwood and many others have said that each person wishes intuitively to lead a productive meaningful life, but each person needs to know how to do so and must be provided with the tools to lead such a life. In my estimation, the Kelowna accord was going to accomplish exactly that: to provide our aboriginal peoples with the tools, on a long term basis, that they and their communities require to eventually acquire living conditions which would be equivalent to those enjoyed by non-aboriginals.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was correct this morning. He described aboriginal poverty as the most pressing social problem in Canada. He is right. How dreadfully disappointing it has been then for first nations, Inuit and Métis in this country to have their pressing needs described by the minister himself as the most pressing social need in Canada and to not have their needs recognized as one of the government's five priorities.

The government seems to be about management, not about leadership. Management is uncreative and is reduced to unimaginative steps such as reducing the GST by 1%, or handing out to some parents a few extra dollars a day to care for their children.

With respect to aboriginal issues, and I say this with respect, the government is abdicating its responsibility to demonstrate leadership. Failing to recognize aboriginal issues as a top priority, reflects on the management style of the government and further reflects the vacuum of leadership on aboriginal issues. Needless to say, the scuttling of the Kelowna accord has served to further disappoint and frankly dismay aboriginals who were so full of hope after the accord was signed.

The first visit, which was made by our former prime minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, after the election in June 2004, was to an aboriginal community in Canada's far north. He understood the importance of reaching out to our aboriginal brothers and sisters. He understood the importance of the federal government taking a leadership role with respect to our aboriginal communities. He understood and still understands that the difficulty which aboriginal peoples face needs to be seen as a top priority, that no international body or community will assist us here in Canada with a problem or a set of issues which are uniquely Canadian and require a Canadian response.

In my riding, Jim Windle is a non-aboriginal journalist who writes for a weekly newspaper on the Six Nations of the Grand. He has written, speaking about his experience as a non-aboriginal with aboriginals. He has said:

To work among the most misunderstood and marginalized people of North America has been a life-changing experience. I have been blessed and privileged to have earned the trust and friendship of many, but certainly not all, citizens of the Six Nations.

My journey into their world comes into collision with my own world every day when I return to my home in Brantford and am confronted with people just like I was—arrogantly ignorant of the true history of the greatest society this continent has known.

Mr. Windle and so many others in my riding understand that the federal government must play a leadership role with respect to aboriginal issues, including land claims disputes, such as the current dispute outside of but adjacent to my riding in the town of Caledonia, a dispute which has been going on for close to four months.

As Mr. Windle also states:

Treaties made with the Six Nations are no less important, or no less binding than those made with any other Nation in the world. They cannot just be ignored. New treaties must be signed by both parties to replace old ones.

I have some concern that the Prime Minister and the government feel that the solution to the problems, which beset our first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, can be resolved by simply inviting them into a non-aboriginal world, in the naive expectation that their cultural differences, their unique traditions and their life experiences can be parked or set aside. Such an approach will not work, as our aboriginal citizens will not and should not allow their history to be ignored, their culture and traditions to be overturned.

The Kelowna accord was about narrowing gaps in health care, education, housing, drinking water and economic opportunities that existed between aboriginals and the rest of Canadians. It recognized that these issues were interwoven, one with the other. The accord had the full support of 10 premiers, representing all political stripes. The premiers continue to call upon the government to implement the Kelowna accord, an accord which included $1.8 billion for education, $1.6 billion for housing and infrastructure, $1.3 billion for health, and millions more for economic opportunities.

Approximately 1.5 million persons in Canada are first nations, Inuit or Métis. For the most part, thousands and thousands of these individuals live in conditions which are substandard and approach third world status in many instances. It is impossible to understand how the needs of 1.5 million people would not be viewed as a priority for the Prime Minister and the government

In the view of many Canadians, and I am speaking of non-aboriginals, helping our aboriginal citizens is a top priority. It is beyond the comprehension of many people with whom I have spoken as to why the Prime Minister and the government are not seriously dealing with aboriginal issues, why they have seen fit to dismantle the Kelowna accord.

