Debates of Jan. 31st, 2013

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. The member's motion calls for improved economic outcomes for first nations, Inuit and Métis, and a commitment on treaty implementation and meaningful consultation on legislation with aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I am proud of our government's record on improving the lives of aboriginal people in Canada. Since 2006, our government has made unprecedented investments that will make a concrete difference in the lives of aboriginal people, including skills training, housing on reserves, potable water, schools, treaty rights, protection of the rights of women and the resolution of land claims.

For example, we have built over 30 new schools on reserve and renovated more than 200 others. We have invested in a major way in safe drinking water systems. We have built over 10,000 new homes and renovated thousands more. We have increased funding for child and family services by 25%. We have legislated that the Canadian Human Rights Act will apply to first nation individuals living on reserves. This was a glaring discriminatory provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which we reversed, over the objections of the opposition.

We introduced legislation to improve the accountability of first nation governments to their people. We introduced legislation to create an open and transparent elections process, necessary for economic development. We have settled over 80 outstanding land claims, many of which had been languishing for 20 years in the hopper. We have invested in over 700 projects, linking aboriginals across Canada with job training and counselling services.

I have had a long history with first nations and have seen a lot of change over the years. I am very encouraged to see firsthand many examples of strong first nation leadership driving very positive change.

Aboriginal peoples represent the fastest growing population in Canada. Given the country's labour shortages and the proximity of first nation communities to resource development projects, there is a tremendous economic opportunity before us. That is why we have consistently invested in measures to improve aboriginal participation in the economy.

Like economic action plan 2012, economic action plan 2013 will be focused on jobs and opportunities for all Canadians, including first nations, Inuit and Métis.

Finding ways to ensure that first nations can benefit from resource development is a priority. It is good for first nations, for Canada, for our Métis and for our Inuit. Our government is investing in measures that will help ensure that first nations are well-positioned to take advantage of these and other economic opportunities. For example, our government has invested in over 700 initiatives to link aboriginal people with job training, mentoring and other supports. We also invest more than $400 million annually in direct funding for aboriginal skills development and training.

My department's major projects and investment funds initiative has also contributed over $22 million to support aboriginal participation in 87 energy and resource projects, such as hydro, mining, renewable energy and forestry. These contributions have helped create over 400 jobs and levered just over $307 million from public and private debt and equity financing sources.

In addition to these investments, our government has worked to modernize legislation to allow first nations and aboriginal organizations to operate at the speed of business. Last year, our government introduced Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act to allow first nations community members access to the same basic financial information about their government and their elected officials available to all other Canadians.

More specifically, the bill would require first nation elected officials to publish their statements of remuneration and expenses as well as their audited consolidated financial statements. The bill would provide community members with the information required to make informed decisions about their leadership and to provide investors with the confidence they need to enter into financial partnerships with first nations.

Now that the legislation is before the Senate committee, we hope to see it passed into law very soon.

The first nations financial transparency act was driven by grassroots first nation members who were calling for greater accountability from their governments. Many of these people have suffered retribution, including intimidation and verbal and physical abuse, for having spoken in support of greater transparency and accountability.

Another important legislative initiative that would foster jobs and economic growth is Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, which includes the Nunavut planning and project assessment act and the Northwest Territories surface rights board act, along with related amendments to the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. Together, these measures would fulfill outstanding obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, as well as the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claims agreements, and respond to calls for measures to streamline and improve regulatory processes in the north. The bill is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Amendments to the land designation sections of the Indian Act that comprised a portion of Bill C-45 would also create economic opportunities. These amendments would speed up the process for leasing lands for economic development purposes, while allowing first nations to maintain full ownership of their lands. As a result, it would provide greater flexibility for first nations to act on time-sensitive economic development opportunities. These amendments responded directly to first nations who had expressed frustration to me, to the standing committee and to other members with the overly complex and lengthy process of designating land, which was an impediment to investment opportunities.

I quote from Chief Shane Gottfriedson, chief of the Tk'emlúps Indian Band in British Columbia, speaking about these changes to the land designation process in Bill C-45. “[Before the changes] it was just horrific for us to try and do any sort of business within our territory”.

Chief Reginald Bellerose of the Muskowekwan First Nation in Saskatchewan also spoke in favour of the changes: “[Muskowekwan First Nation] recognizes the positive steps the federal government has made to assist First Nation communities to operate in a more efficient and commercial manner. Specifically, Bill C-45 provides for a more efficient land designation vote process”.

We have heard from first nations that they want to be able to move at the speed of business and we continue to work with willing partners to remove economic barriers to the success of first nation communities as they seek out opportunities to generate wealth for their communities and their members.

If further proof was needed that legislative action can speed economic development, I would like to point to my announcement just last week on new regulations under the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act that will allow the Kitimat natural gas facility on the Haisla First Nation's Bees Indian Reserve No. 6 to move forward. The Kitimat LNG facility will provide Canada's energy producers with a doorway to overseas markets. It will create well-paying jobs and economic growth opportunities for the Haisla First Nation and the entire northwest region of British Columbia.

We have also invested in modernizing the land management regimes for first nations so that they can unlock the potential of their lands and natural resources. This past month I announced that eight more first nations will soon be operating under the First Nations Land Management Act. These first nations have chosen freedom from 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act, which were holding them back from achieving their full economic potential. They now have power over their own reserve lands and resources so that they can take advantage of economic activities without wading through bureaucratic red tape.

This is in addition to 18 other first nations that I announced last January, making a total of 69 first nations that can now develop their own land codes, which will allow them to more quickly and effectively pursue economic opportunities and create jobs. Through these initiatives we are putting in place the building blocks for future success. These foundational pieces will help prepare communities to take advantage of new economic opportunities available to them.

