Debates of April 19th, 2013

Opposition Motion--First Nations, Métis and Inuit

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

moved:

That this House call on the government to: (a) abandon its confrontational approach to First Nations, Métis and Inuit in favour of a nation-to-nation dialogue; (b) make treaty implementation, as well as the settlement and implementation of land claims, a priority, including in Labrador; and (c) begin negotiations in good faith with NunatuKavut Community Council on their comprehensive land claim that has been without a response since 1991.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Democrats on this important motion before the House. I will be sharing my time with the member for Manicouagan.

New Democrats have put forward this motion today because of what we have been seeing over the last many years, actually for decades, particularly under the current government, which is that first nations, Metis, and Inuit continue to have their rights overridden by the government in any number of ways.

We have seen unilateral impositions of legislation, evidenced most recently by the fact that debate was once against shut down on Bill S-2, matrimonial real property rights. For the 31st time, the government has invoked time allocation.

One of the reasons we are bringing this forward is the context in which we are operating, but I want to put it in the context of some international documents. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 10 says:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

That seems a very appropriate section of the UN declaration when we are talking about land claims. Treaties, comprehensive land claims, self-government agreements are now part of the Canadian landscape, and unfortunately, from coast to coast to coast, we have far too many examples where the government has simply refused to move forward in negotiating in good faith.

In case Canadians think that this is something new that the government should have some responsibility to take part in, I want to refer to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples where it refers to the 1763 Proclamation. The proclamation portrays aboriginal nations as autonomous political units. It goes on to say that aboriginal nations hold inherent authority over their internal affairs and the power to deal with the Crown by way of treaty and agreement. It also says that land concession is thus to be effected by mutual agreement or treaty.

One would think that a document from 1763 would actually continue to help shape and inform government policy, but sadly, in this country, nations have been forced to the courts to try to get the government to come to the table in good faith. We have any number of court decisions that continue to reaffirm indigenous rights and title. I cannot go through them all, because apparently there are about 180 of them, but there are some very key ones.

In the Calder decision in 1973, this was the first time that courts acknowledged that aboriginal title to the land had existed, and that this significant case would pave the way for addressing aboriginal title in Canada.

In Guerin, 1984, it established that aboriginal title was a sui generis right and the Crown had a fiduciary duty to protect it for aboriginal peoples.

In Van der Peet, 1996, there was established a set of criteria to determine whether an aboriginal right was protected as an existing aboriginal right under the Canadian Constitution, and just recently we had the Daniels decision that said all aboriginal peoples in Canada, including Metis and non-status Indians, are included in federal jurisdiction under 91(24) of the Constitution.

We have also had some provincial court decisions that continue to reaffirm rights and title and the duty to consult. We had the decision in December 12, 2007, where the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal delivered its decision in Newfoundland and Labrador v. the Labrador Metis Nation, and the Labrador Metis Nation is now known as NunatuKavut.

This was a unanimous decision and the court upheld that the province has a duty to consult the respondents in respect of their asserted aboriginal rights.

Why is this important? We have first peoples in this country who have been here for millennia. They are the people who lived on this land when the settlers came. I will talk a little bit about who the people of NunatuKavut are. NunatuKavut, from their website, says:

Our Aboriginal ancestors lived in Labrador long before Europeans set foot on North American soil. The land was part of them, and they were part of the land.

For Canadians who are listening, these communities line the southern coastal interior waterways of Labrador. They go on to say:

We are the more than 6,000 southern Inuit of Labrador. We are proud of who we are and what we've accomplished. Our rights are protected and enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. No one can take them from us. Our traditions resonate with the ways of our elders. Our respect for the environment, the sharing of our harvest, our knowledge of traditional medicines and practices, and our care for each other can be traced directly to our Aboriginal heritage.

It is very important that what we have here is, from coast to coast to coast, government refusal to respect the honour of the Crown and its judiciary responsibilities, and to respect Section 35 of the Constitution, which protects aboriginal rights and title. This series of court decisions continues to reinforce that duty for Canada to come to the table and negotiate in good faith.

Here is the reality. From coast to coast to coast, aboriginal peoples are being forced to take action to enforce their rights and title as the government refuses to negotiate or honour its duty to consult and accommodate.

