Debates of Jan. 31st, 2013

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the First Nations Land Management Act. I want to ask my colleague a question.

When participating first nation communities get involved in the First Nations Land Management Act, it gets rid of one-third of the Indian Act. Economic opportunities improve in business up to 40% with willing partners and communities on first nations reserves.

I would like to point out some numbers. First nations attracted approximately $53 million in internal investment and close to $100 million in external investment.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please give the House some examples of concrete steps by which the Government of Canada is working with willing first nations to improve economic opportunities in the north and across Canada?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member not only for his question but for his important work on something for which there is broad consensus in this place, which is to work away at removing, in a responsible way, parts of the Indian Act that no longer apply to the modern circumstances of our country, and for first nations people and their communities. He is taking an important step down that path through his private member's bill.

Importantly, the First Nations Land Management Act puts communities out from underneath more than one-third of the statutes in the Indian Act. This is seen as progress, from first nations communities, their leadership and the government. It gives them the opportunity and flexibility to focus on the economic priorities of their community, which of course has a positive impact on the social health and sustainability of their respective communities.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the parliamentary secretary that since we began debating this issue—and I have been paying close attention to the debate—members of his government, particularly the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, have told us how important it is to negotiate with and consult first nations before forcing anything on them. Yet his government has done exactly the opposite of that. Both of the omnibus bills they introduced have directly affected first nations rights.

Does the parliamentary secretary not think that his government could follow the example of what Quebec did with the peace of the braves, where the government consulted first nations and negotiated with them before reaching an agreement? Things are not perfect in Quebec, not all of the issues are resolved, but at least there has been some progress, and maybe the federal government could follow that example.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

Our government has consulted aboriginals on many issues, including potable water and waste water.

We are now beginning a process focused on education, and we will be working with aboriginal communities and our provincial partners across Canada to ensure that aboriginal children and youth have the same opportunities as children in southern Canada with respect to education outcomes.

These are two good examples of how we are working with aboriginal communities to improve education, health and sustainable development in their communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my esteemed colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona.

It is with some pleasure that I enter the debate, because as I read out to the parliamentary secretary, the New Democrats, the official opposition to the government, have asked the House to confirm the government's commitment to follow the law. We have asked the government's commitment to actually begin and fully implement treaties and consult first nations before the government enacts laws that affect first nations.

For Idle No More and the concerns that have happened across the land on specific resource projects or any of those disruptions, the government only has itself to blame. Time and time again, the Conservatives say the words we hear in this place about consulting and respecting first nations' rights and title, then they bring in another law without consulting first nations' rights and title and wonder why first nations from coast to coast to coast rise up against the government and say that they expect and demand better.

I come from northwestern British Columbia, and 35% to 40% of the constituents I represent are from first nation backgrounds. Not only are the first nations a profound part of our history and culture, but a crucial and critical part of our future. First nations are informing the way that we work, the way that we live, the way that we think about our land and our communities. This is an important lesson the government would do well to serve.

I remember the Prime Minister visiting in his Challenger jet with all his security into the northwest at one point. He flew in for an exclusive fundraiser at a lake that was very nice. By some coincidence, the same day, the first nation territory was raising four totem poles. It was the first time they had done such a thing in almost a century.

Being a good parliamentarian, I extended an invitation to the Prime Minister through his office to say, “Why do you not come down? There is a feast happening. The first nations there will treat you with honour and respect, even if they disagree with your policies, because they know what honour and respect actually look like”. The response of the Prime Minister's Office was, “Not a chance, ever”.

The Prime Minister went to his exclusive fundraiser while the first nations were raising four totem poles. While the extension of the offer and the invitation had come from the first nations themselves, the Prime Minister's Office, and one would only assume under the direction of the Prime Minister, felt that it was not an appropriate way for a Prime Minister to spend his time.

There is a problem that happens too often in politics, and particularly with Parliament and first nations, where we only hear the negative stories, the hard stories, because there are so many of them. In first nation communities, we are all too familiar with the statistics and the realities of first nation people. We know about the elevated suicide rate. We know about the depression and the economic backwardness in which government after government has left first nations. We know that first nation students going to school this morning received one-third less funding than non-first nation students, students who do not live on reserves.

It seems to me that there is also an important conversation to have about the successes, and not the cherry-picked successes. The government likes to play favourites and say that all we have to do is free up property rights. Then places such as Kelowna, Kamloops, downtown Vancouver and the oil patch will be the examples that all first nations can use, because obviously all the reserves around Canada are situated on such absolutely high-value property as the ones outside of Kelowna or in the oil patch in northern Alberta. That is in fact not the case for the vast majority of reserves that the Canadian government saw fit to place first nations on. That is a fact.

