Debates of Oct. 8th, 2002

Ontario Hydro

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I will endeavour to obtain an answer for him and provide it to him in writing in due course.

Official Languages

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that several international agencies and organizations stipulate English as a first language as a condition of employment, rather than asking for a good knowledge of that language.

What concrete and quick action does the minister responsible for official languages intend to take to put an end to the discriminatory practice of certain international organizations to which Canada makes a financial contribution, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the World Tourism Organization and the NATO parliamentary assembly, which stipulate English as a first language as a condition of employment?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing this out. We will look into the matter.

It is somewhat inevitable that English is the required language when one works at the international level. However, Canada has responsibilities toward the French language and I will look into the issue raised by the hon. member.

Public Service of Canada

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government is intentionally ignoring the fact that it is impossible to discriminate in favour of someone on the basis of race without unfairly discriminating against someone else because of their race. Doing so is racist.

The Liberals' embracing change program imposes a race based hiring quota on the federal civil service. Skin colour and ethnicity have replaced merit as the hiring criteria for jobs within the federal government.

Since the vast majority of Canadians oppose affirmative action programs and the Canadian Alliance is too spineless to raise the issue, I will ask. Why is the government imposing a racist hiring quota?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is really unbelievable what I am hearing here today.

We want a public service that represents the population of Canada.

On the contrary, we decided not to have a quota system that would be mandatory and arbitrary. We decided to have a target system and it is not contrary to the merit principle. This is the first merit principle, but we should have a diverse public service.

Canada-U.S. Border Crossings

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizens travelling to the United States with a Canadian passport are being subjected to racial profiling.

Citizens from my riding of Windsor West have been stopped at the border, detained for as long as two hours, fingerprinted and photographed both when entering the U.S. and again when returning to Canada. All this was based solely on racial origin and country of birth, and they are Canadian citizens now.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to intervene with his friend, George W. Bush, to defend the rights of Canadian citizens and put an end to the racial discrimination that is happening?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events of September 11 of last year, both Canada and the United States have not only been on the highest state of alert but we have also enacted joint smart border initiatives.

I can tell the member opposite that the goal is to have a safe, secure and efficient border.

Points of Order

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today we had a good example of what is wrong with the government's attitude toward Parliament. We were asking questions of some members of Parliament about the announcement that was made in B.C. with respect to softwood lumber and we were criticized for not having read the announcement. It seems to me that this would have been a perfect opportunity for the government to show some respect for Parliament by making that announcement here in Parliament in the form of a ministerial statement. That would have been the least the government could have done in order to show respect for Parliament and parliamentarians.

Instead, we were reduced to asking questions about a document that we had not seen, which, if the government had any respect for Parliament, we would have seen. We would have had it in the form of a ministerial statement and opposition spokespersons would have been able to reply to something that would have been given to them in advance.

Instead, the minister made the announcement to the media, once again showing disregard for Parliament and the democratic process after we had a throne speech in which the government talked about showing more respect for Parliament and democracy and all that rhetoric.

When it comes down to it the government does not show any respect for Parliament.

I want you, Mr. Speaker, if you would, to suggest to the government that at the very least it should table that document right now so we know what is in it, and it should make a statement right now. The Minister for International Trade is here. He can make a statement and we can respond to it.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the very impassioned remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the House leader for his party. The House will know that the minister in question was in Vancouver for the purpose of the royal visit. He remained there and made the announcement in front of a large number of people in his province who were affected by the industry.

Mr. Speaker, you will recognize that the announcement was made at 2:30 p.m. and that the records of the House of Commons will show that in fact questions were answered by the Minister of Industry on behalf of the government before that time.

While this is not a point of order, I would endeavour, as was requested, to table a copy of the document in question as soon as possible in the House of Commons. This is all the information that is available to me at this time. I will endeavour to find out more about it.

