Debates of April 19th, 2013

Question No. 1213

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

With respect to the Community War Memorial Program and Cenotaph/Monument Restoration Fund, for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what is the total amount of funding provided by the government and how is that amount broken down by federal riding?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1218

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

With respect to privacy breaches at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) in the matter of the Canada Student Loans Program breach, (i) how many individuals have been directly affected, broken down by province, (ii) how many individuals have been indirectly affected (including, but not limited to, loan co-signers or guarantors), broken down by province, (iii) how many individuals are known to have been affected by criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft; and (b) in the matter of the Canada Pension Plan Disability program breach, (i) how many individuals have been affected, broken down by province, (ii) how many individuals have been indirectly affected (including, but not limited to spouses, co-signers, guardians), broken down by province, (iii) how many individuals are known to have been affected by criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

S. O. 31

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to address a question of privilege this morning. Doing so on this day of April 19 allows me to allude to a second related privilege, that of marking the anniversary of the “shot heard round the world”, the day in which the American Revolution began on April 19, 1775, near Boston. Especially momentous as Bostonians are in lockdown as we speak, confronted by an assault on freedom and democracy. Let me first reflect briefly on the relevance of the “shot heard round the world” and what is happening today in Boston.

The phrase was coined by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his poem The Concord Hymn which commemorates the shots in Lexington and Concord near Boston, shots which set into play the events that led to, among other things, the signing of the American Declaration of Independence.

As Bostonians stand once again today at the centre of a battle for freedom and democracy, we recognize it is not for the first time in their history. Only last Monday, terrorists attacked innocent people in Boston who had at the Boston Marathon gathered to enjoy the fruits of peace and democracy. They rightly expected to revel in one another's company, secure and unthreatened by tyranny or violence. Bostonians stand against those who menace them.

We offer the people of Boston our prayers and goodwill. 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 at this difficult time. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House to join us.

The formal question of privilege to which I speak today relates to the right of a member of the House to speak freely on whatever topic he or she believes merits the attention of our democratically elected House in the execution of our parliamentary duties. Specifically, I understand the question put to you by the member for Langley in his question of privilege is which institution has the right to administer rotating members' statements in the House; you, as the speaker, or the party whips, independent of your authority. I am not referring to the specific motion originally brought by the member for Langley, but to the critical nature of preserving a legislator's free voice in this institution.

My reference to the U.S. experience in freedom and democracy relates to the matter at hand because our American neighbours put the separation of powers at the foundation of their democratic system, right alongside a sister concept, the use of checks and balances to curb powers that tempt one or another institution to overreach.

The writings of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in The Federalist Papers laid the groundwork for the American Constitution. In the first of their 85 treatises they posed the question whether men and women are really capable of establishing good government. The corralling of normal human deficiencies within institutional checks and balances is at the very heart of the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the MP for Langley.

In the words of Hamilton and company:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

In Federalist 51, the author argued strongly for the independence of the separate arms of government to resist “usurpations” of power and prerogatives of one by the other. Otherwise, each institution stands to suffer encroachment by the others.

To secure these ends, Madison and his partners suggest that “the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department” is to enable each separate institution, be it the executive or the legislature, to fend off attempts to encroach upon one another's domains.

I couch my argument today in institutional language intentionally to remove the debate from the personalities involved. I do not seek to pitch the discussion in terms of a battle for power between individuals, between whatever person happens to preside as a cabinet figure, and whatever legislators are advocating for preservation or expansion of their legislative capacity. Our media are then tempted to build on the personal nature of such a narrative, in turn, attributing personal motives and ascribing malevolent or ambitious motives to the people involved.

It would in fact be easier to make the argument I make today if we had a prime minister who fostered ill will toward the legislature or who was guilty of corruption. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who rose from a world of grassroots democracy and who has fostered unprecedented mechanisms for caucus participation in the formulation of government policy. He has consistently demonstrated a standard of integrity and honest government epitomized in the first bill he passed as Prime Minister: the Accountability Act. Our front bench, whether Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, or others, are consistently toasted as international paragons of good government and sound economic management.

However, does this mean that, because the people in executive or cabinet positions of our government are model democratic leaders, we should allow our institutions to be stretched to accommodate a swelling of power of the executive at the expense of the legislature? I would argue that the doors opened by a good and benevolent prime minister and whip will still be open for access by a much less praiseworthy, less accountable executive who may someday follow.

