Debates of April 4th, 1995

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5:30 p.m., it is my duty to inform this House that under Standing Order 81(19) the time allowed for debate on the motion has now expired.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

moved that Bill C-244, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal peoples of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, recognizing that the starting speaker is allotted up to 20 minutes, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to see if I could share this 20-minute spot with one of my New Democrat colleagues.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the generosity in allowing my colleague to join me in co-sponsoring the bill. In the Order Paper there are a number of co-sponsors. I refer specifically to the member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake, the member for Regina-Lumsden and the member for Burnaby-Kingsway. Others have also indicated to me they are in support of the bill.

This is the second time I have actually tabled the bill. The first time it received the support of every aboriginal organization in the country. It received support from countless bands across the country and also from many urban organizations of aboriginal people and all the significant leaders of aboriginal peoples. To my knowledge no one has yet indicated their opposition to it, either among the aboriginal or the non-aboriginal communities.

We only have one hour for debate. In the closing moments I would hope either the debate would collapse, which would then allow a voiced vote to send it off to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, or simply unanimous consent to send this off to the appropriate standing committee for continuation.

The bill is fairly straightforward. I do not suspect it would take an awful lot of study and examination. There may be the will of the House to provide unanimous consent to move through all stages before the hour is out, which we have done on previous occasions.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

A great idea.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

My hon. colleague from Regina-Lumsden suggests this is a good idea. We will see as the hour progresses.

The preamble of Bill C-244, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal peoples of Canada, is as follows:

Whereas it is desirable that Canadians designate a day in recognition of Canada's original inhabitants;

And whereas Canadians seek earnestly to set an example of their commitment to honouring native cultures;

And whereas June 21, being the longest day of the year and marking the changing of the seasons, should be designated as a day in tribute of Aboriginal solidarity;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Therefore this act may be cited as the National Solidarity Day for the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Act. If it passes it will be just that.

A point of clarification is needed. A number of my colleagues, particularly in the Reform Party, have asked whether this is a legal holiday. The point is not to make it a legal holiday but to designate it as a day when Canadians from coast to coast join with aboriginal peoples from coast to coast in acknowledging the tremendous cultural contribution First Nations and aboriginal people have made to this country. There is some question about who the first Europeans were who arrived on these shores. I take some pride in saying that my forefathers, the Vikings, were probably the first Europeans, although some people suggest it was the Irish. Some suggest the Chinese. Whoever they were it is important to say they arrived on the shores of North America and Canada to meet incredibly advanced cultures; cultures that had existed in some cases in rather hostile natural environments for hundreds and hundreds of years, thousands of years in many cases.

They had developed not only an incredible harmony in terms of working with each other and complimenting each of the organizations, tribes, clans and cultures in existence but they worked and lived in harmony with the natural environment.

When the first explorers from Europe arrived on Canadian shores they found by and large people who complimented their efforts and assisted them. They gave of all their own resources and so on to facilitate in the exploration of what we call today Canada.

Then the colonizers arrived. The settlers arrived. They met a relatively welcoming culture, a welcoming people who introduced them to the realities of living in this part of the globe. One can imagine the incredible suffering that would have occurred with some of these original settlers if the original inhabitants of those areas were not there offering co-operation, support, guidance and help at virtually every turn.

Things took a turn for the worse. It was then that we as a non-aboriginal culture began to practice what can only be called cultural genocide in many cases with intent, in other cases indirectly. The reality was disease, sickness, illness, violence and all sorts of aspects resulted in the genocide of aboriginal cultures, almost to their extinction.

Right now as we speak there are only a handful of original aboriginal languages left in the country. Thank goodness that at the 11th hour we have to give full credit to the aboriginal leaders across the country who stood up and said: "This is the end. We will now reverse this process". Through incredible leadership they have reversed the process of cultural extinction. Today aboriginal cultures from coast to coast are probably richer, more vibrant and more dynamic than they have been for a long time.

I want to refer to a number of aboriginal leaders in my constituency. Every member could stand in their place this afternoon and do the same. There are outstanding individuals who in a number of ways through their leadership ability and commitment to not only advancing the cause of their own peoples but the country as a whole have made these tremendous gains possible.