We are a business-like government. We like to obtain concrete results. We are making unprecedented investments in the spirit of partnership and we recognize historical grievances. This is why we have settled outstanding land claims that have been long languishing.

The government is committed to continue building on the progress we have made to improve living conditions for first nations and to create jobs and economic opportunities in their communities. Specifically, we are committed to expediting comprehensive claims and treaty implementation. We all recognize that while much progress has been made, more work remains to be done. We are taking steps to improve land claim and self-government negotiation processes. This includes identifying alternatives to negotiations that meet the interests of the parties as well as practical measures to make sure that first nations are ready and able to fully engage and participate in the process.

In some cases there are alternatives to comprehensive claims and we are good with that. For example, the Haisla, the Squamish First Nation and Westbank First Nation are not specifically interested in pursuing treaties. They realize there are other measures that can and have been put in place, which are expediting the conditions for economic prosperity for their communities. We are also involved currently in self-government negotiations on a number of historic treaties. An example of that is the Sioux Valley Dakota First Nation in Manitoba, where we anticipate imminently the conclusion of self-government negotiations.

There is a clear link between the strength of the relationship and the economic prosperity of first nations and all Canadians. Protection of aboriginal treaty rights and consultations with aboriginals are enshrined in our laws, which have been passed by this Parliament. This government fully respects our duty to consult. That is why we have conducted more than 5,000 consultations annually. As minister, I have visited over 50 first nation communities since 2010 and I have had hundreds of productive meetings with first nation chiefs, councillors and community members across Canada.

This government also undertook unprecedented consultations on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. We are currently in the midst of intensive consultations with first nation leaders, teachers, students and educators in the development of a first nation education act. I would like to highlight some of the important work that has been done on the development of a first nation education act.

In economic action plan 2012, our government committed to work with willing partners to establish a first nation education act that will establish the structures and standards to support strong and accountable education systems on reserve. Through intense consultations, we have committed to work with willing partners to have the legislation in place by September 2014. We are determined to follow through on this commitment.

First nation students are the only children in Canada whose education system is not governed by legislation. Our government, unlike previous governments, is committed to bringing forward such legislation. The legislation would provide the modern framework necessary to build standards and structures, strengthen governance and accountability, and provide the mechanism for stable, predictable and sustainable funding.

I would like to add that, as recently as yesterday, I met with the first nation education steering committee in British Columbia. We have other examples, such as Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey in Nova Scotia, where these parameters are already in place. An important part of our consultation is to meet with first nation authorities that have already done much work in this area and are obtaining results of the kind that are setting a great example.

We are making other investments. We have also invested an additional $100 million over three years to help ensure readiness for the new education system to be put in place by September 2014. We committed an incremental $175 million, on top of the $200 million that we spend on an annual basis, to new school projects. It is unfortunate that the member who brought forward today's motion chose to vote against these investments in first nation education.

This past December I announced the launch of intensive face-to-face consultation with first nation parents, students, leaders, educators and others on the initiative. The first in a series of sessions began in Halifax last week. The second session will be in Saskatoon next week.

I want to state very clearly that there is no legislation drafted. The purpose of these ongoing consultations is to get views and feedback so that legislation can be drafted. The input gathered during consultations will help shape the drafting of the legislation. Once drafted, the proposed legislation will be shared with every first nation across Canada, as well as with provincial governments and other stakeholders for feedback.

Modern land claims and self-government agreements can also provide a path to self-sufficiency and unlock economic opportunities. We are working in partnership with first nations on a new results-based approach to treaty and self-government negotiations to achieve more treaties in less time so that aboriginal communities can begin to unlock economic opportunities that can be realized through treaties.

Under the new approach, our government will focus its resources on tables with the greatest potential for success to bring treaties to fruition. The chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission is strongly supportive of our new approach, saying that she is encouraged our government is accelerating progress. We have heard first nations' concerns and we are delivering necessary change. It is also clear that there are options to the treaty process. Our goal is to achieve treaties where we can and to develop options to treaties where we cannot.

I will conclude by saying that moving forward will take time and dedicated effort from all parties. We are fully committed to taking further steps along this journey. We will continue to focus on real structural reforms and increasing the effectiveness of long-term investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the minister because at the heart of the matter is how one defines a relationship on a nation-to-nation basis. The government continues to impose a top-down agenda. It claims that it has consulted, but if it truly has consulted, then why the wave of opposition to almost every bill that the government introduces? Bill C-45, the omnibus budget bill, sparked protests from coast to coast to coast because of the lack of consultation and because the bill directly impacted the rights of first nations in their own communities. The government did not consult in any way, shape or form on that legislation.

The Auditor General indicated in the 2011 report that in order to make meaningful change, first nations would have to fully participate in the development of legislative reforms and they would also have to co-lead discussions on identifying credible funding mechanisms.

If the government is truly committed to changing the nature of the relationship, would the minister today indicate, on point 8 of the Assembly of First Nations request, that the government has a dedicated cabinet committee with a secretary within the Privy Council with specific responsibility to the first nation-crown relationship to oversee implementation? Has that committee been appointed?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I travelled widely this past summer and visited many first nations. The entire question of the legislation that the member referred to was wide open for comments this summer, and I received none. We have a strong relationship. We have been building partnerships. First nations do recognize that we mean business, that we are conducting ourselves in a business-like way and that we are very interested in achieving progress and results.

In terms of the specifics of the question related to the outcomes from the January 11 meeting, we are making good progress on all the commitments that were made from that meeting. The national chief and the Prime Minister will be having a meeting in the relatively near future. I am sure they can fully discuss at that time the progress that has been made.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would consider this suggestion. He attaches a great deal of importance to the educational reforms, which he is now negotiating. Once the government has concluded its consultation process, I wonder if it would agree to either put out a white paper or else refer the subject matter of the bill to committee so the House and those appearing before the committee could have an opportunity to discuss it so we could develop a much stronger consensus in the House on the governance changes that we all recognize are required with respect to education.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party is very thoughtful on these matters. We all share this strong concern and priority for first nations education across the country.

