House of Commons Hansard #35 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182Routine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.

Conservative

Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. It is entitled “The Families Remember”.

The stories here speak for themselves. They are a compelling testimony to the profound sense of loss and grief that families did experience, and continue to experience. The bombing of Air India flight 182 was a terrible tragedy, the worst act of terror in Canadian history, and a reminder that we are not immune from terrorism.

The Government of Canada launched the inquiry in order to provide answers to still unresolved questions that remain. We hope there will be a measure of closure for those who continue to grieve for the loss of their loved ones on that awful day in June of 1985.

Canadian Nuclear Safety CommissionRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

St. John's South—Mount Pearl Newfoundland & Labrador

Conservative

Loyola Hearn ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 19(3) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a copy of the directives to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regarding the health of Canadians.

Elimination of Racial and Religious Profiling ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-493, An Act to eliminate racial and religious profiling.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, seconded by the member for Vancouver East, a private member's bill entitled “An Act to eliminate racial and religious profiling”.

The bill seeks to ban racial and religious profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and officials. I and my NDP colleagues have been very moved and often angered by the experiences of racial and religious profiling shared with us by constituents and other Canadians.

The impact of this practice has been serious and costly to those who have been its victims, and to our society. Such actions by law enforcement officers and agencies are based solely on false stereotypes. It is not good public policy nor is it good law enforcement practice, plain and simple.

This is an updated version of a bill introduced by the member for Vancouver East in the last Parliament. It defines racial and religious profiling as an action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin, rather than on reasonable suspicion to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment.

The bill would require the RCMP, customs, immigration, airport screening officers, and CSIS agents to eliminate racial and religious profiling. Those agencies would report to Parliament on their progress. They would also required to have a working analysis of how racism functions in their law enforcement context. Victims of racial or religious profiling would have access to the Federal Court to seek relief or remedy.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-494, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, also seconded by the member for Vancouver East, a private member's bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression)”.

The bill would add gender identity and gender expression as distinguishing characteristics protected under hate propaganda section 318 of the Criminal Code.

The bill would also add gender identity and expression as aggravating factors to be considered at the time of sentencing of an offender under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Transgender and transsexual people are regularly victims of abuse and harassment, and physical violence. The bill would ensure that transphobic violence against transgender and transsexual people is clearly identified as a hate crime by addressing the lack of explicit protection for transsexual and transgender people under the current hate provisions of the Criminal Code.

It would also allow judges to take into account whether crimes committed were motivated by hatred of transgender or transsexual people when they are determining the sentence of an offender.

Including gender identity and expression in the hate provisions and the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code would send a strong signal that violence targeting people for their gender identity or expression will not be tolerated in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Ingrid BetancourtRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of this House to adopt the following motion:

That the House of Commons call on Manuel Marulanda, Leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, to show compassion and immediately release Ingrid Betancourt in light of her critical state of health and the extreme despair in which she finds herself; and that the House declare its solidarity with all of the hostages detained in Columbia and its support for a humanitarian solution that will allow them to be released as soon as possible.

Ingrid BetancourtRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

Ingrid BetancourtRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Ingrid BetancourtRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Ingrid BetancourtRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Ingrid BetancourtRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development presented on Monday, December 3, 2007, be concurred in.

I am pleased to stand in the House to speak to the motion for concurrence on the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development entitled “No Higher Priority: Aboriginal Post-Secondary Education in Canada”. This report was originally developed in February 2007 and the government subsequently responded on June 12, 2007.

Given a number of factors that have arisen over the last couple of months, it is timely that we are talking about post-secondary education once again in the House. We have had a number of opportunities to do so over the last several months.

The reason it is so important right now is because the House prorogued, and subsequently we had the throne speech and the economic statement. Certainly, some of the recommendations that were in the report were not addressed in either the throne speech or the economic statement. It would seem important that we are once again talking about post-secondary education.

I want to touch on a couple of the recommendations that were in the report. I will not go over every recommendation, but one of them dealt with student funding. It said that the committee recommends that the 2% annual cap on spending increases for the department for post-secondary education be eliminated immediately.