A close observer of the government's pronouncements on aboriginal issues and the performance in dealing with aboriginal issues would surely conclude that such issues are not a priority, that the Kelowna accord will not be respected or honoured by the government, certainly not in letter and unhappily perhaps not even in spirit.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments disturbing by not only my hon. colleague, who has just completed his speech, but by many members of the opposition who spoke earlier today. They continue to allude to the fact that they believe that all native organizations and all native leaders are firmly in support of what the opposition members call the Kelowna accord.

I want to give an example to my hon. colleague of a well known, well respected aboriginal leader who holds a differing view. The gentleman's name is Jim Sinclair. For the benefit of my hon. colleague, should he not be familiar with Mr. Jim Sinclair, I will give a brief synopsis of his history and his contribution to Canada.

Mr. Sinclair has been a leader of two aboriginal national organizations. Mr. Sinclair has advised prime ministers. Mr. Sinclair has spoken at the United Nations on aboriginal issues and has dined with the Queen. Mr. Sinclair sat at the constitutional table for five years. In fact, he is widely acclaimed as being the individual most responsible for ensuring that aboriginal rights were recognized in the Constitution.

I hear comments from my colleagues opposite and I would love to engage them in a debate about the contribution Mr. Sinclair has made to aboriginal rights in Canada.

My point is, Mr. Sinclair is highly critical of what he calls a joke, the Kelowna accord.

How does my hon. colleague respond to leaders like Mr. Sinclair, who are critical and hold a completely different opinion of what benefits if any would come out of that so-called accord?

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whether it comes to one's personal development, one's performance in work or, frankly, a community or country at large, as others have said, “If you're not moving forward, you're standing still”. We need to move forward as a country. The Kelowna accord would have moved us forward.

If my hon. colleague opposite is suggesting that we should do nothing until there is unanimity with respect to what we should do, we will be waiting until the proverbial cows come home. Quite apart from what Mr. Sinclair has said, and I have no doubt that what the member opposite has said is true vis-à-vis Mr. Sinclair's comments, I know of Phil Fontaine and so many others in the aboriginal community. I know that tens and hundreds of individuals in my riding were effusive in their praise of Kelowna. Of course the then prime minister and the 10 provincial premiers signed on after two days of negotiating.

It was not unanimous perhaps, but it was still acclaimed loud and long by so many people.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen reports, commissions, accords and round tables that go round and round and do not go anywhere. The record by the government has been dismal. Would the hon. member support a suggestion that Parliament recommend or appoint a commissioner who would use the international and mutually acceptable standards as the basis for regular public report cards on government conduct and would keep the government honest? The commissioner would investigate complaints and report to Parliament when recommendations or promises, made in the House or during election time, are not implemented. The public and the House of Commons could then see what actually gets done.

Would the member support this kind of recommendation that Parliament appoint a person to ensure that what is promised is delivered?

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the member opposite is asking. Perhaps it was my interpretation of her question, but it is general to the point of being vague. Frankly, without seeing more specifics, it would be irresponsible for me to comment yea or nay on such a proposal.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the motion brought forward by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre. I thank her for raising this matter and bringing it before the House for a full day's debate.

It is an issue that is very close to my heart, having served aboriginal people for 10 years in Labrador. Labrador is very much like Canada, in a smaller geographical context, in the sense that we have Métis, first nations and Inuit people. We have land claims that are resolved and unresolved. We have on reserve and off reserve people still looking for resolution of the outstanding, what we call Métis question in Canada, which is before us today as well as others.

The motion speaks to the need to be urgent, the need to move now on issues that are important to aboriginal people such as housing, education, water, sewer systems and health care.

To begin, I want to raise a particular issue which is urgent and it may apply more to the Minister of Health than it does to the minister of education. It is about an HIV-AIDS Labrador project that has been going now for some six years. We have learned in the last couple of months that the funding for this project has been cut.

