Debates of June 19th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Aboriginal Affairs

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the intervention of the member for Nunavut she mentioned education and employment a couple of times. Recently, I believe in March, Mr. Berger put forward a report about the importance of education and how education that is culturally relevant and in an appropriate language is so important in closing the employment gap in the north. Could the member comment on that?

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for the question because I cannot even begin to say how important education is for us, in more than one way. There is culturally relevant education. I always say that even though my parents are unilingual Inuit and do not have any certificates on the wall giving them the recognition that they have a master's degree or other diplomas, I know they have the knowledge that is equivalent to the knowledge you might get from a recognized university.

All I am saying is that there are different ways of deciding how to teach our children. It could be successful to have both the southern culture and our aboriginal culture integrated into a way of teaching that is relevant to us.

When I first went to school, English was the only language. We read about trees and highways. We could not even picture what they were. Today we are making great strides in being able to teach the same knowledge, but in a different way, a way that is more relevant to us. I think we really need to pursue the Berger report because it offers a lot of opportunity in recognizing that there is more than one way to teach, but we all have the same end goal and that is to see a good education for our children.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is genuinely interested in assisting the people of Nunavut, who are well served by her.

I would like to ask the member for Nunavut if she would not agree that this government has moved forward on some important initiatives, and in fact, some would suggest, on the most important initiative for the people of Nunavut, which is of course housing. I would like to quote the premier of Nunavut, who stated:

And the budget sets aside $200 million for Nunavut for housing so I'm very encouraged by that. It will definitely help our residents here that require housing, social housing.

It is this real action with real dollars that I think is important as we proceed, especially for people of the north. I come from the north myself and I know there are special requirements. It takes a lot more energy and resources to deliver materials to the north. When I was in Iqaluit this March, I witnessed that message loud and clear. Is this government not taking real action for her people?

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty loaded question to ask me to answer because it is not one thing that will improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians; it is more than one thing. I know that housing is a large component of it and we are not going to say not to give us the housing that was given in the budget. Going back to what I said earlier, it is about a whole relationship of how we decide what priorities are going to be taken care of.

Yes, housing is a big component of the whole plan to improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians. I thank the member for pointing out that housing is one message that has been received from aboriginal Canadians. It is just a piece of the puzzle, though, and it is part of the road that we were on with the Kelowna accord.

As I said in my earlier interventions, Kelowna was a broad approach for how to deal with the challenges that face aboriginal Canadians. We cannot do it with just little piecemeal things here and there that are not coordinated in some way. We need opportunities as aboriginal people to be part of that along the way.

For me, as I said, the importance of Kelowna was that it was a broad approach and a working relationship that went beyond just the five goals. That is the way I understood the Kelowna accord. That is why we keep going back to that accord and not just the one piece taken out of it by itself being the solution for all.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much and happy birthday. I would like to take the time that is available to me in this debate to talk more about the Kelowna accord.

The Kelowna accord only came about at the time of the health ministers meeting in September 2004 when provincial and territorial governments agreed to a first ministers meeting on aboriginal issues. This process started in April 2004 when the aboriginal people round table was called.

Seventy-five aboriginal organizations in Canada, about 500 people, spent an entire day discussing the challenges facing first nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians. The difference in that instance, I believe, was the fact that the Prime Minister realized perhaps for the first time that the solutions would have to be collaborative. In the past, well intentioned people made decisions on behalf of first nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians and generally speaking, those initiatives were unsuccessful by their very nature because they were imposed rather than collaborative solutions.

I was at that meeting as the minister of infrastructure and housing. We met all day and came up with six areas that needed further study in terms of real solutions to the problems. It was a collective decision by all assembled. Those areas were health, education, housing, economic development, accountability and negotiations. At the time the Prime Minister said that this was the first step and from then on, first nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians would have a place at the table.

Not long after that, in September 2004, a first ministers meeting on health was scheduled and the aboriginal community stepped up understandably and asked about its seat at the table. This meeting on the question of health included federal, provincial and territorial governments as well as aboriginal leaders. It was at that time that the decision was taken to have a first ministers meeting in the following year which ended up being Kelowna. That was really the first time the aboriginal community and the federal, provincial and territorial governments met altogether.

Over the course of the winter, following the health meeting in September, workshops took place and meetings were held in terms of the community working together with the federal government. At this point it was still bilateral. I was quite encouraged by these meetings. Critics were there from other parties. We were seriously engaged in dialogue.

I remember in Calgary that spring the present Minister of Indian Affairs participating in the negotiations as part of the process that brought us to these reports. There are a large number of reports as a result of all the exercise on these six subject areas. However, it became apparent that notwithstanding the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government, if it was going to deal with those six issues, it would have to engage the provinces and territories in a meaningful way.

In March a meeting of aboriginal affairs ministers was held in advance of the final policy retreat that was part of the original process. This was bilateral between the federal government and aboriginal organizations.

I remember clearly the provincial aboriginal affairs ministers saying they would like to have their governments involved, but a serious financial investment would have to be made. Even if the ministers wanted to do something, their premiers, their finance ministers, and their intergovernmental affairs ministers would not buy it because they would believe the federal government was trying to off-load. That is when I began, as the minister responsible, to seek from my government both the policy agreements that were necessary to make this work and the funding arrangements that I will speak of in a minute.