On the east coast, we have seen hunger strikes, blockades, and arrests. The NunatuKavut submitted a land claim for consideration back in 1991. To date, this claim has not been accepted for negotiation. I would like to say that this is an isolated case. However, again, what we see from coast to coast to coast is that there are nations that have been in negotiations with the government for decades. The government simply refuses to act in good faith.

I had one elder who said to me that 70 years ago, when he was only nine years old, he sat at the knee of his grandfather. Here we are, 70 years later and his nation still does not have a treaty or a comprehensive land claim. It is shameful that we continue to have to have this conversation when we have such deep roots in our Constitution, in court decisions, in the royal proclamation that say that rights and title were reaffirmed and that the government does have a responsibility to protect and to negotiate.

We do not only have the NunatuKavut, who submitted their land claim in 1991. We heard just yesterday that the Innu will be shutting down Muskrat Falls because of the fact that racism continues in this country and their rights and title are not being recognized. Meanwhile, development continues and the NunatuKavummiut are watching it happen. They have not been consulted and accommodated. As I mentioned earlier, these are people with a very long history in what is now known as Labrador.

On the east coast, we have had this situation since 1991 where the government refuses to go ahead and negotiate the claim that was submitted in good faith by the NunatuKavummiut. On the west coast, we also have the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group being forced to take its case to the human rights commission of the Organization of American States. We have domestic court decisions that continue to reaffirm rights and title, but now we also have to go internationally because we cannot get the government to the table.

The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group has a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concerning the 1884 expropriation of over 237 hectares of resource-rich land from the traditional territories of the Hul'qumi'num peoples on Vancouver Island. The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group alleges that Canada has violated international human rights norms by refusing to negotiate for any form of redress for the expropriated lands, which are now mostly in the hands of large forestry companies, and by failing to protect Hul'qumi'num interests while the dispute remains unresolved. They go on to say that in agreeing to hear the complaint, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled that the available mechanisms to resolve this dispute in Canada, whether through the negotiation or the B.C. treaty process, are too onerous and too constrained in their protection of human rights to live up to the standards of international justice.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come from the Grand Council of the Crees said:

Fair and timely resolution of land and resource disputes is essential for reconciliation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada and for closing the unacceptable gap in standard of living facing so many Indigenous communities.

We can see that indigenous peoples in Canada are being failed consistently by the government, despite the fact that we have numerous court decisions that reaffirm the right to their lands and their right to the sharing of resources that are being developed on these lands.

I encourage all members to support this very important motion.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Nunavut is now 20 years old. The land claims agreement in Nunavut was signed by Prime Minister Mulroney. We will be celebrating our 20-year anniversary this year.

The challenge that we had for 13 years under the Liberal government was a lack of implementation from the government of the day, but now we are proceeding. I am quite proud of the record of our government in proceeding in creating the Nunavut Territory and implementing our land claims agreements.

I want to ask the member a question around the rights of first nations aboriginal people and Inuit that goes beyond land claims agreements.

Aboriginal women in this country continue to fight for equal rights that the member takes for granted. Yesterday, the Minister for Status of Women was responding to a question on the matrimonial rights of aboriginal people in that they be equal to other Canadian women. I want to know why the NDP and the Liberal Party do not recognize the fact that aboriginal women do not have the same rights when it comes to matrimonial rights and why the member continues to oppose that. What are they afraid of?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Health for that question. However, I would like to point out to her that the land claims agreement was signed in Nunavut, but now NTI and the Government of Nunavut have been forced into the courts around the implementation because the current and previous governments have dragged their feet on treaty implementation on land claims and self-government. If the Conservatives want to talk about working in good faith, perhaps they would like to withdraw their opposition to that court decision and actually begin negotiating appropriate implementation in Nunavut.

With regard to matrimonial real property, perhaps the minister did not hear the part of my speech about rights. We have had several court decisions in this country that reaffirmed the duty to consult. The previous minister, Mr. Prentice, hired a ministerial representative, Wendy Grant-John, a well-respected indigenous woman in Canada. She came out with a very detailed report which set out guidelines for consultation. The Conservative government ignored it.

Now we have a piece of legislation that does not reflect what indigenous women have said from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, I would suggest to the minister that perhaps she could use her influence and prevail upon cabinet to withdraw this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the history of the treaties, the idea of the honour of the Crown was central to the treaties in terms of oral commitments and what was written down. Obviously what was written down did not reflect in any way the oral commitments that were made to communities. It was, in fact, an attempt to take land.

