House of Commons Hansard #201 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was education.

Topics

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, this evening we will be debating federal funding for the Lower Churchill project. The Conservatives, the Liberals and even NDP members from Quebec are ignoring Quebec's two unanimous motions condemning the funding. They are allowing Ottawa to use Quebeckers' money to support a project that will compete directly with Hydro-Québec, a government entity that the Quebec nation built and paid for itself.

Will the government take this opportunity, a few hours before the debate, to finally show respect for Quebec and agree not to fund this unfair project?

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

3 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, we obviously respect all provinces and all jurisdictions across this country. The lower Churchill project will provide significant economic benefits to the Atlantic region. It will also substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At peak employment it will provide 3,100 jobs for the Atlantic region and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4.5 megatonnes. That is the equivalent of over one million cars.

Our government's signing of the term sheet for the loan shows our government's support for Newfoundland and Labrador and the Atlantic region.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on behalf of the official opposition to ask the government about its plans for the House for the rest of this week and next week.

During this first week, it has become clear that the government's legislative agenda is neither clear nor ambitious. That may be a good thing considering the irresponsible legislative agendas the Prime Minister's office usually has to offer us. The only part of the agenda we saw yesterday was yet another government time allocation motion, the 28th such motion since the beginning of this session. This is yet another attempt to undermine our democratic process.

I would like to ask my hon. friend across the way if his government intends, for the remainder of this week and the beginning of next, to call Bill C-32, an act to amend the civil marriage act? This was a bill that was introduced on February 17, 2012, and an act that we have committed to see expeditiously through this House for debate and standing vote.

Or, will the government finally call Bill C-30, that much unloved Internet snooping bill that seems to be continually sitting in Conservative legislative purgatory, never to see the light of day?

I am also curious if the minister has an update for this House and for Canadians about the current situation in Mali and this Parliament's opportunity to debate Canada's role in Mali.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, let me wish you and all hon. members a happy new year.

I believe that 2013 will be a very productive year in the House of Commons.

The House has been a productive place in the last 200 sitting days. Between the election and today, Parliament has seen three-quarters of the government's legislation pass through at least one of the two chambers, and in fact a majority of the bills we have introduced have made it all the way to entering the statute books. I do look forward to seeing the government add to this record of accomplishment.

On the question of Bill C-32, I will again offer to my friend that we could pass that bill right now, at all stages, if the NDP is agreeable. I believe that would be a reasonable course of action.

Today, of course, we are debating an opposition day motion for the New Democratic Party. Tomorrow and Monday will see us start to consider second reading of Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act. If we have time, we will go back to the second reading debate on Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012. Wednesday will see us finish third reading of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. Tuesday and Thursday shall be the second and third allotted days. I understand that both of those days will go to the official opposition. Then, if we have not previously finished Bill C-52 and Bill C-48, we will return to them next Friday.

Finally, there have been consultations among the parties respecting a take note debate on the situation in Mali. I am pleased to move:

That a take-note debate on the subject of the conflict in Mali take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, February 5, 2013.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Agreed and so ordered.

(Motion agreed to)

Business of SupplyOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, February 5, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Business of SupplyOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Business of SupplyOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of SupplyOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

(Motion agreed to)

Access to InformationPrivilegeOral Questions

January 31st, 2013 / 3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to raise an issue that I think is very important. This follows on the point I raised in June 2012, which, as we know, was settled amicably.

I will give an example that demonstrates how difficult it is to get information from Public Works and Government Services Canada. After that, I will talk about a pertinent question addressed today.

In early January 2011, some members of the Vanier business improvement area called me looking for information on the grants in lieu of taxes program. As everyone knows, the Crown does not pay property taxes, but the government legislated to ensure the payment of grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities in which government buildings are located. The BIA wanted more information—and not any privileged information—about how the program works.

I called the public official responsible for that program at PWGSC. I left a message indicating that I would like to speak with him. About 15 minutes later, my office received a call from the office of the Minister of Public Works informing us that if we wanted any information, we had to go through the minister's office.

Since we needed information, I asked for a briefing session, which took place two weeks later.

Two weeks later, in an office on Parliament Hill, I met with three public servants—the person I spoke with on the phone and two of his associates—along with three people from the Vanier BIA and two of the minister's staff members. We exchanged information. It was completely neutral information that was not privileged. It was public information on how this program works since the people from the BIA were having difficulty. However, that is not the issue here.

