Roger Valley

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned Canada's new government. I point out that the present Conservative government is the first government to raise income tax. It raised income tax on the lowest common denominator and did it at a time when it could least afford it.

I will go back to one of the first speeches I heard the finance minister make. He talked about how much Canadians would save with the GST cut. He spoke about homes in eastern Ontario. He spoke about $50,000 vehicles. People in my riding do not have the opportunity for those kinds of purchases. They will be unable to save the grand amount of money about which the Conservatives speak.

How much money can people save with a GST cut when they do not have any disposable income? How much money can people save with a GST cut when they do not have a job? How much money can people save with a GST cut when first nations people are marginal people in Canada? Could the member tell us how much they can save when they have no money to spend?

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made many statements and used a lot of facts and figures, but she knows me, she knows my riding, she knows that with all those figures and the value that they have, nothing compares to walking down the streets and visiting the homes. It is quite dramatic when we visit the people who live these lives and live in communities such as Pikangikum and North Spirit. Walking down the streets, one wonders how they can live in those homes and how they can survive some of our harsh climates.

I believe that the member and I were elected on the same day. It is one thing to look back and blame people, but I want to look forward and see how we can do this.

I want to speak to my colleague about consultation. She mentioned that there was no consultation in the past, but I happen to know there was lots of consultation in the Kelowna accord. It was a process we started and regardless of whatever reasons she wants to give, it was not moved forward. It is about carrying on the talk. The Kelowna accord was the first step in answering that.

I would like her opinion on whether the Kelowna accord was a valuable step forward. Should we carry that forward?

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned all the flowery things and it sounded like a very good speech, but on the ground, that is not the reality.

Northern Ontario, in which my riding of Kenora is situated, has some of the most dramatic situations that need to be dealt with, and they need to be dealt with a positive influence.

He mentioned the drinking water issues and the expert panel that travelled across Canada. I would like to ask him how many spots in remote sites this panel visited? We have quite a number of remote sites across Canada; there are 21 in my riding. In fact, did the panel visit any small first nations communities in northern Ontario?

I know it is a huge issue because we deal with not only the problem of the small remote sites but the long distances and the huge costs that are incurred. If we talk about quality of life and how we want to improve things, we have to get off the beaten track.

In fact, when the parliamentary secretary travelled to my riding recently, I believe, and he can correct me, he stuck to the main Trans-Canada Highway and did not even leave it. So, if we want to find out what is happening in the communities, we have to get to the communities. I am looking forward to the day he can tell me what he is going to do for the communities in northwestern Ontario.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc mentioned that the minister thinks he is an authority on all first nation issues. I would dare say that he is the only one who would think that.

The 42 communities I represent have very little or no access to the minister. I would like to say for the record that we had total access to the previous minister, with whom I had chance to serve, in the Liberal government. He was in my riding and in the communities. The grand chiefs, both three and nine, had separate meetings with him.

Whether it is with regard to section 67 or any other issues in his area of Quebec, has my friend from the Bloc had any access to or consultations with the minister? Is there any access at all to this level of government that the minister is supposed to represent to ensure we hear the concerns of first nations?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me clearly state my support for the bill in principle. The repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is long overdue. Initially, the section was implemented as a temporary measure. However, temporary has turned into many years and it is time to rectify the situation. It is time to ensure all first nations have the protection that most Canadians take for granted.

For too long first nations people have been subject to lesser standards than non-first nations people. Deplorable living conditions, substandard educational facilities and the lack of adequate health care highlight the vast gap that exists between the first nations and non-first nations people of Canada.

The previous Liberal government had set out a comprehensive consultative process to begin to address this gap. The process culminated in the signing of the Kelowna accord, an accord signed by all national first nations organizations, all provincial and territorial governments and the Government of Canada. The Kelowna accord was abandoned by the Conservative government. This really had the effect of shaking the confidence of the first nations people across Canada.

In my riding communities such as Sandy Lake, with Chief Pardemus Anishinabie, Fort Hope, with Chief Charlie O'keese, and Kasabonika, with Chief Gordon Anderson, all felt that this would be first step in ensuring that the gap was addressed. They felt the Kelowna accord was something that they could support and it was something that would make a difference on the streets of their communities.

Many believe the Kelowna accord was just a starting point. Again, the goal was to narrow that gap and ensure that they could enjoy some of the benefits that mainstream Canada enjoyed. The reality is much different on the first nations. Sometimes that is quite a harsh reality.