We see this notion of the honour of the Crown being abused again and again, and recently with the court case in Attawapiskat on the third-party manager. The government came in and said that their whole defence rested on the fact that it was the honour of the Crown when the judge asked. It was a case where they had no right to intervene, but they imposed a third-party manager. The notion of the honour of the Crown was laughable given the systemic abuse and the breaking of trust with first nations.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the importance of restoring honour in the Crown in terms of when we negotiate, when we make commitments, that we do not walk away from them so that communities actually have a chance to start building a future in the 21st century.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for that question and for the excellent work he has done over the years on any number of indigenous issues, including housing and education.

The relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples in Canada is fundamentally broken because the Crown does not respect the rights and titles of first nations, Inuit, and Metis in this country. We have case after case, and the most recent is the Daniels decision which reaffirmed, under section 91(24) of the Constitution, that the government, the Crown, must be at the table and respect the rights of, in that case, Metis and non-status Indians. Status Inuit are already recognized in the Constitution.

If we want to see progress in this country, a reduction in poverty, economic development, and certainty, we need to re-infuse that relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples in this country with the honour of the Crown, with that notion of the duty to consult and accommodate, and with the notion that the government has a fiduciary responsibility. This is an opportunity for us to change the channel.

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

Mr. Speaker, taking into account the scope and familiar nature of the motion before the House, it is my duty to support the explicit and underlying concepts it contains.

As a result, in my speech today, I will provide some perspective on the realities addressed by the motion by focusing on the confrontational approach that characterizes the modern relationship between the Canadian government and aboriginal people across the country. I would like to read from the motion before us, which states:

That this House call on the government to: (a) abandon its confrontational approach to First Nations, Métis and Inuit in favour of a nation-to-nation dialogue...

First, I will talk about the confrontational approach. At the risk of repeating myself, over the Christmas break, when I was deeply inspired by the Idle No More movement, I was asked to prepare a course and to travel throughout Canada and the United States. I had to do a detour through the United States to get to certain parts of Quebec. In short, I travelled to many aboriginal communities across the country to give a course on the modernization and amendment of the Indian Act, which is related to bills such as Bill C-27, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45.

In the course introduction, I made a point of indicating that the comments made by a number of ministers and stakeholders suggest that they see the affirmation of the identity of first nations in Canada as a barrier to economic expansion. This view is shared by many other stakeholders and is due, in part, to various speeches made in the House. Some ministers and others have been quoted on this issue.

If we look closer, it is true that there is some correlation between the assertive measures that have been taken by aboriginal communities across Canada in affirmation of their identity and the dramatic drop in the stock market value of some corporate entities.

One might assume that this is a fairly simple relationship when, in reality, it is very complex. If there has been a dramatic drop in the stock value, it is because the entity in question was lax and failed to shoulder its corporate social responsibility. That is why this affirmation of identity is undermining the stock market value of these entities. In a way, this premise is flawed because it is not the affirmation of aboriginal identity itself that is creating a barrier to economic expansion; rather, it is the lack of transparency and the financial wrongdoing observed in remote areas.

Successive Canadian governments and all of the other parties have tried over the years to put Indians in a box, if I may say so. In other words, they have tried to restrict the jurisdiction, the affirmation of identity, the social, cultural and economic affirmation of first nations, in order to give economic entities more peace of mind. This government has been even more obvious about it than its predecessors and is moving forward with a corporatist agenda, primarily promoting natural resources extraction as an economic engine and key component of economic development across the country.

I simply wanted to point that out. I should technically be talking about how shocked nationalists are in Quebec right now, because they are also dealing with a conflict situation that can lead to confrontation. However, that is a different story, and I will discuss the situation with the appropriate stakeholders in due course. There you go.

This situation reveals the selective and preferential nature of the relationships between aboriginal communities and the Canadian government in 2013. The motion before us refers to a comprehensive land claim that has not been addressed since 1991, and it is not the only one. I will give some concrete examples in a few seconds. Unfortunately, this lack of dialogue between stakeholders is a reflection of the reality of a number of contentious aboriginal cases across the country.

