Debates of June 18th, 2007

Committees of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago the Government of Canada signed an agreement with the leadership of five first nations as well as 13 provincial and territorial governments. We refer to the agreement as the Kelowna accord. Without belabouring the Kelowna accord, we do know that there were large sums of money in the Kelowna accord to address education and a number of other issues that relate to poverty, such as housing, health and building capacity. It was very much a holistic endeavour, and as I said earlier, a high-water mark in the relationship between aboriginal leadership and non-aboriginal leadership in the country.

I have heard the member speak privately about what Kelowna meant to many people in her community. I wonder if she could tell the House today the importance of the Kelowna accord and the significance of its loss.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Churchill has one minute to do that.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, purely in terms of numbers for post-secondary education alone the Kelowna accord meant a $500 million investment over the next five years. I would like to address what the Kelowna accord meant to my riding which has a significant number of first nations and Métis nation communities. It was understood by all people and even non-English speaking grandmothers. People asked me about the Kelowna accord. They understood what the Kelowna accord meant. It meant hope.

I would argue that the current government has on its agenda an idea that we should remain in poverty. In dollar terms alone, welfare is more than 20 times as expensive as a university education. If people are just going to look at the bottom line in terms of dollars, that is a really good piece of information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be speaking in the debate as well, because this is an issue that touches us completely in our communities. I want to thank all those who spoke very eloquently before me. I also want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for moving the motion.

I have to add my voice to the people who have expressed their disappointment in the response to the aboriginal affairs committee's sixth report, which is on the topic of education.

I find it quite ironic in looking at our history, especially the residential schools when we were being immersed in the education system against our will. The current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development defended the injustice done by saying that the government at the time was just trying to educate the aboriginal people. Today we are trying to do everything we can to support education for our young people and even older people who want further education. We also want to take ownership of all support programs that lead to a success in education. It is ironic that the government is finding ways not to support us in our endeavours now that we want to get educated.

When we look at good practices and good programs that are already running today, there is little support for them. I know we have the money to support some of the programs that are operational today throughout the country but there never seems to be enough. It is important to break the welfare cycle. My colleague from Churchill mentioned the cost of welfare versus the cost of an education and the impacts.

I am sure we do not know all the numbers. We cannot put a dollar figure on all the problems that come with being on welfare and the dignity that is taken away from people. They wish to change their lives but sometimes the obstacles are just too big. I do not think we can put a dollar figure on that. It is quite difficult for us in the House and for most people to understand exactly what that means to the young people in our communities. We need to change that. We need to reverse the cycle.

I have good examples from my riding of Nunavut where education has meant the world of difference. A young girl whose mother has been on welfare all her life was able to get an education. She came back home to our community, got a job and now she can provide for her mother and her younger sister. She can encourage her younger sister to complete her high school education and go on to post-secondary education. She can be an example to her own family.

There are other very successful programs referred to in the report. We talk about Nunavut Sivuniksavut which is a bridging program. High school students in my riding of Nunavut can apply to this program. It is such a successful program here in Ottawa that many applicants are turned away. We are looking at different ways to offer the program, maybe through modules or in a different community so people can take the same program in their community, but there are just not the resources to do it.

The report also looked at how we can further fund good programs like that which have a very high success rate. We found that of the graduates, most were either working or pursuing further education. Very few were not working and for most it was by choice.

Another good program is the Nunavut youth abroad program, which has been changed to the northern youth abroad program because of its success. It used to be for just Nunavut students, but the Northwest Territories asked that its students be included because of the very successful way that students have been encouraged to enter the program.

It is a summer program, but again, very good numbers of kids have gone on to further their education because of their horizons being broadened by this program. There is a Canadian phase, when they work in different areas of the country, and then a phase in the next year when they go to Africa and help impoverished countries there.

Again, in regard to those students who have entered these programs, the numbers are very high for either furthering their education or being able to take great jobs in their communities, but unfortunately the Department of Foreign Affairs has decided not to fund this program, so we need to find other ways of supporting it. I think post-secondary education would be one of those areas. The funds for that could also fund programs like these.