The success stories that I talk about, coming from the northwest of British Columbia, are homemade success stories. They are success stories that pushed and fought and struggled against government doctrine, against the ignorance of the government of the day.

I think of the Haida First Nation, who fought on the line with the Government of Canada and British Columbia to defend their island of Haida Gwaii. They fought to establish a regime in which land management is a co-management process, where half of the boards on land management use in Haida Gwaii are Haida and half or non-Haida. They find ways as neighbours, as partners, to develop the land but not the way the Canadian and B.C. governments wanted to do, which was to strip-mine the soul of the island. They actually foresee a future in which our children have an opportunity.

I think of the Tahltan First Nation in northern B.C. faced with the prospect of Shell Canada, this government and previous governments wanting to drill for gas and frack at the very heart of the Sacred Headwaters of the Stikine, the Skeena and the Nass rivers, three of the most critical rivers in all of British Columbia. They wanted to drill and frack for gas at that very same place and had no ability to actually confirm that there would not be poisoned wells coming up everywhere.

The Tahltan First Nation, without any money, without big support and without any help from people in the government, stood up against one of the most powerful companies in the world and got it to see reason, to see that there are better prospects and better places to be. Just recently, Shell, against all odds and against the advice of the government, decided to forgo its leases in the Sacred Headwaters. The B.C. government finally came on side and said that maybe it was time to protect certain places, that drilling for oil and gas everywhere might not be such a great idea. It was the Tahltan First Nation that led that.

I think of the Kitsumkalum and the Kitselas nations that just recently signed a deal with CN. This was quite an amazing day. On a day just next to the day of national action for Idle No More, I was at an event in Kitsumkalum, just outside of Terrace, B.C. We stood on the railway track of a new railway spur, with the first nations in full regalia standing across the railway line in front of a train. They stopped that train. The RCMP and the broader community were in attendance. We were there to cut a ribbon because CN had negotiated with the first nations to have a revenue-sharing agreement to allow that rail spur to be built to a quarry that is now building jobs for the entire community.

It was somewhat ironic to see a model of what it looks like if the parties actually negotiate in good faith with first nations. All seem to benefit. I think of the Haisla First Nation that has stood up against the northern gateway even though money gets splashed around, even though the government tries to bully anybody who happens to have an independent thought on putting an 1,100-kilometre pipeline from Alberta to the port at Kitimat, and then driving 250 supertankers through some of the most narrow and treacherous waters in the world.

When the Haisla First Nation stood up, they said they were open for business but under their management. They were able to sign deals with resource developers on their terms. They will not be bullied. They lawyered up. They invested in their young people and got education going a generation, two generations, three generations ago, despite all the adversity of the residential school and the travesties that government after government set upon first nations.

I think of the Nisga’a signing the first modern-day treaty. They are still pleading with the government to actually have a relationship. The government talks about respect. It talks the talk but will not walk the walk. It will not even meet with the Nisga'a, who are a model for first nations across this country on how to develop a full first nation governance and constitution. The government simply washes its hands of the entire experience.

The Canadian government and the Crown's relationship with first nations is well documented as a dysfunctional relationship. I sat in the House as the Prime Minister welcomed in first nation, Métis, Inuit leaders to this place to express what I believed was a sincere apology to the first nation, Métis and Inuit people of Canada for the travesty of residential schools.

We can all agree, whatever our political persuasion, that when such a thing is prosecuted upon young people and families as an official policy of the Canadian government, generation after generation, there comes a time to face up to that reality and that history and apologize. An apology often means that behaviour will be corrected. If someone apologizes to me and they mean it, then I suspect that the thing that they did that brought on the apology will not be continued.

However, what was the very next thing the government decided to do? It was to cut the funding to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which had been established to help people deal with the effects of residential school experiences. That was the next thing it did after it apologized.

The Conservatives wonder, as they are attacking first nation leadership, why the first nations are so upset. Why will they not trust the government when it only wants to be friends? Yet time and time again when first nations come to the table with their hands extended to try to reason and negotiate with the government of the day, the government has other voices in its ear, other friends it would like to listen to first.

If there is some inconvenience for the oil companies in environmental assessments and first nation law, then it will try to shuffle those out of the way and create profound uncertainty in the resource sector. I have heard this, not from first nation leaders alone but from those in the oil and gas sector. They say that the government hands them, time and again, a poisoned chalice where they cannot acquire the social licence to build a project because the public watches the government in action, watches it strip down environmental laws, watches it treat first nations with total disrespect, calling them radicals and enemies of the state.