In the meantime, I will table the document as early as possible for the convenience of not only the member who raised the issue and who is not listening to my answer but for the benefit of other members as well.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of the future leader of the NDP simply to say that, when we reviewed the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, an intention was clearly stated by all House leaders, including the government House leader. This intention was to the effect that all major or significant statements made by federal ministers should, short of an absolute impossibility, be made before Parliament, that is before the representatives of the people.

On the softwood lumber issue, if there is one place in Canada where the thorny issue of this dispute with the U.S. was discussed, it is the House of Commons, through questions from the opposition parties. We repeatedly called for special debates on the issue, and some were held.

All members of this House are concerned, especially Bloc Quebecois members from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, eastern Quebec, the North Shore or Abitibi, who have in their ridings thousands of workers affected by the softwood lumber crisis.

Everyone in the Bloc Quebecois has made relevant suggestions to the government and, day in and day out, we have been asking whether or not these suggestions would be acted on.

Can you tell me this is not contempt of Parliament to go and announce the softwood lumber policy in British Columbia, when in this place 301 members of Parliament are anxiously awaiting the decisions?

Mr. Speaker, I am saying this quite sincerely. To enhance the role of MPs, if the hon. member who aspires to one day replace the hon. member for Saint-Maurice as the Prime Minister of Canada wants to do so, he should ensure that his colleagues make their announcements in Parliament, where the elected representatives are, where we sit and represent the people, where there is no fear to be had of the press, the Canadian public and the affected workers.

I therefore add my voice to that of the future leader of the NDP to let you and the government know how disappointed and deeply distressed we are by the intolerance displayed by the Minister of Natural Resources today.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no question can be more important to the proper function and relevance of the House of Commons.

The government House leader said that he would be prepared to table the document, rather than it be presented here, for the convenience of members of Parliament. This has nothing to do with the convenience of members of Parliament. This is about the rights and the fundamental purpose of Parliament. This is the place where the business of Canada is to be done. There can be no respect for Parliament if the business of Canada is announced and done somewhere else.

Today's example is not the first. This is part of a long and growing pattern, a pattern that was not followed by Liberal governments in the past, was not followed by governments of other parties in the past, but has become a characteristic of this government and is one that can be stopped, with respect, by only one person. That is by the Speaker of the House of Commons speaking on behalf of the most fundamental interests of the House of Commons.

Sir, you have it in your power to admonish the government for this action, to encourage it in the future to respect the fundamental purposes of this Parliament and to ensure that the business of Parliament is done here and not done elsewhere.

Sir, I hope you will recognize that this is not a small matter. It is not a matter that is of concern only to one party or to one individual in the House. It goes to the heart of our purpose as a parliamentary democracy.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the others have expressed, I too express the outrage that we as ordinary members of Parliament feel when we are bypassed over and over again.

It is particularly ironic that the Prime Minister, who has now been at the helm of the Liberal Party for three elections and each time, especially in 1993, said that his goal was to make the role of Parliament more meaningful and to give more useful functions to the members of Parliament. Those were the promises in the red book.

In the throne speech we have had similar statements made. Yet what do we get? Nothing but contempt. I have come to the conclusion that to this Prime Minister Parliament is at best an annoyance and at least is of total irrelevance. It is just a hurdle that stands in his way of doing what he absolutely wants to. At every turn we have closure invoked. We have total contempt of the process of Parliament. We have the government controlling committees. This is but another symptom of that.

We should go a step further today. We should name the Prime Minister, as the leader of the cabinet, in contempt of Parliament for the fact that he has continued to behave in this fashion. I believe he should be called in front of the committee and should be asked to answer to that fact. How long has it been since the ministers have used ministerial statements in routine proceedings? I cannot remember the last time. Maybe it is because my memory is short, but I do not remember it. It is really contemptible that this should happen.