I find it very disheartening to listen to the parliamentary secretary, not only in his speech today but also in committee, as he seems to discount a lot of the positive things that come from our committee, saying that we are at fault for where we are today and that we are not making better use of the funds that are going to our communities, whether they be for first nations communities, Métis or, in my case, Inuit communities. I find that very insensitive to the great work that I think our people have done as far as aboriginal people are concerned in trying to make life better for our own.

The Conservative government and the Conservative members of Parliament will never convince me or other aboriginal people that they know better than we do what is good for us or that they know how to improve our lives without our input. They are doing all their legislation and policy changes without any of the aboriginal peoples' input, but we remain very much an optimistic people. I have said this many times: we have to be an optimistic people.

I recently attended a graduation in my home community of Arviat, where 14 students were receiving their Bachelor of Education degrees. They were all mature Inuit students who went back to pursue an education. Some were in their thirties and some even in their forties. They definitely would not have been able to do this without support, whether it was financial support or support from the community, elders or educational institutions.

This four year program was done as an outreach, meaning that it was done in our community. It was brought directly to Arviat so the students did not have to leave home. This, for me, has far-reaching impacts, because these people will be able to go back to their schools, whether that is elementary school, middle school or high school, and totally change the school just by being there.

We now will be able to have education take place in the language of the majority of students, which is Inuktitut in my community, and hopefully we will see higher numbers of high school graduates, because these students who are now teachers will be setting an example for our young people of what we can accomplish when we have the right determination and the right support to pursue these kinds of futures.

I want to close by saying that investment in the right places will produce positive results, but we need to be part of the process and involved in all the solutions. I strongly urge the Conservative government to make investments in the right places and work with the people instead of making these remarks that there is already all that money going to our communities and that if we just knew better how to handle the money we would be better off. I find that very patronizing and very insulting to the people who work so hard with so little to produce positive outcomes for their communities. I want to thank all the people who work in our communities to improve life for the people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. I certainly like working with her on the aboriginal affairs committee. I know that she has a desire to see the lot of aboriginal people in Canada improved, as we all do.

However, I do take exception to some of the statements that she made to the effect that some of us do not want aboriginal people to become educated or to succeed. I need to say that one of the reasons that I requested to serve on the aboriginal affairs committee was from exactly that kind of motivation: to see the lives of aboriginal peoples improve. I would ask her not to imply in comments about being insensitive or something that simply because we approach the topic from a different perspective we do not have a concern equal to that of members opposite.

Our government has implemented a lot of key measures in the past year to improve the lives of aboriginal people. There has been $308 million for post-secondary education and $105 million for the aboriginal skills and employment partnerships. We have Bill C-44 and also the recent announcement that deals with specific land claims and a process to speed up that entire system.

I have two questions. Should the government fund 100% of post-secondary education for aboriginal students and other Canadians? If it did, how much of a budget would it require to fund that kind of request?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was referring mainly to a comment that came from the parliamentary secretary, so the member might want to have a chat with him if he feels that I am misrepresenting the comments of those members.

In answering his first question about whether I think the government should fund everything, those are the kinds of things that we could work out together. We have always said that we are not asking for a complete handout and that we want to be part of the solutions, the decision making, the policies and the legislative changes. We want to be part of the consultations that are going on about how to implement our land claims agreements.

First of all, I guess, we want to be able to implement the Kelowna accord because we have a private member's motion, and I do not think that we should have to resort to that in the first place to implement something that all people in Canada in the aboriginal communities worked for.

We just want to be part of the solution. We want to help make decisions on where those investments should go. As my other colleague said earlier, we want to be part of the productive society in Canada. We want to be able to do that.