What do first nations and people who have any concern for first nations' rights and title, and the environment do? They stand up to that bullying. They stand up and resist and join hands, community to community, family to family, friend to friend. That creates the very uncertainty that the Conservatives think they are somehow not a part of, but they are implicated.

We must be allies in the true sense of the word. We must find a way to get over the arrogance and inability of Canadian governments, Liberal and Conservative, consistently down the line to listen and understand the realities of first nations. The government must not just talk the talk, but walk the walk. It means not bringing in legislation that overrides first nations' rights and title and the duty to accommodate and consult, or forcing first nations into courts and costing the Canadian taxpayer untold millions of dollars fighting court case after court case and making lawyers rich, when the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly defines what is going to happen at the end of the day.

Now we find out from government lawyers in the Department of Justice that in fact the government consistently gets advice that legislation the Conservatives bring in will end up in court because it is fundamentally unconstitutional and would not pass a charter challenge. Thereby the government knowingly brings in things for politics that ultimately cost millions of dollars. It serves to make no one better, but helps the Conservatives score a cheap point for some photo-op for a minister they think is on the ropes again.

This has to stop, and it will stop when a government actually sits down, listens and attends that pole-raising ceremony and attends the feast with respect and humility as one does nation to nation. Until that happens, all of these kind words and sentiments of economic development and prosperity for one and all do not mean anything because they will not happen. The way they will happen is with respect, sincere friendship and finally the Canadian government, if we can imagine the day, acting as an ally to first nations rather than what it is.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the member opposite for his speech. It is revealing of the NDP position on today's motion, which has important objectives behind it. We get a sense from the opposition House leader of where the emphasis is within those objectives, which are, after all, defined in a few lines in the motion.

The member mentioned the need to negotiate and the importance of fighting for this and that on the part of aboriginal groups and first nations. There was quite a bit of anger in his speech at various points. However, there were two items missing from his speech that I think would go a long way toward underpinning a coordinated approach in the House, which is what aboriginal communities want. One is acknowledgement of what has been achieved first and foremost by first nation communities in education, in terms of the protection of children and in terms of the improvement of drinking water in recent years by all of us together, but at the initiative of this government. The other is the complete absence in his speech, and in many speeches by those opposite, of the word “accountability”.

Would the House leader of the official opposition remind the House and all Canadians that the NDP attaches importance to the word “accountability”? We would not have results on education or any other front for first nation communities without progress on that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will address the last point first in terms of accountability.

“Do as I say not as I do” might be the motif for the Conservative government. When the official opposition or the Parliamentary Budget Officer seeks basic accountability for, at times, many billions of dollars, we get obfuscation from a government that seems to be keen on hiding the truth, misplacing the numbers and not finding the facts. Therefore, to lecture first nations about accountability, from a Conservative government that the Ethics Commissioner, Information Commissioner, Auditor General and Parliamentary Budget Officer have all said is among the most secretive governments in Canadian history, which is saying something when compared to what we used to have, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Second, the member asked if there were times when I felt passion and anger. Well he better believe it. I would invite my friend to come and visit some of the communities and families I represent who feel the frustration of constantly going up against governments that seem to have tin ears and no sensitivity to their realities. Of course, one gets angry, one gets passionate and one should. That is a natural reaction to the state of affairs of many of the families of first nation descent who live in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for that very passionate and informed speech. I have a quick question for him.

One of the things we saw from coast to coast to coast over the last several weeks was first nations, Inuit and Métis rising up to say that the Conservative government does not get it. The government's policies, regulations and consultations are not working.

Just yesterday there was a court case to have the government release documents from the Library and Archives Canada to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Of course, the government is once again delaying those documents. I wonder if the member could comment on how this is just one more indication of a failed relationship between the Conservative government and aboriginal peoples across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the process the government has gone through. It issued an official apology to first nations for the residential schools. Then it set up the truth and reconciliation process in order to allow healing to happen, which requires truth, and in this case truth means documents, finding out what happened to who and when.

The fact that the very judicial review the government set up has to take the government to court in order to get access to documents that it promised it would give in all of its issuance on this speaks volumes to the government's intention. If the government's intention is to really seek reconciliation, then it is all put out on the table, there is no fear. The minister says that the government has given a million documents and there are so many million more. Why hide the truth if hoping for reconciliation?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to share this time with the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I share his passion for this topic.

I also share the passion of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan who has tabled this motion. On behalf of the first nations who I am in consultation with, I wish to thank her for bringing forward this matter to the House.

I absolutely stand in support of this motion that calls for greater action and the improvement of the economic outlook for first nations Inuit and Métis, particularly in the coming budget, to commit action to treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation.