I would like to point out that we already raised the issue when we came back in the fall. Still, there is no positive movement on this from that party. I do not know if I can do this, but I would like to move a motion that the Prime Minister be held in contempt for this process.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Chair very much appreciates the assistance of all hon. members on this point of order. I must say that the outrage, if I may use that term, although the hon. member for Elk Island used it so I assume it is safe, which has been expressed by members of the opposition certainly has been expressed in terms that indicate the members' dissatisfaction with what has transpired.

I am sure in the old days when I had partisan views, I may have expressed similar concerns at one time or another myself. I am aware, however, that sometimes these statements, satisfying as they may be at the time, do not often reflect exactly the practice of the House.

I can only say to hon. members that there is no rule, and I say this specifically to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, requiring that government announcements of new policies be made in this chamber. I note a recommendation in the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons tabled in June last year, which I believe is relevant on this point.

The committee's recommendation reads as follows:

First, it is important that more ministerial statements and announcements be made in the House of Commons. In particular, topical developments or foreseeable policy decisions, should be made first—or, at least, concurrently—in the chamber. Ministers, and their departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament, but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental decisions.

The report goes on. I could cite more. I invite hon. members to read the report's recommendations, but they did not result in changes to the rules that made it a requirement that these announcements be made in the House.

The government House leader has indicated his willingness to table the document. Ministers are free to make a ministerial statement on the matter on statements by ministers tomorrow, or Thursday or Friday or with unanimous consent later this day. It is not in my view for the Speaker to insist on the application of a rule which does not exist. The rules do not provide that this is mandatory and, therefore, I cannot insist.

While hon. members today have expressed their dissatisfaction and while it has been expressed many times before by members frankly on every side of the House, because they change sides from time to time, I feel that I am unable to do anything in the circumstances but indicate the contents of the report and pass it to the House and to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, if they wish to consider the matter further and the possibility of rule changes that would result in the kind of action urged by certain hon. members today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Speech from the Throne last week reminded me of the reasons I initially decided to run for election as a member of Parliament. I entered public life believing that it was possible to change lives and change futures.

I share with my caucus colleagues the profound conviction that all Canadians should have an equal chance to participate fully in the economic, social and civic life of our nation and to benefit from its prosperity. We share a common vision of a society in which we provide every opportunity for every Canadian to fulfill his or her potential. We are convinced that, working with Canadians, we can help individuals and communities to overcome adversity.

I took the position as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development confident that by working in partnership with aboriginal people we could help to improve their quality of life. We can foster social and economic development with first nations and Inuit, creating opportunities to build the Canada we all want.

The Speech from the Throne reaffirms our commitment as a country to supporting aboriginal people and northerners as they strive to realize their aspirations, a commitment made not simply on behalf of one department, but by the government as a whole.

The throne speech sends a clear signal that first nations must be enabled to assume greater control over their own affairs and participate more fully in the Canadian economy. This local control is the very essence of democracy. It gives power to the people to determine what needs to be done and address their own needs and priorities.

Experience has taught us that there is no magic wand to wave that will instantly finalize all the outstanding land claims, unresolved treaty issues, self-government agreements and address the social problems facing many aboriginal people.

Members know that change does not happen overnight. In the meantime, aboriginal people must be able to move forward now with confidence and with hope. They need to be able to get on with the business of building their communities and creating hope for their children.

We cannot continue to wait for change to just happen. We must take the steps to make it happen. We cannot afford to wait decades for agreements to be negotiated or new treaties to be worked out. We cannot wait, and the younger generation of first nations and Inuit will not wait.The status quo is not acceptable.

First nations working their way toward greater self-sufficiency need the tools today that will allow them to get on with the job of building a better tomorrow. That is precisely what the Speech from the Throne promises.

The Canada we want also includes a part of the country we too often forget, the north, but not in this Speech from the Throne: the issues of northern Canada affect us all.