I do not believe I have to give a lecture on how important health promotion and prevention of these types of sexually transmitted diseases are, not only in our country and in aboriginal communities, but world-wide. It is amazing to see the government cutting the funding. I have raised this with the minister three times and there still has been no action on this file. If I could be so bold, I would appeal, through this forum, to the Minister of Health or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to deal with the issue now. I would hope this is not indicative of the government's plans or attitude toward aboriginal health programs. If it is, it is a sorry state of how we will go forward.

I do not believe Canadians will stand for a government which ignores the most social and needy people in our society. I do not say that in the sense of them being inferior. I say that because it is a reality that exists in Canada, and we have to deal with that reality.

Many aboriginal people in Labrador and elsewhere in the country see ourselves as contributors. Sometimes during debate there is a sense of minimizing aboriginal people, that somehow aboriginal people are a problem that needs to be dealt with. We are Canadians. There are issues that need to be addressed and the Kelowna accord was one of those interventions that would have helped aboriginal people.

It is also interesting that the Kelowna accord invested money over and above the other initiatives that had already been announced by the Liberal government. It had $1.3 billion to address health care issues among Canada's aboriginal communities. That was on top of the $700 million we were investing. That was on top of the $1.3 billion for the first nations and Inuit health program in 2003.

I and my colleagues on the Liberal side are concerned and certainly Canadians are concerned about the short-sighted decision of the Conservatives to turn their backs on Kelowna. I believe that means we are turning our back on progress and setting back the clock. It is one thing to claim to support the objectives of the Kelowna accord, but it is another thing if that support does not come with any meaningful financial commitment.

The Kelowna accord had the support of provincial and territorial leaders and aboriginal leadership across Canada. The Kelowna accord was going to work for people in Labrador and for people throughout our great country. We were not only looking forward to the elements of Kelowna to help in terms of health care funding, but in all the other areas that were mentioned.

For instance, Kelowna had budgeted $1.6 billion for housing and infrastructure. It is depressing to think that this commitment will not be honoured by the current government.

I think about the Métis community of Black Tickle, which still needs water and sewer systems. I would challenge the ministers on the opposite side of the House, the Conservative ministers, to go to a place like Black Tickle and say that Kelowna was just a press release, that it did not mean anything.

There was hope in that accord. It meant something tangible for aboriginal people, not only in Black Tickle, because there are many Black Tickles in this country, but for all aboriginal people in all their communities.

As well, we made some advancements in terms of housing and infrastructure under the Liberal government, but more was needed. Kelowna offered that to people, such as those in Nain and in Hopedale on the north coast of Labrador.

Truly, I do worry about aboriginal policy under the government. Not only did we have the unfortunate episode earlier in this session with the statements made by the member that the Prime Minister appointed to the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee, we also had the comments from another government caucus member who described first nations reserves as “Marxist paradises”. This is a disturbing symptom of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Reserves, or Marxist paradises, as the hon. member described them, are so bad that the Innu First Nation of Sheshatshiu wants to expedite its process of establishing a reserve for its community. These Marxist paradises are so bad that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, during the election, called on the federal parties to expedite that process as well. Indeed, even the Prime Minister, to some credit, promised to proceed in a timely fashion on establishing the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation. Unfortunately, this process has not been expedited in any way. It would put the Innu on the same legal footing as other first nations in Canada.

Friday before last, I attended the high school graduation in Sheshatshiu. It was a very special occasion. Too often we hear only negative news about aboriginal communities, but this was a good news story. It was one of the largest graduating classes in recent memory. Nearly the whole community joined in the celebration. There is a new emphasis on education in aboriginal communities like Sheshatshiu and it is paying dividends. Labrador Innu, Inuit and Métis youth are graduating from high school and going on to post-secondary education in growing numbers.

The Kelowna accord would have provided a further $1.8 billion in funding for education programs for aboriginal peoples in Canada. This was a commitment from the government and the people of Canada, not just a Liberal commitment. This is a commitment that the Conservatives have reneged on.

