Bill C-28 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

This enactment amends the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, in respect of Cree bands and Category IA land,
(a) to provide the Cree Regional Authority with additional responsibilities and powers, including by-law making powers; and
(b) to recognize the Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou as a separate band and a local government under that Act.

Opposition Motion--Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the opposition day motion moved by the hon. member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader.

The motion recognizes the role of the House in ensuring government accountability. As we know, that is the primary function of Parliament in our Westminster system.

More specifically, the motion at hand calls for three things: first, that the Standing Orders of the House be changed with respect to the scheduling of allotted days this fall; second, that the House calendar be altered to accommodate the G20 meetings in September; and third, that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget.

I will touch on these three points very briefly, as it is the government's intention to support the motion. I will devote the remainder of my remarks to a more general discourse on the successful functioning of Parliament and my experiences of this past session.

The opposition day motion provides for a change to the rules of Parliament with regard to how the government may allocate opposition days this fall. Since coming to office in 2006, as a general rule our government has always tried to evenly distribute the opposition days in the parliamentary calendar. In certain circumstances we recognize that legislative priorities can force a deviation from this practice. However, we do support the idea of amending the Standing Orders to ensure that this usual practice becomes a rule.

The second provision of today's opposition day motion provides for a change to the House calendar for the fall of 2009. Under this provision the House would open a week earlier than currently scheduled and it would then adjourn for the week of September 21. This will enable the government to focus on the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on September 24 and 25.

The G20 is the chief forum for the world leaders, as a group, to address issues resulting from the global economic crisis, and Canada has played an active and important role in these discussions. At the fall G20 meetings, the Prime Minister and other world leaders will discuss progress in promoting economic recovery and they will consider new ways to address global economic and financial challenges.

I think we can all agree that there is no more pressing issue before Parliament than dealing with the global economic downturn, which has caused personal hardship and job loss around the world. Unfortunately, as we all know, Canada has not been immune.

Our legislative program of this past session has reflected that the economy is the number one issue for Canadians. As such, I am pleased to support a motion that permits the Government of Canada to give its undivided attention to the critical economic discussions that will be taking place at the G20 summit in September.

The third provision of today's opposition motion requests that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget. In the face of global economic uncertainty, this government presented a budget in January with a comprehensive economic action plan to stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and support Canadians and their families during this global recession.

This economic recovery program is unprecedented in our history, and it is working. Canada was the last group of seven country to enter recession and the International Monetary Fund expects that we will have the strongest recovery coming out of it.

The government has also taken unprecedented steps in reporting on our economic action plan. We tabled an initial budget report in March. A week ago we tabled a second budget report, which outlines how 80% of the measures in our economic action plan are already being implemented. This government welcomes the opportunity provided by today's opposition day motion to table a third budget report in September. In fact, we committed to such a report in our budget presentation earlier this past winter.

The Minister of Finance announced at the time that he would be tabling an economic report in the fall. This being the case, I commend the official opposition for echoing the government's pre-existing intention and commitment to provide quarterly reports on the economy in and through the House to all Canadians. As we debate this today, I think it is important to remember that the government was already committed to providing that report in September.

As all members in the House know, the last few weeks have not been easy in this place. In fact they have not been easy on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. During this time of economic challenge, Canadians did not want to hear about the possibility of an election. Canadians want us to continue to work to achieve results for them. They know we cannot afford an election, which would put Canada's economic recovery at risk, halt stimulus investment across the country and limit our ability to continue to implement our economic action plan for Canadians.

By avoiding an election, we have enabled the government to continue its course of doing everything possible to turn this global recession around on our own soil. The cooperation we have seen emerge over this week, spearheaded by our Prime Minister, has not only avoided a costly and unwanted election but has clearly demonstrated to Canadians that their Parliament can work for them.

Despite the partisan political drama played out during the daily 45 minutes of question period, Canadians may be surprised to know just how cooperative and productive this past session of Parliament has been. Since January, our government has worked with all opposition parties to advance many important bills that will help Canadian families. We have moved forward on our electoral commitments, and I am pleased that much more has been done.

Since January, the government has introduced a total of 54 bills. By the time the Senate adjourns for the summer next week, I expect we will have royal assent on 26 of those bills, including such important legislative initiatives as Bill C-33, which will restore war veterans' allowances to allied veterans and their families; Bill C-29, to guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and co-operatives; Bill C-3, to promote the economic development of Canada's north; Bill C-28, to increase the governance capacity of first nations in Canada; and Bill C-14, a critically important justice bill to fight the scourge of organized crime.

Although much work has been accomplished, a good number of bills that continue to be priorities of our government remain on the order paper, including Bill C-6, to enact Canada's consumer product safety act to help protect the health and safety of all Canadians; Bill C-8, to provide first nations women on reserve with the same rights and protections enjoyed by all other Canadians; and Bill C-23, to open new doors for trade between Canada and Colombia.

Furthermore, our government has continued to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to fighting crime and violence in this country. Our justice minister, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, has been unrelenting in his determination to hold criminals accountable and protect victims and law-abiding Canadian citizens.

Over a dozen justice related bills have been introduced since the beginning of this parliamentary session, which include Bill C-15, Bill C-26 and Bill S-4, to help fight crimes related to criminal organizations, such as drug-related offences, identity theft and auto theft; Bill C-25, which will return truth in sentencing and eliminate the two for one credit; Bill C-36, which will repeal the faint hope clause, and Bill C-19, the new anti-terrorism bill.

Unfortunately none of these bills have completed the legislative process during this session of Parliament. Again, due to the leadership of our Prime Minister, thankfully our country will not be plunged into an election and these bills will remain on the order paper. We hope to pass them into law in the fall.

I look forward to continuing the spirit of cooperation in this place in September to accomplish this unfinished business for all Canadians. Five of these bills have already passed one chamber of Parliament and they are before the second House for consideration. On behalf of vulnerable Canadians in particular, we have to keep moving to get the job done on this important legislation.

In closing, I am pleased that the government has been able to develop today's opposition day motion in cooperation with the official opposition. This House of Commons should more often focus on what all of us have in common rather than what divides us. While I would have liked to have seen some debate on some of our newer bills that we have just introduced and passed more of our justice and safety bills, this parliamentary sitting is winding down in the age-old Canadian tradition of compromise.

We all know that this place is about debate, trade-offs, negotiations and compromise. This is how Parliament works. This is how our very country was born, has grown and continues to develop and flourish.

As I have already indicated, the government will be supporting today's motion. I again salute our Prime Minister for his leadership in staving off an election, which I think would be dreaded by the vast majority of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you, and all colleagues in this House, a very happy summer.

Royal Assent

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 11, 2009

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Rosalie Silberman Abella, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 11th day of June, 2009 at 3:56 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act; Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act; and Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I was suggesting is that instead of referring the bill to committee after second reading, where the committee is limited in the scope of what it can do, I had hoped the government would consider referring the bill to committee before second reading where we could then engage, in a constructive manner, in crafting legislation that would reflect the will of all parliamentarians and of the interested parties, the aboriginal community of Canada.

The member for Simcoe North agreed with me when I pointed out that the committee we currently have is functioning very well. We have already dealt with two bills, Bill C-5 and C-28, expeditiously after listening to witnesses, but in both cases there was exemplary co-operation between the government side and the opposition parties. Also, in both cases, the aboriginal communities that were interested in the legislation supported the legislation.