I refer to people like Chief Nathan Matthew, Chief Manny Jules, Chief Ron Ignace, Chief Richard LeBourdais and many others from the Shuswap nation of central British Columbia. I acknowledge those same statements could be made for aboriginal leaders from coast to coast.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Chief Sol Sanderson from Saskatchewan.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Chief Sol Sanderson from Saskatchewan and David Ahenakew and others as my colleague says. There are so many. We owe them so much.

We must consider that before us in the next number of years probably the most important social issue will be the relationship between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people and sorting out this complex and growing relationship.

I refer to the emerging reality of self-government, of self-determination and of self-reliance for aboriginal peoples, the resolution of land claims, cultural preservation, social and economic development, educational training and general cultural advancement.

I acknowledge the minister of Indian and northern affairs who has in his own way provided much needed leadership in a variety of these areas.

When we look at the last 18 months, there have been significant advancements in terms of a move toward self-government, self-determination and self-reliance, particularly for progressive Indian bands across the country to say nothing of the Inuit, Dene and Metis advancements as well.

In order to permit my hon. colleague to say a few words, I will conclude my remarks by saying that at a crucial time in the First Nation's evolution in our part of North America, it is very appropriate for us as parliamentarians on behalf of those we represent to extend a hand in acknowledgement of the contributions made by the First Nations.

We must tell them we recognize and appreciate those accomplishments and that we would like to work co-operatively, positively together for the advancement not only of aboriginal peoples across Canada but Canadians generally. We do acknowledge the existence of First Nations and what that entails.

I would like to finish my remarks by referring to the Indian Act and how this act, in my judgment, was a lie from the beginning. The lie is betrayed in the first line of the act: "This is an act respecting Indian people". This was not an act respecting Indian people and it is for that reason I ask my colleagues to extend a hand now and recognize June 21 as a solidarity day for aboriginal peoples.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the fine motion presented today by my colleague from Kamloops. It is a motion to recognize a day of solidarity with aboriginal peoples. It shows a lot of understanding of the challenges that face our societies.

I would like to think that every day I stand in solidarity with aboriginal peoples. However, that is not the case across the country. It would be very useful to have a day to specifically remind ourselves of the injustices to native people and that there are specific things we need to do to address those injustices and meet future challenges.

The royal commission on aboriginal peoples has released an interim report on suicide. We must actively work to address the recommendations on that issue.

The Senate has just released a report on the treatment of aboriginal veterans from World War I, World War II and the Korean war. We must as a nation actively work to address the grievances of aboriginal veterans.

The House of Commons standing committee on Indian affairs has in the past reported on the lack and the inadequacy of housing in aboriginal communities. This issue must be immediately addressed.

An environmental panel looking at the acceptability of low level military flight training over Innu land in Labrador reported that land claims in jurisdictions must be dealt with quickly. This is a critical issue which the government must pursue as soon as possible.

The list goes on. Currently committees of the House are examining the issues of self-government, of aboriginal education, of aboriginal fishing and economic development, of mental health among aboriginal people and the future of resource management in areas where aboriginal communities are located.

There is an urgent need for Canadians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds to acknowledge the history, heritage and future of Canada's first peoples. The adoption of a day of solidarity is certainly one small step in the right direction.

In my own constituency much is happening in this regard. Within the aboriginal communities chiefs like the late Big Bear, Poundmaker, Ahtakakoop and Seekaskoch are focal points for the development of interpretive and educational centres. Non-aboriginal communities have begun to sponsor or jointly host powwows and other cross cultural activities.

Individuals like the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nation's Chief Blaine Favel have talked about the need to foster stronger human and economic ties between non-aboriginal and aboriginal communities and people. Tribal councils like the Meadow Lake Tribal Council are demonstrating that successful aboriginal businesses can contribute a great deal to the success of neighbouring non-aboriginal communities. There are negatives and positives in the relationships that exist between our societies. If we are ever to overcome the negatives and make the future positive we must take a few small steps first. This bill sponsored by the hon. member for Kamloops and supported by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden and other members of the House provides us with just such an opportunity.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I rise to support this bill. I commend the hon. member for Kamloops for bringing it to the House. The day which he talks about would be a day of reflection.

I would like to quote Georges Erasmus, who said:

The history of our people needs to be told. We need to present accurately what happened in the past, so that we can deal with it in the future- I don't like what has happened over the last 500 years. We can't do much about that. But what are we going to do about the next 500 years? What are we going to do about the next ten years?