I worry as well about what this might mean for future graduating classes in the Innu communities of Sheshatshiu and Natuashish, in Inuit communities such as Rigolet or Makkovik, and in Métis communities like Cartwright, North West River or St. Lewis. We have to ask the question: will aboriginal students have the resources they need in the years to come under the Conservative government?

Last year, my first major speech in the House of Commons was on the bill to implement the Labrador Inuit land claim and self-government agreement. This agreement was over three decades in the making. Some people might think there is no progress, but I have seen progress and certainly have been a party to some of the progress made under the Liberal government. I am proud to stand here, I might add, as a Liberal and an aboriginal person. Not everything was right and not everything was perfect, but I am proud to stand here as a Liberal and an aboriginal person.

Three decades ago, it would have been unthinkable that aboriginal peoples would have had such a direct hand in resource development such as Voisey's Bay. It would have been unthinkable. We have been making some progress. It is foolish to think that all the hard work we have all put in has been for naught. It has not. We have made progress, we make to make more, and Kelowna offered that.

That is why it is so important that we move forward with this historic agreement. It is so important because the honour of the Crown, the honour of the Government of Canada and, I believe, the honour of the people of Canada is at stake.

It is almost like an intangible. Real progress comes when there is honour of the Crown and when the fiduciary obligation of the federal government and other levels of government is lived up to. Kelowna is important because of what was real and tangible to people at the community level, but this intangible of the honour of the Crown is also important.

I believe the honour of the Crown was breached by the Conservative government. Not only is it going to take some money for housing or water and sewers, it is going to take relationship building in order to achieve the real progress we need to make in aboriginal communities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit puzzled because the hon. member's colleague, just a few minutes ago, talked about how we should be getting away from blaming each other and how we should move constructively forward in addressing the issues that are present in our aboriginal communities, and then all I heard was “blame, blame, blame”.

I would like to focus a little more on the agreement itself. I think the hon. member will agree that there are flaws within the Kelowna accord. In my mind, one of the most serious flaws is the relative omission of resources for off reserve aboriginals and non-status aboriginals.

As a preface to my question, I would like to quote Patrick Brasseau, the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. He said that they “asked this current government to revisit the agreement because it excluded the majority of the aboriginal population in this country”. He said that “you have to target the entire aboriginal population”, not one specific group. He concluded by saying, “We are most encouraged by the Conservative government's recognition of the need” to accommodate off reserve aboriginals.

I have a question for the member. Given the fact that the accord does have these serious flaws, why is the member still insisting on supporting this motion to implement the Kelowna accord?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I was not blaming. In fact, the opposition often talks about accountability and responsibility. Those members talk about it in the context of aboriginal people. If they make a decision, they have to be accountable for the decision they make. They have to be responsible for the decision they make.

Interestingly enough, I was sitting at the board table of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples for 10 years. It is quite interesting that the chief and president of Congress of Aboriginal Peoples at the time was at Kelowna. The president and chief of that organization signed on to Kelowna. I cannot speak to why the leadership of that particular organization would have a change of mind in just a few short months.

It seems rather speculative. Even the Minister of Indian Affairs was supporting Kelowna during the election, but could not find the money, the will and the determination to bring it over, so he changed his mind in a few months. Other leadership sometimes change its mind in a few months, but I cannot speak to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. All I know is that Kelowna was moving forward and we were building and making progress.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that a lot of the language has been lost in first nations, Métis and Inuit communities. Losing our language is like losing our past, our history and our heritage, so it is critically important that the language be regained.

I am wondering whether the hon. member would support an NDP idea or suggestion that we need to help train second language teachers so they could provide the education and the opportunity for this generation of first nations, Métis and Inuit children to again learn their own language and reconnect with their culture and the pride of their history and heritage.