Successive governments, and this government in particular, could be criticized for cherry-picking. In other words, the Conservatives are choosing which stakeholders they want to talk to. In some respects, although this situation is not so widespread, I find it problematic enough to bring it to the attention of the House.

There are some community management organizations and band councils that are essentially puppet governments. The Conservatives hand-picked, cherry-picked some pawns. These people were put in place in strategic communities to speak out in favour of proposed policies. This is not necessarily widespread, but it is common enough that I wanted to mention it today.

The government is trying to interfere in tribal politics. It chooses representatives. That is why some communities have really spoken out. They have such strong social, economic and cultural foundations that federal transfers and support seem marginal. These people are more autonomous.

Strangely enough, as in the case of the situation that has been going on since 1991, the current government will simply choose to ignore remote communities because they are too strong and they have developed energy policies that the government is unhappy with.

What this government wants are good, servile, submissive, accommodating and easily manipulated Indians. It is as though the government is a puppeteer making its marionettes dance.

I say this because in recent years, I have found that I often end up out on the sidewalk, strangely enough, during big community meetings.

I would like to share an example that I will continue to come back to until the end of my term. A supposedly historic meeting was held in January 2012. A number of community representatives were invited. However, the invitation was not extended to all communities, even though the government claimed to be inclusive. The government wanted to develop a new relationship with first nations peoples. I was personally escorted by intelligence officers. I was essentially kicked to the curb. As I was on the sidewalk, I realized that I was in good company. There were other representatives from several nations who were deemed unwelcome.

So much for the inclusive aspect of this new relationship.

I think that is quite deplorable. Things like that should not be happening in 2013.

Cherry-picking and choosing pawns and representatives for community management organizations is highly objectionable. That is why, in 2013, the Conservatives are seeing a huge amount of opposition from the first nations. That is also why their economic development plan has stalled and is really struggling.

Our international reputation is plummeting, just like the stock market value of some companies that are ignoring their social, environmental and other responsibilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Manicouagan for that very good speech and for his very committed work. I know that he has been doing great work raising awareness on a number of pieces of legislation, including the omnibus bill, Bill C-45, and Bill C-27, the financial transparency and accountability act, which the Conservatives have pushed through.

When it comes to NunatuKavut and other nations across the country, one of the things we observe is that while the comprehensive land claims and treaty or self-government agreements are stalled in negotiations, or not even accepted for negotiation, development is taking place on the traditional territories, whether it be forestry or mining. The people who have inhabited those lands for millennia are not benefiting from that development or are having no say when it comes to the environmental impact.

The Fort Chipewyan First Nations in Alberta are very concerned about the environmental impact on their communities. On the west coast, we have forestry. In Ontario, there is the Ring of Fire.

I wonder if the member could comment specifically on why it is important to move forward on negotiating these comprehensive land claims and treaty and self-government agreements so that the people who live in those territories have a say about the kind of development that is happening.

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

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

Now, again this is just my opinion, but I think the problem is that the consent of first nations is seen as a sort of stamp or seal or approval. In other words, people think if aboriginal populations are with them, they can go ahead. This is very problematic. All too often, when resource extraction initiatives are presented to a community, they are already a done deal—that is, all the actors in place have already made a deal and the last people to hear about the ready-made package are aboriginal communities. This is also truly reprehensible because the relationship is a utilitarian one that does not benefit the entire population.

That is why there is no impact, no redistribution. This is not to mention the fact that the concept of building up capital, of pooling resources within communities, is not necessarily stressed. Furthermore, no training is provided to the communities that technically should benefit from these resource extraction initiatives, but do not necessarily have the workforce, knowledge and expertise required to maximize these own-source revenues.

Now, it is also important to understand that the Canadian government—with the fiduciary relationship that is its responsibility—has a duty to ensure that first nations communities are in the best possible position to get the most out of these initiatives. However, that willingness is just not there. Native poverty is a lucrative business. Outside experts make a fortune by keeping first nations at the same level of knowledge and at the same social and cultural level. This is not true for all communities, but it is for some, especially the more isolated communities. I am thinking of my own reality at the 52nd parallel. People are getting richer by keeping these communities at a certain level.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have such great respect for my hon. colleague. I would like to ask him about the issue of treaty implementation.