On May 31 the process that started with the round table reached the first phase of completion and that was the policy retreat that was originally intended.

Five agreements were signed between the Government of Canada and the five national aboriginal organizations. That was intended to be bilateral. The provinces were aware because of the meeting we had in March and we scheduled a second aboriginal affairs meeting for Ottawa on June 21 to discuss the policy retreat that we had just completed in preparation for Kelowna.

At that meeting on January 21 we added a couple of items to the agenda. Everyone was encouraged, but once again the Government of Canada received a loud and clear message that this was not going to work unless the federal government made the kind of investments that were necessary and if it did, the provincial and territorial governments would in fact be involved in areas where they would have to be like education, health, housing, economic development and so on.

That process caused me and four of my colleagues to go forward to cabinet seeking policy decisions from the government and funding decisions that supported those policy decisions, and that happened all through the summer and fall leading to Kelowna. By the time we actually got to Kelowna the funding had been secured against the means and uses ledger that was available to the government as we accounted on a monthly basis.

The funding was secure. The Minister of Finance had said that, the Prime Minister had said that, and the finance officials appearing before the aboriginal affairs committee said the same thing. That was done. The policy framework was established and agreed to and signed off by the five national organizations twice; once on policy in May earlier that year and once in Kelowna, we signed five agreements over again.

The only trilateral agreement that was signed that day was signed with British Columbia. That was intentional and deliberate. We were then going forward with an agreement that everyone understood. I have the quotes of all of the premiers, territorial leaders and the aboriginal organizations themselves.

There can be no question what happened over a period of 18 months in this instance. I am sure there will be members who will get up and speak of the fact that we were the government for 13 years. No one in Canada really believes that this problem was one that was created even in our lifetime. The problems we are talking about here are hundreds of years old and repeated governments are responsible for the conditions that we all recognize exist.

I really believe that the difference in this instance was simply an honest desire to come up with a shared collaborative solution. It takes time. It takes more time than people wish to give, given the terrible situation, but the community wanted to be in on the solution and they were.

As a result that is the reason why there is such investment in the arrangement. People like my colleague from Nunavut talk about the fact that this is as much about the relationship as anything. That is why to turn our back on it at this point, as a country, would be a major mistake by virtue of the fact that what it would say to the community is that nothing has changed. The reality is, it is a wonderful opportunity. The community has an overwhelming consensus.

We will be able to identify individual people who do not like the arrangement, that is for sure, but there is an enormous consensus within the community. The people who were in Kelowna could see that. The statements that were made by the leaders that day and the statements that were made by the premiers that day all suggested that this was an important moment in the relationship and in terms of improving the living conditions of Métis, first nations and Inuit Canadians.

They stepped up. The Government of Canada stepped up by making the policy changes it requested and made the investments that were necessary to support those changes. The provinces and territorial governments stepped up for the first time to say, yes, they will work with the aboriginal people on education, they will work with them on housing, and they will collaborate in a way that is perhaps very new in terms of the relationship on this file in Canada. All of those things converged.

I think we have an opportunity to do the right thing by first nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians and I call upon the Government of Canada to consider the motion that was put by my colleague and do the right thing.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here just a few months, but one thing I have noticed about this hon. colleague is that he tends to speak in a very non-partisan way that seeks to move the debate forward in a fashion that is constructive, and that is appreciated.

I would also like to say that both myself, the government and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have often spoken of how we agree with the objectives and targets that were laid out at that first ministers meeting. There were a lot of them.

If I were to ask a question, though, of this hon. member who has served in many capacities in the previous government, it would be to ask him these questions: Why is it that it took until the last moment of the previous government's life to move forward? Why did it take so long and what stopped him previously from moving forward with these types of discussions?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments, this started at the round table in April 2004. Kelowna took place in November 2005, 18 months later. When I was involved in the round table, I was the minister for infrastructure and housing. I can tell the House that at the time I was excited by the possibilities because housing would be a big part of it and I remember wanting to be part of something that I thought, done right, could make a big difference.

Little did I know at the time that I would become the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development eventually and have the opportunity to facilitate this dialogue between a number of federal government departments. The Department of Justice was involved. I will not even begin to describe the number of departments involved to help facilitate that.

The Prime Minister had struck an aboriginal affairs committee of cabinet to make every policy change that was necessary. Over 20 times I had to go to cabinet to seek a policy change and to get the funding in order to support that policy change. This preoccupied the government for a year and a half, always respectfully, always recognizing that this would not work if it was imposed on the community, regardless of good intention.

This would only work if it was a respectful collaboration between the first nation of our country and the government of the day. That was what it set out to be and that is why so many people were invested in this agreement, because it meant so much to the people who contributed and participated.

At the end of the day one cannot build houses without investment or educate people without investment. There are all kinds of details that would explain how it was that we wished to go forward and the processes that would be involved because process is a big part of collaboration, but it is not all of it.

We would plan education with the provinces and we would structure educational systems because at the end of the day the consensus was that most of the education delivered, particularly in first nation communities, was delivered not by educational systems but simply in schools. My own children going to school in Fredericton would recognize that education is now a system and that is not the case in first nations communities generally.