On a day when the world is focused on the birthplace of American democracy, I have indulged this House to hear my views which, I believe, reflect the views of my constituents concerning the question of privilege raised by the MP for Langley. Its importance stretches back to the birthplace of western democracy, back through the precedents in this House cited by able members of Parliament who have spoken before me on this same point, back through the thinking of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, and back even further to the Isle of Runnymede in 1215, when King John, an executive with far less devotion and accountability than our current executive, was confronted with the need for the separation of powers. In short, the principles we discuss today have received attention in other western democracies to which we sometimes look for inspiration: those of Great Britain and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, you have an important and sombre duty to execute in ruling on this question of privilege raised by the member for Langley. That is, who has the authority to administer members' statements, the speaker or the party leaders?

In executing your duty, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the famous incident which occurred in 1642 when King Charles I entered Parliament, searching for parliamentarians who had refused to heed his will. Charles I was anti-democratic and sought not to be accountable to his people, the exact opposite of the Prime Minister and cabinet who serve Canadians today with long-standing, devoted, and proven commitment to freedom and democracy. In response to King Charles I, William Lenthall, the speaker at the time, responded with the following words. He said:

May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here....

I reiterate, the problem relates not to the people in power today, but to the potential impact on the democratic capacity of legislators in the future to perform our roles. I believe it is the speaker, and I mean the institution of speaker, not the person, who should administer rotating members' statements in this House, not a party leader nor his or her representatives. Speaker Lenthall, long ago, observed the importance of the separation of powers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to act with the same courage and dignity, as you ponder the important question of privilege raised by the member for Langley.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Once again, I thank the hon. member for his further contributions to the question currently before the chair, and I can assure him and the rest of the House that I will be coming back with a decision in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--First Nations, Métis and Inuit

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are still four minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

The hon. member for Manicouagan has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister said in his speech that he was open to negotiating with willing partners. Let me remind you that the concepts of “partners” and “willing” are subjective. As minister, he has a responsibility to negotiate on an equal footing with every stakeholder and every first nation. Could he clarify what he means by “willing”?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question could start a fine philosophical debate on the meaning of certain words.

We are simply saying that we are willing to work positively in a relationship of mutual respect with first nations across the country in order to address the key issues that affect them, whether it be economic development, education or socio-economic problems. When we say willing, we mean that we must work in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister provide specific comment in regard to the Nunatukavut community and its particular claim and give us a brief update as to where the government is on that claim?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in the House, the Nunatukavut claim was filed back in 1991-92. At this stage, the claimants have filed further historical evidence and material with the department in support of the claim. As we speak, this evidence is being reviewed. I would expect that within the next while we should be able to get the advice of the Department of Justice as to whether this is a claim on which we can start negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is standing up for Labrador. We are delivering results that matter to Labradorians, such as providing a loan guarantee for Lower Churchill, ending the long gun registry and providing funding to improve the Trans-Labrador Highway. While we are delivering results, the leader of the NDP is supporting a job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything and hurt Newfoundland and Labrador.

Would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development update the House on how his department is getting the job done for the people of Labrador?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to working with aboriginals in Labrador to facilitate local solutions, including empowering communities through the implementation of self-government agreements such as the fiscal financing agreement with the Nunatsiavut First Nation, which we have concluded.

Another example of empowering and working with aboriginals in Labrador is the devolution of responsibility of the K-12 school board in 2009 to an eight-member Innu school board, which assumed control over the schools in two reserves in Labrador.

Along with our government's Muskrat Falls loan guarantee commitment to support Atlantic Canada's future energy needs, a project that will result in an average of 1,500 jobs a year during construction, we have also invested $385,000 in the Labrador aboriginal training partnership.

Unlike the other side of the House, we are standing up for aboriginal people and these are only a few examples of all of the work that we are doing in partnership with them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address what is a very important issue of a critical nature. We have individuals who want to see significant progress made on this file.

It is fair to say that land claims have been an issue ever since the signing of treaties back in 1701 and all the way up to today. We still get issues related to land claims, things that occur today that have impacts where there is a need for a settlement to be reached.

I do not believe there is any political party inside the House that can say that it has done the type of work necessary to ultimately resolve the issue permanently. I would like to think there has been significant progress in certain areas, but there is a lot more room for improvement.

