Mr. Speaker, I will speak on Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.
This bill is a superficial reform of the Indian Act, which is more than a century old. The amendments affect 45 of the 120 sections of the Indian Act, the following areas in particular: inheritance mechanisms, new band council powers, election procedures, offences, and criminal law on the reserve.
In order to get around the First Nations' general opposition to any changes to the Indian Act, the Department of Indian Affairs has decided to make the act optional, and has made far fewer changes to the act than it had initially planned when it undertook the reform.
Its optional nature means that only those aboriginal nations so requesting will be governed by this new act; the others will remain under the unmodified act.
Let me tell you, we are opposed to this, for Canada is going back to its colonial past with Bill C-49. The Indian Act was intended to assimilate the Indians. In attempting to modify this legislation from another century, instead of adopting a new approach, the government is not making a clean break with the paternalistic policy that prevailed when the Indian Act was passed.
A new constructive approach to the First Nations is described in the report of the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission on aboriginal peoples, which stresses the outmoded and backward nature of the Indian Act. In their report, the commissioners ruled out any amendment to the Indian Act as a way to establish a new relationship between natives and non-natives.
In short, in changing the Indian Act, the minister is going the wrong way. He is merely proposing cosmetic changes to this outdated and paternalistic bill, which native peoples reject.
In December 1993, just before Bill C-79 was tabled in the House, the Bloc Quebecois received letters from 542 native communities out of some 610 opposed to Bill C-79. In other words, some 85 per cent of the First Nations categorically reject the procedure followed by the minister in drafting this bill.
It affects the interests and the rights of the First Nations in Quebec and Canada. In fact, these are the only communities affected. How can the government proceed when its bill is being opposed by the vast majority of those affected? In this time of budget cutbacks, should the government not put its limited resources into projects supported by the communities concerned? Who is the minister working for?
The minister of Indian affairs claims to have the support of the First Nations. Who does he mean? The minister has not revealed the results of his so-called consultations. He did not show clearly who supported his initiative. When we ask the minister who is involved, which communities support his bill, he says it is none of our business. If the minister is working on behalf of particular groups, he should be honest enough to tell the public who is involved.
The communities rejecting Bill C-79 did so publicly. We have in our offices letters signed by each of the organizations that object to the bill and the consultation process it stems from. This strong opposition, from more than 85 per cent of aboriginal communities in Quebec and Canada, shows that the minister's so-called support can only be marginal. This kind of behaviour makes no sense.
Very few of the promises made to the aboriginal peoples by the Liberal Party of Canada were kept once the election was won. In fact, even the aboriginal people involved in developing the election platform outlined in the red book felt the need to publicly dissociate themselves from the Liberal Party of Canada after witnessing this government's attitude and behaviour toward the First Nations once in office.
In connection with Bill C-79, there is no mention anywhere in the seven pages of promises relating to the aboriginal peoples in the red book of any amendment to the Indian Act. Where does this initiative come from? While there is no mention of it, the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Prime Minister managed to break red book promises by preparing, without any real consultation, a bill dealing specifically with aboriginal peoples.
Let me quote the Liberal Party of Canada's red book, which states at page 98: "A Liberal government will develop a more comprehensive process for consultation between federal ministers and aboriginal representatives with respect to decision making that directly affect First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples".
Is sending four letters to the Assembly of First Nations over a two-year period the Liberal Party of Canada's idea of a wider consultation? If this is the case, interest groups in Quebec and in Canada should be wary if a Liberal government talks about consulting them. There is no doubt in the Bloc Quebecois' mind that the Liberal government is acting in an absurd manner with Bill C-79.
This government unilaterally developed, without any serious consultations, a bill which directly concerns aboriginal people. Here is another quote found on page 98 of the Liberal Party of Canada's red book: "It does not make sense for the federal government to be unilaterally making policy or budgetary deci-
sions that affect the lives of aboriginal people, without their involvement".
The fact is that this government ignored the very basis of its commitments to aboriginal people. On page 98, the Liberals speak of a "new partnership" and of "mutual respect"; on that same page 98, they say: "A Liberal government will-a new partnership with aboriginal people that is based on-participation in the decision-making process". All these illusions in the red book left a bad taste in the mouths of aboriginal people. The few letters received by the First Nations by way of consultation were simply meant to associate them with a bill whose basic thrust they could not influence.
We have no choice but to say that the term "consultation" does not mean the same thing to the Bloc Quebecois that it does to the government. The Bloc Quebecois considers consultation to be more than just four letters to native communities and their representatives, the results of which the minister of Indian affairs refuses to divulge. Consultation involves two parties getting together to discuss and consider the consequences of a new law. No formal meeting of the government and the Assembly of First Nations was ever held on the changes to the Indian Act.
It would be more complex than simply drafting the legislation in camera, but the solutions that would have come from such a process would last longer.
Is this government going against the conclusions of the Penner parliamentary committee? I regret I have only one minute left, because I still have some things to say.
In conclusion, by refusing to consult properly, the government has come up with a superficial bill that will resolve no basic problems and that will therefore fail to satisfy the vast majority of the First Nations involved.