Debates of Jan. 31st, 2013

Statutes Repeal Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and section 2 of the Statutes Repeal Act, I am tabling, in both official languages, the 2013 annual report under the Statutes Repeal Act.

Succession to the Throne Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-53, An Act to assent to alterations in the law touching the Succession to the Throne.

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

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to inform the House that His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the purport of a bill entitled “An Act to assent to alterations in the law touching the Succession to the Throne”, has given his consent as far as Her Majesty's prerogatives may be affected to the consideration by Parliament of the bill, and that Parliament may do therein as it thinks fit.

United Kingdom's Succession to the Throne Legislation

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, the text of the United Kingdom's Succession to the Crown bill dated January 30, 2013, including a French version of the text that was ably prepared by the Department of Justice.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 36th report of the Standing Committee and Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of the committees of this House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 36th report later this day.

Tamil Heritage Month Act

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-471, An Act to designate the month of January as Tamil Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to introduce this bill that will designate the month of January as Tamil Heritage Month.

This month is celebrated throughout the country by the more than 300,000 Canadians of Tamil heritage, as we recognize the cultural, political and economic contributions of Tamil Canadians in our communities.

I would like to acknowledge the organizations and individuals in Scarborough—Rouge River and across the country, who have organized events during this month, for the pride they take in our Tamil heritage. I am so pleased that this bill would enshrine Tamil Heritage Month into federal legislation.

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

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Sex Selection

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to table today. A few months ago, CBC revealed that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn child, so the parents can choose to terminate the pregnancy in the case where the unborn child is a girl.

The petitioners note that 92% of Canadians believe that sex selective pregnancy termination is wrong and should be ended. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to support Motion M-408 to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex selection pregnancy termination.

Pensions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to table a petition from residents of Winnipeg North who are asking the government to maintain the retirement age at 65 as opposed to increasing it to age 67. In essence, the residents of Winnipeg North believe in our social pension programs of OAS, GIS and CPP and want the Prime Minister to respect them for what they are and to enhance them as opposed to taking them away.

Sex Selection

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also am honoured to present a petition from my constituents. It says that sex selection is condemned by all the national parties, that the Conservative government condemns sex selection and that the NDP says it highlights the discrimination between men and women. They call on Parliament to condemn this worst form of discrimination against females by condemning sex selection.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians

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

moved:

That the House, recognizing the broad-based demand for action, call on the government to make the improvement of economic outcomes of First Nations, Inuit and Métis a central focus of Budget 2013, and to commit to action on treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of Aboriginal Canadians, as required by domestic and international law.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The reason the NDP has brought the motion forward today is that what we have seen, both from Conservatives and Liberals, is years of broken promises. We are seeing continuing poverty in first nation, Métis and Inuit communities. We are seeing a grassroots movement from coast to coast to coast, like Idle No More, signifying that people on the ground are simply tired of these broken promises. We have seen the Assembly of First Nations put forward an eight-point plan and we have seen a 13-point declaration of commitment that is called, “First Nations: Working Towards Fundamental Change”.

In this context, New Democrats felt it was important for us to bring this matter to the House and to have a fulsome debate about three key elements: that is, economic development, treaties and duty to consult.

I am going to focus on those three elements in my brief 10 minutes.

I want to begin with economic development, and I want to refer to the report of the Auditor General from 2011. In that report, the Auditor General indicated it is clear that living conditions are poorer on first nation reserves than anywhere else in Canada. The Auditor General went on to indicate in the report that the department agreed with that and had developed a community well-being index, based upon a United Nations' measure. In 2010, the department reported that the index showed little or no progress in the well-being of first nation communities between 2001 and 2006. Instead, the average well-being of those communities continued to rank significantly below that of other Canadian communities.

Conditions on too many reserves are poor and have not improved significantly and, of course, the Auditor General went on to criticize government performance and to recommend a number of ways in which the government could move forward. Part of those ways did focus on aspects of economic development. When we are talking about economic development, there are a number of principles that have been outlined in numerous reports and studies that talk about local employment, local ownership and decision-making, reinvestment of profits in communities, local knowledge and skill development, positive environmental impact and increased health and well-being in the community.