On this day of reflection these are the things which we should be thinking about. We should be thinking about the fact that when the Europeans landed here the Indians fed them, showed them how to avoid scurvy and asked for nothing. They asked Jacques Cartier for nothing. We should reflect on the Truro wampum, the covenant chain, the broken treaties, the food which they gave us.

My background is Irish and Italian. The Irish think that the potato came from Ireland. It came from the Indians. The Italians think the tomato came from Italy. It came from the Indians. They had over 1,200 different plants when we arrived. It was a self-sufficient nation.

We should reflect on their path of tears. We took away their voice. We made them non-persons. We put them on reserves. We put them in residential schools. It was not good enough to put them in residential schools, we moved them to other provinces. It was not good enough that they were in schools in other provinces, we said: "You shall not go home from the age of six to eighteen". They did not go home, not even for Christmas or holidays. Then we decided we would take away their language and their culture. To back all of this up and to make the kids go to residential schools we invented the pass laws. If the parents did not give up their kids to go to these schools they did not get a pass to leave the reserves.

Show me an Irish family or an Italian family or any other family that came to this country and was treated like that. In other words, the visitors to this country were treated better than the people who had been here for 10,000 years. We should reflect on that.

My friend reminded us that we should reflect on the Indian Act. It is archaic. It is an act which should not exist in any country.

We should reflect on the dams at Grand Rapids, Churchill, Nelson and Cheslatta that took away their livelihood. We took away their very being. We should reflect on what we did to the Haida Gwaii and the Micmac with our development of the forests. We should reflect on what we did with minerals. Because we needed minerals in northern Ontario, in came the Robinson Superior treaties. That is why we have those treaties, because we needed minerals.

In my area we took away the sturgeon and the wild rice. Not only were they food sources, they were religious things to them. They were there for generations and then they were gone.

We should remember our land grabs on those days, and the people who have come and gone: the Elijah Smiths; the elders of the Yukon; Jake Fire of the Mohawks, a traditionalist who came to a meeting unarmed and was shot; Frank Calder and the Sparrows. These are not individuals, these are families. For three generations the Sparrow family in B.C. has been saying the same thing. We should reflect on that and we should remember.

We should also reflect on what they are doing. They now have over 5,000 businesses, representing 31,000 employees. Twenty-five years ago only 600 to 800 aboriginal students were in post-secondary schools. Today, as I stand here, they have

150,000 graduates, with 22,000 in post-secondary institutions this year and 23,000 who will be in post-secondary institutions next year.

They had the leadership and they were articulate. On this day that the hon. member is proposing we should think of that.

In the past 17 months, and to me it feels like 17 years, we have tried to implement the promises of our red book. We have negotiated with the Micmacs. We have said: "You've done so well in education, now it is time to take over jurisdiction". The Micmacs in Nova Scotia are doing just that.

At the meeting when we signed the agreement, one of the elders now, but once a chief said: "You know when I started this, Ron, there were only four Micmacs in the whole province of Nova Scotia in post-secondary. I came to this meeting tonight to sign with high hopes in my heart. I saw a car there. There were three kids in this car and they were out of gas so I stopped and helped them. All three were Micmacs, all three were university graduates". We should remember that.

On the Manitoba dismantling, a year ago people in the House of one party thought it was craziness. Within three or four months the public said maybe it is important. A month before the signing they said it is historic. Now they say at Harvard that it is the most significant aboriginal self-government agreement in the world. That is the spirit.

In British Columbia it is difficult because we are doing contemporary treaties, in spirit and intent. There are now over 120 First Nations negotiating at five tables with 50 people from our side bringing in contemporary and modern treaties.

We intend to dismantle in northern Ontario. The meetings will be held in the next two or three months. We intend to move jurisdiction in Treaty 3 in the Fort Frances area and that is going on now.

We are moving oil and gas. This is the way it works. There are 110 oil and gas chiefs, 50 are on significant oil and gas reserves. They do not own it and they do not manage it. We have to give them that because it belongs to them. It is on their reserves. That will be done.

In Quebec we are dealing with the Inuit, the Cree, the Montagnais, the Huron. We are dealing with them face to face with dignity and respect, and agreements are being reached there.