Therefore, all of that content was a part of this exercise and there was a great deal of content, such as private ownership of homes. There is a long list and I will not get into enumerating it. More important perhaps than all the content, even perhaps more than the revenues or resources that were secured, is the relationship, the idea that finally the government was sitting down with the community and we were going to solve these tragic problems that have haunted our country for hundreds of years. We were going to solve them together, respectfully.

That was the nature of the new relationship and that is probably what is most at risk if the government does not see fit to support my hon. colleague's motion today.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I too was at Kelowna for the whole event, as was the leader of our party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, as was my colleague from Skeena and my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan as well. Our party was well represented there out of the sense of hope and optimism that dominated that proceeding. The NDP caucus was caught up with a wave of optimism that finally the country was seized with the issue of the social condition of aboriginal people. There was excitement in the air.

Frankly the dollar figures were not the most important factor. I could argue with my colleague from Fredericton that the dollars were not enough, that they were not all new dollars. I could go through all that, but I am not going to because in the spirit of this debate, what is more important is that we managed to pull the nation together for this common purpose. That far and away overshadowed the dollar figures.

We were seized of the issue for the time being. We were running the risk of and may have reached the point where we had allowed a permanent underclass in society to be created over the last 100 years. No one federal government is to blame. It is a product of a mindset not of the last century, but of the one before that and the century before that, a Eurocentric colonial mindset that aboriginal people were to be either defeated in a war or in our case to be assimilated or phased out as we occupied this territory.

It is a testimony to the enduring spirit of aboriginal people that we are still dealing with identifiable cultures today. In the face of overwhelming adversity and in the face of colonial design that would have seen them stamped out, whether by war, by small pox, or by economic starvation, the fact that we are still seized with this issue and with a burgeoning healthy aboriginal population with cultures and language in place is a modern day marvel. It is something we should dwell on and be inspired by as we mature in our approach to our first peoples in this country.

The sad truth is that I represent an inner city riding, a core area riding of one of Canada's major cities. No matter what economic, social or medical indicator is used, our aboriginal people rank dead last. That is certainly true with respect to the health determinants, whether it is virtual epidemics or diabetes and other conditions that are often associated with poor diet, poverty, et cetera.

If we do not address this permanent underclass for all the moral and ethical reasons, then we should address it for enlightened self-interest. It does no one any good to leave 20% of the population back, or whatever percentage of the population it is that we are leaving back. This is something Canadians should be concerned about if for no reason than our own enlightened self-interest.

With respect to NDP policy, there is a saying that society does not move forward until we all move forward together, that we leave no one back. In this case, by design or perhaps the lack of a design, by the lack of a concerted effort, we have abandoned a significant number of people. Even in the time it took in the last decade to arrive at Kelowna, another generation of youth will certainly not realize its full potential. Some will be left behind altogether.

We would be remiss in this debate not to address the dollars though, because we are not doing it justice if we all do not start from the same informed level of information. The figure of $5.1 billion that is bandied around and which the Liberals like to use is a myth. It is a cruel myth in a way because it is being featured to the general public as a huge amount of money, “Look at the commitment, look at how massive our commitment is”.

Of that amount, $700 million was health care money that was announced and announced over and over again until finally it was re-announced in Kelowna. Let us deduct that right off the top. That leaves $4.4 billion. Of that $4.4 billion, $600 million was the NDP's housing money from Bill C-48. The NDP put $1.8 billion toward housing and we said one-third of that should be dedicated to aboriginal housing. That is $600 million of money that the NDP negotiated. If that is deducted off the top, we are down to $3.8 billion of new money. That is over five years. That is about $600 million a year.

That is not an enormous commitment to meet the greatest social tragedy of our time. In fact, that is one month's worth of EI surplus. The EI fund was showing a surplus of $750 million a month. Less than one month's surplus of EI per year is dedicated to this social tragedy that is the social condition of aboriginal people.

Let us at least keep it in perspective. Maybe this is an unfair comparison but INAC has 6,000 employees. There are 6,000 employees at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to manage the poverty of about 600,000 people. That is $500 million a year in salaries alone, never mind the workstations, computers, benefits, pension plans and the buildings they occupy. A huge amount of this money is not going to the communities that are in such desperate need.

It galls me that it is like pulling teeth to get a bit of money to try to lessen the misery of a lot of people, whereas when the military wanted to go from $12 billion to $14 billion to service 50,000 troops, it was there. In fact, people are saying it should be more, more, more.

We are talking about $7 billion to meet all of the needs of 600,000 to 800,000 people. That is roughly $8,000 per head. We spend more than that on high school students alone in Manitoba. We spend about $8,500 per student per year in high school while this $8,000 per person is to meet their health, education, housing, infrastructure, sewage and water treatment plants, the whole kit and caboodle.

I say with all due respect that Canadians should never be sucked into this myth and illusion that there is a gazillion dollars being poured into aboriginal communities. There is not nearly enough to meet the basic social needs of those families to survive.

One time I heard a very gifted speaker say that if there are five children and only three pork chops, the solution is not to kill two of the children. The social democratic point of view is to challenge the lie that there are only three pork chops. Do not try to tell me that in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world we cannot provide for the basic needs of a family to survive, whether the family lives in Pukatawagan, Shamattawa, or the inner city area of Winnipeg. I am not buying that any more. It is a myth and it is a cruel myth because it is costing people their futures.