It would seem to be to the government's advantage to talk about investing in things like education and infrastructure, to do that duty to consult to make sure the programs were reflecting community needs, but we have seen an ongoing absence of that kind of priority with the current government.

I mentioned there have been numerous studies. I want to touch briefly on the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. Now, this was done in the United States, but this was two decades of research that talked about the key elements that needed to be in place for first nations—in the United States at least—to have fulsome economic development. It indicated a number of matters, but I just want to touch briefly on three of them.

Sovereignty matters. When native nations make their own decisions about what development approaches to take, they consistently outperform external decision-makers on matters as diverse as governmental form, natural resources, economic development, health care and social service provision.

Institutions matter. For development to take hold, assertions of sovereignty must be backed by capable institutions of governance.

Culture matters. Successful economies stand on the shoulders of legitimate, culturally grounded institutions of self-government. Indigenous societies are diverse. Each nation must equip itself with a governing structure, economic system, policies and procedures that fit its own contemporary cultures.

Again, it seems there is a road map for the government to invest in the mechanisms that will support economic development in communities, and we only need to look at the continuing desperate conditions in some communities.

I must point out that there are first nation communities that are very successful. Westbank comes to mind. There are very good examples out there, and there are ways that some of those best practices could be made available to other communities.

I want to touch on treaties. I went to the government's own website on this as a starting point, and it was very interesting to read its “Fact Sheet: Treaties with Aboriginal people in Canada”. It states:

The Government of Canada and the courts understand treaties between the Crown and Aboriginal people to be solemn agreements that set out promises, obligations and benefits for both parties.

Starting in 1701, in what was to eventually become Canada, the British Crown entered into solemn treaties to encourage peaceful relations between First Nations and non-Aboriginal people. Over the next several centuries, treaties were signed to define, among other things, the respective rights of Aboriginal people and governments to use and enjoy lands that Aboriginal people traditionally occupied.

Reading that statement on the government's own website, one would think the government would come to the table with an intent to respect promises that have been made over centuries. When we are talking about treaties in Canada, we have very different situations from coast to coast to coast. We have the numbered treaties, which are old treaties in this country. We have land claims. We have a situation in British Columbia where we have some modern treaties; however, a large part of British Columbia has no treaties in place.

I want to touch on three aspects of these treaties, and I will turn to the land claims coalition. Why should Canadians care about treaties? I think the coalition lays it out very well. It indicates, in part:

Fully implemented modern treaties benefit all Canadians. They clarify the terms of the ongoing relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown, and of the Crown's occupation and use in conjunction with Aboriginal peoples of their traditional lands and resources. In other words, modern treaties define how resources on traditional lands can be used and co-managed to the great benefit of all Canadians.

For Aboriginal signatories, modern treaties offer new opportunities for self-reliance, political and economic development, as well as cultural and social well-being. They are the basis for building a new and positive relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the wider Canadian society.

Having read the government's website about fulfillment of promises, one would think the land claims coalition would be celebrating the success of these land claims agreements. Instead, what has happened is that the agreements are signed and then the government walks away from the spirit and intent of those agreements. The land claims coalition has had to come together to hold the government's feet to the fire. It has raised a number of implementation issues, and because I only have 10 minutes I cannot go over all of them.

However, there are a couple of key points. It says there have been numerous reports that have reaffirmed the intent of the land claims agreements and treaties, and that these reports “...have confirmed that the Government of Canada is fulfilling neither its obligations in full under these agreements nor their spirit and intent. Consequently modern treaties are failing to achieve their overall fundamental developmental objectives”. Instead, we are seeing that some of the nations have been forced into courts to try to get the government to uphold its promises.

Turning to Nunavut, it is in the courts as we speak, to try to get the government to live up to the self-government and land claims agreement.