Here is what happened at the end of the meeting. The senior public servant gave his business card to the Vanier BIA director and told her that, if she needed any more information, she could call or email him directly.

So I said to him, “Are you saying that she can call you and you will give her the information without any problem, when I cannot get that same information without going through the minister's office?” He said that, according to the instructions he had been given, I indeed had to go through the minister's office.

I thought it was a bit much that an MP could not get information while others could get it directly. However, since the BIA got the information it needed, I did not make a big deal out of it. Perhaps I should have, and my failure to do so may have been a mistake. This creates two problems. First, it creates unnecessary work and makes communication completely inefficient. Second, it calls into question the professionalism of our public servants.

That is terrible because, if an MP requests privileged information, I would expect that public servants would not provide it. However, if an MP asks for public information, he should normally be able to get it, particularly if his constituents have access to it.

That is the situation. That is the case that we are currently dealing with. The second important issue in the riding that I have the honour of representing is the development of the Rockcliffe military base.

The Canada Lands Company has hired a gentleman called Don Schultz. He is a consultant, and over the last few months he has met with just about anybody who has any interest in this file. All community associations have been met with. The local city councillor has been met with, twice. He has met my neighbours. He has met everybody. I am not criticizing Mr. Schultz; I need that to be very clear. All I have heard about him is very good and positive. He is attentive. He follows up. He is doing a very good job of listening and getting us in.

Since this is a most important file in the riding that I have the honour of representing, I called on December 3, after he had been at this for a few months, to get a sense of how things were going. The answer was that he could not meet with me unless he had authorization from the office of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. This is getting interesting.

I think this brings up the same kind of problems I just mentioned. Why should I have to go through the minister's office, when he is meeting everybody without any authorization from the minister's office? For the elected representative of the people, he therefore has to get permission.

Today, from the office of the minister, I got notice that a briefing would not be possible, but perhaps a conference call could be arranged. This is the question of privilege that I need to raise. As elected officials, information is our lifeblood. If we cannot get access to information that everybody else seems to be able to get without any hurdles, there is a problem. There is an insidiousness here that is frightening.

I have had a number of conversations with colleagues from the government side, and never has any one of them ever told me they have had a problem with accessing information concerning problems in the riding they represent.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to look into this matter. I believe this is a situation which is significantly problematic. If the government has instructed public servants (a), not to speak to us, therefore not trusting their professionalism, (b), to slow things down purposefully through the minister's office so we cannot get information, what does that say? Does it say that the government is trying purposefully to put us in a situation where we will not able to defend the interests of the constituents we were elected to represent?

I think my colleagues know that I try to work positively. I try to work constructively. I have done that for a number of years now. However, this is problematic. I know that colleagues on this side and in the NDP have had the same problem.

Mr. Speaker, I believe you have a responsibility as our speaker to protect us and our privilege of having a level playing field of access to information for the benefit of the constituents we have been elected to represent.

Access to InformationPrivilegeOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I was listening closely. I do not know a lot about the circumstances, but I expect the government will want to come back with further submissions.

I will observe that I did not hear any aspect of the duties or responsibilities of a member of Parliament that were in any way blocked so that his abilities to perform them were impaired in any particular way, which I think is fundamental to raising a point of privilege like this.

Access to InformationPrivilegeOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, we also would like to enter this debate at some point, having not yet heard the details of the case other than what my colleague has expressed so far. However, many of my colleagues have faced a number of obstructions from civil servants who have previously been quite open to allowing members access to information that the public has, things being referred to the Prime Minister's office, through the PCO, in a way that makes it impossible to find out things that are sometimes, as we have found out later, available online.

There is this control element that seems to be happening in the government that specifically targets members of the opposition and therefore infringes upon our privileges as MPs to do the work on behalf of our constituents. Much of that work is based on information that only the government has.

These are not state secrets. These are things that are generally and broadly available. The government seems to have some sort of strategy in which all things have to be referred to the central command, preventing us from doing work we were elected to do.

We will reserve the right to come back to this once we review the details. I look forward to the Speaker's ruling.