Section 67 contributes to this gap. By not allowing first nations people on reserve to file human rights complaints, the government continues to send the message to first nations people that they are not treated equally. This is not acceptable and the repeal of section 67 is a step in the right direction filling this gap. However, there are serious concerns that I have with the government's approach to the implementation of the bill.

I have had the chance to discuss the bill with the Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. Grand Chief Stan Beardy represents Treaty No. 9 in northern Ontario. The Grand Chief has worked tirelessly to improve the living conditions for his people. I have been fortunate to receive his advice and counsel on specific issues facing the constituents of my riding of Kenora. He represents 49 first nations communities, many of them remote in nature, spanning a territory that is close to two-thirds of Ontario. With a constituency of over 45,000 people, the Grand Chief is acutely aware of the needs and priorities of his people. His comments regarding the bill were very direct, “There must be more consultation”.

We have been witness to the ineffectiveness of legislation that has been imposed on first nations without proper consultation. We must learn from the past, and this is too important an issue to proceed too hastily.

I have also been fortunate to have the counsel of Grand Chief Arnold Gardner, Grand Chief for Treaty No. 3 first nations in my riding. He echoed these sentiments for consultation, believing that consultation would be the only way to move the first nations' concerns forward. I agree. The government must stop its paternalistic approach when dealing with first nations.

I spoke about the remoteness of some of these communities and I will take a moment to explain that. Many think it is a community on the end of the road, but when we drive to communities in my riding, like Red Lake and Pickle Lake, which are several hundred kilometres north of Highway 17, the main Trans-Canada Highway, at the end of that road we have to be prepared to fly 500 miles farther north just to get to the edge of the riding.

In that area there are 21 remote communities such as North Spirit, Poplar Hill and Webequie. They all do not expect the government to be part of the consultation in their own small communities, but they want to ensure that their leadership is listened to and they want to ensure the government pays attention to their concerns. They want their leaders involved and they want to know that Stan Beardy and Arnold Gardner have been heard.

The lack of consultation was not the only thing the government overlooked in its haste. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, an authority on the topic of human rights, recommended that a transition period be a minimum of 18 months. The government however has ignored this recommendation and has reduced the transition time to only six months.

First nations communities are already overextended in providing basic needs for their people and now the government would add to this burden by exposing fist nations to new liabilities without providing adequate time for a transition period.

Consultations would provide a better picture of how this legislation would affect first nations. We would also have a better understanding of the concerns that first nations have with the bill.

One concern that has already arisen is how the repeal of section 67 will impact existing treaty rights. This is an important question, one that deserves to be answered before the government decides to implement the bill.

The government has decided to examine the constitutional impact of the bill after it has already passed it into law. This is just another example of the government's unwillingness to properly address the concerns of the first nations people. Why not conduct proper consultations with first nations organizations while at the same time examine the legal ramifications of the bill for the existing treaty rights?

I am not surprised to find that the bill did not mention the need to provide first nations with the resources to prepare for this change. I have observed a troubling pattern with the Conservative approach to working with first nations. Conservatives believe it is enough to announce a program without the resources to back it up. We were witness to this with their announcement to improve the water quality on first nation reserves. The Conservatives announced new standards, but did not bother to provide the resources for the first nations to achieve these standards.

Many communities in my area have existing water and sewer plants. They have the infrastructure in the ground, but the new regulations require new upgrades or retrofits and these are expensive. I have already explained the seriousness of the remote sites. In all the communities the infrastructure needs to be improved, but when they are in the far flung areas and can only be accessed by aircraft, the costs are very high.

It is typical of the government: no consultation and new rules with no money or resources to follow them through. Many small first nations want to be heard. The people of Fort Severn, Bearskin Lake and Muskrat Dam in my riding all want to know, whether it is water or section 67, that the government of the day will listen to their concerns.

We see this approach again with this bill. The government would like for section 67 to be repealed, but it is unwilling to provide the resources needed for the first nations to prepare such claims. The Assembly of First Nations mentioned the example of the lack of access to public buildings on reserves for people with disabilities.

With the repeal of section 67, first nations would be exposed to a liability under that circumstance. However, many first nations do not have the resources to make improvements according to these standards. Without providing resources needed, the government will only exasperate the current situation whereby first nations are already struggling to provide for the people who live in the communities and on the streets.

Another concern with the legislation is a lack of an interpretive clause. The measure had been recommended by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and again the Conservative government ignored this advice. An interpretive clause would assist the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Tribunal in reviewing claims against first nations governments, agencies and institutions. AFN has argued that it is imperative to include such a clause to ensure the balance between the collective rights and the rights of the individual. This is an important balance that any future legislation should not infringe upon.