Two things are at play here.

We want to consult as widely as possible and we are very interested in these consultations going beyond the political level to the teachers, students and parents. We are encouraging that at all of the round tables and in all of the discussions we are having. We will draft some legislation out of that and then we will share that legislation widely. What we do in this place with legislation oftentimes becomes a partisan political exercise as opposed to doing what is right in every other way. That is one of my concerns.

The other concern I have is the fact that we want to get on with this. We made a commitment to have this all in place for the 2014 school year. From that perspective, as long as we can fit into these time frames, we are willing to be flexible.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister might make comments on a couple of issues.

Some comments were made relating to the government's commitment to settling some outstanding issues. I recall during the last campaign the Conservatives' commitment to settling land claims, building more affordable housing both on and off reserve and bringing more and more resources to bear for fresh water and infrastructure on first nations.

I also wonder if the minister would not mind commenting on some of the successes the government has had with education in certain areas of Canada. I can think principally of the arrangement between Canada and British Columbia for the delivery of education and its administration. This is a big country and there are different models that might be more successful or reconfigured. Could the minister could comment on that?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to talk about all four of those subjects in one minute and fifteen seconds would be somewhat difficult.

The government has done something quite extraordinary regarding first nations health and safety when it comes to drinking water. We commissioned a national survey that showed a very unsatisfactory situation across the country. We covered 98% of all the residences and public buildings on reserves across the country, which demonstrated there was a big problem. We inherited a legacy of a big problem.

I heard the Liberal member talking about the commitment of $300 million. We have spent almost $3 billion on drinking water systems. I made an announcement two weeks ago of a further $330 million over the next two years on 50 high-risk water systems. We are moving ahead. We want concrete, deliverable results. The same applies to the other subjects brought up by my colleague.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment first.

I would like to remind the minister of something. On several occasions, he referred to our Métis, Inuit and aboriginal peoples. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North also mentioned that five times, according to my count. He talked about our aboriginal peoples. I want to remind them, and put it on the record, that I am nobody's Indian in this chamber, to paraphrase another politician from the House.

Could the minister define for the House exactly what he means by willing partners? I talked about it briefly in my presentation. He referred to that on a couple of occasions.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was an earlier comment made by the member that we were not interested in talking with the Innu of Quebec. That is absolutely incorrect. I have spoken with several of the chiefs and I have been to their communities. We have certainly encouraged negotiations and are continuing to do that.

It goes without saying that we can work with people who wish to work with us and achieve major progress. Where there is no collaboration or co-operation, it is made much more difficult.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the chance to enter into this discussion today. It is going to be one of those moments in the House of Commons where, at the conclusion of the debate, it sounds as if every party will vote in favour of the motion brought forward by the member for the New Democratic Party.

However, I do not think we should paper over some of the differences and tensions which exist in the House. At the same time, I do not think we should underestimate the degree to which it is, from time to time, possible in our country for us to move beyond partisanship to a greater understanding of the issues that are at stake in this debate.

On many other occasions in the House and outside, I have said that the issue of the reconciliation of the relationship between the first nations, the Métis and Inuit people of Canada and the rest of us is the largest piece of unfinished business in the country. I say this having spent some considerable time as both a federal and provincial politician and political leader and also in my time in private life.

There are many reasons for this. Members opposite may be surprised to hear me say this. It is an issue that genuinely goes beyond partisanship, because if someone were to say if we looked at the record of other governments in the past and say that they were either blameless or perfect and that all the fault lied in one government, then that, frankly, would be a ludicrous comment. It would be an inaccurate comment. The fact is that both federally and provincially, as Canadian governments, we all have our share of responsibility for a relationship that has simply not been established in a way that would make us an even better country than we are. At the same time, we surely are allowed to comment on the fact that certain decisions have been made by one government or another which have set us back.

One thing the minister did not comment on in his remarks and one thing he did not say when he talked about the legacy of issues that was left to the new government to assume responsibility for is this. One of the very first decisions the Government of Canada made in 2006 was this. I refer to it as the Government of Canada because I am not allowed to use the colloquial term, which the government itself insists it uses in all of its press releases, because I would break the rules of the House. The Conservative government tore up an agreement that had been reached between the Government of Canada, the previous Martin government, and all of the provinces and the first nations' leadership of the country. It is not an act of partisanship on my part to say that the Conservative government was worse than being simply dishonourable. It was also a mistake because a year and a half of consultation had gone into those discussions, those improvements in education, housing, to the political priority that was to be given to moving forward on a government-to-government basis with the leadership of the first nations. All of that was scrapped. All of that was put aside and the new government said that it knew better, that it would spend less, that it would, in effect, do less, that it would invest less and that was the way it would be.

When we look at the housing budgets, the education budgets, the clean water budgets, the self-government budgets and the treaty making budgets, they were all reduced in comparison with the commitments that were made and budgeted in the Kelowna accord. They were not simply a declaration made by the Government of Canada. They were an understanding reached with the provinces and the first nations as well.

Therefore, I feel an obligation to at least put on the record the fact that there was a government that said we have to change things and that made changing things a priority. It is regrettable that the government that succeeded the Liberal government decided not to proceed on that basis but, in effect, to start all over again. One might say every government has the right to say it will do it its own way, that it has a better answer.

Let us not forget that it was the Reform Party that kept the House in knots for days and days because it opposed the Nisga'a treaty, as it did not accept the principle of self-government. It did not accept the principle of government-to-government negotiation and did not accept the arrangements that had been arrived at.