I will touch briefly on numbered treaties. There was the proclamation back in 1763, and then we had numbered treaties signed between 1870 and 1921. On a site called Our Legacy, the section entitled “Treaties: Negotiations and Rights” outlines the continued problems with how the numbered treaties are not being respected. It says, in part, that “the government of Canada questions the original Spirit and Intent of Treaty”.

We are starting to see a theme here: land claims, numbered treaties. I will get to B.C. in a minute about the spirit and intent. It continues:

It is a very simple answer. Non-Indigenous People were granted the right to live in Indigenous Peoples' territories so long as they maintained peace and respected the land. In exchange Indigenous Peoples were to receive benefits such as health care and education.

We see the government continuing to quibble about what those treaties meant instead of honouring their spirit and intent and moving the treaties that were signed decades ago into the modern day to honour those commitments.

I will touch briefly on the B.C. treaty process. I come from British Columbia, and I need to talk about this. An article titled “Report on treaty negotiations holds key to progress” says that those treaties are very important in terms of the economic development and stability in British Columbia.

There is resource development happening in British Columbia. Without movement forward on those treaties, we will not have the economic stability that is important for first nations, for Métis, for Inuit in the north, and for the rest of British Columbians and Canadians. I urge all members of this House to support this important motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her initiative today. There are many positive things happening across the country. We have added eight new first nations very recently to the first nations land management regime. That means those first nations have chosen freedom from 34 sections of the Indian Act so they have control over their land and resources. Within the last two weeks, I announced the regulations that will now allow the natural gas facility at the Haisla First Nation in Kitimat to proceed, bringing jobs and economic opportunity to northwestern British Columbia and opening up markets for Canada in Asia and other places.

There are many examples, and rather than focusing on an attempt to create a negative picture, I would make that comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a fundamental difference on how to move forward. The government has invested in some things; there have been some investments in education, housing and infrastructure. However, it is always top-down. If the government were serious about moving forward, it would work in a spirit of true partnership and consultation to bring first nations, Inuit and Métis up to the standard of living that the rest of Canadians expect.

If it is going so well, why have we had the Tsilhqot'in obtain leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on issues around aboriginal rights and title to the land? This is directly tied to economic development because this is a court case that has been going on for, I believe, two decades, with regard to logging in British Columbia. If it is going so well, why have Frog Lake and Mikisew Cree filed a notice of application for judicial review with the Federal Court in Ottawa with regard to Bill C-38 and Bill C-45? It is because they do not feel the government consulted appropriately around developing environmental policies, their implementation, and their impact on first nations communities.

Therefore, there is a fundamental difference about how to proceed here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at this point I think it is important to recognize former Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Liberal government's efforts in putting together what was likely one of the greatest accomplishments within the first nations and aboriginal communities when we came up with the Kelowna accord. It was very comprehensive, dealt with many different issues and brought together many different stakeholders around the table. Many discussions were had, and ultimately an accord was reached. That was an accord that I believe would have made a huge difference in the standards of living for first nations from coast to coast to coast. Unfortunately, at the end of the day the Kelowna accord was not implemented because the New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to defeat Prime Minister Paul Martin in the then Liberal government.

My specific question to the member is, will the NDP clearly indicate that it supported the Kelowna accord and that it would like to see it brought back to the House of Commons?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has 40 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I need to remind the member that the Canadian people threw the Liberals out, not the New Democrats.

When it comes to the Kelowna accord, those investments, of course, are extremely important, and we did support the Kelowna accord. However, I need to point out to the member that it also did not deal with some fundamental aspects of relationships. It did not talk about treaties. It did not talk about land claims. It did not talk about the duty to consult. It was a good first step, but we need to move much further in terms of recognizing the nation-to-nation status within Canada, and recognizing that duty to consult and that full partnership at the table. Then, perhaps, we will be able to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today in support of this important motion put forward by my colleague for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I wish to thank her for her tireless efforts and dedication. I consider it a privilege to work alongside such a strong Canadian representative in our ranks.

