Tina Keeper

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the member needs to use the term “inhabitants” rather than “peoples”. I think that in itself speaks to his position around the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The parliamentary secretary is well aware that we are currently looking at Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act, in which we are moving forward in a process with first nations. It has been very clear that there are many issues in regard to the land, and we have heard from first nations repeatedly. We heard at committee today that first nations are very concerned that Bill C-30 would not deal with the issue of land and that many of the specific claims are around the illegal disposition of lands.

Through the enormous effort of all parties and all Canadians, we have moved forward. As national chief, Phil Fontaine, said, Canadians are fair-minded people and we want to move forward in a conciliatory process. What we are talking about here is relationship building. To use scaremongering tactics in which we talk about a legal premise, which is not even possible within the Constitution of Canada, is a little reckless.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

I did not mean to do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The...[Minister of Canadian Heritage] who also has responsibility for the Status of Women, suggests that this is the deliverance of equality to women living on reserve as the solutions are now similar to those held by other women in Canada. As President Jacobs explains, this is another level of frustration that NWAC experiences. “Property on reserve is not held in the same way as it is held in the rest of the country. This is a reflection of the unique status of Aboriginal peoples in this country, which in 1982 was enshrined in Canada’s Constitution. Providing the same right as other Canadian women hold does not take account of our unique situation and actually creates inequality rather than protecting against it.”

I read that statement by the Native Women's Association of Canada because it speaks clearly and pointedly to the fact that the government has not, as it claims, moved forward in a process that assures the rights enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are held domestically. In fact, it does have horrible consequences in the day to day lives of people at the community level. What we have seen is a government that has often claimed to move forward in a process but that has been a sham.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to the motion today. I thank the member for putting it forward. It is a very important debate on this issue.

I will start with a quote from the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nation. It is with regard to the legal questions around Canada's arguments against the UN declaration.

National Chief Phial Fontaine said:

We believe that Canadians are fair-minded people who care deeply about human rights and that they do not want their government to pick and choose when they will apply and respect human rights. Canada has made a commitment to uphold the highest human rights standards in international and domestic law.

We remind Canadians that it is not too late for the federal government to reverse its opposition to the UN Declaration, as Australia has promised to do. We expect the legal panel will agree with other legal advisors and international experts by reaffirming that the UN Declaration is consistent with the rights guaranteed under section 35 of Canada's constitution and all other domestic laws and international human rights laws.

I say that because we hear from the government repeatedly that it would not support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People because it did not fall in line with domestic law.

Before I proceed any further, Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Don Valley East.

I will speak to this issue and the UN declaration in terms of women's issues, as put forward by the status of women critic for the NDP. I represent a riding which has numerous aboriginal communities, including first nations and Métis communities. Over the last two years and some months, I have had the great privilege to meet with women throughout my riding. I have had the opportunity to have forums on issues pertaining specifically to first nations women, in particular, as we move forward with the government's legislation, a government that claims to be concerned with human rights for aboriginal women and children. It has been unequivocal in the minds and hearts of aboriginal women in my riding that their priorities are their families and children.

We have had in this current Parliament, under the Conservative government, a rare opportunity to have a true dialogue, a true consultation. In fact, when we talk about legislation and when there is the possibility that we might infringe on aboriginal and treaty rights, there is a legal premise, as laid out in our Constitution, section 35, that the federal government has a duty to consult.

That all sounds very legalese and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People often sounds legalese, but we are talking about the day to day issues. When it comes down to the day to day issues of life as it affects women, aboriginal women have been very explicit. They have said that their concerns are directly related to human rights.

For instance, a motion entitled “Jordan's Principle” was unanimously passed in the House. This would ensure that first nations children residing on reserve would receive health services for their complex medical needs. Hundreds of children in my riding are not receiving health services, a basic human right that the government has made no effort to ensure is provided, even though a motion was passed unanimously.

When we are talking about human rights, we are not talking about some concept that is not applicable in people's day to day lives. That is the very reason we have these laws and conventions. The work at the UN on the rights of indigenous peoples has been critical in terms of our domestic law and how we move forward.

Women were very concerned about the whole process of Bill C-21 where the government moved forward without true consultation by claiming that there were 30 years of consultation and that committee hearings fulfilled the duty to consult. We are talking about human rights and yet at the community level we see no new dollars for housing for the people residing on reserves. We have no new dollars for programs to address the issue of violence against women. No effort was made to ensure that the development of the legislation was done in partnership with the Native Women's Association of Canada or the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council.

The government claims that it has the issues and concerns of aboriginal women and children at the forefront and yet it participated in a process toward the development of the matrimonial real property legislation, one of the pieces of legislation in which it chose to participate, in a consultation process, with aboriginal people but when it came down to the actual development of the legislation it did so without the partnership of aboriginal women through the Native Women's Association of Canada or the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council.

I would like to read from a press release that the Native Women's Association of Canada issued. It was the day after the matrimonial real property legislation was tabled. The title of the press release is “'Consultative Partnership' a Sham”. The Native Women's Association of Canada said:

The Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage who--

[The Environment, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Mackenzie River Delta's 45,000 lakes are the lifeline and lifeblood of many northern and aboriginal communities. Coastal communities in the north are experiencing more flooding sooner than anticipated. Widespread environmental changes could occur in the delta because of the climate change crisis. Yet the government is ignoring the warning signs. Its narrow agenda for the delta is focused only on development and the oil and gas industry.