It is very difficult for us simply to say let us turn the page and pretend that did not happen. Wherever there is a lingering after-effect of the Reform Party agenda regarding this question, the question of the relationship between aboriginal people and the governments of Canada, it is not a positive after-effect, because it is one that does not accept the whole principle that there is a treaty relationship with the Crown that extends way past Confederation, deep into our history.

Even today, the Supreme Court of Canada and our provincial courts of appeal are having to make decisions on what does a duty to consult mean? How do we interpret the treaty rights? How do we give them life?

Admittedly, we began to make progress in every province by recognizing the nature of historic rights. The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who just spoke, played an important role in the discussions between the James Bay nations and communities and the Government of Quebec at a historic time. One would think that it would have been difficult to find solutions in the 1970s, but on the contrary, they did it.

Progress was made. When the Constitution was repatriated, I remember the moment when the government had to accept the fact that treaties were to be honoured by our Constitution and that the government had to be clear on the issue. That was a historic moment.

At this time, with the decision of the majority government and the support of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons, we have embarked on a discussion that recognizes the constitutional reality and the need to respect the rights enshrined therein. The age of paternalism or colonialism, with all its problems, is finally drawing to a close. To be frank, institutional racism and a sense of marginalization were at the very core of the problems and made our situation a difficult one. Constitutional discussions were held. After the failure of the Meech Lake accord, further talks were held in Charlottetown, in which I was directly involved.

I well remember the Charlottetown discussions because I was very directly involved. The discussions came from a conclusion that was reached by the leadership of the country collectively, not New Democrat, Liberal, or Conservative, not provincial or federal, but a determination that if we are to make progress in this area it has to include everyone. If we are to have a constitutional discussion, it cannot just include the provinces; it also has to include the first nations, the Métis, non-status Indians and the Inuit people.

That made the discussion complicated. It meant that instead of having 9 or 10 around the table we had up to 17 people. It meant that the discussions took time. It meant that we had long discussions in the corridor and outside the corridor. We had resistance and finally we had acceptance. Then when we went to a vote we had rejection.

What is interesting is that despite the rejection and the referendum in Charlottetown, it has been court decisions that have shown the way and said yes, there are implications of treaty rights, there is a meaning and a substance to treaty rights and a meaning and a substance to self-government, which take us beyond where we have been.

We could all recite the statistics, the 35% graduation rates from secondary school on reserve, and 80% in the provinces where they are located. The government has now said that it has an 8% target that takes it up to 43%, which means that it would take 25 years to get to the same graduation rate as the rest of the country. We cannot wait 25 years to have genuine equality and funding for schools. However, it is not just a funding issue; it is also about the outcomes and how we are taking the steps. That is why I attach importance to the minister's statement that the government will come forward with a proposal with respect to first nations education. I just want to make sure that we all have an opportunity to discuss it and that it is not something that is just suddenly created by the Government of Canada. I know there has been a long consultation process, but it sometimes takes time to get these things right. We want to get them right. We want to contribute and be useful partners in making sure we have the governance structures that make sense. However, above all, we want the governance structures to be acceptable to the aboriginal people themselves.

The statistics are amazing. They really date back and come forward from the far-seeing royal commission, which came to force in 1992-1993. There is no greater mistake in public policy than the fact that governments put that report on a shelf—and I say that as a Liberal. We should not have put that report on a shelf because it had some important things to say. First of all, it documented for Canadians the history of discrimination. It also documented something else for Canadians, the demographic revolution taking place in aboriginal communities in cities and on reserve. For example, 50% of the aboriginal population is under the age of 25. We will have 400,000 new aboriginal entrants into the labour market over the next 10 years. Are we ready? Are we training? Are we providing the education? Are we dealing with the challenges? I do not think we are.

That is not to lay all of the blame at the foot of the minister or to say that the Prime Minister is single-handedly to blame; it is to say that it will take extraordinary acts of leadership to deal with the extent of the challenge and the opportunity. We should not see this as a problem. We should not see it as a problem that in Saskatoon, Regina, Edmonton or Calgary we will see the aboriginal population grow exponentially over the next 20 years. It is a challenge. It is a challenge because we have not created the institutional structures and realized what we have to do.

The reason self-government is important and why I hope that self-government will be part of the governance structure for education, just as it needs to be part of the governance structure for health care and everything that goes on, is that the patterns of paternalism and a bureaucratic structure imposed on aboriginal peoples across our land mass, the second largest on the globe, is unsustainable. It is not workable. It wastes money. It creates expenditures that cannot be justified. It also creates inequalities in funding, which are not acceptable.

I would conclude by saying that we will obviously be in support of this resolution. We want to see the government's rhetoric and the minister's statements today matched in the budget by real and genuine progress.

I want to be able to go back to the Six Nations Reserve, which I visited over a couple of months ago, and to the delegation from the city of Brantford and the county of Brant I met more recently, and the Six Nations leaders, who all said, “You have to resolve the land claim issue here because it is blocking all of the progress we need to make in our communities”.

In many ways the communities have gone beyond the government. The government has to catch up. We want to see these changes made in the budget. We want to see real progress made, and we want to see it made on a basis that truly respects the fact there is another level and order of government and governance in this country.

I say to my fellow Canadians, when Samuel de Champlain came here, that level of governance was here. We did not come to this country and find a wilderness in which no people lived. There were people working, living, celebrating, praying and creating cultures and languages thousands and thousands of years old.

They were not savages, although they were treated as such for a long time. They did not need to be civilized by the Europeans when they arrived. They already had their own civilization.