Of course, the 2% cap was imposed under the Liberal watch and has stayed in place every since. Over 10 years, the 2% has been in place. Certainly, from the reports of the Auditor General and others, it has become apparent that the population growth of first nations, Métis and Inuit people far exceeds the 2% cap that is in place.

The government's response, although lengthy, really did not have a lot of substance. Part of that response was that the government also believes that the responsibility for financing post-secondary education should be shared by learners and their families according to their financial circumstances.

The important part in that line is “according to their financial circumstances”, and certainly on reserve, many first nations face pretty desperate circumstances in their lives in terms of their income.

On a recent campaign 2000 report, it once against emphasized that first nations in this country are the poorest of the poor. That would be first nations, Métis and Inuit. The numbers say that one in four first nations children grows up in poverty and as I said before in the House, we do not have poor children unless we have poor families.

Further on in the report under committee proposals, the committee made a number of proposals for the government. One of them was to ensure outstanding funding and accreditation issues affecting aboriginal controlled institutions would be raised in any intergovernmental meetings on aboriginal post-secondary education, or on post-secondary education more generally, and urged provincial and territorial governments to address them.

In the response to that recommendation, it says:

The primary responsibility for most aspects of the issue, however, resides clearly with the provinces. To the extent there is a federal concern in a particular area, it needs to be addressed by federal and provincial governments working together.

We certainly would agree that much of post-secondary accreditation does fall under provincial jurisdiction, but it is incumbent upon the federal government to take full responsibility for first nations, Inuit and Métis across this country in terms of their access to post-secondary education, so one would look for leadership from the federal government when talking about post-secondary education.

There were numerous witnesses who appeared before the committee. They spoke about the lengthy number of reports that were done over the years. I want to go back to one report that was cited. It was the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In volume 3, “Gathering Strength”, it talked about post-secondary education. In chapter 5 at page 561 it states:

As the skills requirements of a post-industrial, globalized economy rise, the marginalization, poverty and relative disadvantage of Aboriginal people are in danger of increasing unless success in education can be radically improved.

Equipping successive generations with the skills to participate in a global economy is a major goal of Aboriginal people and their educators, but it is only part of the story.

Aboriginal people are determined to sustain their cultures and identities, and they see education as a major means of preparing their children to perceive the world through Aboriginal eyes and live in it as Aboriginal human beings.

Aboriginal education therefore must be rooted in Aboriginal cultures and community realities. It must reinforce Aboriginal identity, instill traditional values, and affirm the validity of Aboriginal knowledge and ways of learning.

On page 565, the report states:

Our recommendations include establishing an Aboriginal Peoples' International University, an electronic information clearinghouse, a statistical clearinghouse, and a documentation centre. We also recommend the formation of a Canada-wide board or association to set standards and accredit Aboriginal post-secondary programs.

In 1996 the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples held extensive hearings across this country. It heard from organizations and people on the ground and came up with some concrete recommendations. On the tenth anniversary of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, we found that the overall response from both the Liberals and the Conservatives had been pretty dim in terms of moving forward.

There is some self-interest here for the rest of Canada. There is certainly the question of fairness and justice in this country and ensuring that first nations, Métis and Inuit have access to post-secondary education, but there is an economic perspective for the rest of Canada as well. Even if arguments fail on the point of fairness and justice, surely economic self-interest would come into play.

A recent study was done by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards. I am going to quote from the press release:

Canada stands to lose billions over the next decade in lost productivity and labour growth because almost one in two aboriginal youths don't graduate from high school....

The study, by Ottawa's Centre for the Study of Living, projects Canada's GDP would grow by an additional $71 billion by 2017 if aboriginals had the same graduation rate as the rest of the population.

Using figures from the 2001 census, the study said only 52 per cent of Canada's aboriginals earned their high school diploma compared to 70 per cent of non-aboriginals.

If the Canadian economy could better harness the potential of aboriginal youths, aboriginal communities and the nation's economy as a whole would benefit....