The same thing happened in the Yukon. You all went through that as members. I would like to recall to you the night we voted. I looked up at the Yukon delegation sitting in the gallery. They were all in their traditional garb. We applauded and they applauded. They started crying and our hardened members here started crying. Hardnosed Liberals were crying over this. That is the kind of commitment we must have. The same thing will happen in the Northwest Territories.

I wish I could go on and on, but my time is limited. I want to talk about what can be done and what we should remember on that day. How can we? It seems so simple but it is difficult. It is a triangle. At the top of the triangle is dignity, respect and self-government. At the bottom of the triangle are adequate health facilities, adequate housing facilities and adequate economic development. If we do not do these things at the bottom, the triangle is going to collapse.

There will be opponents. They will say we are bleeding hearts. They will say we have our agenda. They will say the Indians have too much right now. I do not feel I am a bleeding heart. I do not feel I have an agenda. I have eyes to see. Erasmus is asking us to see.

What will it take? It will take courage to stand up to these arguments. It will take knowledge of what is out there. It will take compassion. We have to have compassion. It will take an attitude that we will talk face to face. One Metis leader said to me: "We've talked back to back and side to side too long. We must talk face to face". We can do it.

In the Northwest Territories, they have nine official languages, four more than the UN. They have translation in their legislature. The Russians have come here to see what we have done. That is the attitude we should have as Canadians, not just doing a good job but the best job in the world, where people will come to us.

Today the Irish, the Scots, the English and even the French are flying Canadian flags. If we are to have a flag in the aboriginal portfolio it should be the aboriginal people and other Canadians saying it is a flag of tolerance, a flag of dignity, of sharing and respect. It will work. That is why this day is important and that is why I will support it.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois also intends to support the motion moved by the hon. member for the NDP.

It is a subject with which I am familiar, and I have been trying to learn more about it for nearly a year and a half, since it is extremely complex. It is not easy to understand because after all we have 635 communities in Canada. When I say communities, these are often reserves spread out across Canada. And there are not only communities but also nations. Furthermore, there are nearly 50 different languages and dialects, which is rather surprising.

There is among aboriginal nations a definite desire to really go back to their own traditions and language, and they are to be respected for that.

Ten minutes is not much for a subject as complex and indeed edifying as this one, because it is always interesting to talk about this and see how these exchanges take place and how aboriginal peoples try to negotiate with us, because these negotiations are based both on tradition and the modern way of doing things. However, I have decided to concentrate on symbols in my speech, because aboriginal peoples use many symbols. I would like to talk to you about one which has my particular interest: wampum.

So what is wampum? There are several definitions. And although there is more than one definition, there is one that I find particularly interesting and I would like to expand on that.

Wampum refers to white and black beads, often strung together in parallel strands. At the time, especially in the seventeenth century, trade was very important. Often trading between the settlers and those who had been there for 25,000 years took the form of an exchange of presents, and wampum was something that was very important to them.

The origin of the word is Algonquian. I have here an interpretation of wampum which we are sometimes given on the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I tend to agree with this interpretation. Several chiefs came to explain what it meant, and I think wampum has both an historical and a contemporary connotation. I think that what is explained and interpreted in the wampum beads has an entirely modern application today.

So I will read what wampum means to most of the native chiefs, and this is the interpretation I attach the most meaning to. It goes as follows: "Our relations are not those of father and son, but of brothers. These two rows"-these are the two rows of beads I mentioned earlier-"represent boats sailing together on the same river. One belongs to the original people"-those who were here before us-"with their laws and customs, and the other to the European people, with their laws and customs. We travel together, but in our own boats. Neither shall try to steer the boat of the other".

I find this is very representative of the relations between us, the Europeans, and the native peoples. Naturally, I would add that we must not try to sink each other's boat, either. So we understand the symbolic importance.

In the 17th century, wampum meant a lot to the officers of the British crown, with whom gifts were exchanged. It was a very popular gift.

As is the case today, the more gifts there were, the more the exchange was important. Even today, I am offered gifts every time I visit certain reserves in Canada and Quebec-with very few exceptions. For our part, we also developed the habit of bringing along some little offering to give them.

In many cases, the size or number of gifts is not as important as the symbolic value of maintaining this tradition of gift-giving. This allows a fruitful exchange with Aboriginal peoples because their traditions are being respected.