In light of all the warnings, how can the government justify the ongoing failure to get serious about the climate change crisis?

[The Environment, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago the town of Leaf Rapids in the Churchill riding banned single-use plastic bags. This ambitious move was the first of its kind in North America. Now it is a regular part of life in this northern town that people utilize reusable bags.

Today, cities big and small are catching on, including a recent ban in San Francisco, California.

The results are clear. It is a policy that works and it is an example of how we can all contribute to a cleaner environment in Canada. Prior to the ban, plastic bags could be found on the sides of roads, stuck in trees and made up a sizeable and unnecessary portion of local landfill. Since the ban was implemented, it has been greatly reduced.

I would like to commend the environmental stewardship of the community of Leaf Rapids and encourage others to look to the north for an inspirational and progressive model toward a greener future.

[Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, for over six months the Conservatives have used every dirty trick in their infamous disruption manual to block hearings into the Conservative in and out election financing scheme. It got so bad that MPs were forced yesterday to elect a new committee chair.

Will the new chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or the vice-chair, confirm that a democratic vote allowing the committee to study the in and out scheme and hear directly from the Conservative candidates themselves will be his first order of business?

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, is that not surprising? His constituents say the same thing to me. They write to my office as the parliamentary secretary on that file because they cannot get a response from him. In fact, I have had very similar phone calls to my office. It might be a partisan thing. Who knows?

In response to his question on the matrimonial real property, this is an issue that first nations women and aboriginal women have been wanting to discuss with the federal government. They made it clear from day one that they wanted to participate in this process. The first nations women's council of the Assembly of First Nations, and these are aboriginal women themselves, engaged in a process with the ministerial representative, Wendy Grant-John, a very fine ministerial representative. She also has indicated that the government should not prepare this legislation unilaterally. In fact, that unilateral decision making on legislation is at the crux of the problem. That in itself is paternalism.

On this very serious issue, the Conservatives have manipulated it just as they did on Bill C-21. We are talking about the whole issue of human rights. Again, native women—

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of responsibility, as the member has articulated, we have a responsibility when we are here.

I remind the member that the early learning and child care agreements were signed by the provinces. We were able to that for the first time in the history of our country. We had a $5 billion Kelowna accord. Again, it was historic in that it brought together the first ministers, aboriginal leadership and the federal government for the first time in the history of our country. When the Liberals came to power in 1993, they had inherited a $42 billion deficit from the Conservative government, which had also cut the court challenges program. The Liberals reinstituted that program.

My point is we have lost these national child care agreements. We have lost the court challenges program. We have lost the Kelowna accord. We lost those because his party decided to support the Conservative Party to bring down the past Liberal government. It was that party's decision.

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

The member for Provencher says that they want to see him, but I do not think that is the answer.

Early learning and child care are not a priority of the paternalistic disturbing Conservative government. Women, research, advocacy and human rights are not a priority for the government in terms of equality for Canadian women, for first nations women. Not only are they not priorities, but the government has cut the opportunity for women to access any of these rights. Not only has the government not invested in women's programs, but it has cut opportunities for women.

Probably the number one issue in Thompson in my riding is housing. The reckless, careless Conservative government has not invested in affordable housing.

I am proud that I am able to stand and participate in the debate on this motion today.

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

The member mentioned property rights. I am about to get to the issue of matrimonial real property. The Conservatives have a “father knows best” attitude. It is a paternalism that is so disturbing, something we have not seen it for decades and decades.

First nations women, aboriginal women, first nations people and our leadership have been seeking an opportunity to engage in discussions with the government for decades. We had political accords under the previous government and they included first nations leadership through the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. That was important. It was about a process of reconciliation that would ensure we worked together to provide a future for aboriginal people in our country.

The Native Women's Association of Canada responded to the disturbing pattern of the Conservative paternalistic government upon the government's announcement of its legislation on matrimonial real property. The title of the press release is “Consultative Partnership’ a Sham”. The association said:

The Government of Canada has acted unilaterally in trying to resolve the issue of a lack of matrimonial real property laws that apply on reserve. Despite engaging in a discussion process with relevant National Aboriginal Organizations, the federal government introduced legislation, The Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, that does not have the support of the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

The Minister of Indian Affairs was well aware that NWAC did not support the legislative draft proposed, after a lengthy meeting with him in December. NWAC outlined the critical importance of systemic solutions, the promotion of indigenous legal systems and the need for non-legislative solutions.

The suppression of the voice of women by the paternalistic Conservative government also was revealed through its cuts to the court challenges program. The loss of this program has had a devastating impact on women and on official languages. First nations children residing on reserve do not receive services if they are disabled. The court challenges program was the only opportunity they had to seek justice.

Women in my riding of Churchill have been negatively impacted by the government's cuts through the loss of early learning and child care spaces and the opportunity to utilize the Status of Women office. This office used to be in Manitoba, but the member from Manitoba made sure the government got rid of it. Now the women in my riding are unable to access that service. They are in a rural riding and the opportunity for women—