The throne speech identifies key environmental goals for the north where aboriginal people will face new opportunities, new challenges and new possibilities. Northern gas pipelines have the potential to create significant job opportunities, provide training and skills development for first nations and Inuit and offer further opportunity for northern aboriginal people to participate and to prosper. Streamlined environmental assessment processes to evaluate large scale projects, such as the northern pipelines, will help ensure that such projects can proceed in a way that is consistent with our commitment to northern sustainable development.

The throne speech also calls for the conservation of wilderness areas, clean water sources and species and habitat protection. These are important initiatives to northerners to protect the fragile northern environment. We will also accelerate the cleanup of federal contaminated sites and continue to work with international partners to improve air quality and to respond to important northern priorities.

Our plan to improve the lives of aboriginal people is one of the most activist agendas a person could possibly imagine. The government-wide initiative led by a Prime Minister who has made it his life's mission to close the gap in life chances between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people represents a progressive step forward to a stronger Canada in the 21st century. The Government of Canada is taking action to ensure that aboriginal children do not grow up with less opportunity than their non-aboriginal peers.

I am excited about this agenda. It allows us to build on the progress already made by the government to improve the quality of life for aboriginal people. Investing in basic community infrastructure like clean water, supporting children and their parents, and helping first nations take advantage of economic development opportunities not only willmake a difference to individuals and families in the near term, but will provide a solid foundation for future growth, health and prosperity.

I want to reassure first nations that my department will continue to work with first nations, Health Canada and other partners to ensure a supply of clean and safe drinking water in first nation communities. Together we are currently finalizing a first nations water management strategy, based on a set of clear and enforceable standards. The strategy will provide the coherent and structural approach to managing water quality on reserve.

The Speech from the Throne makes this fundamental statement:

The most enduring contribution Canada can make to First Nations is to raise the standard of education on-reserve.

In this context we all know the tremendous potential offered by the young, growing aboriginal population. Aboriginal workers are key to our future prosperity. We must address the unacceptable gap in the education of aboriginal people as compared to other Canadians. To improve this situation we have established a working group on education to research and make recommendations on first nations education, where we should focus and how we should proceed.

It is these bread and butter issues, such as water, education, support for children and their parents, and economic and social development that will enhance and advance our agenda of building both stronger, healthier communities, and a better quality of life for aboriginal people.

Taking action in these priority areas will establish the foundations for a better future in first nations. The foundations do not stop there. Our plan is built on legislative foundations; foundations that contribute to the necessary framework for economic and social development. These legislative foundations include the proposed first nations governance act, the proposed specific claims resolution act, building on the existing first nation land management act, and the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

I would like to highlight for the House the benefits of each of these foundations. Let us start with the most fundamental, that is, sound governance.

Good governance practices are the foundation of any strong and stable government. Open and transparent decision making ensures fairness and equality, and it inspires confidence which encourages business investment.

There is increasing evidence, both academic and empirical, that the ability to pursue economic development, to create strong government with adequate infrastructure and to develop the skills and potential of people all depend on good governance.

That is why the first nations governance act would enable first nations to equip themselves with the modern tools and the power to make and enforce laws which would reflect their priorities; powers that would help first nations to prosper. It would put decision making powers the Indian Act took away 126 years ago back into the hands of first nations people, where they rightfully belong.

Despite widespread misinformation, the new governance act would not be intended to affect treaty rights, nor to infringe on the inherent right to self-government. Neither would it threaten reserve lands or turn band councils or band governments into municipal corporations. What it would be intended to do is act as the bridge to the future. It would explicitly aim to equip those first nations operating under the outdated Indian Act with the missing and necessary tools for fostering effective, responsive and accountable governance; a vital step along the road to self-government.

An equally important measure is the proposed specific claims resolution act, which would provide a firm foundation for settling specific claims more efficiently and fairly. The Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims would improve first nations access to land and resources so that they could get on with the business of developing their own economies by attracting investment and shaping their own destinies.

The Indian Specific Claims Commission, which would be replaced by this new independent centre, was created in 1991 as an interim measure while Canada and first nations examined the best way to proceed toward resolution of these claims.