To come back to Kelowna, the money is not the important issue. The current federal government could easily match the dollar commitments of Kelowna. What was important was bringing the nation together for the common purpose of acknowledging the fact that there are these appalling social conditions. The Indian Act can best be described as 135 years of social tragedy. It was a terrible, evil document, unfit for a western democracy. It is Eurocentric colonialism personified and institutionalized into one evil document. It must be eradicated before these oppressed people can move forward.

In closing, I will remind people that we should be aware of a famous Harvard study that looked at the most economically progressive reserves in all of North America, the United States and Canada. It found that the degree of economic development success was directly proportional to the degree of self-governance and independence. In other words, solutions do not come from above and are not imposed on people. Solutions will come commensurate with the degree of self-governance and independence and out from under the Indian Act.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague comes from an important part of Manitoba and represents an important region within the city of Winnipeg.

In relation to the first ministers meeting last year, the focus of that meeting did not shine much light on the plight of the urban aboriginal, individuals whom the member serves quite proudly.

My question relates to his commentary on the means for which services and benefits are delivered to aboriginal people, Métis, first nations and Inuit. The system is flawed. He pointed that out in language perhaps more descriptive than my own. Should we not as a government be looking first at ways to improve the means for which these benefits are delivered as we move forward? Is it not incumbent upon us to take that action as our primary objective?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg South has given me the opportunity to add a point that I should have made in my speech.

It is true that the plight of the urban aboriginal, the off reserve aboriginal person, is the most desperate. Even what paltry support mechanism they may have had in their home communities is often not available to them when they move off reserve. They often get lost in the inner cities.

One of the heartening things about the Kelowna meetings was that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which represents off reserve aboriginal peoples, and the Métis National Council were represented at the table and were given equal status to first nations and Inuit people. We took some comfort in that it was not only the provincial and territorial leaders who were with the prime minister around that table, but the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Métis National Council and the Assembly of First Nations were represented.

In retrospect, it was almost a miracle to get those diverse interests together in one room for a common purpose. I am really reluctant to let that slip away. Even though I often accuse the Liberal Party, I heard the former minister of Indian affairs outline the steps that got us to Kelowna. It sounded that exactly what was wrong with the whole administration managing poverty, I call it, of Indian affairs is that it goes around and around to round tables that lead nowhere, to more studies, et cetera. That all seemed to stop at Kelowna when a collective enlightenment, a kind of collective consciousness dominated the room. Everybody was bobbing their heads at once saying, “You are right. The time has come. No more debate. No more prizes for predicting rain. The prize is only for building arks”.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is with respect to trust and good faith negotiations. First nations that I represent in my riding have a long and proud history of having negotiations and treaties between nations and attempting treaties with the federal Government of Canada, and the Queen prior to that. Time and time again those negotiations have broken down and treaties have been broken. I am wondering what aboriginal leaders must be thinking of the current incarnation of the Queen, the current federal government, and what faith they might have or not have in the current decisions to tear up yet another negotiated treaty.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Skeena is absolutely right. The honour of the Crown is at stake. Those very words are part of today's motion, I believe.

It took me a number of years to realize that when aboriginal people talk about making treaty, they are not just talking about signing a contract. They are entering into something that is a relationship. There is no other way of describing it. It is a sacred trust.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg who has allowed me to split his time.

It is a privilege to once again rise in the House to speak about the issues that are so important to people across the country and, in particular, to the people I represent. My riding in Skeena, northwestern British Columbia, is made up of more than 30% first nations. Some 23 different nations exist within the boundaries of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which is an extraordinary representation. The history, culture and pride of those nations is most remarkable.

For Canadians who have come and spent time in my region of the world, one of the first and most striking elements of that visit is the deep and strong history that exists in the ground. For anyone visiting Ottawa and our Museum of Civilization, there is almost an entire wing of that place dedicated to the art and craft of people who come from that region. The Haida, the Nisga'a, the Tsimshian the Heiltsuk are all represented in some of the most incredible expressions of culture that we have seen. It is well established and well known that the people have a strong history of pride, yet that has suffered greatly, since the first contact with Europeans. It has been a slippery, sliding and disastrous slope.

I turn to the negotiations at Kelowna. I, too, was in attendance with the baggage of skepticism, having watched and reviewed the history of our country in the treatment of first nations. I wondered if this was yet another meeting for potentially another photo opportunity for the then prime minister.

The New Democrats stood at that meeting with the current Minister of Indian Affairs and applauded the efforts, as did the minister. We heard his commitment. We heard him say how important the negotiation was for the first nations people. As the member for Winnipeg Centre has said, it is not just because of what is written on the page or the financial commitments. It is to treat with another nation, to go into a trust based negotiation and resolve to change the future and not repeat the mistakes of the past such as residential schools, displacement camps and the grinding poverty, which we see day in and day out with many of our first nations people.

There is a real struggle within the first nations communities to which I speak, particularly for the young people coming up in this generation. They struggle to maintain one foot in the oral traditions, the traditional concept and world view and another foot in the so-called modern western era, to go out and seek higher education and to achieve a certain amount of wealth and status in our world. That struggle is hindered fundamentally because the basic tools of achievement are not available to the vast majority of first nations.

The basic tools are predicated upon those things that we all take for granted in terms of our quality of life. We take for granted the ability to have decent care, basic food and housing. We take for granted the ability to have education for our young people and lifelong learning to improve our lot in life.

