Debates of May 10th, 2004

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of taking part in the debate on the old Bill C-19, which is now Bill C-23. I am doing so because I know that, when in the federal Parliament, one must be concerned with the first nations.

This is first and foremost the federal government's responsibility, since, under the Canadian Constitution, it is the trustee of the aboriginal peoples, which, as everyone knows, are not only nations, but the first nations.

When we say that the aboriginal peoples form the first nations, we are referring, of course, to two realities. We are saying that they are among the first occupants of this part of America, and that they form a nation. However, forming a nation means something on both the sociological and the political level.

What it means is that they have cohesion as a group, a desire to live together, the control of a territory, a common history, traditions and symbols, an interpretation of the world that gives them cohesion as a group, which confers great legitimacy to their claims, that is, that we have a different relationship with them.

I believe that is what our aboriginal affairs critic, the likeable member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, has said. Everyone knows that his primary virtue is his ability to keep cool under all circumstances. He is a man who is calm and serene, a man who exercises great self-control in his day to day life. His cardinal virtues are, if I may say so, a great inspiration to our caucus.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has, on several occasions, expressed regret that a number of bills have been submitted to members which could have been an opportunity, as the member of Champlain has said, for the federal government to put an end to this guardian mindset, this colonialist philosophy, this philosophy of control, assuming that the federal government knows best what the first nations need, within a context of domination.

There are certain things we as parliamentarians cannot forget. I was a member of this House, as was the member for Champlain, when the Erasmus-Dussault Commission tabled its report in 1999. No, he was still an MP in waiting, Mr. Speaker, and we all know that distance makes the heart grow fonder, do we not? That is a known fact.

When the Erasmus-Dussault commission tabled its report, the minister of the day, the former Minister of Human Resource Development, apologized to the first nations because it had to be acknowledged that there had been a number of public documents between the time of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission and the Erasmus-Dussault proving just how badly the federal level had acquitted itself of its responsibilities to support the development of the first nations.

Regardless of the aspect considered, be it housing, employment, early childhood development, occupational mobility, or any aspect of aboriginal health, if a comparison is made, it is obvious that all indicators point to their being more stigmatized and less prosperous than other groups as far as development is concerned.

This was what lay behind the apology by the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the first nations. We thought the Erasmus-Dussault report provided the basis for a new partnership, a new dialogue, a basis for a nation-to-nation relationship. This was not the first instance of a government apology, as my friend from Berthier—Montcalm knows. The Prime Minister made an apology to the Japanese-Canadian community, for example.

In the House, we voted on a motion to apologize to the Armenians. We also came very close to voting on a motion deploring the behaviour of the British Crown—for the constitutional reasons we all know—with respect to the Acadians, who were unjustly deported.

As parliamentarians we recognize that we have responsibilities toward particular groups, in this case, the first nations, the aboriginal people. In 1982, when I was in the full flower of youth and energy, I was still in school.

[An hon. member]

A long time ago.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

It was not so very long ago, despite what my colleague may think. Still, it was a good 20 years ago.

In 1982, it was said to be the time of the aboriginal people. There was the sad patriation of the Constitution, with the well-known consequences for Quebec. Nevertheless, it had a positive side for the native people who had been invited to the negotiating table. At that time, the big term was “constituent”. The provinces and the federal government, along with representatives from the various groups, formed a constituent assembly. The plan was to rewrite the constitution. Of course, once again, the legitimate aspirations of Quebec were lost to view, and we all know about the patriation context, and the night of the long knives.

The fact is that section 35 of the Constitution, 1982, generated a great deal of hope among the aboriginal peoples looking for real development, the right to self-government, the right to have original institutions and the ability to have a development model that would strike a balance between their ancestral hopes and their future challenges.

I remember reading some important chapters from the Erasmus-Dussault report. One interesting thing, for example, is that the concept of leadership is not the same among the native peoples. Leadership is much closer to a consensual model. The relationship with wisdom is not the same. Elders, knowledge and tradition are highly valued. Those things are very highly valued.

When the minister responsible for Indian Affairs apologized to the first nations, it would have been appropriate for the government to introduce some legislation to respect the development of the first nations.

My friend, the parliamentary secretary, cannot deny the fact that in this House there was an unprecedented mobilization against the First Nations Governance Act. All the opposition parties are still opposed to that law. We spent hours in committee, with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, as always. My hon. friend from the NDP was also on the committee.

