Debates of May 28th, 2013

The Canadian Museum of History Act

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague could take a moment to contrast how we on this side of the House feel toward Canadian history compared to the opposition.

I mean, as she so rightly said, we have made record investments. We believe in things like Banting and Best, the Canadarm and Terry Fox. One of the things we believe in passionately is our veterans. We believe in the men and women in uniform who fought for this country, for freedom of speech so we could actually hear some of the garbage that was coming from the other side.

I would like the member to contrast the difference on this side versus that side as far as Canadian history—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is only 20 seconds left for the parliamentary secretary.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me concentrate on veterans because, in fact, they are the people who did afford us the opportunity to have this wonderful country.

I am going to focus on the fact that I have a grandfather who fought at Dieppe with his brother who, unfortunately, lost his leg there. Both men returned alive. I also have a husband whose grandfather fought at Vimy. To know that the NDP have shamefully accused our veterans of leaving a scar on Canada as a result--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I confess that I find myself somewhat surprised that a speaking slot has opened up at this hour. I found out a few moments ago. I have been enjoying this debate, and at this hour of night, I hope I will be forgiven for trying to cheer everybody up by telling a short story about my daughter.

We were watching Canada: A People's History. The last episode, I hate to say, involved me. CBC decided that I was a good thread to describe the origins of the environmental movement. My daughter had been watching this program in school. Thank goodness for the CBC and the great programming that tells Canadians about our history.

As the last episode ended, she turned to me—she was in grade four at the time—and said, “Congratulations, Mommy, you're the first”. I said, “I'm the first what?” She said, “You're the first person who could ever watch herself on Canada: A People's History, because everybody else is dead”.

I just thought the hour called for some levity.

I find myself standing here having read Bill C-49 carefully, having listened to the debates, and particularly having heard what I regard as a very sincere, well-meaning presentation by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, for whom this is clearly a vision he cares about deeply. I think he has persuaded the Prime Minister to allow him to do something that I have come to believe is in the interest of Canada.

That is not without trepidation. It is not without sharing a lot of the skepticism of my colleagues on other opposition benches, but I come to this. We have had this museum, in one shape or another, since 1856. It has not remained static, and it will not stay the museum of history in another few generations. If we go back to 1856, it was for the displays of the Geological Survey of Canada. It was a hodgepodge, I can imagine, and by 1968, it was decided to split it into two things. We still have the Museum of Nature, of course, on Metcalfe Street. That was one part of it. The other part became known as, and all of my women colleagues in the House should brace themselves, the National Museum of Man.

By 1986, it was seen that the National Museum of Man was probably a gender-loaded term. They did not mean to call it that. One of my friends, who is currently a parliamentarian here, quipped that when they name this thing again, please, God, let us not call it the mausoleum of man. Let us inject the history and contribution of Canadian women.

In any case, in 1986, the name Museum of Man changed to Museum of Civilization and the inspired and entirely magnificent building on the other side of the river, built by architect Douglas Cardinal, was given to Canadians.

I remember well, because I was living in Ottawa at the time, that they were racing to the finish line to be ready for opening. It was such a nip and tuck effort that they called on Canadian senators to show up and help Douglas Cardinal fit the bits of marble to the curvy bits. It is all curvy. My dear friend, now retired, Senator Mira Spivak, was one of those who showed up and was on her knees until after 11 o'clock at night finishing work at the museum. Given current events, some people might suspect that it was the last time senators actually worked. In any case, it was a great opening.

I love the Grand Hall. I hate the idea that anything about it will change. I love the fact that the great silkscreen of ancient forests that we see in the Museum of Civilization today is actually a silkscreen photograph of Windy Bay in Gwaii Haanas, now part of Gwaii Haanas National Park. I would love it not to change at all, but change is not a bad thing if we can use the additional money to make sure that exhibits that are now in storage get out to people across Canada.

I see this as a way of invigorating our understanding of history. I have great concerns that the current administration is trying to re-mould our own iconography, how we see ourselves, and get rid of our notion of peacekeeping and see ourselves as a warrior nation. I share these concerns, but I have gone to section 26 of the Museums Act, and I see that the role of a curator and the way a museum is run is separate from political interference. We will have to watchdog this as it goes forward. I am not denying that, but I want the records of the debates in Parliament in accepting the museum of history to reflect that at least someone on the opposition benches was prepared to take a leap of faith, prepared to go with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and say, “Yes, okay. Let us modernize. Let us update. We will have a museum of Canadian history”.