All over the Americas there was a civilization. It was a civilization that was proud, complex, deep and rich, one that the clash of civilizations, the arrival of European settlement, helped to destroy, by disease, by war, by conquest and by an attitude of imperialism that has no place in where we are today as Canadians.

We genuinely have a rendezvous with our own destiny, with an understanding that even now it is not too late, that even now there is still time; but it is time not just for rhetoric, not just for words or even just for structures. It is a time for real action, and the budget is the test. The budget will be the test of action and the budget will be the test of commitment. We look forward to seeing the budget and to the government's actions matching its rhetoric.

I would like to see action from the government matching the eloquence of the Prime Minister's apology on the floor of the House of Commons. I was in the House on that day. No one in the House on that day could not have been moved by the sincerity, by the depth, by the compassion and by the understanding it showed, but now the walk begins. The walk has to match the talk of that discussion. The sincerity of that apology has to be matched by the sincerity of our commitments.

I say to the minister, we shall continue to work with him and the government. We take a positive, constructive attitude to this. There is no monopoly on the truth in any political party, but there has to be a common ground of political will, and let this resolution express a political will that is more than just words.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member opposite for his speech, which was obviously done without notes and was obviously from the heart.

Last evening I spent some time in the company of Chief Kirby Whiteduck from the Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation, who told a story about the fact that this year marks 400 years, exactly, from the time that Samuel de Champlain came to the Ottawa Valley and was hosted by the Algonquin people, who basically treated the visitor, this first contact, with great aplomb. It was actually a very good reminder of how long this relationship has gone on.

There is one thing that concerns me greatly in the member's speech. We have said very clearly that we are seeking the same outcomes in our education initiative for first nation students as for other Canadian students. In Nova Scotia, with the Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey, MK, school district, we have 70% first nation graduation rates, which is almost up to the provincial school rates.

We are now at the point where the first nation education steering committee in British Columbia has full agreements, full transferability of students between the first nation schools and the provincial schools and vice versa. Students are followed with pin numbers. This is all working very constructively and positively. That is our objective and I just wanted to make that clear.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that.

First of all, I hope we will be able to make some progress on the historic claim of the Algonquins of Golden Lake. I am quite familiar with that issue. Just to show how far back it goes, the discussions began before I became premier in 1990. We came very close to a solution in 1995, but things seemed to fall off the rails for some reason in that year, provincially.

I hope we are finally going to be able to get to a conclusion. I look forward to that very much. I am happy to hear of the progress the minister is describing. The report that came out from his ministry with respect to the current situation looking across the country, that is where the 35% number came from. I did not make it up. The 8% additional target is the target that in fact is set out in that annual report of his own department.

I would say that if that is the target, I think we can do better than that. I see the minister is saying that is not the target, and that is good news. Let us hope we can move more quickly.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent discourse and putting this in the historical context that it needs. I know our government friends are sometimes very defensive of their fairly poor record, but it did not start with them. This is probably the largest, historic, moral, cultural, economic deficit in Canada, and it has to be paid.

What we have seen from Idle No More is that people are frustrated. They are not willing to sit back and hear more talk in the House of Commons. This has been talked about again and again, and the responses have been talking points, press releases but no concrete action. What we are seeing in communities across this country is an uprising of young people who say they are not going to sacrifice this generation, as other generations have been sacrificed.

In terms of the respect for treaty rights and the fact that these are rights defined by the Constitution and defined in court case after court case as rights that are inherent on the land, and in terms of the issue of Bill C-45 and the decision of the government to strip basic environmental protection so that it can push things through for big oil and big mining without any consultation, what does my hon. colleague think of the lack of respect and the lack of trust that is going to be engendered in first nation communities who are seeing that once again the government is more than willing to walk over their rights?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is perhaps a loud “amen” to what my colleague from Timmins—James Bay had to say. I happen to think that this demographic revolution that I have spoken of is real and profound, and the change in technology and the change in awareness is real and profound.

Speaking personally, when I grew up in Ottawa years ago, the aboriginal issue was one that was far off. It was not close by. Now I have a huge aboriginal population in my riding of Toronto Centre, and the kids in school today in Toronto and elsewhere are not going to accept what was previously seen as being acceptable. This is all changing rapidly.

I visited Attawapiskat, which members often visit. We see 10 people living in a small house of two or three rooms, yet people are watching television. They have a computer in the little house. They are not going to accept the isolation and the discrimination that was previously seen as an inevitable part of people's lives. The comparisons they make and the pictures in their heads are completely different, so of course there is going to be a dramatic change.

The same thing is true for the interpretation of treaty rights. Whether any of us like it or not, there is not going to be major resource development in the northern parts of this country without the participation of the first nation, aboriginal, Métis and Inuit people of this country. Whether it is a development that was approved in Baffin Island or anywhere else, these developments will not happen without the full engagement and support of the appropriate levels of government and of the appropriate orders of government that have to be consulted. That includes the aboriginal orders of government, which I believe are real, tangible and really exist. We are going to see this as time goes on.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the points the hon. member for Toronto Centre made is that it is important to respond to the concerns of our first nations. One of the main problems facing first nations is the quality of their drinking water, the quality of the water from which they fish and so on.

I will share my experience with respect to the situation in Fort Chipewyan. I was with the environment committee a couple of years ago and we went up to Fort Chipewyan where there were grave concerns expressed about the quality of the water as a result of pollution from the oil sands. We were up in Fort Chipewyan because we were exploring whether there was a link between the development of the oil sands and the pollution of the land and water on which the first nations depend. However, it took a long time for the government to recognize that there might be a link. Finally, it did after it was pushed by world-class scientists to recognize that there might be a problem. At that point, the government reacted and said that it needed to monitor the situation.