I will never forget how cavalier Liberal members were with the opposition. We were very close. The Liberals displayed lack of respect for the opposition parties and the first nations. On the last day of work of the committee, aboriginal women came and formed a circle around the committee. Aboriginal people have a matrilineal tradition. Women play a much more prominent role in some communities. This is not the case everywhere, but it is in certain communities. Women formed a circle around the committee to express sadness with the unfortunately irremediable character of the governance act.

Why did the government not learn the lesson we wanted to teach it and introduce bills to ensure that another report, much more respectful of the first nations and consistent with the Erasmus-Dussault report, was prepared? It is all the more inconceivable not to have done so, considering that the Supreme Court had issued a number of rulings recognizing the aboriginal rights of first nations.

What is wrong with the bill before us? First, there is an important consideration in this debate.

The government is trying to reject this fact out of hand, as if it were insignificant, but 61% of the first nations leaders are opposed to the bill. If 61% of the first nations leaders, who are authorized spokespersons for their communities, are opposed to this legislation, it must mean something.

I hope that the parliamentary secretary will rise later on and tell us how his government feels about disregarding the legitimate authority of first nations leaders. We are not talking about members of the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP or the Conservative Party of Canada. We are talking about 61% of the leaders elected by their peers under a democratic process, who are opposed to this bill. The government will have to react and show a little more respect for first nations.

The first nations need resources of course, but as the member for Champlain was saying, they really need to have control over the resources on their own land. When we studied the bill on first nations, I recall that we wanted to transfer them some control over resources. We said the first nations could develop some of the resources and decide how to use them. Yet, for more significant resources, the fiduciary responsibility would remain, thus denying the first nations the ability to decide their future by creating their own development plans that are respectful of who they are.

Questions come to mind. For the first nations that do not avail themselves of the right to use financial institutions or the option to borrow through bond markets—and these are legitimate concerns—will there be no reprisals? What is to say that they will not be penalized in their development? These are legitimate questions that we must ask.

It would have been nice if the federal government had drawn from René Lévesque's legacy. I think the people in English Canada know a little bit about René Lévesque. It would be difficult to have lived in this part of the world and be over the age of 15 and not know René Lévesque.

Let me tell you about the man. René Lévesque was one of the first sovereignist leaders to be elected to the National Assembly, something that we as sovereignists are very proud of.

In the history of the sovereignist movement in Quebec, there have been three political leaders who formed political parties. Our party, our sovereignist plan, has always had extremely important democratic roots. Of course I am thinking of Pierre Bourgault, who founded the RIN; René Lévesque, who founded the sovereignty association movement and the Parti Quebecois; and, more recently, Lucien Bouchard, who founded the formidable force of social progress and change that is the Bloc Quebecois.

René Lévesque was an MNA and the minister responsible for the nationalization of electricity under Jean Lesage. Afterward, as we know, he left the Liberal Party when it became thoroughly dogmatic and wanted to hold up the future of Quebec.

Is my time up, Mr. Speaker? No, not at all. I feel like I still have at least fifteen minutes left. Am I wrong, Mr. Speaker? I have five minutes left?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

No, I was signalling that I was having doubts about the relevancy of your remarks. I am eagerly waiting for you to tie in your remarks on your former leaders with the bill at hand.

That being said, you have five minutes left.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain to you the link between the creation of sovereignist parties and this bill. The link is that Quebec has a bright future. If the first nations are given the means to achieve their own development, they will also have a bright future. That was the link. I am surprised it escaped you, but you have been kind enough to allow me to spell it out clearly.

In the 1980s, René Lévesque introduced a motion recognizing the right of 11 native communities to their own development. That was unusual. Few politicians were concerned with the future of first nations. It began in the 1980s. I said earlier that when the Constitution was patriated in 1982, the first nations were invited. Clause 35 of the bill, in 1982, recognized a number of rights for first nations.

We have to admit that this bill, like the bill on self-government and the last two or three bills introduced by the ministers responsible for first nations in Canada, is not respectful of what first nations are, and it is not worthy of the René Lévesque heritage or the Erasmus-Dussault commission.

We are concerned about the fact that 61% of first nations chiefs said they were not comfortable with this bill. I wonder if it is not our duty, as parliamentarians, to recall the bill in order to take some time to listen to what these people have to say. This is not something we should rush into.

A German philosopher once said that speed is the enemy of intelligence. I thought that would be of some interest to you, Mr. Speaker. Every time we, as parliamentarians, have rushed into things, we have failed to fulfill our responsibilities. Aboriginal issues are much too important for us to rush into anything. The hon. member for Quebec, who has looked into those issues, will ask me a question.