Further, it states:

“Not only would it significantly contribute to increasing the personal well-being of aboriginal Canadians, but it would also contribute somewhat to alleviating two of the most pressing challenges facing the Canadian economy: slower labour force growth and lacklustre labour productivity growth”.

That is the economic self-interest of Canada.

It has been well documented in Canada that we are facing some critical labour shortages in any number of areas and in any number of provinces in this country. Here is an opportunity to truly invest in education, right from kindergarten through to a post-secondary system. When I am talking about post-secondary, I am not talking simply about university. I am also talking about apprenticeships and vocational and technical programs, because we are seeing shortages in all these areas.

This press release goes on to talk about the fact that only “8.9 per cent of aboriginals held a university degree in 2001 compared to almost 22 per cent of non-aboriginal Canadians”, but they also face tremendous poverty.

States the release:

National Chief Fontaine, with the Assembly of First Nations, said it's clear aboriginals are an “untapped resource”. They are the fastest growing segment of the population and the majority of aboriginals are under 25, he said.

But they also face tremendous poverty--unsafe drinking water, inadequate housing, illnesses and suicide...Until aboriginals can expect the same standard of life...they will have difficulty making a strong contribution to the Canadian economy.

“It doesn't make sense...to keep people poor, poorly educated, poorly trained and unable to access jobs...This is a significant labour pool but it has to be developed.

Further on in the press release, Andrew Sharpe, executive director of the centre and co-author of the study, said:

--the economic argument for boosting aboriginal graduation rates is strong but all levels of government have [an] equally strong moral incentive as well.

So there is the economic argument about why we need to invest in education.

Again, the department's own records show that the Conservative government inherited what the Liberals failed to invest in, so this problem has not erupted in just the last two years. This has been a longstanding problem from coast to coast to coast in terms of investment in aboriginal education.

In the department's own records, both K to 12 and post-secondary are talked about. They cannot be pulled apart if we cannot get children to graduate from grade 12 so that they are eligible for post-secondary. We need investment at both ends of the spectrum.

In its own documents, the department talks about this fact:

The funding shortfall, which is met by the department through internal reallocation of resources from “discretionary” programs, was $86.3 million and is forecast to be $100 million in 2005-06.

Here the department is talking about the fact that there simply has not been enough money going into instructional and support services, despite the growing population.

In light of these kinds of numbers, the department has also looked at the fact that over the last six years any real capital and facilities management expenditures have actually declined. “This is because the CFM program is often perceived as discretionary,” says the department, “and its resources are used to make up funding shortfalls in other more essential programs such as Elementary/Secondary Education and Child and Family Services”.

Thus, schools are being underfunded because bands are forced into the position where they have to reallocate funds. They simply do not have enough to meet some of their other pressing needs.

The department goes on to talk about the fact that the “per capita expenditure on capital has declined from $1,660 to $1,225, or a 35% decrease in current dollars”. The money simply is not going as far as it used to. Further on, there is a mention of the estimated five year incremental capital requirements. Overall there is a $1.6 billion shortfall and that is just on projects currently on the books.

In addition, bands continue to face an outdated band school funding formula. The Assembly of First Nations representatives from Quebec and Labrador were on the Hill yesterday. They were here to raise awareness around first nations education.

They talked specifically about the band school funding formula. They say that “the formula ignores a number of costs”, as follows: zero dollars for the integration of technology in schools; zero dollars for school libraries; zero dollars for vocational training in secondary schools; zero dollars for extracurricular sports and recreation activities; zero dollars for implementing provincial education reforms; and zero dollars for providing students with a diversified and stimulating curriculum, such as sports, arts and international programs.

The band operating funding formula is due to expire in March 2008. We are hearing from bands from coast to coast that they are simply not being included in a meaningful way in the discussions around what is needed in their communities.

As well, the Assembly of First Nations in Quebec and Labrador has done a comparative study on the kind of funding that is received by provinces and territories. There are huge discrepancies. I will not go over every difference in provincial averages, but the average funding per student across the country is $13,588 for a provincial student. For an aboriginal student, the provincial average is only $7,946.