While I was an MLA, I heard about the flooding impacts of our hydro development, for example, during the seventies and eighties. We had a different level of government, a province, that caused horrendous issues, whether it was New Democratic governments that failed to deliver on land claim issues or Progress Conservative governments or, ultimately, different parties at the national level.

We recognize that 40 or 50 years ago, I believe it was back in the early 1970s, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau established, through policy, the need for us to recognize that we had to respect the treaties and work toward having laws that would see land claims ultimately processed in a much fairer fashion. It drew in the other stakeholders, and in particular the provinces and territories, to also accept responsibilities in resolving outstanding land-related issues. In 1974, an office was created to deal with native land claims. Through the years, we have seen a great deal of effort.

If we were to canvass most Canadians, in particular our first nations, we would find that much more work needs to be done and there is a great deal of frustration that we just are not moving fast enough to resolve these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I should have indicated that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

I would like to highlight that we have two types of land claims that are noteworthy. There are the specific land claims which really deal with treaties that, as I say, go back from 1701 to 1923. We are still talking about several hundreds of those types of things where issues are still outstanding. Then there are the more comprehensive claims that need to be resolved, the more modern type claim, the type of claim that I asked the minister responsible about a few minutes ago, which is trying to get an update. This particular claim is something that is made reference to in the text of the motion itself.

All of us are aware of the Idle No More movement. When we try to get a better understanding of that movement, we would get a better appreciation of why there is this great sense of frustration throughout the country with regard to what I would classify as the spinning of the wheels on very important first nation aboriginal issues. These people want to see a government that is prepared to do more than just talk. They want to see action.

When I have the opportunity first hand to meet talk with first nation leaders or members from the Metis community and others, they want to talk about issues related to economic opportunities. They want to talk about education and the quality of it, in particular post-secondary education. They want a higher sense that in the future there will be more hope. Hope is so critically important in the development of any community. The federal government has to recognize the leading role it needs to play.

I have stood in my place on numerous occasions to talk about aboriginal and first nations' issues. I have put the challenge to the government that it needs to recognize it has to approach those issues with its counterparts, the many first nation leaders who are quite able and want to demonstrate leadership on these issues and to open the doors and get them engaged in the decisions that affect our first nation and aboriginal communities throughout Canada.

One of the frustrations is the refusal of the government to acknowledge and fulfill its legal duty to consult on matters that impact aboriginal rights. As an example, I have a note which shows the Conservative government has rammed through different forms of legislation with respect to first nations, such as financial reporting.

We have heard a lot today about matrimonial property on reserves, regulation of water and waste water, various portions of the Indian Act, aboriginal fisheries, land management and environmental protection, all without proper prior consultation and the necessary resources to implement the changes being imposed upon them. Back in 1973, Pierre Trudeau indicated very clearly that we had that obligation. We have seen court decisions that have been made since then, indicating there is an obligation. I do not quite understand why the government has not recognized that obligation to the degree to which it should. One would question as to why it has not done that.

I suspect the type of reaction from many of our first nations toward the government is because it has stood idly by and not acted on this. That is the reason why we have seen the protests on the Hill and in other regions of our country. It is a wake-up call to say that people will not continue to stand by and tolerate a government that is not prepared to act on these very important issues.

Over the last couple of years, the Liberal Party has brought forward ideas and suggestions to deal with some of the issues that are there, always taking into consideration the importance of recognizing the leadership on our first nations in a real and tangible way and using that leadership to provide guidance as we try to deal with these issues that are of critical importance.

We believe we need to speed up and improve the land settlements process. If there are things that we can do to encourage and promote that, the House should do what it can. The length of time it takes in the process today is far too long and that issue has to be addressed.

We have continued to go beyond the land settlement issues in wanting to get to other issues. That is why we have had the critic for our first nations communities stand in her place and talk a lot about education. We have talked a lot about other economic type of opportunities and how we can support our first nations from across this land.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague. We have seen over the last day that the Conservatives have suddenly tried to portray themselves as interested in the issue of women's rights on reserve and basic human rights. At the same time, they are in court against Cindy Blackstock, who is one of the great civil rights heroes of our time. The government has actually been spying on Cindy Blackstock, a women whose main concern is assuring basic health and welfare and education rights for first nations children and ending the systemic discrimination.