The proof will be in the pudding when the next budget is tabled. We have heard lots of promises from across the floor. I can assure members that it will not just be the official opposition or other opposition parties will be watching that document carefully, but also all of the indigenous peoples of our country.

On treaty implementation, which I will get to in a minute, certainly the government has been falling down. Even though some mechanisms were put in place to resolve specific claims, the actions by the government have in fact not resolved the matter and have made things worse.

First, I want to reiterate the call by my colleague, the MP for Timmins—James Bay, who called for Parliament to step up and finally take serious action on the economic, social and moral deficit in respect for and taking action to lift our aboriginal peoples from a century of discrimination and poverty. It is very important we reiterate that we should not just talk about economic strategies and the implementation of treaties, but that we should talk about the basic issue of why it is critical to move forward on those matters.

Second, he reminded us that we were all treaty people. There is one thing I have heard over and over again over the last year, including when I had the honour of being the critic for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It is the reminder which has come from the elders, the chiefs and council members, the aboriginal youth and National Chief Shawn Atleo, which treaties were entered into by both sides. We have responsibilities under the treaty in the same way as the first nations. We are treaty people.

Third, concrete action is needed to restore a good faith relationship. We have heard that over and over again today.

The government claims that the real issue is real engagement in the economy and jobs. Engagement in the economy requires equitable access to education. How does one get a well-paying job unless he or she has access to advanced education, or even to get through grammar school with a 35% graduation rate as National Chief Shawn Atleo has frequently pointed out? He is a great advocate for greater support for indigenous education. He has said that there is a higher rate of incarceration of aboriginal youth than graduation from high school. Clearly, they cannot get a job that is well paying and contribute to the economy unless they have equitable access.

With respect to safe living conditions, how will those youth study if their houses or schools are s full of mould and they do not have a steady supply of electricity, heat or safe drinking water?

These are simple facts that we Canadians take for granted.

We should concentrate actions to provide jobs to the hardest hit. We hear lots of examples, as my colleagues have pointed out, of the success cases. When I was a critic and I participated in the committee review of the initiatives, the changes to the land management regime, many of the first nation leaders came in and said that it was not the same for all of them, that they did not all have the fortune of having a reserve immediately adjacent to a major industrial centre or municipality. It is very hard for the isolated communities. Frankly, their particular concern was with respect to a fair benefit agreement on the traditional lands, not necessarily developing their reserve lands.

The parliamentary secretary pointed out Fort McKay. Fort McKay First Nation in northern Alberta, right in the centre of the oil sands development, by necessity has forged agreements with industry so it can benefit, and it has had a number of contracts. However, it is important to recognize that even Fort McKay is drawing a line in the sand. The last of its important lands, which are specifically designated for traditional practices, are about to be hurt. They are about to be completely circled by oil sands development.

They, like all the other first nations that have come forward, want not just a piece of the pie, not just a job. They want a say in the decision making about the resource development in their territories and in areas next door to their territories where they might be impacted.

The engagement process in the economy also means that they need to have equitable benefit agreements. We hear time after time where some isolated first nations, on their own, are left to try to negotiate fair agreements with major corporations. In some cases, they do well. In other cases, they do not. Where is the federal government's responsibility to ensure they are supported in those endeavours?

What is the starting point for measuring progress?

We hear all the time from the government about all the money it spends. Any question that is asked, whether it is with regard to education, safe drinking water, the right to be consulted, or the right to a job, the government replies with, “Look at all the money we have spent”.

What is the starting point for measuring progress? Is it the date of the signing of the treaties? Is it over 100 years back, with the historic and the numbered treaties? Is it the date of the signing of the modern treaties?

We have been hearing ongoing concerns in committee and in delegations meeting with members of Parliament about the failure of the government to live up to and implement the treaties.

Is it the date of the addition of section 35 to the Constitution? Is it the repeat calls by the Auditor General to take action on better protections for first nations?

In the last audit issued by then Auditor General Sheila Fraser singled out the conditions on first nation reserves and said that the federal government had taken some action but simply not enough. In her words:

It's no secret that their living conditions are worse than elsewhere in Canada. For example, only 41 percent of students on reserves graduate from high school, compared with 77 percent of students in the rest of the country. And more than half of the drinking water systems on reserves still pose a health threat.

As has been pointed, there are still more than 100 boil water advisories in the 21st century.

Sheila Fraser then said:

What’s truly shocking, however, is the lack of improvement. Last year, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada reported that between 2001 and 2006 there was little or no progress in the well-being of First Nations communities. In a wealthy country like Canada, this gap is simply unacceptable.