It hardly sounds like we are updating when we are going back to our history, but let us imagine for a moment that we can. Let us imagine that we tell the stories of the women of Canada and their contributions, and of the new Canadians we celebrate at Pier 21, at the museum in Halifax. Let us exchange exhibits with Pier 21 in Halifax.

Let us ensure we tell the stories of the contributions of people whose stories are unsung and untold, and of the role that Canada has had in the world in the past. I hope we will reclaim it by once again being the best country we can be, by re-engaging with the world on climate negotiations, on drought negotiations, on all the things we have done historically for worldwide development and so on.

This legislation does include international exhibits. It does not say we are going to be insular and parochial. Let us try to see if we can accept the idea of a Canadian museum of history with an infusion of funds that allows our history to be real to our kids, and not just the kids who come to Ottawa to see the Museum of Civilization.

I remember when the Museum of Civilization opened. As I said, I went to the opening, but beyond that, initially the exhibits were panned. People were outraged that we had Disneyfied—I think that is what some of the commentators said—the collections by making them too touchy-feely, too hands on, too kid-focused.

Change will happen to the way we share our heritage. Change will happen to the way we tell our stories. If we engage ourselves with this effort in good faith, we will tell our stories more honestly. We will reflect more of the read Canadian mosaic and identity.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 11:27 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

First Nations Elections Act

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that Bill S-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the constituents of the great Kenora riding for this opportunity to speak on Bill S-6 and, in particular, one of our newest constituents, the very special Abigail Mae Rickford.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

Over a year ago the Prime Minister spoke at the Crown-First Nations Gathering about the approach our government is taking to enable first nations people to share fully with other Canadians the prosperity, security and promise of our great country. Specifically, the Prime Minister stated that our approach is to work as partners with the first nations to replace elements of the Indian Act that are outdated with modern tools—a constellation, so to speak, of options, like this bill, to provide opportunities for modern first nation political economic development.

The fact is that the Indian Act election system has some significant and serious flaws. To start, the Indian Act requires that first nation communities hold elections every two years. This requirement restricts first nations chiefs and councils from initiating long-term projects and working closely with investors, business owners, partners and other governments, and from taking full advantage of emerging opportunities to improve the lives of people in their communities.

Also, the Indian Act does not prevent any person from running and being elected chief and to a councillor position during the same election. The current system's loose nomination process also enables the names of candidates who are neither dedicated to running nor serious about serving to be placed on the ballot without their approval and, in some instances, without their knowledge. Because of this omission in the law, some first nations elections have had more than 100 candidates vie for as few as three positions.

The mail-in ballot system under the Indian Act is also open to abuse. In addition, the act does not provide for offences or related penalties when abuse is uncovered. As a result, it is virtually impossible for a legal entity to prosecute those involved in corruption. If illegal, corrupt or abusive practices are alleged to have taken place, department officials launch a lengthy appeals process, which has proven to be slow, inefficient and paternalistic.

Bill S-6 enables first nations people to shed a piece of the Indian Act by providing an alternative to its flawed election provisions. Bill S-6 presents an open, transparent and accountable election system that first nations people expect and deserve. We only have to consider some key provisions of the bill and what these provisions will set in motion to understand its value.

To that end, I would like to categorize the main provisions of the bill under four headings: term of office, election mechanics, candidates, and offences and penalties. Let me speak to those.

The bill provides for terms of office of four years. This is a much more reasonable timeframe for stable first nation governments to launch important initiatives and obtain concrete results before embarking on another election.

Furthermore, the first nations election act enables first nations communities to line up their terms of office and hold elections on the same day if they so choose.

Taking advantage of this provision makes perfect sense for communities in the same province or region. By aligning the terms of office of their elected leaders, they provide governance stability among first nations across a given region. As a result, these leaders can more easily collaborate on long-term projects, work closely with investors and seize opportunities whenever they emerge.

Bill S-6 also deals with important aspects of running elections.