Would the member for Toronto Centre not agree that we have to be more open in our attitude toward the concerns that the first nations are raising? That is very much what Idle No More is all about. The people who are protesting are raising concerns. Does the member not feel that we have to be more open as a government, as a Parliament and as a society to what people are saying?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. However, more broadly on the water question, I will make a couple of observations.

First, we have the technology available today to provide safe running drinking water for every Canadian. We have that technology. We need to make sure that technology is made available to every community in the country. However, the second thing we need to do is to make sure those communities have the capacity to maintain that equipment. If communities in northern Manitoba have to wait for somebody to come from Winnipeg to fix what needs to be fixed, if they do not have the training programs, if they do not have the education programs, if people do not have a sense that they themselves have a responsibility to apply the investments that are being made in order to maintain them and keep them up, then we have a real problem, and that connects to self-government.

With respect to the pollution of the Athabasca River, provincial and federal authorities took too long to look at and understand what the effect of groundwater on that river was. However, one of the good things about where we are living today and the technology and the social media available is that people will be “Idle No More”. It does not matter what any of us think about it. This is now the world in which we are living: open, transparent, information being shared and people moving very quickly to highlight areas of abuse. Overall, that is a very healthy thing.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

I have the privilege of speaking about the motion introduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I would like to use my time to elaborate on the idea of first nations consultation, as it is described in the motion that has been presented to the House for consideration.

As I already mentioned on Monday, my speech today will focus on the idea of pro forma consultation. I often use Latinisms because they make my speeches sound more exotic. In English, pro forma means “as a matter of form”. When a criminal trial is held and there is a pro forma hearing, the client does not need to be present. Such a trial merely serves to move the proceedings forward.

Too often, the idea of public consultation is seen and thought of in an unrealistic way. A consultation process will be held but, in reality, people's needs and desires are barely taken into account. This reasoning also applies to the Canadian population as a whole.

The Conservatives, and most likely the governments that preceded them, are of the opinion that they have consulted the public properly if they have met with a certain group or held a public meeting and recorded and compiled people's reactions, regardless of the number of participants. The Conservatives then believe that they can proceed with their agenda, whether it be corporatist, social or cultural, unimpeded. In short, the government has erred in fact and in law, particularly when it comes to aboriginal people.

I would like to explain my reasoning. When it comes to consultations with first nations, we must never overlook the fact that there is always a possibility that the first nations will not support or consent to the measure that is being proposed. This also applies to the Canadian population as a whole.

Canadians have the option of opposing the proposed measure and making the government understand that the measure in question is quite simply unacceptable and should not be implemented. The government has to deal with that variable because it is a valid response that could very well be given if the public is consulted, whether it be with regard to policies or resource extraction initiatives.

Since my colleague's motion primarily has to do with consulting the first nations, it is important to ensure that a significant percentage of the public is canvassed and that there is a plebiscite that is observed and that can be observed on the ground.

In 2013, and I will discuss this further during my speech, the government is trying to find roundabout ways to circumvent the tribal management agencies, the band councils, in order to hold consultations without truly caring about the real impact, the actual desire to be consulted and how it will be carried out in a given community.

I will come back to this, but we must keep in mind that band councils were instituted by the Indian Act and their jurisdiction is limited to reserve lands. When it comes to consultations for mining projects, forestry projects or any other topics involving traditional territories, using the wrong approach complicates matters.

My opinion—which some might say would be arguable in a court of law—is that it would be in the government's best interest to consult the communities and hold extensive town-hall meetings. It would at least be a bit more transparent than what we are seeing now.

The people are increasingly rejecting many of the socio-economic measures put forward by community management organizations, the band councils, as they are too often modelled on the government's program for economic expansion and blind exploitation of natural resources. This rejection is a testament to the sharp increase in a renewed sense of self that we are seeing within communities in the country.

I say “in the country”, but this wave of assertiveness is being seen around the globe. We even saw it last spring in the streets of Montreal during the uprising, the massive turnout of people, by the hundreds of thousands. And that wave is travelling around the world. However, it is more present and visible in aboriginal communities. Of course, there is Idle No More. But that is not a trademark, and it is being cited a bit too often. It is a positive mobilization that is a testament to this increased assertiveness. That was not seen as often in the past.

This affirmation is not unrelated to the fact that the people are sometimes opposed to this tendency and reject, in a way, many decisions and policies made by these tribal government management agencies—including decisions involving traditional lands—for reasons I have already explained. Band councils cannot interfere with or manage relationships between the people and traditional lands, because their mandate and expertise are limited to reserve lands.

And that is why it is essential—and it should be a requirement—that the Government of Canada use 2013 to travel to communities and speak directly with the people. The Government of Canada would speak with the nine community leaders—chiefs and other counsellors in their capacity as community members—as well as all the other members of the community. The government should not just speak with the nine leaders, take that response and then make a lot of noise about how it has consulted the people. That is utterly untrue.

There are 3,000 people in my community. If the government listens only to the nine individuals who lead the community, the results will be markedly biased. It puts all of the power in the hands of nine people. To ensure real transparency, the people need to be consulted.

Some will say right away that if every resource development initiative were subject to massive consultations, it would be terribly expensive. That is true. However, many questions can always be combined in a single consultation. This is imperative.

Communities are often criticized for not mobilizing, not participating and not even voting, which is false. Some 4,000 Indians voted for me in the last election. First time ever. That had not happened before. When you make an effort, when you go and meet people, when you consult the community, when you go out and see people, they will mobilize and respond positively.

That is what needs to be done here. If the government really wants to get a feel for what people across the country are thinking and what their concerns are, it has to go to the people directly. It must not go through organizations and settle for a less than substantial response. Meaningful effort needs to be made, despite the vagaries of such a process. Once again, some will say there is a good chance this could go awry and that there are too many unknowns. The Conservatives are afraid to go into aboriginal communities. Technically, although extensive public consultation will inevitably involve some vagaries because the public may be less than receptive or less than supportive of a given initiative, such a process would at least have the advantage of being transparent.