We can see the huge difference in those numbers, which means that what we are continuing to say to first nations across this country is that they are second class citizens and they do not deserve to have education at the same rate as every other Canadian student who goes to a provincially funded school.

When we are talking about post-secondary, there are a couple of points that I would like to make. One is that the Canadian Council on Learning has made some recommendations. Again, we have had report after report. This is another report that talks about it and is called “Post-Secondary Education in Canada: Strategies for Success”.

Although this is larger than the first nations report, a number of the recommendations apply equally to first nations. There are three key recommendations. The report talks about: “The development of a national framework with the participation of [post-secondary education] partners across Canada; the development and implementation of a national data strategy; the development of a series of benchmarks that measure Canadian progress through the efforts of the sector”.

In the report, the council talks about the fact that “Canada does not have the structure, practices and mechanisms to maximize the [post-secondary education] sector's social and economic contribution”.

We know that a significant percentage of the jobs that are going to be created or are currently being created across Canada require post-secondary education. We have an untapped resource with aboriginal peoples who could fill those jobs, but we simply are not investing and we do not have a national strategy. Instead what we often hear is passing the buck. The federal government simply will rely on provincial governments to step in and fulfill what is a responsibility of the federal government for first nations, Métis and Inuit.

I want to come back to the First Nations Technical Institute, FNTI. This is a first nations institute that has a good track record. It has had over 2,000 graduates, with almost 400 aboriginal students per year, and it has established its credibility in terms of educating students to actually step into that job market.

However, its federal funding in 2004 was cut by 50%, “leading to double-digit layoffs, wage freezes and restructuring of the institute”. Again in October of this year it was advised that its current budget, and we are part-way through a fiscal year, was slashed by an additional 65%. Here is a first nations post-secondary institute that has a track record in terms of graduating students with some success, yet its money is being cut.

The conciliator's final report, dated March 1, 2006, “The Nunavut Project”--and again, it was talking about K to 12, but this report also touched on post-secondary--talked about the Nunavut Sivuniksavut, which is also called NS, and the track record and the difficulties that this institution has in obtaining funding.

In Justice Berger's report, he states:

Perhaps the most striking figure is the completion rate: over the past 10 years, between 80 and 85 percent of NS students have graduated, a remarkable figure when the nature of [the]program and its distance from home--geographically and culturally--is considered.

NS is a nonprofit organization and a registered charity, with strong oversight. My sense is that few pennies are wasted, except those that must go to fundraising: since only NTI has committed to long-term funding of NS, the program must go cap-in-hand to other organizations and donors to ensure ongoing support. This is a strain on the minimal administrative resources available.

He goes on to say that despite the fact there is a demand there is very limited capacity to actually expand this program, simply because NS just does not have the funding in place. Like many organizations, it goes go from year to year, or perhaps in three-year terms, for funding. What organizations like NS need is long term and sustained core funding that allows them to focus on education rather than fundraising. It is very difficult to talk about a post-secondary institution that ends up spending a significant part of its very limited resources fundraising just to keep its doors open when it has such a great success rate.

The committee had the opportunity to go to the school, hear from the students and see their accomplishments. I would be surprised if each and every committee member was not touched upon seeing the energy and enthusiasm of the staff and students for this opportunity.

These students come here with great personal difficulty. They travel far from home. Some have children and bring their children with them. They are separated from their families and communities, yet they come here because they recognize how important education is for Nunavut in terms of stepping into the 21st century in a way that means they are meaningful participants in their economy and their communities.

It is another really good example of where the federal government could demonstrate leadership and could step in to provide some long term, sustained funding for this very important organization.

We cannot take education apart and have it as a stand-alone. Yesterday we heard from Chief Picard, who talked about the fact that the approach is often a patchwork. People take one part of a program and work at resolving some of the difficulties and challenges, but they do not look at it in the context of the whole.