We have seen the government go to court time and time again against first nations to stop the implementation of basic rights, but it is going to court against children, and spying on the people who are speaking out for children's rights. I would like to ask the member what he thinks that says about the so-called honour of the Crown in the 21st century.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, both today and yesterday we have heard a lot about Bill S-2, dealing with the issue of marriage breakdown and the rights of both partners. It is important to recognize that a big part of that has been the requirement of the government to work with first nations and leaders in terms of developing legislation. As opposed to doing that, it has taken a piece of legislation from a specific area and brought it into the House without doing its work. As a result, there is a great deal of resistance on an issue that I would argue there would be wonderful support for and very strong leadership on, even from the first nations.

What is upsetting a number of people is the way in which the government feels it can bring in legislation without working with first nations leaders. At the end of the day, if the government really wants to deal with many of the outstanding first nations issues, it has to recognize there is not only a legal obligation but many would argue a moral obligation to be working with first nations and aboriginal leaders in order to resolve these matters. If the government did that, we would be ahead in terms of making our communities a better place to live.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing both of my colleagues' questions and responses to the issue of real matrimonial property rights for women on reserve, I am trying to understand the logic behind their opposition to it.

We have consulted with first nations groups and leaders on this but, more importantly, an individual's right to property is a basic human right. If we were talking about the right to be free from violence or to be free to worship on a reserve in any way anyone wants to worship, I do not think there would be opposition to those basic rights by the members. Both of these men would not have this problem if they were living on a reserve. It is only women on reserve who suffer from this draconian and very old law. There is no way to explain away this kind of law.

I cannot ask the member for Timmins—James Bay, but I can ask the member for Winnipeg North to please tell me why this basic fundamental right that every Canadian enjoys, that he and I enjoy, such as the basic right to property, as well as the basic rights to be free from violence and to worship in the way people want, is something he wants to continue to talk about and not actually act on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I do not believe for a moment that the Conservative Party has a monopoly on dealing with the issue of women's rights. If in fact I were to rank the political parties in the House, I suggest the Conservatives would rank at the end in terms of protecting women's rights. The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has been a very strong advocate for women's right, both on reserve and off the reserve, and nothing will change. We recognize the harm that takes place when marital breakups occur, and we want to ensure, as much as possible, that the right thing is done.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go over something my colleague just said about the commitment of Liberal governments, starting with Prime Minister Trudeau, and moving to Mr. Chrétien in the 1970s, when he was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as it was called at the time, and wrote a white paper on the need for self-determination and self-government for aboriginal peoples. It is no secret that when he came in as prime minister in 1993 that was one of the things he set as a priority. He immediately brought in steps to try to create the infrastructure to improve land claims and to fast-forward them.

It was not only that, but in British Columbia, in my province, where for 100 years aboriginal people have been trying to get land claims established and could not, Mr. Chrétien managed to convince the then Government of British Columbia to start moving forward with land claims. It was fast-forwarded. It was moving very well, and things were happening. Fast-forwarding land claims was an important part of dealing with aboriginal concerns, the ability to give them the autonomy they needed to make decisions about themselves and to govern themselves.

Prime Minister Martin then came in and picked it up. He signed the Kelowna accord with every province in this country being in agreement and treated the aboriginal people as an equal part of government at that table. The Kelowna accord would have devolved responsibility for health, education and housing to aboriginal peoples.

However, we saw what happened. The Conservative government came in 2006, and the Kelowna accord was gone. It was dead in the water. In fact, we now see that the same Prime Minister Paul Martin, no longer in Parliament, is spending his personal fortune to try to move education forward, knowing this is part of the way for aboriginal people to move forward and become autonomous.

I heard some of my colleagues across the way talking about aboriginal women, etcetera, but the point is that the government does not consult with aboriginal peoples. If it consulted with aboriginal peoples, it would understand the cultural differences. This imposition of what we, as non-aboriginal people, think is best for aboriginal people continues even today in this Conservative government's rhetoric.

Thirty years ago, the Canadian Medical Association recognized the link between aboriginal self-government and self-determination and the high rates of disease in aboriginal communities. As president of the British Columbia Medical Association, I ensured that the Council on Health Promotion started something called the aboriginal health committee. We brought in an unusual thing for a medical association. We brought in aboriginal leaders to be part of that community, to talk about self-determination and self-governance, so we could move forward and change those terrible health statistics for aboriginal people.