Access to InformationPrivilegeOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I thank the hon. members for their interventions and look forward to future submissions on this question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Kenora Ontario

Conservative

Greg Rickford ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this motion, tabled by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I appreciate the working relationship that we have on the standing committee.

Our government's number one focus is on creating jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. We are seeing the results of this work. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the global economy remains fragile but Canada has produced more than 900,000 net new jobs in recent years. This is no small feat in the current economic climate.

As we move forward in 2013, our focus remains the economy. We know that in continuing to develop, provide our children with access to good education, train for the job skills of tomorrow, reduce red tape and equip our businesses to succeed worldwide, this includes expanding opportunities for aboriginal peoples to fully participate in the economy. We know there are tremendous opportunities to promote and encourage greater aboriginal participation in the economy and we remain committed to working with willing partners to do exactly that. We are focused on removing barriers to economic development on reserve, helping aboriginal people develop the skills they need to enter the workforce and providing first nation communities and the regions they are located in with greater autonomy to manage their own land and resources.

We can all agree that increasing aboriginal participation in the economy is one of the most effective ways to improve the well-being and quality of life of aboriginal peoples in Canada. It is also vital to Canada's future economic prosperity.

Since the economic action plan was implemented in response to the global economic crisis, Canada has recovered almost all of the output and jobs lost during the recession. The number of jobs has gone up by more than 750,000 since July 2009, and it is now 260,000 higher than the peak reached before the recession, which represents the highest job growth among the G7 countries. These figures are very reassuring to Canadians, in light of the continuing economic uncertainty around the world.

Key to our economic strength is the continued participation of aboriginal peoples in the economy. The natural resource sector is an important case in point. Canada's natural resource sector employs close to 800,000 Canadians. The mining sector is the largest private employer of aboriginal people, who make up some 7.5% of its workforce. Aboriginal people represent 4.3% of the energy sector's workforce and 10% of the oil sands' workforce. The resource sectors also generate billions of dollars' worth of tax royalties and revenues annually to help pay for government programs and services.

Our resource strength is set to continue to expand well into the future. We currently estimate that over the next decade there will potentially be as many as 600 new projects, representing more than $650 billion in investments, across the country in resource development. Some of these will be taking place in northwestern Ontario in the great Kenora riding. These projects will create jobs across our region and throughout Canada and will continue to substantially improve our country's economic prosperity. In fact, the numbers continue to climb as new opportunities are identified.

Resource development is vitally important to aboriginal communities across Canada. Take, for example, Fort McKay First Nation in Alberta. It has the largest business relationship with oil sands producers of any first nation community. Fort McKay has gone from having a single janitorial contract in 1986 to running corporations with reported earnings in 2008 of over $120 million. Unemployment in the community is under 5%. It has a youth centre, a health clinic, and a new housing complex with a hundred homes rented to community members.

Prior to the development of diamond mines in the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho First Nation had small, local businesses in traditional pursuits. Today, it has far more diversified economic activity ranging from retailing to multi-million dollar mining service companies.

There are many more examples of our government partnering with aboriginal communities on resource development projects through the aboriginal business development program. The Kitsaki mining limited partnership is a $3 million commercial mining extraction equipment project for use in the operations of the open-pit and underground La Ronge gold mine project of Golden Band Resources in Saskatchewan. Our government contributed $1.1 million to this project.

Just last week, the minister was in British Columbia to announce new regulations under the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act that would allow for the Kitimat LNG liquefied natural gas facility on the Haisla First Nation's Bees Indian Reserve No. 6 to move forward. This natural gas facility will provide Canada's energy producers with a doorway to overseas markets, in addition to creating well-paying skilled jobs and economic opportunities for the Haisla First Nation and the entire northwestern region of British Columbia.

These economic development projects obviously have economic spinoffs for all sectors of the Canadian economy, and especially for first nations communities. That is why it is important for Canada to do what is necessary to attract international investments in the provinces and territories. This includes regulatory reform north and south of the 60th parallel.

Regulatory processes that are simplified and clearly laid out will give businesses the confidence they need to take advantage of economic opportunities and maximize the use of the resource sector to create jobs for Canadians across Canada, including aboriginal peoples, while still protecting the environment.