While we are proud of our track record over the past decade in settling specific claims, there is still a long way to go. Under the present system, claims drag on far too long, depriving hundreds of first nations of opportunities for economic development and impeding partnerships with first nations in other areas.

Given first nations understandable frustration and cynicism about the process, we are determined to resolve more claims more efficiently and fairly. The new claims resolution centre we propose would operate at arm's length from government and would consist of both a commission to facilitate negotiations, as well as a tribunal to finally resolve disputes.

The commission and tribunal would have distinct divisions to prevent undue influence and bias. They would be overseen by a chief executive officer whose responsibility would be to manage the day-to-day administration of the centre and its two divisions.

The primary objective of the centre would be to approach negotiations in a cooperative rather than confrontational manner. It would provide modern dispute resolution techniques that would help both parties to reconcile their differences so they could more effectively reach agreements.

The centre would provide access to facilitation, mediation, non-binding arbitration and, with the consent of the parties, binding arbitration.

Members should consider the time and effort both sides put into developing and researching their cases when they go to court. Then consider that every dollar spent on researchers, witnesses, judges and courtrooms as one dollar less spent on housing, health and economic development. It is clear that the specific claims resolution act would represent a significant improvement over existing processes to deal with specific claims.

It would set the stage for economic development and much needed social and economic security for first nations. I look forward to debating this particular piece of legislation in the House of Commons in the weeks and months ahead.

For years first nations have said they need the flexibility and responsibility to manage their own reserve lands, natural resources and revenues, in a way that worked best for them. They pointed out that they cannot run a government if there are no means to plan how the community will use its land.

In today's competitive economy, investors will not wait around while bureaucrats and politicians wrangle over jurisdictional issues. They will move on, taking their money and jobs with them. In 1999 we passed the First Nations Land Management Act. The act enables first nations to develop land codes, pass and enforce laws with respect to issues like the environment and matrimonial real property, clarify the legal capacity of bands, and establish relationships with provincial and municipal governments. It re-establishes the tools first nations need to manage their own lands and their own revenues in their own ways.

One of the most direct benefits of this legislation is that it would shorten the distance to self-government. That is because first nations under the Indian Act must negotiate land use planning, but a first nation that manages its own land under the First Nations Land Management Act comes to the table with those issues already sorted out.

In the short time since the First Nations Land Management Act was introduced we have seen that when decisions about land are made by the community, it can attract investment. Where there is investment, there is opportunity. Opportunity in turn means a chance to break the cycle of poverty, to create hope and build better lives and stronger communities, the type of life that many of us here in the House take for granted.

This approach has proven so successful that we have opened up the First Nations Land Management Act so more first nation communities can take advantage of its progressive land management tools.

A further measure to promote economic development and to improve the quality of life on reserve is the suite of four institutions. The proposed institutions include a financial management board and a statistical institute, all run by first nations for first nations. The first nations fiscal and statistical management act would provide first nations with the needed fiscal tools to improve their quality of life, tools that every other level of government takes for granted, tools to help build basic infrastructure such as sewers, roads and water systems, the key ingredients to a higher quality of life, those bread and butter issues facing communities.

I can speak extensively about these four institutions, but it is safe to say that when we think about the realities of government, one of the most important is having the fiscal institutions to generate other source revenue, whether real property tax or other tax measures. Those are the institutions that are not available to first nations that this new legislation would provide.

I ask hon. members to think about it for a second. The first nations authority would allow first nations to raise long-term private capital at preferred rates for roads, water, sewer, et cetera. They would do so by securitizing a portion of their real property tax revenues or similar stable long-term revenues.

It is estimated that $125 million in debt financing would be raised over the first five years by securitizing real property tax revenues. Without these basic tools and institutions that other governments take for granted, now we know why first nations have not been successful in the past and why we have to change the agenda in the future.