If I could only take members to some of the villages and communities I represent. There is no more sobering a moment as one walks through some of these villages that have been there for many centuries, if not millennia. It is sobering to witness first-hand the pride coupled with that grinding poverty and what that psychologically does, in particular, to the next generation coming up.

We met with the first nations leadership when we were at Kelowna. We continued to meet with that leadership. We continue to lend our shoulder to the wheel to put the force necessary behind the initiatives, what few initiatives have come from those governments. The New Democrats have stood, year in, year out, decade in, decade out, with our first nations people, saying that things must improve.

I remember Frank Howard, a former New Democrat and member of Parliament for my riding, who filibustered for three years on every Friday, insisting on the basic right of first nations people to vote. It is a shame that this was going on in the 1950s and 1960s. It is incredible how recent the time is, certainly within the lifetime of many people within the House. New Democrats had to fight for that basic principle for first nations people to attain the simple ability to cast a vote in a federal election.

Recently I was at a National Aboriginal Day celebration in Terrace, B.C. My chest was swollen with pride when I watched the first nations come together and celebrate. There were many dancing groups, and these have grown over the last number of years. This is an excellent sign of a rebirth of culture and reclamation back to things that held people together. In particular, I watched the young people dancing, learning the songs, learning the traditional ways and grounding themselves. There is some possibility of them improving and becoming a generation that is stronger and more able to succeed than the generations before.

The youth will only able to do that if the Government of Canada is willing to sit at the table, in good faith and with honour, which carries a significant meaning and weight within the communities I represent, and negotiate a treaty and principles to allow first nations people to succeed.

The government, during the election, claimed to support Kelowna and the funding. Then immediately afterwards there were contradictory views within its key members. When it arrived in government, it fundamentally broke that promise. This is yet another sad piece of the chain of the legacy of broken commitments to our first nations people, which has gone on too long.

If the issue were not so important and the need not so great, one might choose to lose faith. One might decide to throw one's hands up and say that this seems to be an impossible conundrum. From government to government, regardless of their political stripe, they are consistent in one thing, and that is failing the first nations people of Canada.

The Liberals were wonderful at rolling out programs and making announcements with little substance and less effect. The Liberals talked about teen suicide. There was a community that I intended to visit in my region, but it was hard to get to. I would have to go by float plane. Over the course of six to eight months I tried to get there for meetings. I tried three times but each time there had been a teen suicide in the week prior to my arrival and the community was in mourning. The community was unable to welcome me because a feast was required, people needed to publicly express that mourning and there was no time for politics.

I asked the Liberals to introduce programs to prevent the unbelievable and disgraceful rate of teen suicide within aboriginal communities. I said that all they had to do was use one indicator in their program. If their program was successful, teen suicides would go down. If they measured themselves by that and nothing else, they would have our support. We would have worked with them to achieve that. First nations leaders would have worked with them.

The government of the day refused. I challenge the Conservative government to use numbers and indicators that mean sense, not false promises, not paper tigers of bills that do not achieve results. When the children of a community are killing themselves, hope has abandoned that community to such a fundamental level. The government simply cannot talk about anything else until it re-establishes that hope.

It is hard to impossible for me to return to my communities and express hope based on the direction and course the government has taken. I would like to see some small measures on housing and on water. Provincial ministers across the political spectrum, first nations leaders from across the country, and with the support of at least two opposition parties at the time to move through those negotiations, created that moment. To then have an election and then back away from that moment, hoping that somehow it would be recreated, is beyond the pale. It requires first nations people to have hope, while another insult has been thrown at them.

There is not a community, not a culture within this nation that would do that. We would not accept the conditions first nations people live under for any other identifiable community in our country. There would be rioting in the streets.

However, for some reason the culture from within this place, from within this room, has been so much talk and so little action. I will give the government credit for its decisiveness, but decisively wrong on this file. If the government were to change course and re-establish that faith, it would go a long way to proving itself to be a true government, rather than some reactionary force swinging hard to the political right.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, our government, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and all members on this side have stated time and again that the objectives and targets laid out at the first ministers meeting are important, but it is the approach that we need to proceed with which we must consider.

I take the member back to the points raised by his colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who made a very impassioned point on the system for which services are delivered toward aboriginal people. Would the member not agree that it is in fact the system itself that needs improvement, it is the system that we need to look at primarily? If we are to help aboriginal people, must we not start there?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the interest is taking a run at the Indian Act and taking a good run at INAC, he has only to walk over and talk to us. I do not think there is anything holding up first nations communities than the deplorable bureaucracy, which has been created year in and year out by both parties.

I have watched time and time again as initiatives get stalled. Bureaucrats run the gamut of meetings, consultations and round tables with 80¢ on the dollar not hitting the communities for which they are intended. If the government said how it would circumvent the bureaucracy and how it would achieve results for first nations people on the ground, we would welcome the conversation, but we have not heard that.

New Democrats are interested in improving the quality of life of first nations people. It is the reason some of us went into politics in the first place. I watched former Reform Party members represent my riding. I hesitate to utter some of the phrases I heard them publicly use with respect to our first nations people. One of the burning reasons I first put my name forward to run for politics was because of the unbelievable attitude held by the former party. I will not attribute it to this one. Let us say it is a brand new day and the Reform Alliance and all those things have not infiltrated into the Tom Flanagan thinking of that party. However, let us for a moment remember that some of the attitudes at base level, with respect to first nations and their place in this country, are most discouraging in the history of the party and they must relinquish those attitudes if we are to get anywhere.