Would that be a good direction in which to move forward? Whether they are on reserve or off reserve in big cities, language is critically important.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good and valid point. I do know that under the previous Liberal government there were investments in culture and language programs and in the aboriginal languages and culture centre. I believe that a 10 year commitment to the aboriginal languages centre was made previous to that. There is no doubt that more needs to be done, because we are losing the battle. Even though we have made some interventions and have some programs in place, the speed at which aboriginal languages are being lost certainly exceeds any gains we are making.

I know of language nesting programs in Labrador involving preschool kids, which seem to work quite well in that particular context. That is something we should be looking at. Headstart programs also are very important for the preservation of the language and culture of aboriginal peoples.

I believe Kelowna also addressed this in some part, because it contained an element that talked about capacity building. When we talk about capacity building in aboriginal communities, we have to understand that it means the preservation of one's language and one's culture as well.

There is one thing about language that I would like to say. The tone that I sometimes hear from the opposite side is so different from what I hear from my Liberal colleagues. Our tone is one that shows we have listened to aboriginal people about where they are at. I believe the Conservatives also will have to overcome this language issue in the weeks and months ahead.

I urge them to listen very closely to what aboriginal people have to say. I urge them to change their minds on Kelowna. There is no harm in changing one's mind when a mistake has been made. That is an honourable thing to do. I would urge the Conservatives to change their minds on Kelowna and move in the right direction, the direction that is good for aboriginal people and good for the rest of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion made by my Liberal colleagues. As the Bloc Québécois critic, I will give my party's position on the Liberal motion. I would therefore like to inform this House that the Bloc Québécois supports this motion.

I am not the only one wondering how many bills, motions and interventions in the House it will take before the government endorses the Kelowna accord. I wonder what tone members will have to take and what language they will have to use so that this government stops turning a deaf ear and finally adopts this accord.

Since the House of Commons resumed sitting, we have made every effort to be heard. Moreover, on Monday, May 8, 2006, in support of the accord, I made a motion on behalf of my party before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, recommending that the Kelowna accord concluded between the representatives of Ottawa, Quebec and the provinces and the national aboriginal leaders be implemented. That motion, Bill C-292 and the motion we are debating today are reminders that once again, Ottawa has neither kept its promises, nor assumed its responsibilities to our aboriginal peoples.

We are talking here about an accord between nations: Canada, representing all the provinces, and the aboriginal nation, represented by its chief. When the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard signed the Kelowna accord, he did not do so on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, but as the head of the Government of Canada. He signed this accord with Phil Fontaine, who was then the chief of the first nations. The accord was reached between nations, and these nations owe each other respect. That is not what we are seeing with the current government, which does not want to respect this accord.

We should not kid ourselves. The Kelowna accord is just a temporary measure that will do nothing to improve aboriginal peoples' living conditions in the long term. It addresses the growing gap between aboriginal peoples' quality of life and that of Quebeckers and Canadians. The accord would represent $5.1 billion over five years for education, health, housing and economic opportunities for aboriginal peoples. We have to understand how urgent it is to improve aboriginal peoples' quality of life. We are not talking about improving their quality of life, but about the urgency of improving it.

We must take into account the fact that the $5.1 billion will be shared among the federal government, the provinces and Quebec, the territories and their own administrations before the money gets to where the needs are: to the first nations, the Inuit and the Métis. This is precious little to address the quality of life gap between Canadians and aboriginals. There are desperate needs. For example, first nations in Quebec have urgent housing needs. It would take well over $700 million to provide the 7,000 units needed and this number is growing by the hundreds every year.

This lack of housing has very serious human and social consequences. Aboriginal people are the ones paying the price every day.

Closely linked to the lack of housing is health. It is urgent that we put a stop to the increasing incidences of poisonings, infection, tuberculosis—yes, I said tuberculosis—and so on.

Just as worrisome are the incidences of diabetes, fetal alcohol syndrome and suicide. Unfortunately, these too are realities that aboriginal people live with. Suicide is another serious problem. Although suicide rates vary considerably from one community to another, they are unacceptably high overall. Suicide rates are five to seven times higher among first nations youth than among non-aboriginal youth. Suicide rates among Inuit youth are among the highest in the world—eleven times higher than the Canadian average. We must invest time and money now.