I think it is really very sad when I hear comments in my communities about young people who call home from jail saying they are getting three meals a day and that is more than they ever would get at home. When we are sitting there and listening to that, we are thinking that there is something really wrong with this picture when someone is happy to be in jail so that he can eat three times a day versus living in poverty at home and having to wonder where the next meal is coming from.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Halifax has one minute for both the question and the answer.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Wow, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to do with that.

I appreciate the comments made by the member for Nunavut. She will know that recommendation two in the report has to do with the committee recommending that the 2% annual cap on spending increases for the department's post-secondary education program be eliminated immediately.

Could she comment on that very specific recommendation given what we know about the socio-economic circumstances of the vast majority of Canada's first nations people?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Nunavut has 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the demographics for the aboriginal population in Canada, we see that ours is the fastest growing population in this country, yet the cap does not even come close to the numbers that we find when we talk about the increases in population. Another colleague of mine talked about a young population, with 50% of our population under 18 and the 2% cap—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I interrupt the hon. member.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Victoria.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on aboriginal post-secondary education in Canada. As the NDP critic for post-secondary education, I am aware of many problems in Canada's post-secondary education system and also the solutions that many of us have proposed since this session began.

Tonight I would like to talk specifically about the problem facing Canada's first nations.

I should mention that in 10 minutes I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax.

We know, for example, that 70% of jobs in Canada require post-secondary education. We know that among the general population, 30% of Canadian students say that financial considerations are crucial to them in their decisions not to acquire post-secondary education. I can only imagine what it is among first nations people.

As the speaker before me has said, first nations have the largest growing population in Canada, the largest number of young people in Canada and largest unemployment level in Canada. We know that completion of high school is very low and there are undoubtedly many historic and present social conditions that are the cause of it.

I was very disappointed in reading the response of the government to this report. In the letter the minister mentions doing more studies. It seems discouraging at this point from what we have heard from colleagues opposite and my colleague, whom I thank for raising this issue, which is such an essential debate in Canada. Responding to the problem and to the facts that we already have by proposing yet more studies is a very discouraging response indeed.

I have said that we know what some of the solutions are. In my riding a story was written up in the local newspaper of a woman who had a young child and was lucky enough to win the battle against illiteracy. She began with very low levels of literacy and decided she would not to pass on those same problems to her child. She approached Project Literacy Victoria to help her overcome some of the reading and writing problems she was facing. That was six years ago. She is now reading novels and looking forward to continuing her post-secondary education.

When I say we know what some of the solutions are and when I look at the response of the government earlier this year in cutting important programs for literacy, this is beyond understanding.

Project Literacy Victoria is one of the groups that has offered programs, which have helped hundreds and hundreds of people, aboriginal and white, to move on, take their lives back in their own hands and get further education. I know this does not address the issue of post-secondary education, but we talked about some of the causes around post-secondary education, and they begin with basic literacy programs. By cutting these programs, the Conservative government has done a large disservice not only to aboriginal people but to the general population that faces these issues.

We know also that one of the recommendations is to remove the 2% funding cap. By itself, this 2% funding cap has prevented thousands of aboriginal people from moving on to post-secondary education. Yet the government responds by talking about more studies. It is as simple as removing this cap to allow many of the students who are now struggling to get through school to do so.

Recently I had the pleasure of attending a graduation of students who had completed a bridging program. They were aboriginal students who had left school for one reason or another and who had now completed a bridging program, allowing them to continue on to university.

Many of these students were facing huge debts. These programs have proven themselves to be very successful. I look at the first nations program, which is offered at Camosun College in Victoria, that offers services and programs for first nations, Métis, Inuit and native American students.

This program offers cultural support to students who are outside their community. It also offers academic support in programs such as family support workers, first nations home support or residential care attendant program or in health support as well. It also provides experience and dedicated first nations instructors.

Yet we know that since 1993, transfers for education to universities have been cut across Canada, not only programs through Indian and Northern Affairs but programs generally for post-secondary education. These cuts have affected the possibility of offering the kinds of programs that exist at Camosun College and that could exist in many other places.