While discussing the need to strike a proper balance between collective rights and the rights of the individual, the issue of jurisdiction is inevitable. Who should be responsible to address human rights claims arising from first nations individuals? The Assembly of First Nations is a proponent of the creation of a first nations human rights tribunal. However, the government has once again ignored the advice of AFN. There is no mention of such a tribunal in the current legislation.

I reiterate my support for the repeal of section 67, but I repeat the need for fundamental changes to the legislation. The issue is too important and we have waited too long for them to bring this legislation forward in haste. We must do it right. Every person living in Canada should have the same right to bring forward human rights complaints. This will be a positive step toward building a stronger relationship between the government and the first nations people. Beyond this, it is the right thing to do, so let us make sure we get it done right.

I reinforce the comments made to me by Grand Chief Stan Beardy and Grand Chief Arnold Gardner about the need for consultation. They want to be heard. As such, I would encourage the government to commence consultations with the representatives of the first nations community to better understand the impact that this legislation will have.

[Making Kenora Home, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the Making Kenora Home organization. Mike Aiken, Nan Norman, Selen Alpay and the Harbour Town Centre have worked tireless to bring awareness to the poverty issues in the Kenora area.

This week has been deemed Poverty Week in Kenora, where individual community organizations and businesses have come together to raise money and educate about poverty and homelessness.

Yesterday marked the Wear Red for Poverty Awareness Day, where people all over the city wore red to make the statement that we must find solutions to help these people who are living with these challenges.

I congratulate the Making Kenora Home organization for its efforts and I applaud everyone who participated in these events.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an excellent speech. She laid out some of the difficulties women face in Canada, especially in dealing with some of the harsh cuts that have been made by the so-called new government. My question deals with remote and rural parts of Canada where services are somewhat limited in any extent.

An office in Thunder Bay was closed as part of the cuts to the Status of Women organization. While that office was quite removed from my riding, it provided service to many communities, such as, Sioux Lookout, Red Lake and Kenora. People in those areas needed the services of this office. It was actually an anchor for them to know that in some way the government was reaching out to them and was going to be involved in some of the difficult issues the member mentioned. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House and the member.

Although the challenges are great for women in many parts of the country and the urban areas have difficulties, imagine the difficulty for people in small remote sites all across northern Ontario. Women needed and relied on the resources that were provided through these offices. Those services need to come back. Those who live in some of the remote sites feel a sense of desperation and face a challenge. They relied on these services.

I would like to know if the member is aware of some of those situations.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over five months since the Northwestern Health Unit released a report detailing the deplorable health conditions with which the people of the Pikangikum First Nation are forced to live.

Chief Pascal and his council have worked tirelessly to bring attention to his people's suffering. When I visited the community last month, the message was very clear: to improve the health of the community, the power line must be completed.

The minister promised to rectify this situation, but the government has been stalling. When will the government recognize the suffering of the people of Pikangikum and make the completion of the power line a priority?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize two members of the Wabaseemoong First Nation First Nation. Chief Eric Fisher and Councillor Waylon Scott are two men who have worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life in their community.

The Wabaseemoong First Nation, or, as it is commonly referred to, Whitedog, is located just over 100 kilometres north of the city of Kenora. Wabaseemoong is an example of how hard-working community leaders can achieve great things for their communities. However, Wabaseemoong is also an example of the government's inaction on aboriginal issues. This community would have benefited greatly from the initiatives outlined in the Kelowna accord but the government decided not to ratify it.

Chief Fisher and Councillor Scott have traveled to Ottawa this week to bring to the minister's attention the unnecessary delay in the construction of their school. The condition of the current school is such that the community had to order it closed for a period of two weeks as the community could not ensure the safety of the students.

The Conservative government has delayed the start of a new school. The parliamentary secretary to the minister comes in to the riding and does not announce a date for starting the school. The students of Wabaseemoong need a chance at an education. The community of Wabaseemoong needs a new school.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a very specific question about my riding. I know the member is quite familiar with my riding and some of the impacts that have happened.

The example I will give is there are schools actually waiting to go into the northern communities, 21 fly-in communities. The weather has become so warm that the ice roads are no longer safe. People are risking their lives trying to drive on those roads. When it was common practice before, they were good for six to eight weeks. Now we cannot even get schools to stay there. Bridges need to be built, but none of the material can be transported simply due to the warm weather.

What does my colleague think about the impacts for the remote communities if we do not do something and if the government does not take some action?