We have a situation now with Bill C-8 where the aboriginal communities do not support the legislation and have expressed great reservations. If we approve this legislation at second reading and then send it to committee, it will tie the hands of the committee in its ability to improve the legislation. The amendments that could be introduced at that stage are rather limited and must be narrower in scope than what the legislation says.

When I hear the members of the NDP and my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois say that they want to improve the legislation by passing it at second reading and sending it to committee, I think they and the government forgot that we could have gone another route, which would have made for a situation that would have been much more constructive and more in keeping with the spirit of co-operation that is supposed to exist between the Crown and aboriginal communities ever since we had an incredible ceremony in this House, as people will remember, and ever since we had a royal commission look into the matter. We have all agreed that we need to start dealing with the aboriginal communities in a much more respectful manner and in a manner that engages them, gives them a voice and we listen to their voice. It is a matter of the honour of the Crown that we must respect that.

That is essentially what I was saying in my comments yesterday. I would hope that the members from the Bloc Québécois and the members from the NDP would support this motion, would give an occasion to the government to go back and consult properly and then bring forward a bill that we could refer to committee before second reading in order to give the committee the chance to do good work, as it has.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right off the bat that I will support the motion, but I want to explain why. In doing so, I hope to convince my colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc to seriously consider that the avenue we are suggesting might be the better course.

I want first to demonstrate that, under the able stewardship of the member for Simcoe North as chair of the aboriginal affairs committee, the committee has been demonstrating exemplary cooperation. I see him nodding his head in agreement. We have had the opportunity to deal with two bills already.

Those bills were Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, and Bill C-28, this very day.

In both cases, the government bills were supported by representatives of the aboriginal communities and the responsible bodies concerned with the issues involved. They appeared before us. In one of the two cases, the bill was tweaked slightly with government consent. That was done unanimously. Today, a minor amendment was made to Bill C-28, and the bill was passed without much discussion.

I raise this point for two reasons. First, to demonstrate that, as far as the official opposition is concerned—and I dare say in this instance also of the two other parties in opposition —there is a desire for cooperation and for doing things properly. The other reason is also very important. In both cases, the bills passed in committee after being passed here at second reading had the unconditional support of the aboriginal communities. That is not the case for Bill C-8, and I feel that needs to be said.

I want to talk about the process for awhile. Parliament is a wonderful thing. It shows flexibility, ingenuity and a way sometimes of dealing with things in different ways, to improve our ways, to make sure that people are heard, to make sure people have an opportunity to express themselves in respect of an overall democratic will.

This is the 40th Parliament. In the 39th Parliament what I am going to talk about happened three times and in the 38th Parliament, which is where it started in earnest, it happened quite often. I am talking about referral of a government bill to committee before second reading. This is something we must consider very carefully.

In a minority Parliament in particular, that means that before a bill is adopted at second reading, it is referred to a committee. The government can do that on its own. It can determine that a bill will go to committee after five hours of debate whether the opposition parties want it to or not. The difference between referring a bill to committee before second reading or after second reading is very important. After second reading the House has stated its approval in principle of what is contained in the bill. Amendments are very restricted in nature. They can constrain, or they can orient a little more precisely certain things, but they cannot expand. Therefore, the capacity of a committee to change a bill is very different if the bill is adopted and referred to committee after second reading as opposed to being referred to committee before second reading. That is crucial for a number of reasons.

That was done over 30 times in the 38th Parliament. I thought that demonstrated a willingness to engage parliamentarians of all parties in shaping legislation. Beyond that, it involved the witnesses and those interested in the legislation as they came to committee because it gave a wider range to parliamentarians in effect to give shape to the legislation.

In the 39th Parliament, it happened three times. In this Parliament it has not happened yet. In the 39th Parliament and this Parliament, even though at times opposition members recommended and the House approved the notion that bills be referred to committee before second reading in order to have that flexibility, that capacity to engage the witnesses, to really engage the expertise in the country to shape legislation as a better expression of the common will, it has not been happening. It has not happened a single time in this Parliament.

I know my colleague from Simcoe North knows what I am talking about because I brought this up at committee. It is an act of respect of Parliament for a minority government to ask that legislation be referred to committee before second reading. It gives the ability of all members on that committee to bring a constructiveness to it. It gives an opportunity to all witnesses to be taken seriously, and perhaps to suggest amendments. It engages all kinds of NGOs. It engages academia. It engages the private sector. In this case it certainly would have engaged the aboriginal communities across the land, the same aboriginal communities that have said they are not supportive of Bill C-8.

I was listening very closely to my colleague from Toronto Centre and my colleague from Ottawa Centre and they were not contradicting each other. My colleague from Ottawa Centre said we should send it to committee where we could amend it and I totally agree with him. Let us send it to committee where the committee can do some real work and shape this legislation and have the witnesses engage in shaping it so that it becomes a constructive exercise and not a confrontation exercise as it might turn out to be if we do it this way.

That is why the motion to defer the matter for six months would give the government an opportunity to consider seriously consulting widely.

Honestly, I would have preferred if the government had chosen to send the bill to committee before second reading. I do not think we would be having this debate. The committee is working very well. It could have demonstrated to Canadians its capacity to do so. It could have engaged the aboriginal community in a very thorough manner, taking whatever time was needed, having as many meetings as were needed in order to listen to proposals and suggestions. The committee has demonstrated that ability and it could have demonstrated it even more so.

Because the government chose not to do that, we are now caught in the situation where our party, I think very legitimately, is saying that because the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada are saying they do not like the bill, we should hoist it. The hoist motion calls for a delay of six months.

If the government would step back and consider that perhaps the bill should have been referred to committee before second reading, this would all be over. The committee has demonstrated its capacity to work, to fully engage in a very serious matter. It could engage all the witnesses that want to be engaged in a constructive legislative exercise. Unfortunately, because the government chose not to refer the bill to committee before second reading, we are into the current situation.

Once again, I would ask my Bloc Québécois and NDP colleagues to consider one point very seriously. We are not opposed to sending this bill to committee. However, we would like the committee responsible for studying it to have the kind of freedom that it cannot have if the bill goes to committee after second reading. That is crucial.

From what I can tell, today and for some time now, we have been getting very clear signals from aboriginals, from the Assembly of First Nations, from the Native Women's Association of Canada and other stakeholders. Personally, as a member of the committee, I have heard from a lot of people. They are very concerned about this bill, about how it was written, about what it contains, and about what it does not contain. If we have to restrict ourselves to a more limited range of amendments because the House has passed this bill at second reading, we will end up limiting Parliament's ability to do good work. I suggest that my colleagues give that some serious thought.

If—all together—we do tell the government that we want to do this work, that is fine, but let us do it with the latitude, flexibility and desire to be constructive that this committee has demonstrated so far. All of the committee members, whether they represent the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals or the Conservatives, have demonstrated good will and the ability to work well together.

I had hoped that the government would seize this opportunity to try to resolve, once and for all, a problem that has been around for years, even decades, to resolve it constructively, which a minority government or Parliament can do if it so chooses. That would have been a strong indication of the government's respect for Parliament and for aboriginal communities in Canada. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. We believe that we should not proceed with the bill as written. Aboriginal communities are not happy with it.

I also think that there is another reason this bill is a step in the wrong direction.

It is another topic that we broached at committee time and again and I hope we explore even further. I see my colleague from Simcoe North nodding again. It is the concept of honour of the Crown. I readily admit that I am not yet grounded enough in the concept to fully comprehend all of its ramifications, but I know that it is rather far-reaching.