I would like to ask the member about Bill C-45 and the anger and the response at the grassroots level to the government's decision to slash environmental protection of the rivers and lakes across their territory. The government treats first nations' lands as though they are some kind of colonial land. It can take it and do what it wants without consulting the people involved, damaging the rights of future generations. What is the response we are seeing across first nations communities in standing up and defending their right to be consulted and heard. It still remains land they have rights to, whether under treaty or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, they are going back and forth, arguing about what exactly consultations should entail. It is a hot topic, and one that is discussed daily in my practice.

I feel that consultation, by necessity, involves consideration of all the opinions expressed by various stakeholders. It also involves obtaining the consent of the people in general and not just the nine band council members. Again, I am talking about my own personal situation.

Even if the government meets with a few community leaders, sometimes none at all, it does not mean that everyone has been consulted. Aboriginal rights are to be exercised, first and foremost, by the members. My own community is made up of 3,000 people, not just nine leaders. If we really want to see improvements, we need to focus on the grassroots and talk to the people. However—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I must interrupt the hon. member because his time is up.

Resuming debate. The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

To begin, I would like to reiterate our government's commitment to working with all of our partners. I truly believe that the best way to achieve our common goal of creating healthy, prosperous and self-sufficient aboriginal communities is by working together.

That is why, since I was appointed Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, my priority has been to meet as many aboriginal leaders, youth and community members as possible. I have met with aboriginal leaders, I have organized round tables with aboriginal youth, and I have participated in events across the country. Naturally, I intend to continue to do so.

One common refrain that I have heard across the country while visiting aboriginal communities, leaders, stakeholders, and youth is that aboriginal people want greater access to education and economic opportunities. These calls are being answered by this government's initiatives. For example, over the last several years, our government has taken concrete steps to address specific issues, such as education, economic development, and access to safe drinking water.

In recent years we have negotiated and implemented initiatives in collaboration with first nations, provinces and aboriginal organizations. These initiatives have led to progress in a number of areas to address the barriers to social and economic participation, which unfortunately are currently faced by so many first nation people.

In the last week alone, we have signed an historic memorandum of understanding on first nation education with the Province of Ontario and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation that is focused on building capacity and attaining achievement levels comparable to the general student population in Ontario.

In British Columbia, we have also signed the first Yale First Nation final agreement, bringing us one step closer toward achieving a treaty for Yale First Nation that would provide certainty about ownership of lands but also create other new economic opportunities for that community.

I was in British Columbia last week, where I met the first nation leadership, and I have committed, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to working with first nations and first nation partners on the renewal of the comprehensive claims policy, in order to expedite the resolution of claims in a manner that is fair and would enable economic development for first nations.

Our strategy has been to focus on finding real solutions to specific obstacles, working together with first nations, Inuit and Metis peoples. This steady step-by-step approach to reform is practical, realistic and effective. It is part of a larger strategy that would include targeted investments and partnerships, announcements to programs, and legislative initiatives. This strategy would also include immediate and collaborative action on treaty implementation and governance.

It is easy to get tired of lofty rhetoric and cumbersome processes. We want results that make a real difference while progress is being made. When we look over the situation everywhere in the country, we know and we acknowledge that there is much more work to be done and that it requires commitment and co-operation on all sides.

For example, when I met with first nations leaders last week to discuss improvements to Canada's comprehensive claims policy, we shared our concerns about the pace at which claims are being settled.

The fact is that a comprehensive claims policy has not been updated since 1993. Our government's commitment to renewing the policy will be done to better reflect the current landscape. Things have changed in 20 years.

We must take into account legal developments, the practical experience of first nations and the Government of Canada in reaching agreements, as well as other approaches to addressing aboriginal rights.

I committed to working with first nation partners, with the support of the Assembly of First Nations, on the renewal of the comprehensive claims policy to expedite the resolution of claims in a manner that is fair and enables economic development for first nations.

We all agreed that the Senior Oversight Committee the Prime Minister formed earlier this year will oversee progress on this work and will provide advice to the government on a renewed policy.

The negotiation policies must advance certainty, expeditious resolution and self-sufficiency, as the Prime Minister committed to early last year in the Crown—first nations gathering outcome statement.

Our government is committed to continue working with aboriginal partners across the country to achieve results at negotiation tables for the benefit of first nations and all Canadians. We believe the best way to achieve progress on outstanding issues is through joint work and dialogue. Successful negotiations lead to solutions that balance the rights of all concerned, promote greater self-sufficiency, certainty, accountability and transparency, and lead to economic opportunities for aboriginal communities, thus achieving this great objective of reconciliation.