It contains regulation-making mechanisms that will address a large number of concerns about candidate nominations and the mail-in ballot system that regularly arise during elections under the Indian Act. From this perspective, the First Nations Elections Act provides for a much more consistent, effective, reliable and legitimate electoral process.

In terms of candidates for election, the bill specifies that no individual can be a candidate for more than one office in the same election and requires that nominees consent to being a candidate prior to actually becoming one. This is a key point, as it means only the names of those persons who have agreed to be a candidate will appear on the ballot, which is not currently the case.

In terms of offences and penalties, Bill S-6 would fill a significant void. Just like the provincial and federal election laws, the new act would include several clearly defined offences and penalties surrounding questionable activities, such as vote buying, intimidation and obstructing the electoral process.

The new provisions will discourage these activities from taking place by making it possible for authorities to investigate and prosecute those who engage in such acts and they will empower our courts to adjudicate over fines and sentences of those found guilty.

Together, the provisions I have laid out remove the destabilizing effects of perpetual electioneering from first nation governments. They help eliminate potential abuses of power. They help communities elect governments that are be truly representative of the needs and interests of residents.

In stark contrast to the Indian Act election system, Bill S-6 offers an appeals process that does not involve the department, the minister or his successors. Appeals of elections held under Bill S-6 will be addressed in the courts, where election disputes in municipal, provincial and federal elections in our country are resolved.

I also want to speak briefly, but I think importantly, about ministerial authority.

Bill S-6 would not give the minister of Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development any more power than already found in the Indian Act. I am referring, specifically, to provision in the bill that will permit the minister to order a first nation to hold its elections under the proposed new law when there is a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of that first nation.

The minister already holds this power, under the Indian Act, where he or she may order a first nation hold elections under the act if it is deemed advisable for the good governance of the band.

Ministers have only used this power three times, as far as I can tell, for the purposes of solving an ongoing governance dispute in a given first nation and only did so after several attempts to support the community in reaching its own resolution had failed. More important, in instances where the power was exercised, the dispute had compromised the overall well-being of the community.

History has shown that this power under the Indian Act has not been exercised frivolously.

In fact, the power afforded the minister, under Bill S-6, would be much narrower. The condition that must be present before the minister could order an election under Bill S-6 is clearly defined, and it bears repeating. That condition is, “a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of that First Nation”. This stands in stark contrast to the vast discretion afforded the minister as it stands under the Indian Act.

Even though it is rarely used, it is vital that Bill S-6 provide this power as a measure of last resort. A long-standing dispute over leadership selection in elections paralyzes governance in a first nation. Eventually, the well-being of the whole community is compromised. The delivery of programs and services has to be placed, in many instances, in the control of third parties.

Without clear and legitimate leaders, strategic decisions are not made, partnerships with other first nations, other governments and private enterprises become virtually impossible to forge potential economic development opportunities, good governance can disappear.

I know that many first nation leaders in this country agree that Bill S-6 presents a better election system than that found under the Indian Act. After all, they played an indispensable role in creating Bill S-6. Two first nation organizations deserve our special recognition for bringing this bill to life.

The first is the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs under the leadership of former grand chief Ron Evans, who is the former chief of Norway House first nations, a community that I had an opportunity to spend some time in as a nurse in northern Manitoba. The second is the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. Both of these organizations recognize the deficiencies of the Indian Act election system and their destabilizing negative effect on first nations governance.

In their own parts of the country, they held several consultation sessions with first nations leaders, governance experts and community members. The consultation led to a list of potential electoral reforms, which included inter alia terms of offices of four years and the ability for first nations in a given region to line up their terms of office and hold their elections on the same day.

They called on the federal government to develop a new law, but the process did not end there. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress partnered to lead a national engagement effort to further discuss electoral reform with first nations leaders and members across the country. They communicated with leaders of the 241 first nations communities that hold elections currently under the Indian Act, inviting feedback on their recommendations.

These two organizations also set up websites to post important information and receive inputs and comments from first nations members. All who responded agreed that the proposed reforms would be a major improvement over the election system under the Indian Act. When we took the recommended election reforms and prepared a draft version of Bill S-6, the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs then wrote to every band council elected under the Indian Act to outline the new bill's contents. He encouraged the councils to share the draft with their community members and to provide comments on the draft bill directly to him.