Today we have a motion of extreme importance before us, one that can represent the start of a better future for all Canadians, if all parties in the House seize upon this important moment.

For nearly two months we have seen the issues of indigenous nations of Canada brought to the fore in ways that have never been seen before, with the Idle No More movement. We have seen peaceful protests, combined with proud expressions of aboriginal culture, raise awareness of these issues like never before. Who knew it would be a round dance revolution that would start this discussion in earnest? This movement has brought many issues onto the public agenda, some of which we are focusing on today and that call upon the government to act immediately.

However, from my observations, Idle No More comes back to some very simple principles: respect, partnership and a better future for all who now call this land home. When we talk about respect, we are talking about respecting the treaties and subsequent agreements that the Crown and Canada have entered into with indigenous nations. When we are talking about partnership, we are talking about the relationship those treaties envisioned: two peoples working together for the prosperity of all. When we talk about a better future for all, we are talking about what is possible if we finally tackle these outstanding issues rather than leaving them to fester.

These principles are the very foundation of our country. Do not forget: first peoples in this country were not conquered or defeated in some major military battle. Our ancestors welcomed the newcomers to their land, shared it with them and signed treaties that would become the legal foundation for the Canada of today.

These treaties that Canada and the Crown signed with aboriginal nations are an integral part of our foundational documents, along with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We, the NDP, have been conscious of those facts for a long time now, and our policies and approaches incorporate them.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the current government. Its actions and words demonstrate that either it does not know our history or it is choosing to ignore it.

APTN News recently uncovered a staggering example of this very problem. On January 25, it reported details of a leaked confidential accounting of the Prime Minister's January 11 meeting with some first nations leaders. In that document, some very disturbing comments made by the President of the Treasury Board came to light. The document began by stating that he referred to the meeting as a meeting with “a group of at risk Canadians...”. Let that sink in for a moment. The minister of the Crown referred to the leaders and their peoples, not as Cree, Mi’kmaq, Ojibwa, Algonquin, or the proper name of any aboriginal nation; he referred to them as a group of at risk Canadians.

Some might call that a mistake, and others might call it a bad start, when restarting our foundational relationship. Most would call it disrespectful. I would hope that the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka would take the chance at some point during this debate to apologize for that poor choice of words.

Unfortunately, that was not the only comment that came from the member at that meeting. The document went on to quote the President of the Treasury Board admitting that he did not understand the treaty relationship or why that discussion needs to occur before economic development.

I have to question why the Prime Minister took a minister with such lack of knowledge into the meeting, while benching his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who I know has a very strong grasp of the issues, into that meeting. I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge and experience of the hon. member for Labrador, and I cannot help but wonder how serious the Prime Minister is when he leaves such a resource sitting on the sidelines.

The hon. member for Labrador has considerable experience in federal and provincial government consultations. The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and President of the Treasury Board provided a good example of his lack of knowledge. According to the media in his riding, a few days after the January 11 meeting, he explained what he meant by “consultation”. Questioned about the fact that aboriginals were not consulted about Bill C-45, he said that there was a consultation; it was called a federal election. Wrong answer.

Recently, seemingly in response to the Idle No More movement, the government has started to use some language about its duties that I have found rather worrisome. The Prime Minister and his ministers have started to say they are happy to “work with willing partners” when it comes to dealing with outstanding aboriginal issues. The last time I checked, the Government of Canada had a duty to consult and accommodate all aboriginal peoples, not just those the government believes are willing. The government needs to understand it cannot ignore the situations it sees as more difficult. It might be harder to arrive at solutions in those cases, but it will not get any easier by simply ignoring them. As an example, why should the Innu of Labrador find that the Government of Canada will work with them because the government might consider them more willing, while the Innu from Quebec, represented by my good friend from Manicouagan, have their longstanding grievances ignored because the government is not willing to talk to them?

The motion before us today calls upon the government to “commit to action on treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of Aboriginal Canadians, as required by domestic and international law.” However, as we know, the Constitution and international law are continually evolving thanks to new legal instruments, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and court rulings.