In 2009, the government fundamentally changed the way it does business with aboriginal peoples. Instead of promoting economic development using an outdated, ad hoc approach that we had seen used by prior governments, we are focused on forging strategic partnerships with willing partners and developing innovative ways to overcome the traditional structural barriers to economic opportunity in aboriginal communities.

This includes growing private sector partnerships and investment; strengthening aboriginal entrepreneurship; having small business centres on reserves, including isolated and remote first nation communities; developing the aboriginal labour force through skills and trade investments in HRSDC; and enhancing the value of aboriginal assets.

Through this approach, our government is working with its partners to ensure that aboriginal peoples benefit from the same job, income and wealth creation opportunities as other Canadians.

On average, we have created or contributed over $45 million annually to support aboriginal business development, aboriginal participation in large-scale energy and resource development projects and improved access to capital for aboriginal business development opportunities.

We are also working with aboriginal peoples to remove the structural barriers that are holding them back from fully participating in the economy. For example, just this past month the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development announced that eight more first nations will soon be operating or developing their land codes under the First Nations Land Management Act. These eight first nations joined the 18 first nations that were added last January, bringing the total number of first nations benefiting from this regime to 69 first nation communities. This regime gives first nations freedom from the 34 land-related sections under the Indian Act, and provides them with greater autonomy by taking the minister out of the equation and giving them back control over their reserve lands and its resources. More specifically, first nations can now determine how they want to develop, protect, and use their own land on reserve.

The benefits of this regime are clear. First nations operating with their own land codes are successfully taking advantage of more and more economic development opportunities because they are able to operate at the speed of business. Imagine that.

For example, Whitecap Dakota First Nation in Saskatchewan has been operating under the First Nations Land Management Act since 2004. Since that time, over 700 jobs have been created in the community and currently generate approximately $90 million in revenue annually. It is incredible.

Last spring, Bill C-38 amended the FNLMA to enable first nations operating under the act to further unlock the economic development potential of their reserve lands. These amendments simplified the process of developing their own land codes, further removing the legislative barriers that were preventing or delaying first nations from taking full advantage of the benefits of assuming full responsibility for their lands under FNLMA.

More recently, as part of Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, our government introduced amendments to the land designation provisions of the Indian Act that will allow first nations to more quickly pursue economic development opportunities through leasing portions of the reserve land while retaining full ownership of their lands. These amendments respond to many first nations who have expressed frustration at the cumbersome and time-consuming process that existed previously and which had negatively impacted their ability to attract and retain investors at the speed of business.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation spread in the media and in the first nation communities as to what these amendments involve. I want to reiterate that these amendments have nothing to do with land surrender. They have to do with the leasing of land for economic development purposes through a decision-making process that takes place in first nation communities by their citizens and their government. It really is as simple as that.

Our government is working with our aboriginal partners as well as with the provincial and territorial governments and the private sector to increase aboriginal participation in key sectors of the Canadian economy.

For example, in 2010, we launched the strategic partnerships initiative, which helps aboriginal Canadians take advantage of complex, market-driven opportunities for resource development, particularly in priority economic sectors such as forestry, fisheries, mining, energy and agriculture.

To this day the initiative has supported more than 60 aboriginal communities and some of the largest resource development opportunities across Canada, including the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario and the Lower Churchill energy project in Atlantic Canada.

However, we are not only focused on resource projects south of 60. We also know that Canada's north is home to world-class natural resources, representing tremendous economic potential.

During his trip to the north this past August, the Prime Minister stated that our government is committed to ensuring that northerners benefit from the tremendous reserves of natural resource found in their region. For the benefits to flow, it is necessary to get resource projects up and running in an effective, responsible and sustainable way, to put agreements in place with territorial governments and first nations to ensure that revenues generated by these initiatives are to their direct benefit and stay where they belong, up in the north.

To this end, our government has taken significant steps to reduce red tape and streamline regulatory requirements in the north. We introduced Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, in the House of Commons on November 6, 2012. This bill is currently before committee and if passed into law will increase certainty and help create a better climate for private sector investment and development across the territories. The bill includes the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act. It also includes amendments related to the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.

These measures fulfill outstanding legislative obligations under the Nunavut land claim agreement, as well as the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claim agreements. They also respond to calls from aboriginal groups, government and the private sector for improvements to regulatory processes in the north.