I would challenge the member on one key point. Today we are challenging and battling fish farms that his government seems to keep wanting to ram down our throats in the northwest of British Columbia. They are absolutely not wanted. I implore the member to talk to the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and get his head screwed on straight. Just today the first nations people of Skeena River, the major tributary in northern British Columbia, announced:

We the first nations of the Skeena River and its approaches proclaim the waters of our traditional territories a fish-farm-free, wild-salmon-only zone.

If the parliamentary secretary has the true intention of entering into sincere dialogue with the first nations people of my region, this proclamation will mean something. If he has true intention, tomorrow morning he will make absolutely sure that he marches over to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and at least let the minister know that first nations people in the northwest of British Columbia have spoken loud and clear. There simply will not be any more Department of Fisheries and Oceans initiatives to ram these things down our throat, as an example.

This would be an encouraging place for the parliamentary secretary to show a new dialogue, to show a new conversation. It would go a long way. I would stand with pride with him on any stage that he would like to confirm this proclamation, to confirm that the federal Government of Canada will respect such a serious wording and such a serious effort by our first nations people.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Kitchener--Conestoga.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. With all due respect to her good intentions, however, I must note that the motion is somewhat contradictory. It calls for focused and immediate initiatives at the same time that it calls for the implementation of an accord that the Liberals themselves have been unable to table in the House.

As a result of last fall's first ministers meeting, there is a deeper shared understanding of the challenges and needs faced by aboriginal people in areas such as health, water, housing, education and economic opportunities. The first ministers meeting brought the parties together, federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal, for discussions to clarify priorities and shared responsibilities.

The process and the discussions actually began much earlier, but as several aboriginal groups have pointed out, they were not perfect. Nevertheless, they were a significant step forward in terms of consultation and consensus building, one of the three elements that the Auditor General has identified as essential to improving the lives of aboriginal people.

However, last fall's meeting did not go so far as to culminate in an accord outlining focused and immediate initiatives, nor did it adequately address two other elements the Auditor General has highlighted as the key to further progress: structural change and capacity building.

Earlier today the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre did not answer my question regarding her motion, but instead read from a prepared statement of defence against anticipated criticisms on this point. After 13 years of Liberal governments and little or nothing on this front to show for it, I am not surprised that she would take this precaution.

As she noted earlier, structural changes are difficult. What she neglected to emphasize, however, is that they are nonetheless extremely necessary. In many cases, they are needed simultaneously with if not prior to further investments. This will ensure that current and future investments have measurable results that someone is accountable for producing.

Not only is our Conservative government committed to conserving and building on the good consultation and consensus work done at the first ministers meeting, to investing additional funds where they will be most effective, and to increasing capacity building, we are also committed to making the difficult structural changes the Liberals so long neglected at a significant cost to all Canadians. It is a significant challenge. We are committed to accountability, another area in which Liberals have had to scramble to prepare statements of defence.

Given that we fully support the objectives and targets identified last fall, there is little the Liberals can do except try to pass off a press release with a Liberal pre-election spending promise and attach it as a legally binding Government of Canada commitment. The Liberals may publicly attack five months of Conservative action because it does not fulfill one day of pre-election Liberal promises, but will they ever publicly admit that today's motion for debate is all about deflecting attention from the fact that five months of Conservative action have brought more new funding and initiatives on key aboriginal issues than the past 13 years of Liberal inaction?

These 13 years have given the Liberals a record that even their potential future leader, Gerard Kennedy, has recently called “devastating”. I have to repeat that: devastating. It was incredible to hear but at the same time it was very illustrative of the record of the party of which he is seeking to be leader. As my hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, pointed out this morning, the Liberals, after 13 years in power, had become skilled at announcing program funding spread out over so many years that it had little significant impact and skilled at re-announcing the same programs year after year.

This will not be the Conservative government's approach. What is required now is a plan of action, a means to move forward, a plan that will involve, as needed, specific consultations, structural change, capacity building and additional funding, a plan that will produce tangible, measurable results, and one that will have the details of the concrete steps we need to take in order to implement that plan. Furthermore, it must be prioritized, focused and resourced, with clear responsibilities and accountabilities.

We are taking swift action. In March, one of this government's first acts was to launch a plan of action to address drinking water concerns in first nations communities. We set a priority, we put together a plan and we are moving forward.

This government understands the critical importance of improving the quality of life for aboriginal women, children and families. We recognize that providing opportunities for women and their families builds economic strength and capacity from inside their communities. This means that aboriginal people become more prosperous in their own right and so does Canada.

Our budget has allocated $3.7 billion for aboriginal and northern programs. That includes $2.2 billion to address the legacy of the Indian residential schools, an important payment that will be going to these claimants and one that is long overdue.

The budget targeted investments in key areas. These investments include $300 million for affordable housing programs in the territories, benefiting both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. Nunavut, where the problem is in fact most pressing in terms of housing, will receive $200 million. Having travelled to Iqaluit as one of my first duties in the role I have now, I must say the people there will be looking forward very much to these funds. Also, Yukon and the Northwest Territories will receive $50 million each.