For example, in 1997 only 6% of aboriginals in my province of British Columbia applied to university, compared to the non-aboriginal rate of 29%. Currently their university participation rate edged up to 9.1%. In contrast, the university participation rate among non-aboriginals rose to 34%. This speaks to a real gap in our system, that we are allowing our first nations to stay behind.

In the process of the employability study that we are presently doing, it has become clear that we cannot allow such a large segment of our population to simply fall by the wayside. We must take action.

It is past the time for studies. There are solutions. My colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, has proposed many of them specific to first nations and so have we in terms of the post-secondary education in general.

I urge the government to consider these, rather than spend more time with studies.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spent some time on the health committee when we studied aboriginal health and wellness issues. It was an eye opener. It is something that every parliamentarian should have an opportunity to do, to fully appreciate that any problem we notice in society in general it is probably 10 times worse within the aboriginal communities in many respects.

The member touched on the cap. I was very interested in the recommendation of the 2% cap being eliminated. I do not quite understand how the parliamentary secretary reaches the conclusion that there is some mismanagement. How could a cap possibly deal with not only the growth in the population of the aboriginal communities, but also with the increased cost of providing those services and to the extent that any additional moneys required would be taken away from other programs because there is no colour coding of dollars? It is interpreted somehow very astonishingly that somehow this constitutes mismanagement. That concerns me.

Could the member say that maybe this is just another example of the failure of the government to understand, to consult, to educate and inform itself so it does not say silly things, such as “we are cutting literacy for adults because adults are already illiterate and they can't be helped?”

It is almost silliness. Does the member think that maybe there is a pattern of a failure of the government to do its work before it makes decisions?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember well one of the ministers of the Conservative government talking about adult literacy programs and about cutting the fat. We are all aware that there is a pattern in families. If we look at the cause of illiteracy in children, we often find parents who have really difficult issues.

Raising the issue of mismanagement was just simply out of order, when we consider the growth in the young population, the increased costs of administering the programs and the need for culturally appropriate post-secondary education. I talked about the excellent post-secondary program that exists in our area, which is managed very efficiently. Aboriginal students are graduating from that program.

Those are the kinds of programs that would turn things around if more funding was available.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous life, before coming here, I was a trustee for a school board. We saw the effect of the lack of action by our federal government over a long period of time. I am not going to point fingers at any party because this is not the kind of debate for that.

A few minutes ago I heard a discussion around how first nations would teach their own. Coming from the labour movement, I found worker to worker education worked well. Is this as successful in the aboriginal community?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague raised this question. Throughout our study on employability, it became obvious that we could not leave segments of the population behind. The social and economic costs are too high. It is time to pay attention to all of these.

First nations really appreciate the apprenticeship model. Without categorizing or profiling, it seems to respect their way of learning. Finding ways of both encouraging apprenticeships and ensuring completion of apprenticeships on reserves would really be a big first step toward solving the problem.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have an opportunity to speak briefly in this debate on the motion introduced by my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am very pleased for several reasons. First, it gives me a chance to say a word about the really excellent work she has been doing on behalf of my caucus and, I certainly know, on behalf of her own constituents, but also, I think, for any who follow her passion, devotion and intelligence for the work she does on behalf of aboriginal Canadians. She does it with incredible respect for the achievements of aboriginal Canadians, first nations and other aboriginal groups.

Second, I had the opportunity for a very short time after I stepped down as federal leader to be the post-secondary education critic for two years in this House. One of the things I enjoyed very much in that role was learning a great deal more about the challenges of first nations students in Canada in the context of post-secondary education. I say “enjoyed” in one sense, but in another sense I was horrified.

I will always recall that the then Liberal minister of aboriginal affairs, now the member for Fredericton, commented many times on how tragic it was, but true nevertheless, that there were so many more first nation students in jail than there were in post-secondary education institutions. That is one of the blights and one of the challenges that we face.