The honour of the Crown concept is one that has been invoked by the Supreme Court in matters dealing with aboriginal communities to strike down legislation. The last time I heard it was used was by the aboriginal communities in British Columbia to basically tell the government that it cannot sell properties, as it was planning to. The department had this plan to sell nine properties, two of which were in B.C. and two of which were subject to land claims by aboriginal communities. Because the government had not consulted these communities, the Supreme Court essentially said that the honour of the Crown concept applied and it could not sell those two buildings. They were withdrawn from the package of assets of buildings that the Crown was selling.

The honour of the Crown concept is a concept that applies to all things aboriginal and beyond that. In this case, I would think that if we were to proceed with this bill in the manner we are proposing, which is to force it through the House at second reading so that the committee is restricted in its ability to give it shape, listen to the witnesses and give voice to their concerns in a constructive way, the bill would be subject to court challenges quite readily if it were to become law.

As legislators, we have a duty to try to prevent that. We have a duty to construct good law according to principles that were established in our Constitution. If we were to proceed this way, when we have heard that the consultation might not have been as thorough or as listened to as the aboriginal communities would have hoped, perhaps we would then be creating faulty legislation that would be subject to fairly serious challenges on this notion of honour of the Crown. This must permeate what we do as agents of the Crown. We are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The government is her agent. Together, we have responsibilities toward the Crown.

I am not sure that proceeding this way is the best way to fulfill these obligations or fiduciary responsibilities. We can call them what we will. As we continue the work in committee, I would hope that this concept becomes much more well understood by members of the committee and beyond. I think it is a concept that we will see coming much more to the fore as we try to honour the new spirit of working with aboriginal communities throughout this land.

I will sum up briefly because I only have a few minutes left.

My colleagues must understand that we are not trying to avoid taking action or to reject everything. We are telling the government that there is a more constructive way to approach a very delicate problem. I believe all parties agree that the bill attempts to resolve a very complex and delicate situation.

To draft a law that will be accepted by everyone, we must all put a little water in our wine and we must be prepared to hear from those most affected. Those people have been telling us for weeks that they cannot support this bill and they have asked the government to not proceed with it. That places us in a difficult situation.

I will come back to my basic premise: had the government truly wanted to give parliamentarians the latitude to work together and create a bill to reflect the collective will of all political parties and all aboriginal communities, it could have referred this bill to committee before second reading. It chose not to do so.

Earlier, I asked the parliamentary secretary why the government did not do so and chose instead to force a vote at second reading.

The government is therefore asking for approval in principle. It has chosen to limit the committee's power, after having listened to witnesses, to propose constructive amendments and—together—the government and the members of the three opposition parties—to develop a bill that we could all have been proud of. It could have taken another approach.

The members of the official opposition take their duty seriously. By proposing this motion, we are telling the government that it is not taking the right approach.

I will make a last appeal to the good will of my Bloc and NDP colleagues. What we are proposing today could be avoided altogether if we all told the government to refer the bill to committee before second reading. We must give the committee, which has already demonstrated its competence, the tools to do the work that is needed. We have a great deal of listening to do. We must listen to all those who wish to participate. We must take their grievances into account. When we find contradictions and disagreements, we must look for common ground.

As responsible parliamentarians, we must find a way to produce a bill that really reflects the government's responsibilities and our responsibilities as parliamentarians, our responsibilities under the Canadian Constitution and our responsibilities that arise from Supreme Court of Canada rulings.

This all could have been moved ahead by referring the bill to committee before second reading. I do not know why the government, a minority government, stubbornly refuses to refer any bills to committee. Many committees, such as the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which I mentioned earlier, have a proven record.

The chair of that committee, a government member, is nodding his head in agreement with my assertion that the members of that committee have proven that they work well together.

Both bills we studied were fully supported by aboriginal communities. However, aboriginal communities are not in favour of the bill we are being asked to support here today, and that is a serious problem.

I implore the government to reconsider its approach and do its homework over again in order to come up with a solution that will be better for everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, we are discussing an extremely important bill. I, too, am somewhat surprised by my Liberal colleague's position. I do not think that his is the right approach just now, particularly when it comes to the matrimonial rights of aboriginal peoples. This bill has gone by several numbers, of which I will list just two. Bill C-47 died on the order paper last year when the election was called, and now we have Bill C-8.

The Bloc Québécois believes, and I hope the NDP will agree, that this bill should be studied in committee. It is of utmost importance that this bill be debated, analyzed and closely examined with witnesses by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Allow me to explain.

I am aware of the rules of Parliament. By presenting an amendment to delay study of the bill for six months, the Liberal Party knows full well that the bill will die on the order paper. I am absolutely certain that that is not what aboriginal women want. They want respect, and the Bloc Québécois believes that aboriginal women will get respect if we study the matter of matrimonial rights respectfully once and for all.

I hope that my Conservative Party colleagues will not take it for granted that our support for Bill C-8 is firm and unconditional. I want to say right now that we really do not like Bill C-8, not one bit. It does have some good points and measures, but some things in the bill are just not well thought out. If the government is serious about this, and I hope that it is, it will understand that we want to take as much time as we need in committee to properly study this bill, pick it apart and amend it as necessary. This bill must meet the needs of aboriginal women, first nations and aboriginal peoples across the country.

The government will have to explain why it set aside the main recommendations made by Ms. Grant-John, who did an exceptional job of examining this issue. The issue of matrimonial rights has been around for a number of years. With all due respect, the Liberals do not have a leg to stand on when criticizing the Conservatives at this stage regarding Bill C-8. It was the Liberals who introduced the famous Bill C-31 on women's matrimonial rights, the 1985 bill that erased women's rights in their entirety in one fell swoop. They should remember that the bill languished. Although the Conservatives adopted the bill, it originated with the Liberals some time before that.

It is odd because the Liberals know this. An extremely interesting ruling was just handed down by the Court of Appeal. It concerns the rights of aboriginal peoples, especially women's rights. This ruling was handed down on April 6, 2009.

The government will have to take it into account because the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling overturns several decisions and forces the government to recognize that it imposed a law that discriminated against aboriginal peoples.

In the matter at hand—and we will come to an agreement rather quickly—it is clear that 90% to 95% of the matrimonial rights cases concern women and children in native communities. It is equally clear that the rights of women have been violated. In my opinion, moving forward and adopting the amendment would kill the bill. With all due respect for my colleague from Labrador, and based on my extensive experience, I know that unless the government is forced to act it will not do so. In this case, it is not true that there will be further consultations if we give the government six more months. That is not true. I do not buy it.

We in the Bloc Québécois prefer to move forward, and I hope that my NDP colleagues will feel the same way. I hope that what I am about to say will be well translated and that our friends opposite will understand me clearly. I have just one hope, and that is that they do not seriously believe we are going to pass this bill in a rush and study it quickly in committee. It will take months. I hope they realize that, because if they do not, then there will be trouble. But that is very clear.

I have a few questions. Why is it that Ms. Grant-John's entire report was set aside?

Why is it that none of the recommendations made by the rapporteur, Ms. Corbett, were acted on?

It is odd, because I was looking for support for this bill among aboriginal women in Canada and in Quebec, but both groups said no. I spoke this morning with Grand Chief Picard, who also has problems with this bill. But I will give it a chance.

In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois, probably with the support of the NDP, will be willing to refer this very, very important bill to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development so that it is studied properly in the interest of the rights of women living in aboriginal communities. This problem has existed in aboriginal communities for too long, and we must find solutions. For my part, I believe, with all due respect, that having a minority government is not a bad thing.

