Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate today.
Earlier today I mentioned that I am not at all pleased with the procedure that was used to get to this point. We should have shortened another debate on another topic. I am not saying this topic is not important. I will come back to the reason why I think this is not a good procedure to use in a matter of such high importance. In any event, the House has been prevented from considering an item on the orders of the day on which we all agreed, and that was to discuss parliamentary reform.
What the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North is asking us to do today is to approve a parliamentary committee report. The French term describes quite accurately what we are being asked to do, approve, in other words, give our approval to or vote in favour of the committee report. Since the hon. member proposed that we approve the report of the parliamentary committee, we can assume he intends to vote in favour of it.
And there we are, being asked to approve this report. If the hon. member wanted us to adopt this measure, in other words, to approve of the merits of the report's content rather than adopting the report itself, then this should have been put to a debate in this House another day, specifically on an opposition day under business of supply.
Furthermore, the report tabled before the House shows that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, after holding hearings on the effectiveness of the government’s alternative dispute resolution process, was not able to study this complex issue in depth. Specifically, it seems apparent that the committee, and certain members opposite in particular, were not truly interested in studying the issue of Indian residential schools properly. The parliamentary secretary told us that, in reality, we are talking about a seven-minute speech by the Chief Adjudicator, Ted Hughes, former judge and former ombudsman. This is not a very good briefing on which to base a report like this.
Neither does it appear that the members—again, I mean those on the other side—had any interest in understanding the process involved. What is more, the hearings the committee held were incomplete. It met only five times. Now we are served up this very cursory report we have before us at this time, and are being asked to approve it. That is what the hon. member has moved.
If we were to end the debate immediately after my speech and to move on to the division tomorrow, or at some other time agreed to by the whips, I would be interested in knowing whether the member would vote in favour of the motion he has himself proposed to us today. What leads me to ask that question? I have a letter in front of me that was personally signed by Phil Fontaine.
Phil Fontaine is the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. In the letter that he sent, he says:
Please find attached our comments on the report from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We have serious concerns about the proposed motion for the following reasons:
The motion recommends terminating the current ADR process. The AFN believes it should be repaired, not terminated.
It is against that clause of the report. I have the fourth report in front of me. It says, in recommendation two, that “The Government terminate the Indian Residential Schools Resolutions Canada Alternative Dispute Resolutions Process”. That is the long name of it. The aboriginal community, through its organization, the Assembly of First Nations, is against it. Do we still want to vote for this thing? They are against it.
I will continue reading from Chief Fontaine's letter. He says:
The motion recommends that the process be handed over to the Courts to supervise and enforce.
That is recommendation three, and I have it in front of me as well. He says further:
The AFN says First Nations must negotiate the settlement with the Court's assistance for enforcement, if required.
Again, it is another recommendation with which the Assembly of First Nations does not agree. The AFN goes on to say:
The motion recommends a partial truth commission involving Survivors only, whereas the AFN recommends a comprehensive truth commission involving the government and churches.
That is also a precise recommendation, and I have it in front of me. That is recommendation four. Again, AFN does not agree with that one. Why are we debating concurring in a report where the representative organization does not agree with seemingly any of it?
He goes on to say:
The motion is silent on the need for an apology. The AFN calls for a full apology.
The motion is silent on the administration of a reconciliation payment. The AFN insists that the administration be through the First Nations entity.
The motion is silent on the need for reconciliation. The AFN sees reconciliation as the rationale for the entire compensation package.
The hon. member is asking us to concur, in other words to adopt a report with which the Assembly of First Nations, through its chief, is telling us not to agree. He says further:
Although the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) does not support the motion as presented, we are pleased to see both the Committee and the House of Commons engaged on this most important, urgent issue.
The AFN tabled our report with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. Our report has been endorsed by the Chiefs of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, Residential school survivor groups and the Consortium of lawyers representing class action suits on this matter.
The federal government should accept the AFN approach as it is modest, fair and just.
I do not know whether the federal government accepts totally what the AFN is suggesting. I have not asked the minister about that, but I do know that the approach proposed by this committee report goes against what the AFN wants us to do. If it does not want us to do this, why are we even asked to agree with the committee's report? Clearly, that is not what the community wants. It does not mean that this issue is not important. It is very important, but the group does not want this approach to deal with this problem.
The committee report is flawed, and not according to me. That does not make any difference. According to the aboriginal community, the report is wrong. It identifies most recommendations as being recommendations that it cannot support.
The letter continues:
We therefore, seek your support to secure all party support of our comprehensive approach which will achieve reconciliation and justice.
It does not want the approach proposed. Now that the hon. member knows this, which I do not know if he knew it at three o'clock earlier today when he proposed the motion, why does he not just withdraw the motion and we will get back to the debate on the order of the day? I am sure the House would give its consent.
The aboriginal community does not want this. Whether under Standing Order 108(2) the committee wants to continue to discuss this issue, the committee can decide and hopefully it will. It will not go away. It is important. There are other approaches that are proposed.
Meanwhile, we are being asked as members of Parliament to concur in the report and the Assembly of First Nations says that the report is wrong, that it was not done properly, that it came out with the wrong conclusions and that it should not be supported. Therefore, why are we doing this? Clearly, it is not because the AFN is asking us to do it. It says it does not support the motion.
I have not consulted the parliamentary secretary, but for my part if the hon. member were to stand and seek unanimous consent to withdraw his motion for concurrence, I would give it and we could go back to the order of the day. He can contact Grand Chief Phil Fontaine and everyone else and then develop something else, but not what is in the report. It is not in agreement with the aboriginal community.
The hon. member who proposed the motion said that it desperately wanted this to be done. He was even quite hostile with me earlier in the day, when I said we should not debate this and we should get back to the order of the day. He said that this was so important that it had to be debated right now. If it does have to be debated right now, we will have to vote against that which the hon. member has asked us to vote. That is the way it is.