Although the exercise in direct democracy associated with holding public consultations on aboriginal lands presents a number of vagaries on the face of it, the Canadian government could thereby establish the transparency of the process aimed at figuring out where people stand regarding proposed initiatives, whether they are legislative initiatives or initiatives on the ground.

This I submit to you, Mr. Speaker.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a high school where there are literally hundreds of first nation individuals or youth of first nation heritage who graduate, that being R.B. Russell Vocational High School, which is a jewel in Winnipeg's north end, among many other things. Its caring staff and student body do make a difference. They value the importance of education. When students graduate from Tec Voc, they know they will have opportunities. Education is so very important, and we need to see more people graduating and getting that grade 12 certificate.

Would the member comment as to what he believes is an important issue? That is that we need to establish more acceptable goals to ensure we have more young people of first nation heritage who are actually graduating high school. Would the member agree that education equates to opportunities and we need to emphasize the importance of education?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I agree with him.

When I was a student at the University of Ottawa—I know that I often provide personal examples—my class of 14 students consisted solely of aboriginal young people. Concerted efforts were made to ensure that the students obtained their diplomas. And there was follow-up to that end.

I have spoken to other young people in the same situation today, and the funds are no longer necessarily available. The situation has changed. I do not even know if the pre-law program is still offered at the University of Ottawa.

To set an example, these young people must return to their communities, just as I did. After being admitted to the bar, I returned to practise law in my community. This worked very well. We need to do this in Uashat and Maliotenam.

When I practised criminal law I was also involved in youth protection. I always made sure I sent a positive message. I told young people that the tools were available, that the cost of their education would be covered and that they had to really persevere. However, these promises must be kept today and the programs must continue to be accessible.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Manicouagan visited all the aboriginal communities in my riding, and there are quite a few. To date, the ancestral land claims of these Algonquin communities have not been recognized, leading to uncertainty when they attempt to conduct negotiations.

There is a mining boom in Abitibi and Témiscamingue right now. Exploration is taking place on their ancestral land. This is somewhat of a grey area because these exploration companies are not required to negotiate. Sometimes the aboriginal communities are not even aware that exploration activities are being conducted on their ancestral land.

If the government took the trouble to sit down and negotiate all matters pertaining to ancestral land claims, could dealing with this situation provide these communities with economic benefits and stability?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Government representatives should visit these communities from time to time. When I visited my colleague's riding, some people told me that they had not seen any MPs or ministers in their community in the past 50 years. People need to be there in order to be able to start a dialogue.

Whether or not the aboriginal title is recognized, the communities always have land use rights over their traditional land. Therefore, a consultation must take place as soon as any economic activity interferes with their use of and traditional activities on the land. This obligation is automatic and is part of the fiduciary relationship. I know I keep repeating this, but eventually it will have to sink in. As soon as an activity interferes with the traditional way of life, there must be consultations.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak after my colleague from Manicouagan, who gave an excellent speech.

I am pleased to speak to this motion today and happy that we are getting an opportunity to address some of the long-standing concerns for Canada's first nation, Inuit and Métis people. It took New Democrats to bring this debate about, since the Conservative government has proven it does not understand the challenges, is unwilling to work in a respectful manner with first nations and is bereft of any ideas that would actually improve the situation for this section of our population, which has been trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty that is unacceptable.

Canadians are proud of our country, and for many good reasons. We are rated sixth on the United Nations human development index. However, when first nation-specific statistics are applied to that same index, first nations in Canada are rated—get this—63rd.

How could any member elected to this place not see this as a significant and pressing challenge?

It is clear that the current government does not know where to start. It has insisted on presenting its own solutions that pick away at the margins, instead of working with first nations to arrive at a mutually agreeable path of action that could get to the heart of the problem. In doing so, it invites a negative response. By dismissing its duty to consult, it not only angers first nations, but also manages to come up with legislation that acts as a lightning rod for communities that have grown weary of commitments that bear no fruit and of demands that are unreasonable.

Instead of doing something to truly address living conditions and employment opportunities on first nations, the current government has saddled them with onerous accounting regulations that duplicate work that is already being done in a different format.

Instead of doing something to create employment for this chronically underemployed segment of our population, the government meddled in the way that bands make decisions on how to allocate their land.

This Parliament has been seized with bills and budgets that dictate to first nations and do little, if anything, to address the real challenges that would help that United Nations human development index number start to move in the right direction.

For now, the sad fact is that decades of inaction and failure on the part of past governments are catching up with Canada, and the current government's heavy-handed treatment of aboriginal people has brought about a significant and strong reaction from people who have, frankly, had enough. That explains the Idle No More movement that has swept Canada.

However, it would be unfair to say that the movement is a reaction to just that.

Idle No More came about as a response to the hatchet job the current government did on the Navigable Waters Protection Act and picked up steam from there. That issue affects all Canadians, as does the worrisome direction the government has taken on many environmental issues.

I would like to read from a letter that is being circulated by the Chief of the Sturgeon clan in Whitefish River First Nation that helps explain these grassroots activists. Chief Shining Turtle's letter speaks to the pride he feels as he watches young people in that community become engaged in the political process and attempt to take control of their future by taking part in the political discourse of the day. He writes:

These Idle No More drums are not just for us: they beat for you because the legislation we are protesting does not just harm us—it hurts you and your children and your grandchildren. This is not about your aboriginal neighbours, it is about 'justice' for you, too. The omnibus budget bills change the law in ways that will forever harm the water and earth that we all rely on....