However, partnership is the key word. The successful implementation of land claim and self-government agreements is the shared responsibility with all parties to the treaty. Our government remains committed to working with our treaty partners to strengthen implementation processes and promote the objectives of modern treaties. In fact, our government has listened and developed tools and structures to support a consistent federal approach to implementing modern treaties.

As a matter of fact, this morning I was with senior officials of my department reviewing the efforts that are being made to ensure a consistent federal approach to implementing modern treaties. I wish to note that these efforts have been recognized. The Office of the Auditor General, in June 2011, noted Canada's progress in monitoring and reporting treaty obligations, the federal coordination of treaty responsibilities and the whole of government's awareness of treaty obligations.

At last year's historic Crown-first nations gathering, we reiterated our commitment to renewing and deepening the relationship with our first nations partners through ongoing dialogue and making real measurable progress to achieve our shared goal of healthier, more self-sufficient first nations communities.

Canada and many first nations have differences of opinion on historic treaties, their content and their implementation, and those differences will not be settled overnight. However, we are doing everything we can to settle those differences together with our partners in a way that benefits everyone.

In September 2012, our government announced plans to work with its partners on a new approach to treaty and self-government negotiations in regions of Canada where no treaty exists. The current process allows negotiations to carry on for years, with no foreseeable end, creating financial liabilities for aboriginal communities and impeding economic development.

We are promoting—and I think the provinces, aboriginal groups and the private sector share this sentiment—a more efficient process in order to expedite treaty and self-government negotiations. Through this new process we are focusing our energies and resources on those negotiating tables with the greatest potential for success. This is a results-based method, not a process-driven one.

We will work with aboriginal groups and the provinces and territories to implement this new approach. At the same time, we are always prepared to negotiate with willing partners in order to obtain agreements that reflect the particular interests, as I mentioned earlier, most definitely of the First Nations, but also of all other Canadians. In fact, these agreements have significant benefits. I would like to give a few examples.

In northern Quebec, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement have resulted in the creation of businesses owned by the Inuit, Cree and Naskapi, and businesses jointly owned with the private sector in such sectors as airlines, construction, clothing, communications, software, mining, shipping, tourism, crafts, fishing and the biosciences.

In the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho First Nation has established entities to undertake economic activities in its region and to negotiate agreements that will benefit its people and their communities. In British Columbia, the Westbank First Nation, for example, is successfully developing its land, which in turn provides support for essential programs.

As members can see, the benefits of settling comprehensive claims are immense, and we need more such agreements.

The time for action is now, as I said this week in the House. Negotiated agreements help to strengthen aboriginal communities and create new business, new investment and new job opportunities. We are working with our partners to achieve more treaties in less time so that these communities can begin to unlock economic opportunities and see results. Increasing aboriginal participation in the economy is without doubt the most effective way to improve the socio-economic conditions of aboriginal people in Canada. It is also vital to Canada's future economic prosperity. Resolving treaties quickly is one more way this will come to pass.

I want the record to be clear: it was our government that introduced legislation to streamline and improve the process for resolving specific claims, so to the prophets of doom and gloom on the other side who see nothing but darkness in their aspirations, it seems to me, in regard to these issues, I refer to that process for resolving specific claims.

In the past—and all interested Canadians were witness to this—claims dragged on for many years, but the reform this government has brought forward has changed the situation and brought about real progress.

I am proud of how our government has tackled this important issue. We have come a long way from the state we were in when we first came to government after 13 years of Liberal rule. We have since cleared up a backlog of 541 claims at the assessment stage, doubling the number of claims in negotiations across the country, and we have settled over 93 specific claims since coming to government.

As a matter of fact, in my home riding of Madawaska—Restigouche we have settled a specific claim of the Madawaska Maliseet First Nation. That settlement has brought about a real change in that community because of the leadership of the chief and council and also because of the active participation of the members of that community.

Claim settlements lead to new opportunities for communities and to economic development that brings long-term benefits not only to first nations members but to Canada as a whole. These investments in turn can generate spinoff economic benefits and the potential for new business partnerships with neighbouring communities, and that is a plus for all of Canada.