Another $300 million is meant to improve housing, enhancing the quality of life for thousands of aboriginal people living in non-reserve communities. Through previous discussions at the first ministers meeting, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples pointed out that this is one area that was not looked at properly. Off reserve housing is an important area that this government has addressed.

Furthermore, some $450 million is set aside to fund initiatives for education, for women and children, and for on reserve water and housing.

Of the $3.7 billion earmarked for aboriginal and northern Canadians, $500 million will promote community development in the areas potentially impacted by the Mackenzie gas project. In fact, this is in conjunction with all of the economic development that is flowing to the north. In my opinion, and I think that of others, this will begin to stimulate the degree of industry and economic benefit that so many people are seeking in the north. It is an area that has seen little economic development in the past.

This government has pledged to make progress toward its goal of working with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners and with the provinces and territories to establish priorities and develop effective, sustainable approaches to the social and economic challenges they face in their communities.

We are delivering real results, not just empty rhetoric. Canadians voted for change. We are delivering positive change to them. We are committed to better lives for aboriginal people in Canada through a practical and decisive approach. The steps we have taken so far clearly show this.

I would like to say also that many people from the region I come from are looking forward to seeing this government move forward in a way that will see real benefits flow through to the people who need it most. I am very proud to be part of this administration.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions and comments for the member.

First, I welcome his comments about the residential schools agreement. It was agreed to in principle by the previous Liberal government. The dollars were allocated by the previous Liberal government. It is important that all members of this House acknowledge the inequities and the injustices of the past. I am delighted that the party of the member opposite sought to affirm what the previous government brought in.

I have a number of questions for the member.

He references the water issues. What my first question would be, and it is a question I have asked others, is whether he thinks it is appropriate to drain money from school projects, two in particular that we know of already and with probably more to come, to enhance the water projects when indeed we know that $400 million was allocated for enhanced water management development and the training of those who manage the systems.

Second, the member talks about structural change and its importance. I agreed with him earlier today that it is important. I do not deny it. As an aside, I note that there was no prepared text on that. What he heard was what I responded to.

Again, though, I would ask him what I asked one of his colleagues. Is he aware of the legislation brought in by the previous government that dealt with the First Nations Land Management Act? Is he aware of the fiscal management act? Is he aware of the oil and gas act? Is he aware of the commercial and industrial act? Is he aware of the structural change they have brought about for first nations and aboriginal peoples? There is a model of structural change, but I do not think we can hide behind it.

Last, could he please elaborate to this House on what his vision is of consultation with first nations? I think it is important that we understand the relationship the government anticipates having with aboriginal peoples.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the comments the member made in terms of water are important. Upon coming into government, we immediately found that many first nations communities throughout Canada were in a situation that simply would be unacceptable in so many other regions of Canada. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development proceeded to show great leadership. In fact, the first thing he did was put forward policies that set standards. He has also moved forward with the department to ask that these standards be put in place and that water, something as fundamental to life as water, be made safe.

Simply put, the minister has shown great leadership. I would suggest that the initiatives he has put forward make the most sense based on the circumstances that were inherited.

The member asked a question in terms of consultation. When government is moving forward with any legislation or policy that affects aboriginal groups, there is no doubt that aboriginal Canadians always appreciate being consulted. Again, it is something that the minister has stated on numerous occasions. He said that his consultation process will be elaborate and substantial and will take into account the stakeholders that are going to be affected by any legislation or policy that is brought forward.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to the motion from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I serve with the member for Winnipeg South Centre on the aboriginal affairs committee and I am very aware of her commitment and her desire to see the living conditions of aboriginal peoples all across Canada improved.

Even prior to my appointment to serve on this committee, I have had a strong desire and commitment to see the needs of our aboriginal Canadian brothers and sisters more adequately addressed. However, since my appointment to this committee, having met many more aboriginal Canadians and having read many reports dealing with a wide variety of issues facing them, I can only say that my resolve to be more involved in moving forward on these issues has increased. I am committed to seeing the gaps closed and my colleagues on this side of the House are committed to seeing those gaps closed as well.

Improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians is something this government takes very seriously. The former Liberal government spoke about aboriginal issues but failed to provide any action or results. In fact, living conditions for aboriginals have steadily become worse over the past 13 years. First nations, Inuit and Métis Canadians have far too often been the subject of too many broken Liberal promises.

On the other hand, our government has begun taking action immediately, and we are just getting started. We are providing real action and real funds, and we will make real changes.

On May 18 the Government of Canada reaffirmed the importance of Friendship Centres by announcing that it was establishing a new long term approach to their funding with a four year, $77 million contribution agreement. This agreement will provide stability to the 116 Friendship Centres across Canada that support the needs of aboriginal peoples in urban settings.

The Minister for Canadian Heritage and Status of Women said, “Friendship Centres have played a pivotal role in the delivery of community focused programs and services for aboriginal Canadians. This agreement will help build strong aboriginal communities and maintain vibrant aboriginal cultures in Canada”.

Stable funding is an important start but we must all work together to develop options to address the long term sustainability of Friendship Centres.