Hence, I am very glad to have had just a few hours this afternoon to immerse myself in the report that we are focusing on here, the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, entitled “No Higher Priority: Aboriginal Post Secondary Education in Canada”. Because I feel like I need an update. I do not have a large number of aboriginal students in my riding who live in my riding or who come from my riding, although I am very privileged to have a good many students who are attending the post-secondary education institutions in my riding of Halifax.

I have come to have enormous respect for the challenges faced by Mi'kmaq students from my own province, but also those from other parts of Canada, the challenges that they have tackled and overcome given the fact that in so many instances they are really struggling financially while they try to give the kind of attention to their education that they want to give.

I will go back as far as 1971-75, to when I taught at Dalhousie University and had an outstanding young woman student by the name of Joan Glode, who was from Nova Scotia from a Mi'kmaq community. I knew at the time that she was going places. Subsequently, at a surprisingly young age, she became head of Nova Scotia's Mi'kmaq Family and Children's Services, which is quite literally the self-government agency that administers family and children's services in the Mi'kmaq population in all of Nova Scotia. I know for a fact that she has provided leadership around the same evolution happening in other provinces.

Today I think of another very outstanding Mi'kmaq, not from my riding, and in fact not from my province but from New Brunswick, a woman by the name of Candy Palmeter, who graduated from Dalhousie Law School, from a program that is very much focused on giving additional support where needed to both the Mi'kmaq students and the Afro Nova Scotian students. Not only did this woman graduate from law school, but today she is a well known columnist and a well known radio commentator who has her own radio program. On the side, she calls herself a recovering lawyer and actually is a very popular comedian and moderator for various public events.

My point in mentioning a couple of those students is only to highlight the fact that we should be here celebrating the incredible success rate of first nations students who overcome the tremendous obstacles they face, and we should be recommitting ourselves even more determinedly to helping to remove barriers, which is why we have to speak out with some dismay, I think, at the government's response to the recommendations contained in this important report.

I do not know about anyone else, but I found the tone of the government's response to be quite patronizing. It was really a sort of lecture about the government being willing to help, but what are people looking for, a free ride? The tone of it is just insulting, it seems to me, and not worthy of a Canadian government responding to this challenge, which I think the vast majority of Canadians want the government to do.

Second, it seems to me that the government is just not very well informed. The government talks about the fact that students should be able to pay a significant portion of their own costs. That just shows profound ignorance of the fact that a great many Mi'kmaq students who are trying to put themselves through university are bearing financial responsibilities to help with younger brothers and sisters back home, who need the most basic kinds of supports because of the fact that there have not been serious commitments to the kinds of social and economic development programs that would put them in a much more favourable economic circumstance today.

I think the government responses are disappointing, and I think we very much should be recognizing a good deal of the leadership that comes from first nations people who have graduated from our post-secondary education institutions and who are giving tremendous leadership. One person who comes to mind is Phil Fontaine. I think we would all agree that he is an example of somebody from that very excellent set of policies and programs that were introduced in Manitoba. The member for Churchill, who spoke earlier, referred to this.

For over 30 years, Manitoba has really blazed a trail around improving access, with a particular program called the access program, which I think was introduced under the NDP government of Ed Schreyer and was carried on and enhanced under the NDP government of Howard Pawley. To this day, it probably is one of several reasons why Gary Doer for the third time finds himself premier of Manitoba yet again: because of a high level of satisfaction with a program that has been able to blaze some trails in spite of there not being the federal supports for those programs.

What is the result? In Manitoba, in the legislature and in the NDP caucus alone there are several first nations cabinet ministers, including Eric Robinson and Oscar Lathlin. George Hicks is not Cree but Inuit and has ended up as Speaker of the Manitoba legislature.

We need to redouble our efforts to get the government members to get behind these recommendations to understand, and they do seem a little more responsive to this than they used to be, how much the investment in providing this kind of support for aboriginal post-secondary education can literally transform first nations life opportunities.