We have seen evidence of this. I will give my colleagues opposite the chance to respond. I will quickly give a brief history of Bill C-21, which was passed during the previous session. This bill repealed section 67 of the Indian Act. As a result, aboriginal communities will now be accountable, and complaints can be filed against them with the Human Rights Commission.

Our Conservative colleagues opposite were opposed to all the amendments we had made to the bill. The original bill consisted of just one clause. When it came out of committee, was reported in this House and was passed, it included 12 or 13 clauses. I was very closely involved in the study of the bill, and I can tell you that it was thanks to the aboriginal communities and all the members of the committee that we were able to seriously amend Bill C-21 so that it respected the rights of aboriginal peoples.

I have a problem with hoisting this bill. In my opinion, we need to study it and make amendments, and we need especially to heed the protests of the aboriginal women who were not consulted.

There is a Supreme Court decision about consultation with respect to Supreme Court rulings. If this is the case, I do not believe, with all due respect for my colleagues across the way, that such consultation has taken place. They could have taken a few more months. We will set the process in motion during those months and it will take the time it needs to take. The Bloc Québécois wants to see this bill amended to take the rights of aboriginal women on reserves into consideration.

The situation can be easily summarized. An aboriginal couple marries, has children and accumulates assets on reserve. They might, for instance, own a convenience store, a service station or some other business. The couple separates. The woman leaves the marital home, as usually happens, unfortunately, and leaves the reserve. She settles in town or somewhere else. Then comes the issue of who owns the convenience store, the garage or the business. They are located on the reserve and thus on federal territory. The situation is not clear.

The Bloc Québécois wants to examine this bill. A lot of work has been done on it by the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, and they have sent recommendations to us. I have read them and I believe that they need to be taken into consideration because a number of Mohawk communities, and probably some others as well, have what is called a matrimonial property rights tribunal. These are in place in the communities and we must respect what is being done in the communities. We need to take steps to ensure that we respect what is already in place, but the bill as it stands is not clear about this. What is more, the government seems to want to have a degree of control over the settlement of matrimonial property rights on the reserves, but I must admit this is not clear. If the regulations do not work, the federal government could change them. I believe I read that. If the government wants to go ahead with this, there is going to be a serious problem.

However, I want to point out that matrimonial rights have a huge impact on communities. Often, the women and children wind up with nothing and are expelled from the reserve, while the men keep everything. I do not want to generalize, but I would say that this is what happens in 80% or 90% of cases. I know, because I live in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and I have a good idea of what is happening in my communities. We must not be blind or ignore what is happening. We need to pay attention and take into account individual and collective rights.

There will be a serious debate about collective versus individual rights. This bill is not clear. It deserves to be debated and examined in greater detail. I will say to my Liberal colleagues, as I said at the start, that the worst that could happen would be that, if the committee is not happy with the responses and if the amendments we propose are not incorporated, we kill the bill. The three opposition parties can kill the bill, obviously. The government will have to understand that it is in its interest to respect what aboriginal communities want, which is not to be pushed around. They want to be heard. The main groups want to be heard and want to have a chance to speak.

I have asked that they propose amendments. We will have to look at the clauses. I know that aboriginal communities and groups, the Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations of Canada may be opposed to the bill as it currently stands.

In life, it is not enough just to be opposed to something. You have to come up with solutions to the problem. When a party is opposed to the bill, I respect its position. But what solutions does it have? What amendments does it propose? This bill also raises the whole debate about incorporating provincial and territorial laws. The problem of respecting women's rights has never been easy to solve, and it will not be easy to solve with Bill C-8.

But if we do not make the effort to sit down all together at the same table to discuss, amend and adapt this bill so that it respects women's rights, we will miss the boat and pay the price. I especially do not want to be pushed around on this issue. I want us to take our time and study this bill carefully, and I want us to listen to the groups that propose amendments that we will study and analyze. I hope that the government does not think that this bill will be passed before the end of the current session. If it does, then we will have a serious problem.

This is a very important bill. Bill C-21 repealed section 67 of the Indian Act. We took the time we needed, and we did things properly. We also passed a bill about specific claims. We took the time to talk to aboriginal communities and aboriginal association representatives. This is a good bill that should satisfy aboriginal communities.

This morning, the committee—and I am in a position to know—passed Bill C-28 without amendment, or rather, with a small amendment concerning syntax. The bill should be back before the House when we return from the Victoria Day recess or, in our case, the fête des Patriotes. We passed the bill, and the Cree people are satisfied. It took 10 years, but now it is done. I am not suggesting that it will take 10 years to pass Bill C-8, but I think that it will take a few months. We have to take the time to listen to aboriginal community representatives. Important things, such as federal legislation on matrimonial property and recognition of the jurisdiction of first nations, must be taken into account. How will we do that?

I will end with a discussion of a principle that I believe in: if one wants what one has never had, one must be prepared to do what one has never done.

We are about to do something that we have never done: respect aboriginal women. That is what we will do as we study the bill in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development over the next few months.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to express my supreme disappointment at the hoist motion put forward by the Liberal critic on aboriginal affairs. There was no signal that this would happen. The committee has been planning and preparing for witnesses for testimony. The same opposition party, in the last Parliament, expressed every desire to get this bill before committee and it has now done just the opposite.

Contrary to what the member said, there have been all kinds of consultations, There were 103 consultations across Canada during this process.

The member talked about the drafting of Bill C-28, the amendments to the Cree-Naskapi Act, and the responsible approach that was taken. That same approach was taken on the development of this bill. A draft proposal was shared with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and others. Millions of dollars were spent on consultations leading up to and including the development of this. We have heard from a number of vulnerable first nations women who supported this initiative.

The member talked about the United Nations. The UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights slammed Canada in 1998 and then again in 2006 for not giving aboriginal women the same rights on reserve as those off. The same goes for the UN human rights committee in 2006, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people in 2004, the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing in 2007, and the list goes on.

Why is the member for Labrador taking such precipitous action with no notice and with obvious negative consequences for vulnerable people? This legislation is long overdue.

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise here today to take part in the debate on Bill C-28.

I listened to the constructive comments made a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. It is nice to see such a constructive debate on a bill introduced by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. It is nice to see the work accomplished by my colleague, the minister, in this file. As we have just seen, the best compliments we can receive are those of the opposition. We have just heard some very constructive comments in that regard. He was also supported by the team from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which I had the pleasure to serve, unfortunately not with the current minister, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, I believe that this bill is the result of very hard work under the leadership of our minister.

Why is Bill C-28 so important? Because it amends the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. Consider, for instance, the James Bay Cree and the Naskapi in the communities of Schefferville. This legislation enshrines their rights in Canadian law through a new relationship, as we have just heard. It was negotiated and signed by representatives of the Government of Canada and the Cree of northern Quebec.

The agreement concerning a new relationship is not an ordinary political document; nor is it a measure aimed at correcting an oversight or eliminating a loophole in existing law. Neither is it a standard commercial contract to be put aside as soon as the ink is dry.

The agreement concerns a new relationship and it marks a real milestone in the history of our country. It settles long-standing disagreements between the federal government and the Cree of northern Quebec. It assigns federal responsibilities in key policy fields to the Cree regional administration. It makes available to all governments—federal, provincial and Cree—a clear, equitable and logical method of achieving the essential objective of ensuring that the Cree people of northern Quebec will have genuine self-government.