My colleagues on the other side were saying that it was the Liberals. It is important to note that the succeeding two auditor generals after Sheila Fraser raised exactly the same issue, so still not a lot of progress.

Is it the date of the 2012 First Nation-Crown summit, where a lot of undertakings were made? Is it the unanimous vote for the Shannen's Dream motion, calling for equitable access to education? Is it the promise to expedite settlement of languishing specific claims? Is it the recommendations of the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education?

There are many points of juncture where we could begin measuring progress. Sadly, we are still not seeing a lot of substantive progress across the board.

It is very important to point out that what first nations peoples, Métis and Inuit are calling for are substantive rights and procedural rights, both of which are guaranteed in the Constitution and legislation.

What is appalling is this continued reference by the government of the day to “willing partners, willing first nations”. The question has to be raised. We know fully its disregard for any first nation that resorts to the courts. They are being forced to resort to the courts because of the government's abject refusal to properly consult. There have been a number of actions filed just in the last month by first nations in northern Alberta and in Saskatchewan, lambasting the government for failure to consult on its budget.

The first nations people view the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as carrying that obligation even further, that they should have the right to consent.

I would like to share that I was profoundly impacted by the opportunity of participating in some of Idle No More gatherings, and I say gatherings. These were not protests. These were gatherings, led by elders, including youth, including chiefs in regalia. I had the opportunity to talk to many youth who desperately wanted to participate in the economy, who desperately wanted to have their voices heard. I have been approached by the treaty chiefs and councillors in my province, in Treaty 6, 7 and 8, asking for my advice on how they can get the government to open up the budget, to reverse its decisions on undermining the environmental laws which protect their traditional lands.

I look forward to the government supporting our motion, but more than that, actually moving to take action.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite for her opinion about some of the actions that the Harper government has taken to address the important and pressing issues. In particular, I would like to ask the member if she would acknowledge that the government has made progress—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member for Mississauga South that we try to stay away from mentioning the names of other hon. members in the course of our remarks.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I would ask whether the member would acknowledge the actions this government is taking. Will the member acknowledge that the government has made progress on some of the concrete priorities in health, education, economic development and housing? For example, since 2006, there have been 30 new schools built on reserves and 200 more that have been renovated. Also, this government has built over 10,000 new homes and renovated thousands more on reserves. We have increased funding for child and family services by 25%, introduced legislation ensuring that the Canadian Human Rights Act applies on reserves and settled 80 outstanding land claims. I would say these accomplishments are very impressive.

Will the member opposite admit that this government is very sensitive to the realities of Canada's first nations communities?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question put forward by the hon. member. It is not for me to respond. The individuals and communities that the Conservatives are accountable to are the first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. We are simply standing up for and being a voice for the very peoples who are not being given a voice. It is those peoples who are taking to the streets, holding round dances, calling for meetings, asking how they can persuade the government to change its closed door process and excluding them from consultations. It is not for me, as an individual member, or for colleagues on this side of the House to respond. It is for the government to ask the first nations, Inuit and Métis whether it has done enough and whether it is taking the right path.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend could help me understand the government's position today. Again, looking back at the motion we presented to the House, the foundation is based on two things: one, is to respect first nations, Métis and Inuit people and help them develop their economies, and the second one is to follow the law. Yet, we cannot seem to find a government member who says whether the government is going to vote against or with the motion. Conservatives have had all day with this issue. It is not very many words, and it says something they seem to repeat in their speeches and yet will not confirm.

The reason I think this is important is that often the Conservatives ask why first nations do not simply trust them, since they are doing the hard work and saying the nice things. Yet, when we try to pin them down to ask whether they are good for this or that, they seem to have a struggle uttering the words yes or no. I am wondering if this speaks to a deeper culture within the government, a deeper suspicion in this conversation. First nations seem to be treated with a very different brush than the approach with industry, or crime and justice issues. The first nations has a different tone, a different angle from the government. A direct question rarely gets a direct answer. I am wondering if the member has any opinions or insights into that?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I mentioned earlier that troubles me is that, almost to the letter, on every single question we have put to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in the House, the same response has come back. The member across the way who put the question to me seems to be alluding to the same thing: it is all about money. It is not all about money. That is not what I have been told by indigenous peoples from Canada. It is about respect, about obeying the law and the Constitution.

Unfortunately, I do not have time, but if I did, I would read the letters that have been provided to me and forwarded to the Prime Minister from the Treaty 6, 7 and 8 chiefs and councillors. Every one of them says the same thing. They feel they have been silenced by the parliamentary process. They are calling on the government to rescind the laws that were passed, which impact their lands, waters and peoples, without due consultation and without a hearing on their constitutional and legal obligations.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, the Environment.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for St. Paul's.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the Christmas holidays our family went to see Les Misérables. It was almost impossible to watch that movie without feeling strongly the parallel situation taking place here in Canada.