I find it sad that I have to remind the House that aboriginal people are among the small number of groups that constantly have to turn to the courts to have their basic constitutional rights respected.

It is estimated that the Government of Canada spends $300 million a year opposing the rights of aboriginal peoples before the courts. More often than not, the government loses those cases. The government has spent billions of dollars in recent decades trying to stop the inevitable, and meanwhile, court decisions are not implemented in a timely manner and progress continues to be impeded.

Earlier this month the Federal Court ruled in the Daniels decision that Métis and non-status aboriginals are Indians under the Constitution Act of 1867. This decision could have big implications once negotiations around its implementation are completed. This case was brought forward 13 years ago by the Métis leader Harry Daniels. Sadly, Harry passed away in 2004, eight years before this decision.

Thirteen years is a long time to have a case before the courts, not to mention it being very costly. For 13 years both Liberal and Conservative governments spent millions upon millions trying to deny Métis and non-status people their rights under the Constitution.

The government has yet to publicly state if it will appeal this ruling. If history is a guide, it is very likely the government will.

Some members on the government benches might be wondering what this has to do with the motion before us today. My answer is simple: one cannot properly act on implementing rights or start to take part in meaningful consultations while at the same time fighting the very concept of these rights in the courts.

In closing, the Conservative government has a lot to learn about this, and I sincerely hope it will begin doing things differently so we can see some real progress. In June 2008, the Prime Minister stood in this place and apologized for residential schools, and he promised a new relationship. Nearly five years later, it is quite clear that very little has changed for the better. We can accomplish great things, and quickly, when there is political will to do so. We in the official opposition have that will.

This motion is meant to help build a better future for everyone.

Meegwetch.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I bring up the Kelowna accord because it was more than just a small step. It was a significant step that brought a different attitude toward dealing with first nations, one based on consultations and on enabling the leaders within first nation communities and others to get issues resolved.

There was well over a billion dollars put toward housing. The hon. member said there was nothing for water, but there was over $400 million to try to deal with some water-related issues. These were substantial measures for working with first nations.

If members take shots at other political parties, whether the current or previous member, they have to be careful not to throw stones in glass houses. One could reflect on how abusive the New Democratic government is in Manitoba regarding the water claims resulting from the hydro development and the displacement that took place. It was not the New Democrats who ultimately resolved those land issues with first nations. I would highly recommend that if the New Democrats really want to do justice to the issue, they need to recognize that we have to enable the first nations' leadership to come to the table and bring their ideas forward, and to work with our first nations to make a difference.

That is what this is really all about. As much as possible, members need to encourage the government. Would the hon. member not agree that in an apolitical fashion—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I would ask all hon. members to limit themselves to one minute and fifteen seconds during the question and comment period, please.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear this challenge issued to us from the other end of the House. The challenge issued by my colleague will be answered in 2015, I promise.

I am well aware of the importance of relationships. Yes, the Kelowna accord addressed some fundamental issues and sought to meet the basic needs of aboriginal communities. Congratulations on those efforts. However, they came a little too late, since the accord was signed on the weekend right before a federal election.

I would like to come back to what my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan was saying earlier. Our discussions should focus on the relationships we ought to have. Our discussions should focus on new relationships between the federal government and Canada's aboriginal peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has been a tremendous leader over many years and, most recently, with the tabling of his private member's bill on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. I want to ask him a question about that. Article 19 of the declaration states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

The government committed to the UN Declaration and I wonder if the member could speak specifically to that particular clause and what it means to that ongoing relationship.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize when reading article 19 that it concerns a process that needs to take place between member states and indigenous peoples worldwide, in this case Canada and the aboriginal peoples here. The government has a duty to consult and accommodate first nations and aboriginal peoples in this country under the Constitution. Now that norm is also part of international law. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets out in many articles the obligation to co-operate, to consult and to agree with indigenous peoples.