Although the Europeans knew that the wampum was a symbol of commitment, it seems that these commitments were not honoured. People must be made aware of this, and this awareness campaign could take place on June 21.

We denounced the old South African government over the issue of apartheid. I find it outrageous that in a country as open as Canada is at this time, there are still 635 reserves. We are ghettoizing these people by confining them to parcels of land. We took away between 90 per cent and 95 per cent of their lands, making billions of dollars in the process, in return for a social contract under which they were often set aside, ignored or shunted off to lands that were not even productive. We said in the social contract that we would look after them.

I think that if June 21 is ever designated as Aboriginal Solidarity Day, we should consider the impact of this legislation and the importance of dismantling it as soon as possible. Canada has had this law for 100 years and that is 100 years too many.

I also want to say a few words about June 21. This is an important date that was not chosen inadvertently. June 21 is the day of the solstice, that is, the longest day of the year. This is not just in Canada. Throughout the world, aboriginal peoples often celebrate this particular day. I was in Cancun, for instance, and I can certify that the Mayas, when they built their pyramids, were very much aware of the solstice.

On the longest day of the year, at a given moment, you can see a snake come down from the pyramid in Chichen Itza, the snake being, of course, a symbol of the longest day. The snake comes down from the pyramid at six o'clock in the evening, I believe, and often these temples and pyramids are built to mark the occurrence of the solstice. So June 21 is a very important date, and I think that if we decide on a national day, it should be June 21.

Finally, this is a day on which we should try and mix European and aboriginal cultures as much as possible. In a way this has already happened. The minister mentioned examples of food, of ways in which we exchange items, but there is also other aspects. If we take certain details of our daily lives as Europeans, for instance, what could be nicer than to go tobogganing with our children. Now the toboggan was invented by the aboriginal people, along with canoes, snowshoes, certain items

of clothing such as moccasins. They taught us how to use furs and certain skills such as how to survive in the bush, how to trap animals and how to hunt. All of this we learnt from the aboriginal people.

We should use this day to increase our knowledge of each other's cultures which unfortunately, as I see it, have become increasingly isolated in the past number of decades.

So the answer is not the red book or the Canadian Constitution. It is up to us individually to have an open mind and be receptive to the other culture. We must show compassion, we must listen and we should keep an open mind. We should not let ourselves be polarized by our differences: the Canadian nation, the Quebec nation and the aboriginal nation. We should try to understand each other and be generous and open. If we do that, June 21 will only make us richer, and I think this day should be an opportunity for us to learn as much as we can about aboriginal culture, and we in the Bloc Quebecois will be delighted to support this motion.

[English]

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I rise to address and support Bill C-244, which proposes to recognize June 21 as a national solidarity day for aboriginal peoples.

In the last two weeks Canadians have demonstrated an understanding of the important principles behind this bill, principles of celebrating equality and partnerships. Last Friday, aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians from across the country, including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, gathered in Vancouver to celebrate the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards. Fourteen aboriginal Canadians were honoured for their outstanding contributions. On Thursday evening at nine o'clock, all Canadians can share in this celebration because it is being televised nationally on our CBC.

Canadians also celebrated the uniqueness of our cultures and heritage on March 26 at the annual Juno awards. A touching tribute to Buffy Sainte-Marie in particular highlighted the central role of aboriginal cultures in defining the broader Canadian culture.

This is what we are talking about today, marking the achievement of aboriginal people and their tremendous contributions to this great nation. These contributions span the spectrum from politics, business and law to entertainment, athletics and culinary experience.

For generations aboriginal people have made a visible, internationally recognized contribution that has for too long been largely unrecognized in our country. I firmly believe in the principle of this motion, as does the government and everyone on this side of the House.

We had these very principles in mind when we sat down to write our red book. Our goal was and is for a future where aboriginal people enjoy a standard of living and quality of life and opportunity equal to those of other Canadians. Our goal is a future in which aboriginal people live self-reliantly, secure in the knowledge of who they are as unique peoples; a future where all Canadians are enriched by aboriginal cultures and are committed to the fair sharing of the potential of our nation; a future where aboriginal people have the positive option to live and work wherever they choose; and one where aboriginal children grow up in secure families and healthy communities with the opportunity to take their full place in Canada.