He continues:

These bills take power away from the public—both aboriginal and non-aboriginal—to review and understand and speak out about projects which could harm the environment. Your children and grandchildren, and my grandchildren, will live in an unhealthier and, as a result, poorer world because of it.

We can see the issues are not confined to first nation-specific items. There is no doubt that there are many of those types of issues that helped create the climate of discontent, but it was the dismantling of the Navigable Waters Protection Act that provided the spark. Now, it is up to us to do something creative with the fire that has been lit.

We should learn from our mistakes and do that work in a respectful way in full partnership with our aboriginal neighbours, by making certain to fulfill our constitutional obligations, such as the duty to consult. Certainly there is much that can be done from this place that could help with that.

New Democrats are promoting ideas that could help create more employment for aboriginal populations. Instead of bringing in more temporary foreign workers, the NDP believes the government should address labour shortage by bringing in a job and skills plan that provides stable, predictable and sustainable funding. It should be developed in consultation with first nations for the successful aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, and for other programs to help first nations and other aboriginal groups fill skilled job shortages.

We believe the government should provide equitable funding for all first nations schools based on the motion called “Shannen's Dream”, passed unanimously by the House in February 2012, including core and program funding that is stable, sustainable and predictable, and that is determined in consultation with first nations.

That would be a start. However, there are more items that require attention as well. There are also numerous unresolved comprehensive land claims, which are in various stages of negotiation. In Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, the council of Thessalon First Nation and Chief Alfred Bisaillon recently published a letter to their neighbours that explains the land claim dispute they are trying to work through. The letter explains how the Lake Huron Treaty of 1850 contains a serious mistake in the translation from Ojibwa to English, which resulted in their reserve being surveyed at 40 square miles instead of 144 square miles. They have been frustrated by their dealings with the Canadian government on this, as has the mayor of the township of Huron Shores, Gil Reeves. They have been relegated to observer status as the provincial government hands out logging and mining permits on their land without consent or benefit for their community. Today there are an estimated 900 specific claims that remain unresolved. At the present rate it is expected to take a hundred years to settle them all.

At the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we have heard repeatedly that these unresolved land claims stand in the way of the kind of development on these lands that the government is seeking. That is the order of operations that first nations are telling us has to be followed, and no amount of bullying by the government is going to make them budge on that.

This brings us to the federal government's legal duty to consult. That constitutionally entrenched duty has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the courts. Needless to say, the government's obligation to consult and accommodate first nations, Inuit and Métis before passing legislation that affects aboriginal lands, waters and communities was not adhered to when the Conservatives gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act and weakened environmental protection laws.

As we have heard, the government's failure to follow through on its obligations concerning aboriginal and treaty rights is at the root of the grassroots movement that has swept across the country. New Democrats consistently warned how reckless it was to introduce fundamental changes to environmental protection laws in omnibus budget bills and then ram them through Parliament. However, the Conservatives did not want to hear that, and they turned their backs on their obligation to consult with people affected by these changes. They chose instead to take a divisive and confrontational approach, which is how we find ourselves at a crossroad in Canada. What remains to be seen is whether the government will continue to dictate and polarize the relationship or turn a page and start to listen.

New Democrats are hopeful that it will be the latter. We believe in building a new relationship on a nation-to-nation basis with first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples and are committed to the principles of meaningful consultation and real co-operation. We understand that Canada is a stronger place when we choose to work together.

It is clear the government has not acted in a way that shows it shares this opinion. It made commitments at the first nations-Crown gathering that were abandoned in a few months. Despite promises for respectful consultations, it rammed through legislation without fulfilling its legal obligation to consult aboriginal peoples. When coupled with inaction on longstanding and pressing aboriginal issues, this behaviour has led to an historic and growing wave of grassroots actions sweeping first nations communities. That is why New Democrats are asking for a clear and concrete commitment from the House in order to help realize the potential that exists within first nation, Inuit and Métis communities.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and the member who spoke before her on their excellent speeches.

One thing keeps coming up when it comes to helping aboriginal peoples, the Assembly of First Nations, better manage funds and get more funds, which is that they must be in a relationship of equals.

We have seen wonderful promises of investments in all kinds of areas, especially economic development and training for young people, but the government has not negotiated or talked, as equals, with the Assembly of First Nations or the aboriginal peoples.

Could my colleague speak to that?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is right. We cannot continue in this direction. It is not a good direction. We should be developing a good relationship with the first nations.

I met with a group of first nation youth last and week and was more than encouraged by the level of their engagement. I had the sense they were taking the political process in Canada seriously. I have no doubt that strong leaders will emerge from this generation, who will not accept the status quo. They were extremely concerned about the direction the Conservative government is taking and they are not willing to continue to sit down and take it.

When we look at the impact this is having on first nation communities, it is not the fact that they are not handling their budgets properly, but the fact that they do not have enough to be able to run their communities properly. They need affordable housing. When we look at the mortality rate on first nations, it is 1.5 times higher than the Canadian rate. Suicide rates are double that of the general population. Diabetes rates are three times higher among first nations, and there is a growing problem with HIV that sees 5% of the population dealing with 16% of new infections. Those are the issues this government should be dealing with, not attacking our first nations.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for talking about things such as the education gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. If we look at university graduates, for example, something like 10% of aboriginals have a university degree compared to around 23% in the general population.

However, there is a program in my riding called the aboriginal leadership opportunity year, which allows aboriginal Canadians to spend a year at the Royal Military College. A few weeks ago the first commissioning ceremony was held for an aboriginal Canadian who is finishing her studies at the Royal Military College this year.

At the risk of putting my colleague on the spot, and I apologize for doing so, I wonder if she would support doubling the length of that program from one year to two years. I know that retention of students in post-secondary programs is an issue we have to be very cognizant of, and I wonder if the member might support something like that.