As I have said , the government is committed to improving opportunities and the quality of life for all Canadians, including first nations, Inuit and Métis in concrete and practical ways. However, any effort to improve opportunities and the quality of life must take into account the changing demographics of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Over the past 30 years, the first nation, Inuit and Métis population in Canada has grown rapidly and now over 70% of aboriginal peoples live off reserve and 50% of aboriginal people live in urban centres. Aboriginal peoples are the fastest growing segment of Canada's urban population. The aboriginal population is also a young population, with a median age of 24.7 years. That is 13 years younger than the non-aboriginal population of Canada.

Recognizing these changing demographics, the government is working with the National Association of Friendship Centres to continue monitoring, managing and delivering programming for aboriginal people who live in urban centres. This is especially important for aboriginal youth programs, such as the Urban Multipurpose Aboriginal Youth Centres and Young Canada Works for Aboriginal urban Youth.

Friendship Centres, through a strong community focus and by providing targeted programs and services, contribute to improving the lives and socio-economic conditions of aboriginal people living in urban centres.

The Friendship Centres continue to develop innovative and appropriate solutions to the social, cultural, economic and other obstacles that could impede the ability of first nations people, Inuit and Métis living in urban areas to fully participate in Canadian society.

Friendship Centres make a tangible impact on the lives of aboriginal peoples on a daily basis. They play a vital role in assisting aboriginal individuals and families as they integrate into urban communities after relocating from rural, remote or reserve life.

Friendship Centres provide assistance with education, skills training, employment, housing, health care programs and services and serve as a reciprocal link to other community organizations.

Friendship Centres are recognized by local service agencies as an important part of the safety net for aboriginal urban peoples. They provide a culturally appropriate environment through which hundreds of urban aboriginal youth can develop leadership skills and improve their lives.

Friendship Centres support the needs of aboriginal peoples to access programs and services, to participate in activities in their own language, to feel connected to their community within safe, supportive and culturally appropriate environments and to feel connected to the non-aboriginal community.

The government recognizes that first nations, Inuit and Métis are distinct peoples with diverse histories and cultures and they have different needs and requirements. We also recognizes that they live in different conditions and situations. They live on and off reserves. They live in Inuit and Métis settlements. They live in remote and rural settings throughout the provinces and territories. They also live in towns and cities all across Canada. This recognition is critical to achieving success in improving the lives of all aboriginal peoples in Canada.

We have shown our commitment to all aboriginals regardless of where they live, through our budget of $300 million for off reserve housing. This is in addition to $300 million for northern housing where a majority of aboriginals reside.

The Liberals had 13 years to make a difference in the lives of our aboriginal Canadians and yet the result was, in Gerard Kennedy's own words, “a devastating record”.

Our government has already taken action in ways that really make a difference to the lives of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. In the days, weeks and years to come we will continue to do so.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as there are distinct cultures within the different groups of aboriginal people, could the member tell the House what specific work and progress has been made on the Métis file since his government came to power?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to focus on all aboriginal peoples, which is what our government intends to do. As I said, we have committed $3.7 billion to reach the needs of aboriginal people, $450 million of that for improving water and housing on reserves, and $300 million to the provinces and territories for off reserve and aboriginal housing. Along with that, we have committed another $300 million for the territories for northern housing. Much of that money will be available to our aboriginal peoples, including the Métis.

I would also like to mention that all of our Métis, aboriginal, Inuit and first nations people will benefit from the other measures in our budget that were announced recently, including dropping the GST, the tax exemption for students and the apprenticeship grants for those who wish to take advantage of those.

All our aboriginal peoples are well cared for in the approaches that our government is taking as we move forward.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spent quite some time on the Friendship Centres, which I know are important, but having been a member of the health committee when we studied aboriginal issues some years ago, I had a chance to visit a number of reserves and I can say that in terms of improving the quality of life of all first nations group, Indian, Métis and Inuit, they need the basic necessities.

The member did not mention much about basic necessities like water, housing, basic care and social services which I did not see on many of the reserves. Some were better off than others, but it must have been a very difficult time for our first nations to see that the first move on the government side was to throw out the Kelowna accord that was worked on so hard by the first ministers.

I wonder if the member has any good news to tell our first nations people concerning basic necessities and how the government will deliver on those.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of the previous speakers on this side of the House have addressed the issues of the on reserve aboriginal people. It was my intent in my address to highlight that in the Kelowna accord many of the off reserve aboriginal people's needs were ignored. Many times when aboriginal people move off reserve or move from remote communities into urban centres, they are often lost within the system. They do not have the structural props to hold them up and help them survive and thrive within an urban community.

The Friendship Centres are designed so that people who move off reserve, from remote communities to urban centres where they are facing a whole new world, are given the resources to cope with life and avoid the despair and hopelessness many of them would find if they were left there on their own.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by some of the statements made by the member concerning aboriginal people in Canada in that he keeps alluding to the fact that we belong to Canada and uses such phrases as “our aboriginal people, our first nations, our Inuit”. I find it a little offensive in that he also keeps talking about the difficulties that aboriginal people face.

I am well aware of the services of Friendship Centres in Canada and have known, through many generations of my own family, about the critical need for that service in terms of having an opportunity as aboriginal people to have our own place within this country.

Is the member aware of other needs in terms of aboriginal people within the urban settings which the Kelowna accord did address other than Friendship Centres and what those needs might be in urban centres?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I in any way indicated lack of respect, it would be the opposite. I was trying to point out the fact that our budget initiatives were available to all Canadians, including aboriginal people. That was my intent.