As a matter of fact, if it succeeds in these three important objectives, the agreement concerning this new relationship will have accomplished what we should expect, that is, the establishment of a solid base on which the Government of Canada and the Cree can build this new relationship.

This is a relationship based on principles such as equality, confidence and mutual respect, which integrates the Cree more closely into the economic and political life of Quebec. It is a relationship that takes us out of the courtrooms and lawyers' offices and brings us together so that we can devote our time and energy to something truly worthwhile, namely, working to develop aboriginal communities, to strengthen families and to build communities where education, housing, and occupational, recreational, community and economic activity can fully develop. Those are the noble objectives at the heart of this agreement concerning this new relationship.

What is more important is that it not only provides tangible benefits to all the parties; but it turns loose some powerful forces within first nations communities, because they have ambitions. I am thinking, as I mentioned, of the nine communities in northern Quebec that lie east of James Bay and south of Hudson Bay. I think, among others, of Joe Linklater, chief of the Gwitchin Vuntut First Nation in the Yukon, who has spoken forcefully of the continuing usefulness of the kind of treaty that we are discussing today and of its impact on first nations communities. Here is what he said last year in his testimony to a Senate committee: “I keep telling people that these agreements have not been negotiated to obtain resources for us; they are negotiated to give us the ability to take charge of our lives and to become self-reliant.”

He speaks of taking charge and becoming self-reliant. Those few words sum up exactly what the Cree of northern Quebec expect from this new relationship. That is precisely what Bill C-28 will help them to accomplish by putting into law certain aspects of the agreement on a new relationship.

The solid footing and permanence of an agreement like this, and by extension Bill C-28, are no accident. They are the outcome of genuine consultations between federal government officials and the Cree communities, and between the Cree leaders and the people they represent. That means there were broad, far-reaching consultations at each stage of the process, from the negotiation of the agreement to the drafting of Bill C-28, including efforts to find new areas for collaboration.

This is what I mean by collaboration. The consultations started when negotiations began. They were not held at the upper level only, negotiator to negotiator. The leaders of the nine Cree communities in the region played an active role in the discussions about the main issues involved and in advising the negotiators on those issues.

The Cree leaders, with the negotiators, focused particularly on the question of governance. More specifically, they brought their experience and their perceptions to the negotiating process. They gave the managers of crucial community operations presentations on specific subjects and on important technical issues in connection with the agreement. In addition, the residents of the nine Cree communities were kept constantly up to date on the plans.

The virtually complete support given by the residents affected by the agreement is testimony to the value of those consultations. A majority of the Cree residents voted in a referendum and an overwhelming 90% majority of them voted in favour of the agreement. Today, it is clear to parliamentarians that the other party is in complete agreement with the kind of project developed by my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

This agreement is the product of meetings between the federal representatives and meetings with the Cree leaders during the preparation of the bill, to ensure that it reflects the intention of the negotiators and assigns responsibilities to the regional authority so it can take over certain federal jurisdictions. As a result, Bill C-28 offers a promise for the future.

I would like to add that this consultation-based approach has continued and is still going on today. The governments of Canada and Quebec, with the Crees, have established a number of discussion forums. Those forums offer the three governments a structured process for negotiating the possible transfer of additional federal and provincial powers to the Cree Regional Authority.

I am convinced that this process of consultation and open participation in the new framework that has been developed in the last two years, with a relationship based on goodwill and trust, offers a fine illustration of the collaboration that has developed between the Canadian government and the first nations communities in this country. These values, of equality, respect and trust, are what are needed to promote self-determination by aboriginal communities and their progress toward self-government.

In conclusion, I of course urge my colleagues to support this bill, on which there is broad consensus. Naturally there are other challenges, but by working together with the first nations, who are a force for change—and we need only think of all the young people in aboriginal communities who can make a contribution to our economy and our social, cultural and community development—our society will be able to make an investment and reap the fruits of that investment.

I will be happy to answer any questions about this speech.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it must be a shock for the minister. Though he was not able to hear it, I actually acknowledged that the process over the last two years was fair and reasonable and that I appreciated how it was expedited. Maybe I did not actually get the words “Conservative government” out there, but there certainly is a shift in relationship, and I think it is a positive shift.

With regard to arbitration, I believe I did say that both parties have to agree to arbitration. I acknowledge it is important that first nations have the right to not go to arbitration.

We have seen in the past, and I am referring to the land claims coalition, that it has indicated the government has been unwilling to go to arbitration. In fact the land claims implementation is a very sore point for other nations that have signed land claims or self-government agreements. Again, it does not rest with the current government that in the past the land claims implementation has been a slow and painful process. I have looked at some of the previous Auditor General reports stating that governments not only need to implement the letter of the agreement, they need to look at the spirit and the intent. We have seen in the past with regard to land claims agreements that the department has crossed every t and dotted every i and looked for every possible way to not implement those agreements.

I know the land claims coalition will be in town next week. In the spirit of Bill C-28, since we have seen this move to improve relationships, I am ever hopeful that we will see some movement in terms of implementing those agreements in a fulsome way, honouring the spirit and intent of them.

With regard to the dispute resolution, I think it is going to be important for us to review how successful the dispute resolution mechanism has been once it is fully implemented and people have had an opportunity to use it. If it is successful, that may be a model that other nations want to look at adopting aspects of, as it fits their particular communities.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I served together on the committee. I do appreciate the hard work of all the committee members. It is one of the committees that functions quite well in this House, and I think that is a tribute to all members on the committee.

The thing I like about the dispute resolution process is the fact that the Canada-Cree standing liaison committee is the first step. Because there has been a drastic improvement in relationships between the Cree and the Crown, in this case the current government, we look forward to the shift in that relationship. People are coming to the table with goodwill to work on some of the issues.

Bill C-28 is symbolic of that. When the commissioners came before the committee two years ago, that was not the case. In fact they said in their 2006 report that it was essentially a poisonous relationship between the government and the Cree-Naskapi. We have seen a shift over the last couple of years in that relationship, and a willingness.

This dispute resolution process signifies that shift in relationship. The fact that we have this mechanism with the Cree-Canada standing liaison committee to refer matters to first, and if they cannot be resolved they are referred to mediation, is a positive step.

The parliamentary secretary asked me if I had any suggestions for improvement. I would hope that if matters end up having to go to arbitration the government would not stand in the way. I know that, generally speaking, parties have to agree to arbitration, but the government's track record in terms of going to arbitration has not been stellar. It simply has not agreed to do that. Again, it is not just this government, it was past governments as well.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, like my other colleagues in the House, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. This is important legislation and I believe there will be agreement on all sides of the House to expedite it.

From the government's own briefing documents, I want to put this into context.

The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is considered to be the first aboriginal self-government legislation in Canada. It recognizes local aboriginal government and established a system of land management before the federal government's 1995 inherent right policy.

The act came into force in 1984 in fulfilment of the Government of Canada's obligations under two historic agreements: the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and the northeastern Quebec agreement.

The James Bay and northern Quebec agreement contains specific obligations in relation to the Cree Nation and the Inuit of northern Quebec. The northeastern Quebec agreement contains specific obligations in relation to the Naskapi Nation.

There is a lot more historical information but I want to get to the proposed amendments that are before the House. This is a very brief summary of them. The proposed amendments would carry out two main objectives: first, equip the Cree Regional Authority with additional responsibilities and powers, including bylaw-making powers, so that the authority is better able to receive and carry out certain specific responsibilities that were assumed by the federal government under the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement; and second, recognize the Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou as a separate band and local government under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

I wanted to provide the House with that historical context because I also want to talk about the process.