In the song Do You Hear the People Sing?, the question is asked:

When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

The drums have been beating strongly in Canada and around the world to draw attention to the greatest social injustice in this country. As a doctor, when I hear the drums I hear a heartbeat. It is the same sixty beats per minute that I heard through a stethoscope years and years ago. The sound is very familiar.

Over these past weeks, it has been very poignant to hear the drums. There was a time we worried that the heartbeat of Chief Theresa Spence was going to stop. I want to thank the Liberal leader for the leadership he gave to that life being saved. I also want everyone to know that the tipping point in the relationship between first nations and the government meant Chief Theresa Spence felt she had to take drastic action. This has to change.

On December 21, January 11, and Monday, as we returned here to Parliament Hill, hundreds of people gathered on the Hill as part of Idle No More, and in solidarity with them, across the country. These protests were about the government's sweeping changes to environmental oversight and to urge real action on aboriginal rights issues.

Again, it has been this feeling:

When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

This is about young people, optimism and how things have to change.

Tomorrow begins today. This motion calls on the government to make the improvement of economic outcomes of first nations, Inuit and Métis a central focus of budget 2013.

I urge the government to support this motion from the hard-working hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The government caucus met yesterday. The Prime Minister did not say one word about the issues facing aboriginal people. It has not been a priority for the government. I hope that voting for this motion will be a signal that it will take this issue seriously.

It is time for government members to understand that building human capital is the key factor in improving economic success for aboriginal people and communities, but also for all Canadians. Urgent collaborative action is needed to unlock the human and economic potential in aboriginal communities across this country.

At a time of unprecedented skills shortages, an estimated 400,000 aboriginal Canadians will reach the age to enter the labour market over the next decade. Yet, the significant education gap that exists between Canadian first nations and non-first nations populations high school graduation rates remains a major obstacle to full participation of aboriginal people in the workforce.

Members know that education is the key to success. Appallingly, the high school graduation rate is getting worse under the Conservative government. The Conservatives promised to close the disgraceful education funding gaps. Yet, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs followed that promise with confrontation and actually denied that the per student funding gap exists at all.

According to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the high school graduation rate for first nation students living on reserve is 35%. By comparison, 77% of non-aboriginal people in Canada have a high school diploma. Further, the number of aboriginal post-secondary graduates lags way behind the rest of Canada. For example, fewer than 10% of aboriginal people in Canada have a university degree compared to the national average of 23%.

The Conservatives goal for improving first nations on reserve high school graduation is an 8% increase over the next five years, as our leader pointed out today in question period. They have no targets for increasing first nations post-secondary education enrolment or graduation. As the Auditor General has noted, at the current rate it would take 28 years for first nations communities to close the high school education gap.

We have asked the government to address this gap in the next budget by working with first nations to bring graduation rates up to the national average on an urgent basis. This was the 10 year target of the Kelowna accord and should be our goal moving forward. Yet, after seven years we have seen zero progress on this from the Conservative government. Talking points cannot change the facts. Idle No More means talking points no more. We actually need action and the truth.

The Centre for the Study of Living Standards has noted that raising educational and labour market outcomes for aboriginal Canadians to the same level as non-aboriginal Canadians would increase the GDP by $36 billion, increase government revenues by $3.5 billion, and reduce government expenditures by $14.2 billion, by 2026.

As the Senate reported in its 2007 study on aboriginal economic development, there is a need to strengthen investments in aboriginal governing capacities that support economic success. However, the government has opted to make significant cuts to aboriginal governing capacities as part of the 2012 budget reductions. Even resources that directly contribute to economic success for aboriginal people are not above being cut from the government's strategy.

Shockingly, on February 12, 2013, the government plans to close the aboriginal Canada portal website, a single window to first nations, Métis and Inuit online resources for government programs and services. The portal includes links to government and non-governmental sources that pertain to employment and human resources. It links employment opportunities and jobs available for aboriginal job seekers across Canada. Employers can even post the job openings for free. The aboriginal Canada portal does not just provide one-stop shopping for employment; it also provides, at very little cost to taxpayers, essential information on topics ranging from claims and treaties to economic development, business, justice and policing. The closure will make it even more difficult for Canadians to navigate an already complicated federal bureaucracy.

This compilation of information on all matters aboriginal in government, currently maintained with a small expenditure, will now be scattered, making it even more difficult for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, to use. One need only look at the statement on the website, which shows all of the places an individual has to now go to find the information that was once there in one-stop shopping.