This government recognizes the special relationship that exists between aboriginal people, the first inhabitants of this land, and the Crown. We are committed to fulfilling our obligations and to building a new partnership based on trust, mutual respect and participation in the decision-making process.

It was for these reasons that we put aboriginal issues at the forefront of our agenda. I am pleased to see that my hon. colleague from Kamloops also regards aboriginal issues in such a serious manner.

The goal of enabling aboriginal people to assume their rightful place as full partners in Canadian society is not a goal of one group; it is a goal shared by millions of Canadians. Clearly aboriginal issues involve more than just our aboriginal people. They involve each and every one of us. That is why I believe it is important for all Canadians to participate in marking the contributions past, present and future of aboriginal people. In these efforts, our focus should be on partnerships, commemoration and positive action.

Clearly before a decision like this is made, it is essential to seek consent from the aboriginal community. When our ultimate goal is to create a full and equal society, it would clearly be regressive for us to sit here and legislate a special day for aboriginal people without their explicit support.

I strongly feel that the hon. member's bill is worthy of our consideration and debate, particularly as we celebrate the first year of the United Nations International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples. By supporting the United Nations recommendation to pronounce August 9 as an International Day for Indigenous Peoples, we may also have an opportunity to bring aboriginal issues further on to the international stage.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing this bill before us. It is an important reminder that aboriginal issues must continue to be a priority for all Canadians. I thank him for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this first debate of Bill C-244, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

I am sure the member for Kamloops initiated this bill with the best of intentions, borne out of concern for recognition of the contribution of native cultures to the Canadian mosiac. Canadians are proud of the uniqueness of native cultures and their contribution to what we call Canada. From coast to coast, respective Indian tribes have brought their own specific background and history to what we have built in this country. We in Canada are all unique as a consequence of native cultural contributions and from those cultural contributions brought by others over the past centuries. That understanding and respect for many cultures is why Canada stands as a beacon of tolerance, compassion and stability.

Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have met and visited with aboriginal people from every region of Canada. The diversity among aboriginal peoples is obvious and they are the original Canadians. Their cultural legacy is a major contributing reason why Canada is different from the United States. Canadians enjoy this distinction.

I do urge caution in playing politics with the dynamism of native cultures. Our native people are a sensitive, intelligent and proud people who, despite years of inequities, outright discrimination at times and at other times criminal mishandling of their affairs by others, have continued to carry on their cultural pursuits and have developed a community of interest.

My party supports native peoples' independence and full-fledged partnership in this country, we support their self-sufficiency, and we support the removal of the albatross of the Department of Indian Affairs from their necks. We support their advancement, not a reinforcement of the past.

As I said previously, theirs is a dynamic culture that deserves to grow and flourish no less than any other in this country. The tremendous cultural contribution native peoples have brought to this country stands on its own merit. It is a rich and endearing culture, not one to be isolated and ghettoized, as we did under section 91.24 of the BNA Act and then again under many aspects of the Indian Act. This is what our native cultures are trying to shake off. The surly bonds of colonialism must be relinquished.

As I understand it, recognition by this Parliament of a day of recognition is innocuous in that there is no statutory holiday or out-of-pocket expenses associated with this recognition.

Is it necessary to talk about national solidarity for aboriginal peoples? This has connotations of Poland climbing out from under the yolk of communist oppression. Surely, we can celebrate aboriginal culture without calling it Solidarity Day. This sounds confrontational. Let us not build walls. Let us nourish without singling out or separating our aboriginal peoples from the mainstream. Let us build on our strengths, our consensus, the very thing that has been the strength of Canada in the face of adversity.

Canadian consensus, more than any other government action, has protected the minority against the tyranny of the majority in modern times.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. I would like to commend the hon. member for Kamloops for bringing this issue to the floor of the House of Commons.

It has long been an important premise of this country that we work to achieve equality in this society. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. For hundreds of years aboriginal people have not been afforded the same opportunities as many Canadians. It is time to attempt to correct these past wrongs. That is why this government is committed to taking action to help aboriginal people assume their rightful role as full partners in Canadian society.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I would like to focus my comments on the work the government is doing in consultation with aboriginal communities and organizations. In our red book we dedicated an entire chapter to aboriginal issues. Most important in our platform was the recognition of the inherent right of self-government.

In January 1994 the minister launched a national consultation process on how best to implement the inherent right. With these consultations now almost completed, I feel confident that we have some very exciting times ahead.