It is important that the people who are actively involved in this be heard in the House through a member of Parliament, because, of course, community members do not have the right to speak in this place. Rather than my paraphrasing, I will use the words of some of the commissioners who came before committee on May 5. They talked a bit about the process and their support for this legislation and what else needs to be done.

We have before the committee Mr. Richard Saunders, the chair of the Cree-Naskapi Commission; Commissioner Robert Kanatewat, who is a Chisasibi on James Bay; and Philip Awashish, from the Mistissini of the Eeyou Istchee interior.

The commissioners came before committee because they wanted to talk about the Cree-Naskapi commissioner's report that appears biannually. Over a number of years, the commissioners, on behalf of their people, have raised the need for these amendments. We are talking about a 19 year process here.

Part of the reason that we are looking at these kinds of amendments is because when the initial agreement was signed in 1984 there was no parallel implementation plan and no requirement for an implementation plan in the legislation. Without that implementation plan, there were delays in moving forward on initiatives that would have benefited the Cree-Naskapi.

In a briefing note that was provided to committee by the commissioners, they talked about this implementation plan. They said:

Typically, the process of implementation, as in the case of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, has been that Parliament enacts legislation and its administration and implementation remains the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

As a parenthesis here, I must say that the current Conservative government has inherited many of the problems that were seen under previous government regiments.

They go on in their briefing notes to say:

Throughout this traditional form of implementation, the Cree and Naskapi peoples are denied a meaningful role in the decision-making process even though they (the Cree and Naskapi) are most impacted by the application, administration and implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The conventional style of implementation is frequently insensitive to the actual needs and aspirations of the Cree and Naskapi peoples and has resulted in symbolic implementation that amounts to no real change in how decisions are made and in how things are done.

In the actual testimony before committee, when the chair of the commission was talking about this particular act and the proposed amendments and report, he said:

There's really not much disagreement on the part of anyone about that. It's really both a symbolic and housekeeping amendment and we're glad to see it. We would note, without being unduly cynical about processes, that this has been promised for the last 19 years and finally the amendment is here. Hallelujah!

That 19-year time frame reflects missed opportunities. It reflects the fact that governments over any number of years have disregarded the ongoing reports by the commissioners calling for these amendments.

The chair of the commission pointed out that this bill was largely a housekeeping bill and that there were other uncontested non-contentious amendments that were very necessary. The Cree is asking that the legislation be expedited and that the process that was used to get to these amendments, which has sped up over the last couple of years, be used to look at the rest of the non-contentious amendments so the peoples of that territory are not waiting 19, 20, 25 years for the next series of amendments that are largely housekeeping.

He goes on to talk about some of these other potential amendments. He says:

If I might just let me say where our concerns lie. This also reflects to some extent what the Cree leadership have told us many times. Recommendations for change to the act, housekeeping amendments, all sorts of things have been recommended, as I noted for 19 years some of them.

Some of these changes are things like referenda. He cites a particular instance:

If the Crees want to transfer a piece of land in a community to the Cree school board to build a Cree school on, they've got to have a referendum. Think about it. In your communities, how many folks would come out to vote on a referendum for the municipality to transfer a piece of land to the school board.

The Crees agree that in some cases a referendum is appropriate but they are saying that so many other levels of government do not require referenda to make decisions in their communities, nor do they have to meet the kinds of percentage levels that are required under the referendum parts of the original 1984 act. That is one housekeeping amendment that they are suggesting, and there are many more. Some are around how band council elections are conducted.

I would urge the current government to use the process that it has already put in place to get to these amendments to ensure we can expedite the next series of amendments.

While I am talking about that kind of process, I want to reference the United Nations declaration on indigenous rights, which talks about many different things, but in the context of this particular legislation before the House, it applies prior and informed consent and the right to make decisions on lands that are within the first nations' traditional territories. This legislation reflects that there is prior informed consent.

What we have heard from the commissioners and other representations is that the Cree-Naskapi and Oujé-Bougoumou feel that they have been included in the process that led up to this legislation and it does reflect the use of their own lands.

A number of members have talked about self-government. I want to use the words of the commissioners who appeared before the committee. They stated:

One of the things we've been pushing for years is the need to make the law accommodate and empower the Cree way of doing things, consistent with the charter and so on to make it a tool for the communities to use so that when the community decides to do something and it's a legitimate decision, then there is legislative capacity to give that effect and to protect it from attack from people who want to argue that the election was a day late and therefore it's invalid.

The problem is that very frequently the act doesn't sufficiently empower the communities. With all due respect, it's a great improvement over the Indian Act, but it suffers from some of the same straightjacket that the Indian Act has always imposed, and that's inevitable. Yes, it was written with negotiation but it was ultimately written by people who have written things like the Indian Act for years. There's a need to break out of that box and to make sure that traditional and customary law, to the extent possible.... And we all recognize the charter, the Criminal Code, and other instruments that we all respect and share, but within those contexts there's a need to make this act a tool of empowerment for the Cree community so they can get on with doing things.

In that context, the bill does not specifically deal with that. The next series of amendments that are required is to really take a look at implementing full self-government. As the commissioner pointed out, this is certainly within the context of the Canadian charter and other legislative frameworks, but what the Cree-Naskapi is asking for, not only asking for but is entitled to, is full self-government and a legitimate request that they be treated on a nation-to-nation basis.

We have heard from other nations that in the ongoing negotiations with the present government and previous governments, there has been a great deal of difficulty in recognizing that nation-to-nation status.

We heard this morning at committee from treaty one in the treaty land entitlement committee, that nation's nation status continues not to be recognized and, arguably, that we would see improved conditions in many first nations communities with that autonomy, that control over their own destiny, and so would look to the government to use this process that they have used to get to this new relationship agreement, to look at these amendments, because that could have a meaningful impact on communities.

I just want to touch for a moment on the new relationship agreement between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Isctchee. This is a framework that was hammered out and part of the legislation today deals with a couple of elements in this framework agreement.

The dispute resolution process is not part of the legislation but I want to touch on it briefly because it is an important part. In other land claims implementation agreements, we have seen that the dispute resolution mechanism has not worked very effectively. Often the Government of Canada has simply stepped away or not consented to be involved in the dispute resolution if it does not see it as being to its benefit.

Under this new dispute resolution process, there will be a Cree-Canada standing liaison committee that will be the first place where disputes can be brought for resolution. I understand from the parties involved that they are optimistic that this will be much more successful in dispute resolution so that things do not get dragged out for decades before there is some conclusion to the differences in opinion. The Cree-Canada standing liaison committee is a first step. If that is not resolved, then there is an opportunity for mediation and then, ultimately, arbitration, although my understanding is that at the arbitration level the government must commit to going to arbitration if that is required.

I wanted to comment on that because it has been largely ineffective in other agreements. I look forward to seeing how this works. I am hopeful that this does expedite some of these claims and differences of opinion so that nations can get on with the kind of economic and social development that is so important for the lifeblood of their communities.

I want to touch on one other thing. Although it is outside the context of the act, it does bear raising attention. When the commissioners came before the committee on Tuesday, they raised a number of issues that they had raised during their appearances before the committee about two years ago, and housing continues to be an issue. As part of this current legislation, a substantial amount of money will go into the communities, but there is still an obligation on the government's part around housing.