Clearly one cannot even think about economic development when people are living in third world conditions. The first nations, Inuit and Métis education gap has been widening, as we have said, in terms of both funding and outcomes. Housing shortages are becoming more acute. Water and waste water systems are in crisis, and tragic gaps in terms of first nations health outcomes are continuing unabated.

The Conservatives defend their refusal to deal with the on-reserve housing crisis by claiming they have built 10,000 homes over the past six years. The fact is that they are trying to take credit for falling short of what should have been 13,800 homes built under funding levels predating their government.The government also defends its appalling record on first nations water and waste water by noting that it conducted the largest assessment of safe waste water in this country so we can move forward with prioritization. Yet, almost two years after the federal assessment, 117 first nations communities across Canada are under drinking water advisories, which is an increase of over 23% since 2006. The government has no long-term plan to get a handle on this crisis.

The government study showed it would take $6 billion, over 10 years, to fix this problem. Right now, there is $1.2 billion in investment that is urgently needed. What did we see? We saw $330 million in the last budget, and then the minister had the audacity to re-announce that $330 million the day after the supposedly important January 11 meeting. Talk about hypocrisy. That is insulting.

What more is there? Too many resource development projects are moving forward without aboriginal people receiving a fair share of the economic benefits or being partners in their development.

This motion also calls on the government to commit to action on treaty implementation and to engage in full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of aboriginal Canadians, as required by domestic law.

The Conservatives signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires free, prior and informed consent, and then in every piece of correspondence they refer to that pledge as “aspirational”. This was the whole basis of the Crown–first nations gathering in January 2012, where they stated that they would commit to work toward the 250th anniversary of the Royal Proclamation. Absolutely no work has been done with the provinces to honour those treaties or to ensure that first nations are able to share in the prosperity that is Canada.

The failure of the government to even begin to deal with the imperative of sharing Canada's natural resource revenues fairly has resulted in relations with Canada's indigenous population reaching a dangerous tipping point. First nations are pursuing their rights and winning almost every time in the courts, as the leader pointed out in a recent speech. Thousands of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are demonstrating, as we are seeing, across Canada through Idle No More and online. Almost every resource development activity in Canada, the Conservatives need to remind themselves, that is currently operating or planned is occurring within 200 kilometres of a first nation community or on traditional lands. Despite this, the settling of comprehensive claims agreements between aboriginal people and the government, which address the critical issues surrounding economic development including resource royalties sharing, has proceeded at an astonishingly slow pace.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives has said that aboriginal people must be true partners in resource and energy projects. Yet the President of the Treasury Board alienated first nations by dismissing their calls for a joint review panel on the Ring of Fire resource development, arguing it would only bring up “irrelevant issues”. Even the Prime Minister's own former senior cabinet minister, Jim Prentice, has chastised the government, saying, “The Crown obligation to engage first nations in a meaningful way has yet to be taken up”.

The number of comprehensive claims settled by the government has fallen steadily since 2005, despite the promise from the Conservatives to revolutionize the land claims process in 2007. As of today, more than half of the nearly 100 agreements under negotiation have been ongoing for at least 16 years. These delays are often the result of the government's negotiation strategy, which embraces a take it or leave it approach rather than flexibility and fairness, and it is quite clear that the negotiators do not have the mandate to compromise.

The frustration of aboriginal people is understandable, given the complete lack of progress on their issues and the refusal of the government to fulfill its legal obligation to consult them on matters that may impact their inherent and/or treaty rights and the fact that we find in government documents that the Conservatives actually see first nations, Inuit and Métis in this country as adversaries.

More recently, that frustration has manifested itself in the failure of consultation about the changes to environmental protection on aboriginal lands and navigable waterways contained in the two latest budget implementation acts.

This type of unilateral action has created a fracture in the relationship between the Conservative government and first nations. It has led to the formation of Idle No More, which precipitated the hastily organized January 11 meeting between the Prime Minister and aboriginal leaders. The fact that coming out of that meeting the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development indicated his belief the government had fulfilled its duty to consult on various controversial bills shows that the Conservatives still do not seem to grasp what true consultation means. There was no consultation with aboriginal people on Bill C-38 or Bill C-45. The minister admitted in committee that there had been no consultation on the aboriginal governance bill. There was consultation on the private member's bill but no consultation on the government bill and even the chief, previously supportive, viewed it as a kind of bait and switch opportunity.