In conclusion let me say that this will not go without a big debate in the country. When we change the relationship between aboriginal communities and the Government of Canada that of course necessitates a debate about governance and what governance will look like. I look forward to that debate in this place because it is high time that we moved away from the status quo, from the dependence we have created, which first nations children have to live with, to a more dynamic building of an economy for first nations people.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to compliment the minister for his fine speech. This is a significant departure from what has gone on before. Many parties in the House have actually tried to push the government in this direction.

The minister spoke about water. My first question deals with the Walkerton inquiry. There were a number of very constructive solutions in the Walkerton inquiry. If employed across the country, they would give clean, potable water to everybody. Will the minister pursue his colleagues' adoption of a national standard for drinking water modelled under the Walkerton inquiry findings?

Second, on the issue of governance he quite correctly said that the way to change the institutional apartheid we have actually fostered on aboriginal people is to separate them from the rest of the country. Therefore, I am asking the hon. minister if he will pursue a course of action of integration, not assimilation, whereby individual aboriginal people would have private property rights on reserves.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make very clear to the member my comments as they relate to water. We were moving to put in place the kinds of federal standards necessary to assure first nations citizens, at least in the jurisdiction that I work in, that their standards, regulations and quality of water will be the highest this country can offer. I can commit to the member today that he will very soon see the kinds of standards and the kind of quality necessary to assure ourselves that first nations people, like other Canadians when they take a drink from their tap, will be assured that they are drinking safe and healthy water.

I also want to say to the hon. member that one of the things I have found in my work as a member of Parliament over the last number of years is that unfortunately the standards did not include guaranteed certification of the operators that work in the water treatment plants. We have already moved in the last year and a half to train and certify all water treatment plant operators in first nations, with the objective of having them all certified within the next three years so that there will be no dispute as to the capacity and capability of first nations communities to assure their citizens of safe drinking water. That is in the works as we speak.

The other issue he speaks about is a fundamental discussion that has been going on in our country as long as I have been a member and, I am sure, for a lot longer than that. That is the unique and special relationship we have with aboriginal people. I think the country has gone by the debate that the member is wishing to have me comment about today, that is, under our Constitution we have already agreed and committed ourselves to recognizing aboriginal and treaty rights.

What that means in practical terms is that we accept that aboriginal people will have their own form of government, whether it is through the inherent right to self-government, under section 35 of our Constitution, where we will negotiate, or improvements under the changes that we are making through delegated authority, section 91(24) of the Constitution, which allows us to delegate authority to first nations of particular law-making powers. That is a debate that is ongoing today as to what kind of governance structures are necessary for first nations to be successful in building an economy.

As far as the question from my hon. colleague is concerned, as a Canadian society we have long been past that, past whether we are going to try to assimilate first nations into the general milieu of the country. We have already agreed that it does not work, that it is not appropriate and that we must have a respectful relationship, government to government. That is the direction in which we are heading.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that he knew that the bill on governance would trigger considerable debate, both in this House and across the country. That is what he said.

What guarantee can the minister give that he will listen to the representations, the concerns and, above all, the objections that his bill will raise? So far, even though these objections are already known and these concerns have been voiced rather aggressively and directly, in particular by the Assembly of First Nations, the minister has ignored them. If, so far, he has not taken into account the objections raised by the Assembly of First Nations and other aboriginal groups, and if the past is any indication of the future, how can we believe the minister when he says that he will listen to objections and to what is said during the debate, since he has not done so until now?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member and other members in the opposition have not risen above partisan politics to get on with the very important discussion we need to have. Somehow there is a perception by some opposition members that every first nations citizen right across the country has the same view. First nations citizens are no different from non-native citizens. They all have very strong views of how and what we shall do together to improve the lives of their communities. To suggest that one group or another represents all first nations citizens would be a stretch of the imagination here in this place.