As for education, if and when the government finally makes up its mind to address the issue, it would take 27 to 28 years to close the gap between aboriginals and Quebeckers and Canadians, according to the Auditor General's 2004 report. That is an understatement.

Several reports from the Auditor General, observations by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and, more recently, the final report of the UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights, concerning the living conditions of first nations people in Canada, have been alarming. Many recommendations, supported by aboriginals, Quebeckers and Canadians, have already been made to Ottawa. These have fallen on deaf ears. What we are doing here again today is reminding this government that urgent action is needed.

On the eve of the first ministers' conference, the Bloc Québécois publicly supported the opinion shared by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women, who rejected the government's plans. The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women criticized the fact that the approach, designed to “narrow the gap” between the living conditions of first nations and those of Quebeckers and other Canadians, did not tackle the real causes behind the first nations' situation, namely, a lack of equal access to land and resources, and a lack of respect for their rights.

The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women also criticized the fact that the objective of the Kelowna accord, due to its pan-aboriginal approach and lack of consultation with communities to target the real issues, will only maintain the first nations' cycle of dependence and will not sufficiently narrow the gap to improve the quality of life for aboriginals. Essentially, this means that the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women were not present in Kelowna. The reason is simple: they found that the accord did not go far enough. Later, they accepted the conclusions of the accord.

The Bloc Québécois believes that concrete solutions are needed, solutions that are adapted to the realities of the various first nations peoples in order to correct the inequalities that affect their communities. Furthermore, these measures must stem from discussions with the various nations, because money alone will not solve the problems.

On the contrary, it perpetuates the paternalistic approach of the federal government toward aboriginals.

Now we all know, here in this House, that the federal government has an obligation to meet the great needs of the aboriginal people, among other things those related to housing, infrastructure, education and health care. The Bloc Québécois continues to make sure that Ottawa does not shirk its obligations as a trustee. The federal government should assume its responsibilities as long as all aboriginal nations do not have the tools for self-government.

The first indications of the current government's handling of the aboriginal issue are not very reassuring. For example, the initiative for a protocol for safe drinking water for first nations communities is commendable in and of itself. However, when the initiative sets aside communities with the greatest needs, those that still do not have a drinking water system and are still today hauling their water in buckets, is that quality of life?

This same protocol explains the following:

First nations are responsible for the construction, design, operation and maintenance of their water systems. INAC provides funding to First Nations for these activities, subject to the appropriate technical review and funding approval process.

With this new initiative, the current government is telling communities not only that no new money is being committed to implement the protocol, but that the communities in the greatest need could have their funding withdrawn if they fail to obtain approval from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Is that quality of life?

The first budget is another indicator of the “new approach”, to use the words of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Aboriginal communities have critical socio-economic problems. In some cases, the situation is intolerable, and the Bloc Québécois does not believe that $450 million over two years, as announced in the budget, will be enough to properly address the problems.

Also, in its budget, the new government is giving considerable prominence to the accountability of communities in managing the funding they are given. It is important to emphasize that aboriginal peoples wholeheartedly support the principle of accountability. The same principle should also apply to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make sure that it is accountable not only to its minister, but also to the community it serves.

The present government, in its search for a new approach to handling aboriginal affairs, should start by reviewing the findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Erasmus-Dussault commission. This royal commission was established when the Conservatives were in power and after the report was published its findings were forgotten. It cost Quebec and Canadian taxpayers $58 million.

I will close by saying that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion presented today, a motion on implementing the Kelowna accord.

The commitments made by the federal government in Kelowna represent a first step in closing the gap between native peoples and Quebeckers and Canadians. However, the causes of this inequality have not yet been addressed. It is not about catching up; it is about addressing the roots of the inequality with a sense of urgency.

Native peoples must have all the tools to develop their own identity, namely the right to self-government and recognition of their rights.