I would like to focus on three areas that are fundamental to achieving our goals: resolving land claims; changing the Indian Act; and dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

First we need to try to create certainty with respect to aboriginal rights and title as well as opportunities for economic development in aboriginal communities. Resolving outstanding land claims is part of that solution.

Claims fall into two categories: specific and comprehensive. The specific ones arise from the alleged non-fulfilment of treaties and other lawful obligations such as the Indian Act. Since coming to power our government has settled over 50 claims of this nature in all parts of Canada. Comprehensive claims, on the other hand, are based on the concept of continuing

aboriginal rights and title which have not been dealt with by the treaties and other legal means. These agreements define the ways in which aboriginal people assert rights over land and natural resources.

Currently the Government of Canada, the provinces and territories and the First Nations are considering 11 of these comprehensive claims. Benefits of economic development which is most important will be part of these negotiations. We are moving forward on these claims with the goal of helping aboriginal people forge a path of self-sufficiency, a path that is an essential component of the inherent right of self-government.

At the same time however, there are some real obstacles. I am referring specifically to the Indian Act. The act gives the federal government the authority to strictly regulate First Nations and their lives. This includes reserve lands, elections, education, amusement centres, and so on. The act prevents the First Nations from managing their own affairs.

That is why the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recently announced the willingness of the government to amend the act if First Nations want these amendments. This of course would be an interim measure. The goal of the federal government and aboriginal peoples is to make self-government a reality. Under that reality there would be no need for the Indian Act.

Clearly, all this means redefining the role of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What it really means is that the department's responsibilities will gradually be turned over to First Nations and the department will not be needed.

December 7, 1994 was a historic day for the Manitoba First Nations. The government along with Grand Chief Phil Fontaine of the Association of Manitoba Chiefs signed the first dismantling agreement for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This agreement will give full control of program administration to the First Nations people of Manitoba.

Moreover, it sets the stage for real change for both the federal government and First Nations. Dismantling will eliminate the federal government's role in decision making affecting the daily lives of aboriginal people, a role dating back to 1876. It will go a long way toward resolving and restoring dignity, honour, self-reliance and self-government to the First Nations.

It is important to remember though that dismantling will not occur overnight. We agreed in the red book to wind down the department at a pace determined by the aboriginal people. This is significant given that our objective is to create real and meaningful partnerships with the aboriginal people.

This cannot be done by simply unilaterally imposing our will and our impressions of what should be changed and how things should change. We take our lead from those aboriginal leaders and communities who have their own ideas, time frames and goals. Dismantling will be achieved based on negotiated agreements, reasonable action plans and realistic timetables, all of which will be established jointly by the federal and aboriginal governments.

Most important, dismantling will assist First Nations in implementing their inherent right to self-government. Ultimately this means gradually shutting down the department's regional office in Manitoba.

Our government is seeking to refurbish our relationship and rebuild its nature on a government to government basis. We can change the way we carry out our responsibilities. We can try to correct our past wrongs. We are creating a process by which aboriginal people will control their own lives.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It is my duty to advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 44, the original speaker, the member for Kamloops, will automatically close the debate.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, my comments will be very short.

This is one of those moments when the House of Commons works incredibly well on an issue in that all sides see merit in it. It is appropriate to recognize that all those who have spoken have done so in a sense as co-sponsors of this initiative. The positive aspect of Private Members' Business is that it is not a party event or initiative; it is simply an initiative that individual members take and it is supported in that fashion.

In light of what has been said and some concerns my hon. colleague raised regarding the term solidarity and whether that was appropriate or necessary, on second thought I tend to agree that mention of the term solidarity is not absolutely necessary. It is something that could be examined quickly in committee.

For clarification, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the members of the House to send this off to committee for further consideration.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I want the record to show it was a Liberal member at least-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is it a request that this matter go off to committee or is it a request for a vote?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The motion in effect would be to adopt it at second reading and send it to committee. We do not have unanimous consent.

There being no further members rising to debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to comment with respect to the Speaker's last words. I am not debating the Chair and I want that clearly understood. I want to put on the record that I stood in my place and I wished to say a few words about this business before it expired. The Speaker was busy doing other things but I wanted to participate-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

If I may remind the member, when the member for Kamloops rose that meant debate had closed.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.