Improving the regulatory regimes for the abundant natural resources in the north could help Canada prosper and could create billions of jobs for decades. The meaningful action we are taking in the Northern Jobs and Growth Act will help release this potential.

Our government will continue to develop Canada's abundant natural resources to benefit Canadians, including aboriginal peoples. We have a vision of a future in which the aboriginal peoples are autonomous and prosperous, manage their own activities and make a significant contribution to the well-being of the entire country.

Our government continues to take concrete steps to build the conditions necessary for aboriginal communities to participate more fully in Canada's economy.

In closing, we remain committed to working with willing partners to improve the long-term prosperity, health and sustainability of aboriginal people, their communities and all Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary's speech, and I have two questions.

The first one is that, after the January 11 Crown-first nations meeting, the Assembly of First Nations issued a press release that indicated it did not want to be drawn into a programatic discussion and did not want to waste time going over rhetorical ground or listening to a number of statements from the minister, but what it really wanted was to see a fundamental change in the machinery of government including direct political oversight. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could indicate when that dedicated cabinet committee with the secretariat from the Privy Council would be put in place.

Second, will the Conservatives be supporting our NDP motion?

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, the general consensus from all stakeholders and participants in the important meeting that we held during the winter break was it was a productive, collegial, cordial discussion that lays out the path moving forward for partnerships. Obviously there are a couple of meetings that will take place. We know that within the Assembly of First Nations and first nations leadership across the country they are working through a process that will ensure they are clear on their objectives moving forward, what their inputs are like to the extent that this process is going to move forward, and we are doing the same thing.

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. First nation people and Inuit face serious health challenges such as high rates of chronic and infectious diseases and a shorter life expectancy than other Canadians. Some 15% of new HIV and AIDS infections occur in aboriginal people. Compared to the general Canadian population, heart disease is 1.5 times higher. Type 2 diabetes is three to five times higher. Tuberculosis infection rates are 8 to 10 times higher and 185 times higher in Inuit populations. Suicide rates are 11 times higher in Inuit populations and among the highest in the world.

How can we accept this in Canada?

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiasm of the member. It bears noting that I spent a great deal of my career through the nineties as a nurse living and working in isolated first nation communities where these statistics were unfortunately put together.

The reality is that healthy and sustainable first nation communities depend on being fully integrated in economic development in their respective regions. That is a key determinant. There are health facilities working and great nurses in the extended role offering myriad different programs, a full partnership with health authorities that are transitioning and identifying their priorities in key areas. The Minister of Health, who comes from the north, has done a great job in this regard and we are going to stay on that track, working with willing partners and improving the health and sustainability of first nation communities moving forward.

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to acknowledge the hard work the parliamentary secretary, the member for Kenora, has done. I really appreciate his personal commitment to making the lives of aboriginals better.

My question is in regard to the streamlined designations in the provisions of the Indian Act. Could the member please explain the importance of land designations to us tonight?

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, of course, lands designations allow first nations to collect property tax, lease land to third-party businesses and develop their mineral and oil and gas resources.

Some of the most successful first nations in Canada, such as the Osoyoos Indian Band and the Tk’emlups Indian Band, could not have achieved their success without designating their lands. Oil and gas-producing first nations collectively generated more than $1 billion in royalties over the last five years.

The recent amendments to lands designation will make it easier for communities interested in pursuing these kinds of commercial and industrial economic development opportunities.

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend's comments and his speech. He was asked a direct question by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan just recently. I wonder if he can answer it.

The opposition day motion the New Democrats put forward:

calls 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.

It sounds exactly like the hon. member's speech.

Our motion says to improve the lot of first nations and to follow the law. Our motion says many of the things the hon. member said in his speech.

The question is simple: Will the hon. member support the New Democrats' motion on first nations and their economic and social success in this country?

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government is very pleased with the trajectory we are on in working with willing partners. Like economic action plan 2012, in 2013 we will be focused on jobs and opportunities for all Canadians, which includes first nations and their communities.

Obviously the protection of aboriginal treaty rights and consultations with aboriginals are recognized in our constitution, in statute. While the declaration is not legally binding, of course Canada endorsed the aspirational document as a significant step forward in strengthening relationships with aboriginal peoples.

We have made unprecedented investments into things that will make a concrete difference in people's lives. Every single time, on the issue of whether they support something or not, the NDP members vote against it.