I hope for more instead of this just being yet another report that the government feels is a sort of obligation, although it does have an obligation because it is required to respond. That is one of the good things about the rules of the House. When a committee works hard, hears a lot of witnesses and brings forward such a report, the government is required to respond. Here, I think, the government did so in a very inadequate way.

However, let us resolve today, on behalf of the first nations youth and children of this country, to work together to propel forward these recommendations, to remove the barriers in the thinking of government members that would allow them to respond so inadequately so far to this report. We now need them to respond in terms of resources and in terms of policy changes. I hope that is going to be the result of this successful report.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that during the course of today's debate so much emphasis has been given to the negatives that are involved in the aboriginal post-secondary education field.

During our committee hearings, we heard about all kinds of positive examples across the country where groups are doing great work in advancing this cause. I will quote from the report itself:

--Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal post-secondary institutions and educators across the country have made and continue to make great strides in identifying and meeting post-secondary educational needs specific to Aboriginal learners.

The report goes on to point out the Nunavut Sivuniksavut program, which many of our members had the opportunity to visit.

Then, as it relates to the previous speaker's province, the Membertou First Nation in Nova Scotia talks about how it “works to obtain commitments“ from post-secondary institutions and how it has treated “post-secondary education as a top priority”. The report goes on to say it finances “every applicant”.

I am just wondering, in light of these positive stories, if the previous speaker could outline what she thinks some initiatives could be in which we could partner with other agencies to see that whole area of post-secondary education advance.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, actually I want to leap to my feet and agree with the opening comment of the member. I do not very often agree with members who happen to be on the same side of the House but sit in the Conservative government caucus. I agree and I said it I think three times during my 10 minutes that we should celebrate the successes. We should underscore why the opportunity to pursue post-secondary education is so important to all our youth, but in particular first nations students who face more barriers than the vast majority of young people in this country. I used many examples to say so.

One of the things that I became aware of when I was the post-secondary education critic, and I do not think it has changed all that much in a couple of years, is that we do not really have an overall systematic approach to post-secondary education for aboriginal students.

I worked very closely with Richard Johnston in relation to the First Nations Technical Institute here in Ontario. What was clear is that institutions are forced to lurch from crisis to crisis. Even if funding is there for the students through their own resourcefulness, through other support, through some but inadequate government funding, despite the 2% cap, many institutions are in crisis. The funding has not been sufficient to ensure that those students get a good quality educational experience that is continuous and ongoing for future groups of students.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Halifax for her comments and her very deep understanding of the issues that are facing first nations and post-secondary institutions.

In my own riding, one of the campuses of Malaspina University-College, the Duncan campus, is actually on the Cowichan tribe's land. There is an innovative set of programs, including an elder in residence. Malaspina provides substantial numbers of supports to students. It is often lurching from funding crisis to funding crisis because of the lack of funding around programs like ISSP.

I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of culturally relevant programming and the importance in terms of supporting students in staying with their post-secondary education.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that culturally relevant programming is very much a requirement. In that regard I want to take the remaining few seconds to cite the tremendously valuable film that was done in my own province about the history of the Mi'kmaq people, and the history of broken treaties and agreements with the Mi'kmaq people. It forms the context in which people in my province and in my region are trying to build new lives and break down barriers.

That kind of culturally relevant experience and understanding of the context have to be not just a starting point, but an ongoing part of the support system and part of the educational content, the curriculum material, for first nations students and for other students. That is important so they understand the history and take up the responsibilities that come with that historical context.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Normally I would recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for 20 minutes. However, this debate is limited to three hours and it will collapse at 12 minutes after six. Therefore, he has the floor for eight minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity even for just a few minutes to add my thoughts to the debate today on the concurrence motion of the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on post-secondary education.

On behalf of the people of the riding that I represent, Winnipeg Centre, and on behalf of first nations across the province of Manitoba, my home province, let me say that I am very pleased that we are seized of this issue today in the House of Commons.