In conclusion, I will say that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, look forward to creating a real partnership that will give our first nations control over natural resources and development tools. During the economic crisis in the 80s, our communities were given development tools. At the time, the hon. member for Champlain was sitting in the Quebec National Assembly, under René Lévesque. In Montreal, these tools were called the Corporations de développement économique et communautaire.

What we must provide the first nations with are development tools tailored to what they are and what they need. Making the bill optional is not enough. This is not what they need. The bill does not recognize that aboriginal peoples are first nations. There is a significant test in the fact that 61% of first nations leaders, who are elected by their peers and who are authorized spokespersons for their community, do not support the bill. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary wanted to hide this fact. I am sorry, but when something leads the first nations to mobilize to the extent that I mentioned, it is not true that opposition parties do not have a responsibility to echo this in the House of Commons.

We believe that, if René Lévesque were with us, he would oppose this bill. We believe that, if Lucien Bouchard were with us today, he too would oppose this bill. Indeed, in every action that we took as a caucus, each time that we analyzed the needs of the first nations, we have endeavoured to consider them as full-fledged nations, capable of choosing their development. It is not true that this is what the bill is proposing. The best thing we could do is to recall this bill.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a correction to what my colleague from Champlain said a few minutes ago. He is in fact the one who provided it. He was quoting a song by Gilles Vigneault, and the words are:

Ask the rocks Ask the woods Everyone is home On the Earth.

My hon. colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has just given an excellent speech, with his usual humour, although the topic was an extremely serious one. It reflects a part of this country and this government. It must be kept in mind that, as far back as 1867, after the Conquest, and as soon as the first Parliament was formed, management of the aboriginal people was made a responsibility of the federal government. We can see what has happened since 1867. Yet here it is in 2004, still trying to impose its own views and its way of solving problems on the aboriginal nations

History cannot be rewritten and changed. All we can do is change the present, and try to influence the future. I think that is what my colleague wanted to show us. Yes, I have a question for him.

At this time, as he requested, would it be possible for this government to react and take steps to ensure that most aboriginal nations agree with the bill, by taking it back and amending it? This would require true consultation, not just the kind of consultation conducted in the past, but real consultation taking heed of what the first nations have to say.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his literary correction. I know that he loves literature. He is a scholar. He is the mind of the Enlightenment. I thank him for making these corrections.

That having been said, there is no shame, as parliamentarians or as a government, to admit to making a mistake. One can grow by learning from one's mistakes. Today, if the government asked for the support of parliamentarians to recall this bill, we would give our unanimous consent. I know that we have with us today the Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, Donald Maracle, who is opposed to this legislation. When such eminent people are opposed to a bill, this should alert us. It should be like a yellow card, a warning.

It saddens me to see this kind of perseverance or unhealthy stubbornness in the government. I am saddened by the complicity of the parliamentary secretary because this is a man who had been somewhat flexible in the past. He was able to criticize his own government. I must say that these qualities are seriously lacking in the man today. He is still my friend—there is no need for hard feelings about this—but I think he ought to rise and ask for unanimous consent to have the bill withdrawn. We will give our consent. We will return to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. We will be able to count on the wisdom and erudition of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to improve the bill and, especially, to lay the groundwork for a true nation-to-nation dialogue with the first nations. This dialogue must be respectful of their development.

I do not know if I have already said this, but the reason we oppose this bill is that we do not think it provides the tools that can ensure real development of the first nations. Remember that all indicators, from the Laurendeau-Dunton report to the Erasmus-Dussault commission, tell us that whatever sector of activities is considered, whether it be health or any other, the first nations have not enjoyed the development corresponding to their legitimate aspirations and expectations.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans why he requested a nine month suspension of the scientific panel's recommendation to protect 12 marine species, including 4 Atlantic cod populations? In doing so, the minister delayed the necessary and urgent action to protect these endangered species.

The minister's reply was contradictory. He listed conservation and the sustainable use of all marine resources as his first priority, but then went on to suggest that if these species were protected such action would have a significant impact on coastal communities. He also recommended a nine month consultation process on species, the very same scientists had declared endangered, threatened or of special concern. To make things worse, the minister allowed for 6,500 tonnes of Atlantic cod to be commercialized.

Given the strong message by the scientific community recommending an endangered species status, the consequences of the nine month delay plus the permission to catch some 6,500 tonnes of Atlantic cod will jeopardize the species identified as endangered, threatened or of special concern.