We believe the government should work with aboriginal leaders to establish an arm's length legal advisory committee that would evaluate all draft legislation with the potential to affect aboriginal rights and provide an opinion on the federal government's duty to consult before the legislation is tabled. Given that the aboriginal population is the youngest and fastest growing in Canada and that almost every natural resource development is occurring on aboriginal territorial lands, we believe that if the government truly wants to put all its economic eggs in a natural resources basket, it had better just get with the program and turn this around.

The Prime Minister must understand the gravity of the situation and the potential impact on all Canadians. It is time for action. It is time for the government to work with aboriginal people in Canada toward a new nation-to-nation relationship based on the spirit of partnership, respect and the co-operation for mutual benefit that characterized our original relationship. We are all treaty people. There were two signatories to the document. The 96% of Canadians not from aboriginal backgrounds need to understand the gravity of the situation, and we need to go forward in the House and make sure that happens.

Idle No More will not go away. The young people can see what needs to be done to right past wrongs and to deal with the greatest social and economic injustice facing Canada.

In the week before Christmas I was at the native men's shelter in my riding. It was quite clear. These young men, who had been homeless the week before, were asking me what an omnibus bill is and if it affects their treaty rights. The next night in North Bay, at the Idle No More teach-in with the member from North Bay, we could not believe it. There were a hundred people in the friendship centre going through the PowerPoint presentation of every bill that has affected them that has not had consultation. They are now armed with information and they are ready to fight.

It is really important that we understand that this is difficult. However, the government ignores it at its peril. I ask the government: Can it hear the people sing? When the beating of their hearts echoes the beating of the drums, there is a life about to start when tomorrow comes. That tomorrow is today, right now. The government could show some decent faith by voting for this motion.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those are great words from my colleagues. I agree that it is time for action. I appreciate that they will support the motion, but at the same time, I think it was time for action in 1993. It was time for action in 1997 and it was time for action in 2000, when the Liberals were a majority government. It would have been so easy, especially around the 1997 and 2000 mandates, when there were huge surpluses. There could have been so many things being done by the government.

What I fail to understand is why the Liberals waited until the mandate of 2004 to 2006, of which I was part, to come at the last minute with the huge Kelowna accord, when they were a minority government and they were going to absolutely face the wall.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to explain to the member that the Kelowna accord was begun with a majority government. It was begun in a way that first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders asked for, and it was done in concert with the provinces and the territories. That meant that from the time the former prime minister, Paul Martin, was sworn in as prime minister, a committee of cabinet was formed, like in the declaration from Chief Spence. Eighteen months went on with the six priorities chosen, with real targets, and then $5.1 billion was assigned to do that. It required the accountability of a first nations auditor general, the accountability of all aboriginal ministers meeting once a year and a first ministers' meeting every two years to see how they were doing on these goals. Still, wherever we go in Canada people talk about Kelowna as though that was the way to go, not only in process, but in results.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There are a number of members who wish to pose questions to the hon. member for St. Paul's, so we will have to watch our time on questions and comments.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to be here since 2004. I remember the Liberals being in power at that time and talking a lot and going through the motions of settlements and land claims, etcetera.

During that period of time when they were in majority governments, for most of that time, the Liberals settled very few claims. In fact I think it was somewhere around 10 or 12 claims in 13 years, in essence one a year or possibly a little more.

I wonder if the member knows that we have actually settled more than 80 land claims in the six years the government has been in power, more than 80 land claims that are permanent settlements. One in particular in my riding, the Bigstone Cree Nation, the second largest nation in Canada, is one of the largest claims in history. That was done about three years ago.

I would invite the member to come up to my riding in northern Alberta to see the success of first nations that have the economic conditions to change their lives and change their futures. It is a wonderful thing to see. I have many family members in that area. Their success is true and real. They are successful and very happy people.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but remind the member that it was the Reform Party that filibustered through the whole of the Nisga'a agreement.

This was one of the most important things that has come to this House, and the Reform Party made a complete mockery of it and actually filibustered. We voted for three or four days in a row, because these people just do not get it.

It is really important when we hear what is happening at the negotiating tables across this country, that the negotiator does not have the mandate to change anything and it is a take it or leave it, this is our bottom line, style of negotiation, and it is just not working.

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

Mr. Speaker, being the human rights critic for our party, I take particular note of the United Nations' view of Canada.

Canada has a very high rating normally in regard to the human development scale but, according to the United Nations, that would dramatically drop if it was based solely on the economics of our first nations and their social well-being. We would drop to 48 out of 174 nations if that had been included.

That low position is something that should be an embarrassment to this country. The reality is that other places and other people are measuring us, and we have failed. We continue to fail. As long as we do not dialogue, nation to nation, directly with the first nations, we will continue to fail.