The Bloc Québécois wants the amounts promised at the Kelowna conference to be delivered. For the future of relations between the government and aboriginal peoples, we recommend a more global approach that meets the aspirations of native peoples and promotes the negotiation of nation-to-nation agreements.

I would like to note that in this House we believe in the right of native peoples to self-government. In more general terms, we are dealing with the claims for autonomy of aboriginals. We recognize that native peoples, just like distinct peoples, have the right to their own culture, their own language, their own customs and traditions as well as the right to control the development of their own identity.

We can no longer tolerate that native peoples live in conditions that are harmful to their health development and autonomy.

In closing, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois will keep urging the government to respect the Kelowna accord. The Bloc Québécois will keep rising in this House to ensure that the accord is respected. The Bloc supports the motion introduced today because one can only turn a blind eye for so long to such basic needs as health, access to clean drinking water and adequate education, as well as economic opportunities that will enable aboriginal peoples to become autonomous.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he has had any more comments back from first nations leaders in Quebec.

I want to go on record with what one of our chiefs said. James Allen, Chief of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations stated, “The Kelowna accord was an historic agreement between the Government of Canada, the premiers of the provinces and the first nations of Canada. It was historic because it was the first meeting that dealt exclusively with first nations' issues. The accord was developed after many high level talks with Canada. The accord was a plan to start eradicating poverty in first nations communities by improving housing and infrastructure, to improve the education of first nations students and encourage first nations to take over control of education in their communities. The accord also had plans to improve health services and programs for first nations to improve their living standards”.

“So far, this government has not issued a clear statement on whether or not they embrace the Kelowna accord. The failure of the federal government to implement the accord would set back the relationship and trust that was established in Kelowna, B.C. between first nations and Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Yukon. I almost said “Your Honour” because I am so used to addressing a judge. Once again, I apologize for having given you a raise.

That said, I listened carefully to the member for Yukon's remarks. I agree with him, and so does the Quebec Assembly of First Nations through its Regional Chief, Mr. Picard, and everyone in fact.

Nobody in this House can convince me otherwise. On November 25, everyone thought that there was a written accord signed by all parties. Shortly thereafter, we were told that there was not. The Assembly of First Nations, as well as several provinces, said there was. The only party saying that there was not is the current government.

Maybe this government thinks that the accord is too closely associated with the previous government. This government can take back the accord if it wants, it can even rewrite it, but it must provide the funds that are vital to the survival—and I am choosing my words carefully—of many aboriginal communities.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue if he does not feel it is time to stop playing politics at the expense of aboriginals and first nations peoples. Does he not feel it is time to rise above all this?

Certainly, the day that we achieve a dialogue with first nations peoples, when we can listen to them and grant them the right to full self-government, the right to fully manage their own affairs, only then will first nations peoples truly form a nation within Canada. Aboriginals, within first nations, will be able to assume their full stature. At present, we are not giving them the opportunity to live their lives as a people and as a nation.

I would therefore like the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue to indicate whether he sees the Kelowna accord as an end in and of itself or as a stepping stone to something else, and why do we continue to play politics at the expense of first nations peoples?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Last November, an accord was reached between two nations: Canada, then represented by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, and Canada's first nations, then represented by Mr. Fontaine. They signed an accord between two nations. I do not see why that should be called into question.

I feel it is important to realize today that this goes further than respecting the Kelowna accord. All the first nations I have met with in recent months as the Bloc Québécois critic for Indian affairs and northern development have told me that the Kelowna accord was a step in the right direction, but that more was needed. It is clear that the first nations want to move toward self-government and that efforts will have to be made.

Canada's 640 aboriginal, Métis and Inuit communities are not all the same, and they will have to make an effort. But the Kelowna accord is a step in the right direction that has to be respected and that could enable the first nations to start taking charge of their lives.

What is missing is a government that keeps its word. Aboriginal people generally do not give their word in writing; they shake hands and respect each other. I can tell this House today that I am not sure that Canada's first nations have much respect for the current government.