Progress on specific claims is just one more way our government has demonstrated its commitment to making progress in accelerating claim resolution and treaty implementation. I have said this before and I will repeat it now: through willing partnerships, negotiations will run more smoothly, leading to more negotiated treaties and self-government agreements. We are taking action and seeing results.

Furthermore, at their latest meeting on January 11, the government and the chiefs of the First Nations expressed their will to continue the conversation about accelerating comprehensive claims and treaty implementation.

The government has heard the appeals from people across the country, who are calling on us to take the steps needed to make progress on both historical and modern treaties. That is exactly what we are doing.

I will close by saying that it is clear that the government's intent and actions are the opposite of what the opposition motion is claiming. For that reason, we are determined to strongly oppose the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the minister's presentation, and there were some key words and phrases that I pulled out of his presentation. One was “certainty”. One was “joint work and dialogue”. He repeated “partnership” a number of times. I have two questions for the minister.

First, given that context, will he now review the NunatuKavut comprehensive land claim that was submitted in 1991, and begin a negotiation in good faith?

Second, the government currently spends over $300 million a year fighting aboriginal cases in court. Will the minister instruct his department to drop that adversarial approach and negotiate in good faith?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, surely with her experience and her knowledge about comprehensive claims, the hon. member should know that there is a legal test to be met for claims to be negotiated. We know that the NunatuKavut community council's comprehensive claim was been presented in 1991-1992. At the first stage, the ruling and the advice of the Department of Justice, which it asks that we follow all the time, revealed that it did not meet the legal test necessary for these claims to be negotiated.

The government agreed to give the opportunity to the group in question to bring further evidence. We have co-operated with the group to provide us with other information, other historical evidence, and this is according to a process agreed to between the parties that is taking place as we speak. That evidence is being reviewed, and when we are ready to make a decision and on the advice of the justice department, we will.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on several occasions, the minister referred to the socio-economic conditions of many of our first nations and Metis communities, and there is absolutely no doubt that this is a critical issue in delivering justice to them. We have to improve that whole condition.

When we listen to what the government members are saying, we have to ask this question: if the government was doing such a good job, why did we see the Idle No More movement surface across this country, with individuals so concerned about the socio-economic conditions that they were pleading with the government to do something to address the issue?

Maybe I could put a very simple question to the member, which is for him to reflect on why, from his personal opinion, one of the first things the Conservatives did when they took office was cancel the Kelowna accord. That accord delivered billions of dollars. It had all sorts of agreement from first nations from coast to coast to coast. They came to an agreement on something they felt was fundamental in dealing with that socio-economic condition, something that the minister talks so much about wanting to address, so why did the Conservatives kill that accord?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting in this House about 20 years ago, and I see that the Liberals have not changed.

If we want to attribute blame for the current state of first nations in Canada, the Liberals had that claim to office for life and forever. They were in office a long time. It is funny that during all of those years that the Liberals were in office, it was always about throwing money at the problem, and we see the results we have today.

The very socio-economic conditions the member deplores today are not as a result of not having thrown money at the problem, but as a result of not having addressed the real issues, the barriers. That is what we are doing in an incremental and positive way, and we will continue to do so. We will not throw money at the problem; instead, we will solve the problem.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for his thoughtful speech on an important topic.

The Liberal and NDP opposition members have been opposing the rights of aboriginal women and children. Just this week they voted against first nations matrimonial real property legislation that would protect the rights of aboriginal women, particularly in cases of family violence.

Would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please comment on that situation?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. With all members of the House, I was a witness to the NDP and the Liberals trying to sidestep the issue, to duck the issue, to evade the issue of the fundamental rights that aboriginal families—women, men and children—living on reserve do not have.

The opposition members still oppose giving those rights to first nation families. I hope that because of the good majority that Canadians gave us in 2011, we can re-establish equity and justice in this country for those people.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will be four minutes left for questions and comments on the minister's speech after routine proceedings.

Freedom and Democracy

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the face of the tyranny of terrorism, Boston goes into lockdown as we speak. We offer the people of Boston our prayers and good will.

I invite members to join with the U.S. ambassador, Running Room manager Phil Marsh and me on Monday at 1 p.m. to march together to the U.S. embassy to show that we stand with Bostonians and Americans in this difficult time.