Let me bring to the attention of the House what scientists are saying. First, of the 12 aquatic species placed on the extended list in process, 9 have been given the designation of threatened or endangered, with the remaining 3 species being of special concern. Atlantic cod from Newfoundland and Labrador have been given endangered status because their population has gone down 97% since the early 1970s and 99% since the early 1960s. Scientists point to the fact that there has been virtually no recovery in their numbers. Scientists also point to fishing and fishing induced changes as two main threats to the cod population.

Second, statistics confirm Atlantic cod in the northern gulf of the St. Lawrence is also at a population low. It has declined by 80% over the last 30 years and has threatened status because of overfishing. Atlantic cod in the Maritimes is also in decline, also because of overfishing.

Third, the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to lift the moratorium on cod and reopen fisheries is evidence that commercial interests are given precedence over the Species at Risk Act that gives the government powers to protect all species, including cod, which become and when they become endangered.

Scientists say fishing is the primary factor responsible for the Atlantic cod becoming endangered. Why then reopen the cod fishery, thus flying in the face of well researched recommendations by scientists?

Therefore, tonight I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reconsider the decision to suspend the scientific recommendations and instead allow the recommended inclusion of the 12 marine species, under the Species at Risk Act, to become law.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute, as I have many times before, to the member. I have listened carefully to his words and have appreciated his tremendous contribution to the House over the years.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to address the concerns raised by the hon. member for Davenport. At the centre of this evening's debate is the member's concern with the extension of the consultation process period around the designation of certain species under the Species at Risk Act, SARA, specifically as it relates to the gulf cod.

We all recognize that the gulf cod needs strong conservation measures. We also recognize that listing under the SARA could have significant and widespread impacts on the activities of aboriginal peoples, commercial and recreational fishers and Canadians at large.

Our government strongly believes that concerned citizens need to be informed of the potential impacts of a listing decision under SARA and be given the opportunity to express their opinions and share their ideas on how to best protect and recover the species.

That is why the government decided to extend the consultation period by nine months. This time will allow for additional consultation with affected stakeholders and will allow for more research and greater assessment of these stocks.

Although the gulf cod will go through an extended consultation process, it is important to note that the valuable work to the conservation of the stock is ongoing. For example, work is underway to rebuild these stocks to implement the recovery measures of the federal-provincial cod action recovery teams.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the industry are also working together to develop shared stewardship in the management of the gulf cod fishery. By shared stewardship I mean that participants in the fishery will be more involved in fisheries management decision making, will contribute to their specialized knowledge and experience, and will ultimately share in the accountability and outcomes of those decisions.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is supported by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council as well as by the department in his belief that this cooperative approach is the best way to protect and conserve this resource for future generations.

The Prime Minister has made a clear commitment to re-engage Canadians in the political life of the nation. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shares this commitment to cooperation and applies it diligently to the fisheries. The extended consultation period that we are discussing this evening is further evidence of this commitment.

Finally, it is important to remember that the COSEWIC assessment is the beginning of the listing process and that the final decision lies with the governor in council.

It is essential for the governor in council to fully understand the impact of listing the gulf cod species on people's lives and livelihoods before making a final decision. Therefore the proper amount of consultation and research is required not only on the species but on the effect of such actions on the communities.

This is the intent of these additional consultations. It is for this reason that I fully support the government's decision to extend the consultation period.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his very comprehensive reply. I must confess that I do not envy his role in trying to defend the indefensible because in his presentation he fell into the same trap as the minister did, namely by saying that the cod needs strong conservation measures but at the same time we allow the catching of some 6,500 tonnes of the same species which is endangered. At the same time, while the species is endangered, a consultation process is launched.

All these decisions seem to conflict with each other, to move in opposite directions. All I can say in conclusion is that this is a form of unsustainable development which requires attention and reconsideration.

The scientists make recommendations based on facts and data and not on political consideration. When it comes to endangered species we should listen more to the scientists than to pressures by interested groups.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as I only have a minute, I will speak about the northern gulf cod. Of course, the SARA does allow for some harm to protected species so long as it does not jeopardize their survival or recovery. The northern cod fishery is being reopened at a very low level of 3,500 tonnes. Our fisheries management plans have built-in conservation measures to help ensure that these fisheries will continue to be sustainable and preserve the resource for future generations.

While the COSEWIC has assessed the Laurentian north population of Atlantic cod as threatened, it is important to remember that this is only a recommendation. The Government of Canada must ultimately decide when and where this protection will take place.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:39 p.m.)