When we are talking about post-secondary education, what we also know is that it is very difficult for these students and for their families to have these students go far away, because they simply do not have the money and the resources to return home when they need connection with their family. If they do return home, they are often dealing with overcrowded conditions and very difficult study conditions.

If we are serious about tackling poverty with regard to first nations, Métis and Inuit, we simply must invest in post-secondary education in order to provide those economic opportunities. Many people in this House will say that a job is the way out of poverty, but to get a job people need an education in order to take advantage of the opportunities that are available.

I would urge members in this House to support the recommendations in the standing committee's report on post-secondary education. I would certainly urge the Conservatives to take some of that surplus and invest it in a meaningful way in first nations communities.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to everyone's attention what exactly is going on here. The concurrence motion that the NDP has brought forward is a delaying tactic in dealing with Bill C-28, the budget implementation act. This is a very sad state. The NDP must stand for the new delaying party.

The New Democrats are trying to take away so many good things that are coming forward here right at Christmastime. I guess they must be grinches because they do not want to go forward with decreasing the GST by an additional percentage point to 5% effective January 1, 2008. They do not want to increase the basic personal tax exemption to $9,600, which is retroactive to January 1, 2007, with a further increase to $10,100 in 2009. They definitely do not want to pass on these great savings to taxpayers and Canadians across the country. They do not want to reduce the lowest personal income tax rate to 15% effective January 1, 2007. They do not want to introduce the working income tax benefit. They do not want to eliminate the income tax on elementary and secondary school scholarships.

I do not know what is wrong with the member in bringing this motion forward. There are so many good things here in the economic statement and the implementation act that we should be getting back to the business of bringing forward these great savings to Canadians and ensuring that we as government get out of their pockets so they have more money to spend, especially in light of the Christmas season.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about the grinch, we actually should talk about the Conservative government.

The government had a $14 billion surplus. We know that independent reports talk about the desperate living conditions and poverty in first nations and Inuit communities from coat to coast to coast.

If he wants to talk about grinches, I would argue that a government that is willing to accept third world living conditions in this country, willing to turn its back on first nations, Métis and Inuit people across this country and not willing to invest some of that $14 billion surplus in meaningful action, is beyond words.

I am surprised the member would not acknowledge the fact that there was such limited attention in the economic statement around reinvestment in first nations communities.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the back and forth with the Conservatives and our caucus member with great interest. The Conservatives talk about who they are helping and how they will give their 1% GST cut to their voters and yet there was nothing in that budget to deal with the issues of first nations people.

What we need to talk about in this House is the fact that, in terms of special education and health dollars, Canada maintains an institutional apartheid where the Government of Canada sets a standard for first nations people that is deliberately and consistently second class. It puts into law that the students are expected to meet provincial standards and yet the federal government refuses to pay money anywhere close to provincial standards.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the issue of special education funding. Having worked as I did with the Algonquin Tribal Council in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, we fought year after year to get basic, fair funding for students with special needs. We found from the government of the day complete disinterest. We find the government of this day simply smirks at these issues. The Conservatives think it is a joke.

My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is very familiar with the situation of the Algonquins in his riding. The same thing is going on across Canada, including in the Cree region.

Why does my colleague think the government has such a smug disinterest in the actual conditions of our first nations people who need education dollars, perhaps more than any other region in this country?

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, the question by the member for Timmins—James Bay highlights just one of a number of factors that we are consistently seeing. The special needs education budgets do not meet the needs of the communities and often people need to move money around in an attempt to meet the deficit in the communities when it comes to spending on special education.

We had department officials at the aboriginal affairs committee a week or two ago. One of the questions we raised with them was what happens when a school burns down. Attawapiskat, for example, is on a contaminated site. We asked them how priorities were established in terms of funding those schools.

We found that schools, which may have been on the list for years, are bumped down again when a crisis emerges. Therefore, there is no reinjection of money to deal with the fact that many of these students are actually being farmed out throughout their community because their schools have either burned down or are contaminated.

There just is not the kind of priority or understanding around what it means to students in those communities to not have schools that at least meet provincial standards.