As Canadians, we stand for democracy wherever we find it. Last week I had occasion to visit Taiwan with a delegation of fellow members. A little of engine of democracy, Taiwan has seen six straight free presidential elections since lifting martial law in 1987.

Moreover, its vibrant, colourful and democratic legislature has just rejuvenated its Taiwan-Canada friendship group. Fully 43 of its 113 legislators have already joined the group to engage Canadian parliamentarians in a joint promotion of democratic values and the expansion of the healthy relations that exist between the peoples of Taiwan and Canada.

Together we salute those who promote freedom and democracy, whether in Boston, Taiwan or elsewhere.

Canada Summer Jobs Program

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this year, about 100 organizations from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie have applied to the Canada summer jobs program run by Service Canada.

Students hired through this program work as counsellors at summer camps, recreation workers in seniors' residences, and so on.

They gain valuable experience that will help them later as they enter the labour market. Let us remember that youth unemployment is at 14% in Quebec.

The Canada summer jobs program is also helping organizations improve the services they provide to communities, often at little cost. Unfortunately, the budget earmarked for the program is not sufficient and it has not been increased since 2009. Once again, in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie this year, only one-fifth of people's needs will be met.

We condemn the fact that the Canada summer jobs program is underfunded. That is unacceptable. Grants available for community organizations are disappearing left, right and centre. Those organizations are invaluable to our society and they are struggling.

Once again, the most vulnerable segments of the population are the ones being affected by the Conservatives' cuts.

Korean Dance Studies Society

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Korean community is a vital part of the cultural fabric of my constituency of Don Valley East.

For this reason, it was a great pleasure to announce, earlier this year, that the Canada arts training fund was providing $60,000 of funding over two years to the Korean Dance Studies Society. Throughout the years, the training program of the Korean Dance Studies Society of Canada has allowed many young talents to fulfill their dream of having a professional career in dance.

The Canada arts training fund provides financial assistance to artistic institutions deemed to be at the highest level of excellence. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages stated, this is evidence that this government is serious about supporting organizations that enrich our community's cultural life, as well as strengths its economy.

I am proud to have received the thanks of the artistic director, Mi Young Kim, for the government's support of this organization and others that unite all Canadian cultures through the art and practice of dance.

Valérie Carpentier

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday at a very exciting singing competition, Valérie Carpentier, a young woman from Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, showed everyone just how talented she is.

In fact, the young artist won the televised singing competition, La Voix. Not only does this young singer have a beautiful voice, but she also has a sensitivity and maturity beyond her years.

I am pleased to recognize the talent of an artist such as Valérie Carpentier, who is an example of Quebec's vitality and cultural wealth. I would like to join the people of Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, a municipality in my riding, in congratulating Valérie on her achievement, which is a credit to the entire community.

While I am on the subject of Valérie Carpentier's big win, I would also like to take the opportunity to recognize all of the singers and songwriters in Canada. Well done.

Victory Walk

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from May 14 to 23, former NHL all-star Theo Fleury will be walking from Toronto to Parliament Hill in Ottawa as part of the Victor Walk. The goal of the Victor Walk is to ask for greater victim support for children who have been sexually abused and for tougher penalties for those offenders.

This is a very difficult topic to talk about, so we must commend the courage of former victims like Theo Fleury who have become advocates to prevent the sexual abuse of children.

Our government and our Minister of Justice have worked with advocates like Theo Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy in the past and we have made necessary changes to the Criminal Code to better protect our Canadian children.

I ask members of the House to support Victor Walks in their community and to listen to Mr. Fleury and his thousands of supports when he arrives at noon on May 23.

Employment

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is assumed that if people live in Toronto, they have it made, that they are on easy street. Indeed, we have made a national pastime out of trash-talking Toronto.

However, a recent report by the United Way shows that almost half of all workers in Toronto do not have stable full-time jobs. Many live in Davenport. They are cab drivers, bartenders, office cleaners, web designers, carpenters, consultants, musicians and professors. They are also workers who thought they had been hired full time, only to find that the company had classified them as self-employed or part time. These urban workers have no benefits, no pension, no job security and are of no interest to the government.

The reality of work is rapidly changing, but the Conservatives ignore half the workers in the biggest city in the country. We need measures that will make a real difference in the lives of urban workers, not more Conservative Toronto MPs sitting on their hands, stuck in the past, while this city and this country races by them toward the future of work in the 21st century.