I am very pleased with the tone of at least the last few speakers in this debate, the note of optimism in their message to us today, and the recognition that there probably is no more significant thing we could do to elevate the social condition of first nations and aboriginal people in this country than to focus our energies on education. There seems to be a consensus building as this debate goes forward today.

Coming from the province of Manitoba I am proud that we have recognized this fact through three successive NDP governments in that province. It was the government of Ed Schreyer in 1977 that began the University of Manitoba's access program. One of the first graduates from that program is the current national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine. Another graduate is a former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi.

I think of my good friend and lawyer, Moses Okimaw, a chief of his reserve. About post-secondary education, Moses said to me once, “The biggest mistake they ever made in their lives was letting guys like me get a university education”, because he has become one of the most effective and outspoken advocates for the social injustices that his people have faced in recent history.

While the tone has been positive, I have to focus on one wrong direction that Parliament was exposed to. In the previous government the former minister of Indian affairs, now the member for Fredericton, said time and time again the single most important thing he could do as the minister of Indian affairs was concentrate on post-secondary education.

He used the alarming analogy of pointing to the over-representation of aboriginal people in jail and the under-representation of aboriginal people in university and said his job was to reverse those statistics. That was powerful. He had me excited. I believed him.

However, not six months later his government's response to this crisis of under-representation of aboriginal people in university was to put a tax on the tuitions and living expenses of aboriginal students when they were at university, a shot across the bow to try to introduce income tax, I suppose, to aboriginal people. The Liberals were trying to achieve some secondary objective by this ludicrous, counterproductive approach.

Can there be any doubt that if aboriginal students had to start paying taxes on the meagre living out allowance they get, they would have less money to spend, the reserve would have to give them more money to live on, and fewer students would end up going to university? It was ridiculous. We were shocked and flabbergasted.

I recognize the aboriginal native students associations of Algonquin College, Seneca College, Douglas College, and others across the country that gathered together and signed an 11,000 name petition that I had the honour of presenting in the House of Commons to point out the absurdity, the counterproductivity of taxing living out expenses of aboriginal people if in fact the government's intention was to have more aboriginal people going to university. It was appalling.

If we are to build civil society, and it is the paternalism of the Indian Act that has thwarted and undermined the development of civil society and aboriginal communities, but if we are to develop a middle class among first nations, there is no way to go from poverty to middle class except for education. It is the only vehicle within one generation to move from poverty to middle class.

If we are to build the administrative capacity that will lead to self-determination, and if that is in fact our objective and if we are honest about that, then we have to pay attention to putting more first nations, Métis and Inuit students through university.

An aboriginal leader sent me an email today about this very debate and he quoted another noted champion of social justice who said:

On some positions a coward has asked the question is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question is it right? And there come a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.

That email that was sent to me today quoted Martin Luther King talking about the struggle for social justice of the Black people in the United States and the civil rights movement.

The social conditions of aboriginal people in this country is the civil rights movement of Canada. The time for social justice for aboriginal people has come. In an era of seven, eight and nine surplus budgets in a row, if not now, then when? That is what first nations people are asking themselves. And as we approach the day of action on June 29, we have to ask ourselves, if not now, then when?

If for no other reason than enlightened self-interest, does it make any sense to leave a huge chunk of the population behind? Our party believes that society does not move forward unless we all move forward together.

There are specific things we can do to ensure that we elevate the standards of social conditions of first nations, Métis and Inuit people. The most obvious, the most agreed upon, and the most simple and most directed straightforward thing we can do is to get rid of the 2% cap as per the recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, so that funding is based on need with a special emphasis on dealing with the backlog of the 13,000 first nations students who qualify for school, but who are waiting because they have no money to go to school.

We have to jump start this campaign. We have to commit ourselves with a new vigour that this will be a challenge that we are ready to face or we face the consequences of a permanent underclass in our society. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is morally and ethically reprehensible, but it is also counterproductive if we are to move forward as a great nation.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.