I want to point out some of the differences in these communities. Part of it is that in other first nations communities people are leaving reserves. The commissioners were very careful to point out that this is actually not the case on the Cree territories. They are saying that the Cree has a 95% retention rate of their young people. The very success of those communities, economically, educationally and otherwise, is part of the pressure that is created on increased population growth.

This is about the fact that there is inadequate housing in the Cree communities. They wanted to point out that a template or a model that is used to create housing for some nations does not work in their territory because of the 95% retention rate. We have healthy, vibrant communities where young people want to stay, get their education and work. Therefore, we need policies that are not those template policies that are just applied across the board.

Quebec is looking for regional formulas that actually reflect the regional needs. I believe this legislation is an opportunity for us to raise some of these other issues and encourage the government to be proactive in working with the Cree communities in order to resolve some of these other issues.

The NDP is fully supportive of Bill C-28 and see it as something that can be used as an encouragement for other nations and for the Cree themselves in looking forward to some progress in some of those long outstanding areas.

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

Madam Speaker, usually, we are the ones who put questions to the minister, who then thanks us. This time, I am the one who is thanking the minister for his question.

We are still working very hard on this issue. For the benefit of my colleagues, I should point out that this issue—and specifically Bill C-28—applies directly to my colleague's riding, namely Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I am very involved in this issue, which is very important and which I have been following very closely for a number of years. Even when I was working as a lawyer, I would follow these negotiations with great interest.

I will respond to the minister by saying that he is absolutely right. There should be such aboriginal governments in place. Since my reelection in 2006, I have been the Bloc Québécois critic on aboriginal issues. The main problem that comes to my mind is the lack of continuity. At some point, we will have to sit down and ask ourselves whether aboriginal community chiefs should be elected for a period of four years, instead of two years. We are giving this some thought. Personally, I am thinking about this issue. There is a lack of continuity, and that is the first problem.

The second problem is that it is impossible to have seven Algonquin communities that barely speak to each other, if at all. Yet, they have the same problems. I know the Algonquin nation well, because almost all of its members live in my riding, with the exception of the members of the Kitigan Zibi community, located in Maniwaki, in the riding of Pontiac, which is represented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, these ridings are all adjacent.

So, why not sit together, make the same claims, and perhaps meet with the government to negotiate a similar agreement? After all, it is not a bad agreement. It is true that some communities may have a bit of a problem with that. In order to get along, it is important to sit down and talk about the same claims. Currently, if a mining company wants to conduct mining exploration in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue territory, it must deal with five communities. Why not consult the tribal council of the Anishinabeg Algonquin nation? Right now, companies consult the Attikamek, and they will consult the Cree communities. I personally think that we will have to go in that direction, because there are too many important issues affecting these communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would appreciate it if you could let me know when I have one minute left, because I think I could go on for at least 25 to 30 minutes. Since I only have 20 minutes, I will try to be brief.

I want to salute the students of the Polyvalente Natagan, located in the community of Barraute, in my riding. They are here today as part of a visit to Parliament Hill. I salute them. I am going to give them a brief geography and history lesson, and I hope that it will be part of their June exam.

We are witnessing a historic moment here, and I think it is important to mention it. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who worked on this project, and also to Matthew Mukash, Grand Chief and President of the Grand Council of the Crees, to Ashley Iserhoff, Deputy Grand Chief and Vice-President of the Grand Council of the Crees, to Roderick Pachano, authorized representative of the Chisasibi Cree nation, to Losty Mamianskum of the Whapmagoostui First Nation, to Rodney Mark of the Wemindji Cree nation, to Lloyd Mayappo of the Eastmain band, to Steve Diamond of the Waskaganish Cree nation, to Josie Jimiken of the Nemaska Cree nation, to John Kitchen of the Waswanipi band, to John Longchap of the Mistissini Cree nation, and to Louise Wapachee, authorized representative of the Oujé-Bougoumou Eenuch Association.

These people represent hundreds of Cree who signed a critically important agreement that led to Bill C-28. In this agreement, which I have here, it is clearly mentioned that a bill—and that is Bill C-28—would propose amendments to the government and to the Parliament of Canada, within 18 months of the coming into force of the agreement, which was signed on February 21, 2008.

It is now very important, not to say urgent, that we respect the signatures that appear on this document. This is why the government had to introduce a bill in this House to ratify the agreement. I am telling the students that this agreement must be ratified. It covers a huge territory in northern Quebec, north of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, on the edge of James Bay. That territory surrounds all the hydroelectric dams that Quebec wants to build. Therefore, it is a very important agreement that will help the Cree fulfill their desire to achieve self-governance.

It is important that I indicate that the Bloc Québécois will support this very important bill. The Bloc Québécois recognizes the right of the aboriginal peoples to self-government. This agreement gives effect to that right for the Cree nation. Obviously the bill does not solve all the problems. I think many of us would quickly vote for a bill if that were all it took to end poverty, alcoholism, diabetes and serious crime in isolated communities. Unfortunately, things do not always work as we would like. Some of the more frequent problems in aboriginal communities are inherent in living in what we call remote communities. It is important that we realize, that we sit down and negotiate with the aboriginal people, because one day we will have to understand that we are living on aboriginal land. Even this Parliament, in Ottawa, is on aboriginal land, Algonquin land.

We will have to understand that one day, and agree to negotiate and share this land with the aboriginal communities.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that the aboriginal peoples are distinct peoples with a right to their cultures, their languages, and their customs and traditions, and with the right to determine for themselves how to develop their own identity.

This bill is a step in that direction, in my opinion, and that is why I have recommended that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois not only support the bill, but do so as quickly as possible, to expedite the implementation of the bill. I therefore hope that our Senate colleagues will give it speedy consideration so that Royal Assent can be given before the June recess.

Madam Speaker, before you took the chair, I said I would like you inform me when I have one minute left, or else I would have enough to say to fill at least half an hour or three quarters of an hour. I am not sure that some of my colleagues would appreciate it if I took part of the afternoon to talk about the importance of this bill, which has a direct impact on the aboriginal people in a region that certainly needs the agreements that will result from these bills.

It is rare for us to be able to say that the government has acted in concert with the Cree communities. In this case, it must be said. In fact, unstinting work has been done by the Grand Council of the Crees, but I also think that there was work done jointly, not only with the Cree communities but also with the government of Quebec and with the communities concerned. What we must not forget is that this affects the Naskapi communities. In Kawawachikamach—and I am eager to see how that will be translated and typed—there is a Naskapi community on the border of Labrador and it is affected by this agreement.

I asked the Minister the question and I got the answer I expected. This kind of agreement will have to be made for the Naskapi nation because it is a question of the development and survival of the aboriginal nations, and in particular Kawawachikamach, a very isolated community north of Schefferville. I would add, for my students who will have to look on a map to see where that community is, it is in the extreme eastern point of Quebec where it meets Labrador. The Kawawachikamach nation is a very important part of this.

Let us remember that this bill flows from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which was signed in the 1970s. The Government of Quebec had made hydroelectricity a priority. As a result, it was necessary to divert rivers and construct hydroelectric dams. That produced the power stations known as La Grande-1, La Grande-2, La Grande-3, and now La Grande-4. They were influencing rivers that affected James Bay.

The problem was that nobody spoke with the Cree, who had been living on that land for thousands of years. There were lawsuits, injunctions and many legal proceedings before the government stopped and admitted that they were right in the middle of Cree ancestral land. They were obliged to sit down with them before planning to develop those hydroelectric dams. That led to the James Bay agreement that is now know as the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Nine years after that agreement was signed, the first settlement agreements were reached. The Government of Quebec was concerned because of the hydroelectric basins; but the federal government was also directly involved because of the ancestral lands and the land claims of the Cree people.