Let me tell hon. members what we are attempting to do as a government. I think we all agree in this place that the status quo is not acceptable, that the status quo is not on. If we take a look at the statistics it does not take much to realize that the status quo in the next generation, particularly in places like western Canada, will cause us tremendous difficulty as a nation because of the fast-growing young aboriginal population that wants in to the economy, that wants in to Canada as part of their heritage. We cannot get there by using a piece of legislation that is 126 years old as our template.

What we are asking for from first nations citizens and from Parliament is not to get into the rhetoric but to get into what kind of legislation we would put forward to improve the lives of first nations citizens. How have we assured ourselves of a respectful debate? We had probably the largest consultation in the history of our government, in which 10,000 first nations citizens participated in the last year. More important, we put in a joint ministerial advisory council that was led by first nations and advised the minister on what kind of legislation we would have.

Finally, just to make sure that we would have a respectful debate, I as a minister in the government sent this legislation to committee before second reading. Those who might be new to the House, who did not spend as much time on the backbenches as I did as a member of Parliament, will know that when we send a bill to committee before second reading we send a message that we are allowing the committee to make fundamental changes to that bill if it is the wish of the committee. That is the direction I would like to see the committee take if it believes this legislation is not good enough and needs to be improved. The reason for this is that we cannot afford to get it wrong. We need to get it right for first nations citizens in the next generation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Time is running short in the questions and comments period so I will ask members to be slightly brief.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that in responding to both questions so far the minister has taken a jab at the members asking the questions, asking them to be respectful. I heard nothing that was not respectful. The minister should stop that political nonsense himself, answer some questions and take part in this serious debate, because this is a serious issue.

In his presentation the member said that the Prime Minister has spent 40 years of his political career working to make things better for aboriginal people. The minister himself would have to admit that this simply has not happened. The gap between the level that the aboriginal people lived at 40 years ago and where they are today actually has widened. Things have gotten worse over the past 40 years rather than better. The strategy taken by this government and others over the past 40 years has not worked. I would appreciate it if the minister would recognize that what has happened over the past 40 years has not worked--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Chair understands the importance of the subject matter on the floor. I take note of the interests, but I only have so much latitude given the large number of members who want to participate. I would ask that the questions and the responses be as concise as possible and we will go from there.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the Indian Act is outdated. I would like to ask the minister if that means he will scrap the Indian Act and replace it with something else. If so, what?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be somewhat kind but one of the things about aboriginal affairs is that it is not a simple matter. To come into this place and make the statement that in the last 40 years there has been no progress with first nations people, all I can say is that if we have spent a significant amount of time in the communities we are able to see the improvements, as slow as they might have been.

I will give one example to verify that. In the early seventies, when the Prime Minister was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, there was no program for post-secondary education for aboriginal students. Today, there are 27,000 children getting post-secondary education every year. That is a vast improvement over virtually no students getting post-secondary education when the Prime Minister created that new program. That is just an example of how off the mark the member is.

Let me get on with explaining to the member what I said in my speech in case he missed some of the points. The Indian Act itself is being replaced by one process and another and another and another. Those processes are the following. In 1999, under Minister Irwin and the present Minister of Human Resources Development, we passed a bill called the First Nations Land Management Act to take land use planning out of the Indian Act and allow first nations people to develop their own land use planning, which is a prerequisite for building an economy, as those of us who have been municipal leaders at one time know. Of course we have now brought in the first nations governance act to look at elections, financial administration and administration of governance in order to look at conflict of interest, transparency and the kinds of issues that we all take for granted as government in this place. We are also moving forward with fiscal institutions, which I mentioned to the member, which allows first nations to develop their own economies by collecting tax and/or real property tax in their own communities. That is a prerequisite for any government at whatever level.

These are the changes we are making to the outdated Indian Act, which we think will make an improvement in the lives of first nations people.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am in the hands of the House. Obviously the time has lapsed on the question and comment period. I know that the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord have been seeking the floor since the minister spoke. I will ask both members not to take a question beyond one minute, please, and I will ask that the minister respond in a similar fashion if possible.