However, here we are today. We are still seeing high incidences of homelessness and disease in Inuit communities. Diabetes is three times that of our national average, and obesity rates are approximately 40% on reserve. The life expectancy for first nations men is 10 years below non-aboriginal men, and that of aboriginal women is 7 years below that of non-aboriginal women.

We see suicide rates that are 7 times the national average for first nations communities, and 11 times higher for Inuit communities. Infant mortality rates are 1.5 times higher than the national average. HIV-AIDS infections are 3.6 times higher than the non-aboriginal populations. Tuberculosis is 35 times higher on reserve, and 185 times higher, in Nunavut specifically.

In spite of all this, and in spite of the rhetoric we hear from this government, we have seen, in 2011, 2012 and 2013, incremental decreases in budgets going to first nations and Inuit health, infrastructure programs and to mental health. Maternal and child health programs were cut. Suicide prevention programs were cuts.

The Liberals created a healing fund. We did so when we were in government. It was shown by the Department of Indian Affairs, and by everyone who audited, that it was working really well. It was the aboriginal healing fund.

The Prime Minister made a wonderful apology in the House and cut that fund that was actually helping aboriginal people.

The government also walked away from the Northern Dimension Partnership, which is made up of 11 Arctic countries to look at the health of the peoples of the north.

At a time when Canada is chairing the Arctic Council, the Conservatives walked away from this, which saved them $50,000 a year, while the same Prime Minister, who apologized nicely in the House, spent $500,000 to transport his imperial limousines to India.

The same Prime Minister, again I refer to all the wonderful talk and the apologies in the House, has stalled on land claims. The land claims, which were moving forward, at least in my province of British Columbia, very well under a Liberal government, have now stalled completely.

When I chaired the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I visited Labrador and I heard of the violence that women faced there. Face to face they spoke to the fact that when they were trying to escape violence, they had nowhere to go.

When my colleague from St. Paul's talked about shelters, she was not talking about shelters as a permanent thing. Everyone who understands violence knows there has to be a safe place to go. There are no shelters for aboriginal women across the country and if there are, there may be five.

When our committee travelled across the country, we heard that more and more children were taken away from their parents when they tried to flee violence and were put into non-aboriginal homes. In fact, we heard the statistics from provincial governments that more aboriginal children were being taken away from their parents today than were in the residential school era.

Conservative members shut down the report when they won a majority government in the 2011 election. It was the first time that all four political parties agreed on what that recommendation should be. Since then, we have seen nothing further being done on violence against aboriginal women, those on reserve, off reserve and in society at large, yet we hear a lot of rhetoric.

This motion is an appropriate one. We agree with the motion because it is time to stop the rhetoric. It is time to stop listening to all the wondrous phrases that come from across the aisle, the Prime Minister's beautiful apology, everyone berating people on this side of the House who, as a Liberal government, moved significantly forward on this issue.

It is time to stop the rhetoric and it is time to get action going. I do not think we will see it from the Conservatives because they are too busy congratulating themselves on their little pieces of rhetoric than actually intending to do anything.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the issue of the nation-to-nation relationship. With Bill C-45, we see the stripping of basic environmental protections on waterways all across first nations territory in order to help the Conservatives' friends in the oil industry, a complete disregard of basic first nations rights that have been affirmed in court decision after court decision about the duty to consult.

Does my hon. colleague feel that the backlash that is rising up right now across the country against the government is because of colonial treatment of people on first nations land? Perhaps that backlash could have been alleviated if the government respected the notion that the original first people of our country are still here. The treaties were signed with them, and that consultation must happen before the government goes ahead with any of its risky and dangerous environmental plans.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question. As I said, back in the early seventies when Mr. Chrétien was minister for Indian affairs, he wrote a white paper on the need for us to move forward with aboriginal self-government and self-determinations.

These are not just words. Paul Martin wanted to treat aboriginal people at the table as a level of government on their own. This has moved backward and regressed under the government. This idea that we must continue to tell aboriginal people what is best for them, this colonial, as my colleague referred to it, attitude, this patriarchal attitude of saying that we know what is best for aboriginal people is what we did when we first came here. We told aboriginal people that they did not know what was good for them. We continue to do it under the government. We have gone backward in time.

The hon. member talked about pipelines and the duty to consult. The government thinks that the duty to consult is to pat people on the back and say, “You can come in and line up with everybody else and make a statement at a committee”. The Conservatives need to consult and respect on a face to face, government to government basis with first nations. That has not been done. First nations have been treated just like anybody else by the government.