Bill C-28 is the result of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee that was signed February 21, 2008. The terms of the agreement call for it to be implemented within 18 months, and, if I count properly, those 18 months have almost expired. That is one reason why the Bloc Québécois will support this bill without reservation and will do its utmost to see that it is adopted at all stages.

I want to explain how that process works for the benefit of my students. Once the bill has been adopted here, it must be sent to a committee for review. We agreed this morning at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that this bill would be reviewed and adopted quickly so that it will come into force before the end of the session, or the beginning of September, at the latest. That is absolutely necessary. Large sums of money are at stake.

I can respond immediately to a question from my colleague from Churchill about the amounts involved. One billion and 50 million dollars will be distributed over a number of years. The parties agree that within 30 days of royal assent, $100 million will be distributed to the Cree communities involved. That is why the bill must be adopted. Within 30 days of royal assent, the government must pay out another $200 million, so that a total of $300 million will be distributed very quickly after royal assent. One may think that is a lot of money for the Cree, but keep in mind the development of the Oujé-Bougoumou community alone cost $110 million.

A huge number of things remain to be done, and major issues need to be settled. I repeat, money will not solve the problems of alcoholism, health issues, school drop-outs and crime in the communities. Money will probably help isolated communities to take control of their situation, provide broader access to water, get their schools working better. Aboriginal people absolutely must take over control of their lives. This funding will be used to train tomorrow's leaders of the Cree community. There are some leaders now but more are needed. This money will go to help the communities.

The communities are experiencing a phenomenal growth spurt. Their annual birth rate ranges between 3% and 5%. In our fine communities, everything is great. We get the necessary services, garbage is picked up, drinking water is available at the turn of a tap. In aboriginal communities, water pipes have to be installed, housing has to be put up on land that is very often not that easy to build on. The funds will go to help the Cree communities to take charge of their future.

Another important point: this bill, which confirms the agreement, will allow the Cree community to enact bylaws in areas that affect it directly, public health and safety, protection of the environment and prevention of pollution, as well as all other sectors that are administrative in character such as the administration of justice and economic and social development. Last year, the Cree-Naskapi Commission, which administers and oversees agreements between the Cree and the Naskapi, made recommendations to us and Bill C-28, which I hope to see passed promptly by this House, will implement those recommendations.

There is also an agreement on what is termed the land. There are three categories, and I know this is highly complex, but there are Category I, II and lll lands. I could make a comparison with chicken grading. Those in what would correspond to Grade A, which is Category I, are the best, the closest to them. Then comes Category II, which are a bit further away, under provincial jurisdiction, for instance, and then Category III is Quebec crown land.

I have shortened my remarks so that I would not take up several more minutes of the members’ time. What I want to say is that an agreement has finally been reached with the Cree. We now have an Agreement Concerning a New Relationship between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee and can proceed with the definition of the land categories. This is very important and even the very heart of the agreement. There is not just money involved. We will finally know that this parcel of land is category I and that one is category II.

I will provide an example. We have even agreed that category II lands will cover an area of 155,000 square kilometres. These lands will be administered by the Cree and the regional authority. This is Quebec land too and authority is shared. We still have to determine who can hunt and fish, identify ZECs or controlled harvesting zones, agree on how ZECs will be organized, who will have fishing licences, and when they can go fishing. These are the category II lands.

Category I lands are under federal jurisdiction and they too are also in part under Cree jurisdiction.

The Cree and Naskapi have exclusive rights—and this gets important—over Category III lands. These lands cover 911,000 square kilometres, which is hard to imagine but let us try. My riding is 152,000 square kilometres, so these lands are five or six times as large. This is a huge area over which the Cree and Naskapi—agreements still have to be signed but talking for the moment about the Cree—will have exclusive rights and where their communities will participate in the administration and development of the land.

In the category IA lands—because there are I, IA, IB lands—it gets very complex and I would therefore like to congratulate everyone who worked on this project for so long, both personally and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Speaking of land categories, negotiations are currently being held with the Innu and the same debates will arise.

It is the same with the Attikamek south of Lake St. John. The entire reservation stretching toward Lake St. John and even a bit beyond is Attikamek territory. Beside it are Innu lands. All these divisions and definitions of lands will be very important and might be used—as time will tell—with the communities and grand councils, such as the Grand Council of the Cree. The Grand Council of the Attikamek and the Grand Council of the Innu will also be affected.

If I have one wish, it is that some day—and I am sending my Algonquin friends a message here—the Anishnabe will also form a single Grand Council of the Algonquin Anishnabe so that they can pool their knowledge and efforts and ensure that the government stops—I am weighing my words—exploiting them and confining them to small areas of land. They are not even consulted in connection with hunting, fishing or mining.

Since you are indicating that I only have two minutes left, I will go a little faster. I am going to conclude by saying that this is a very important bill which is the result of a good consultation process—and I mean that—between the federal government and the nine Cree nations. I do not think I am wrong when I say that, based on the information that I received, the 10 nations—because a tenth one will soon be recognized—are very pleased with this agreement, and they hope that it will be conveyed and adopted through Bill C-28, at the earliest opportunity.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, every part of Canada and different aboriginal peoples have a different sense of history and a different sense of tradition. In Labrador we have the Inuit, the Métis and the Innu. In Labrador we already have a comprehensive land claim and self-government agreement. It is called the Nunatsiavut agreement and it was ratified in June 2005. They already have moved to an area where the Cree of Eeyou Istchee want to be. It may not reflect the same type of parameters or powers, but this is where Bill C-28 helps the Cree move.

The Innu have their own vision of self-government and where they want to go. They are negotiating with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada. There has been some signing of an initial agreement called New Dawn with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I understand the negotiations continue with the Government of Canada.

To resolve land claims in Labrador and aboriginal rights and title, I have encouraged the minister and the government to seriously look at the comprehensive land claims as were submitted by the Métis Nation of Labrador so that all people in all of our communities are included, that they feel there is some settlement and resolution, that their aims and aspirations are taken as seriously as the other aboriginal peoples in Labrador and elsewhere in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member, and I think he made thoughtful observations.

I would like to know if such an agreement could apply to communities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, regarding such a proposed agreement, I would like to know if Bill C-28 could, without applying integrally, serve as a basis for negotiations on territorial agreements, or on self-government for communities located in the member's riding.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the new relationship agreement between Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee that there will be no movement toward the more fundamental piece of a self-government agreement with the Cree, a Cree constitution and fuller Cree governance, without the passage of Bill C-28. Bill C-28 is an essential step in moving toward these more fundamental agreements.

I have not fully read the new relationship agreement, but I understand that the types of parameters that will guide the negotiations over the next five years toward self-government for the Cree of Eeyou Istchee are outlined in it. I will leave it to the negotiators in terms of what is finally put in the agreement.

Grand Chief Mukash, the commissioners of the Cree-Naskapi, and the negotiator, Bill Namagoose, see Bill C-28 as essential, but they also look forward to the promise of more comprehensive negotiations on this self-government agreement.

I understand there will be some recognition of the traditional governance of the Cree people. It is important to recognize what was there before settlers arrived, before there were other forms of government. It is essential because it lifts people up and it makes them feel valued.

I look forward to the day when we have new Cree governance structures and a new Cree constitution. I hope I am around to celebrate with the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and the Cree people themselves.