Whether it is special education, schools that are contaminated or burned down, housing or water, we are continuing to see a litany of problems in these communities that the government is failing to address.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. The first one deals with the funding formula, which the member mentioned, for first nations advanced education formula which expires in March 2008. Apparently, there is no clear direction yet and first nations people have not been included in meaningful discussions. I do not understand that and I would like the member to comment on it.

Second, the member also mentioned that there was no serious national strategy for post-secondary education for first nations. How can we have a national strategy for first nations when we do not even have one for post-secondary education in general? How is it that our students in post-secondary education pay horrendous tuition fees? Why do we not have something that brings those fees down or eliminates them so we can come into the 21st century, like other countries have done, which then increases our economy and invests in the future?

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, the band operating funding formula is the formula that funds on reserve schools. This formula was developed in 1988. I want to quote from the AFNQL:

...has always ignored significant costs, in addition to not having been revised to take account of new developments in education. The formula has not even been indexed to the cost of living since 1996....

It goes on to talk about the fact that in 2003-04 the per student cost in Canada had increased by an average of 24%, which is in excess of the rate of inflation.

The band operating funding formula is an important part of how on reserve schools can manage to deliver an education that would at least have a comparable standard to the rest of the provinces.

We are in December and the bands across the country are still not clear on what they will be operating with come April 1, 2008, and they need to start making commitments into the next fiscal year.

In terms of a post-secondary education strategy, my colleague is absolutely correct. We do not have a broad national strategy around post-secondary education. We know that people do move from coast to coast and we need to be able to, with some comfort, feel that there are standards and strategy across the country to deal with post-secondary education.

We do not have it at the national level to deal with post-secondary education as a whole and we certainly do not have a national post-secondary strategy for first nations, Métis and Inuit.

As I pointed out, this is a lost economic opportunity for Canada that would assist us in dealing with the labour shortage that is before us and would help us in terms of dealing with the aging baby boomers.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's effort to bring this issue to the floor of the House today. I do not think there is anything as important right now, as we look across the country and determine who it is that is in most need and in want of an opportunity to participate in society, look after themselves and their families and provide a good living.

The member knows I have travelled this country over the last two years looking at the issue of poverty. Predominantly, the face of poverty in this country, as well as being female and disabled, is aboriginal. It is a national disgrace.

We have seen governments, and not just the present one but also the previous government, run surpluses at a time when our first nations communities were sliding further and further into poverty and great depression.

Given that the face of poverty is so obvious across the land in almost every aboriginal community, how long has this been going on, why is it that the previous Liberal government did not do anything about it and what is it that the present government could do?

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a national shame. We have had successive Liberal and Conservative governments that have simply ignored the poverty in this country and have refused to develop a national strategy in conjunction with first nations, Métis and Inuit so there would be full participation in developing a strategy that would have some meaningful results.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Conservative

Rod Bruinooge ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to this motion but I am quite surprised that the motion to concur in this report actually came forward in light of the fact that the aboriginal affairs committee, on which I sit with the hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party, actually brought forward this debate in the previous session. This report has already been brought forward to this chamber and was approved by the chamber.

I see this action as redundant. I do not understand why the New Democratic Party is doing this. In fact, we are working on Bill C-28 right now, which would bring so many benefits to Canadians.

However, to speak to her motion, our government has done a number of things for first nations people, aboriginal people all across the country. We have actually looked at it from two approaches. Not only is more investment needed, but systemic reform, and that is an area that the previous Liberal government did not take on. We have actually done a number of things in terms of education, specifically in British Columbia with the British Columbia first nations education jurisdiction agreement that brings that systemic reform that is so needed in the area of first nations education.

I would love to continue this debate, because it is such an important debate, but our government has a lot of important issues to bring forward. We only had a few minutes' notice on this debate and we would prefer to continue it at another time and I assure this House that we can continue this debate on another day.

We have much other business, as we have so often mentioned this morning, that we need to take care of and therefore I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The motion is in order, obviously, and I might add that it is non-debatable.

The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

All those opposed will please say nay.