The minister did not receive a single negative comment during this exercise. All the credit for this achievement goes to first nations members and leaders, especially the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, for their creative and collaborative consultative efforts. In particular, I would like to recognize the work, as I said earlier, of the former grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Ron Evans; Atlantic chiefs, Lawrence Paul, the late Noah Augustine and Candice Paul; as well as the Assembly of First Nations regional chief Morley Googoo, for their remarkable leadership and for the essential roles they played in helping create Bill S-6 as we have come to know it today.

These leaders saw the need to reform their election system and then took action to bring about practical changes. They all deserve our heartfelt thanks. They have brought to life the Prime Minister's words and found creative ways to move beyond the Indian Act. They did so because they know the value that stable, effective governments can bring to first nation communities.

They know that political stability makes it possible for first nations communities to attract investors and business owners and thereby create new jobs, rising incomes, higher standards of living and quality of life on reserve. They know that empowered elected officials and effective councils can access capital, plan and carry out long-term projects, and work productively with partners to unlock the economic promise of first nations lands and resources.

Perhaps most important is the empowerment gained by their people when they exercise their fundamental right to vote within an election system that is strong, open and transparent.

This is why I ask all of my colleagues to join us in support of Bill S-6 to support and encourage all members of first nations communities to realize their aspirations and good governance in their communities.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on the addition to his family. That is always a wonderful event for all of us. I am sure that the smile on his face may indicate the same.

His statement about the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs leaves me a little short. Here is a quote from Grand Chief Derek Nepinak:

This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC. It appears to be an attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code. I am hopeful that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations.

That is the Grand Chief who is in power today, not the one mentioned by the parliamentary secretary. I would ask him to clarify which particular grand chief he was talking about. Is it the one who is currently in power, who has said that he does not support this particular legislation?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, our friendship and the important work we do on the standing committee.

I would suggest, respectfully, that there is a process with legislation. I can only speak to the mandate and the participation of the Grand Chief as he was when we went through a consultative process. As I said, I know him to be an excellent individual, from a personal and professional frame of reference, having spent considerable time in Norway House first nation in northern Manitoba.

We are trying to create within the confines of first nations elections what could be described as a fourth option. We have what we have described under the Indian Act, and I listed some of the problems. We have options for community or custom election codes. There are self-governing first nations. This is a possible fourth option that has been consulted on thoroughly, in particular by these two organizations. The Atlantic Policy Congress is the other.

This process drew on the perspectives of leadership from across the country, with direct input to the minister. At that time, and we believe moving forward, in view of the options available, these were the kinds of things first nations were asking for in a bill that would deal with first nations governance, specifically around elections.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the bill. However, the court recently said that the Conservative Party has been accused of certain electoral irregularities. I am wondering if the government is in any position to be tabling any type of election act, especially for first nations. The question is pretty direct.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Yes, it is pretty direct, Mr. Speaker. His questions are a lot like the way he plays hockey. He is kind of rough.

There actually are no specific allegations against the Conservative Party in that regard.

What we are trying to do is bring a serious tone to this discussion. We are trying to improve the conditions in which elections take place in first nations communities. Importantly, it was born from a consultative and participative process that came organically, if I may, from major first nations organizations through thorough consultation with leadership and community members across the country, and, as I said before, with direct input to the Minister of Indian Affairs at the time.

We believe that this legislation would create another viable option that would help stabilize governance in first nations communities and would meet the expectations that we understand derive from those important consultative exercises.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been working closely with first nation organizations to bring about real improvements to the election process for first nations.

We know that a strong election system will help first nations create the political stability necessary for solid business investment, long-term planning and relationship-building that will lead to increased economic development and job creation for first nations communities.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please explain how this legislation is different from the archaic election system in the Indian Act?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's participation on the standing committee and in the important work that we do.

It is hard to believe it has been almost 20 years that I have been living and working in and with first nations communities in a variety of professional capacities, perhaps most recently until becoming elected, dealing with, in my legal practice, some of the issues and matters that arise out of election issues.

I am struck by four elements that I alluded to in my speech, but by way of review, they are as follows.

The first is a four-year mandate. The band council will have four years instead of two to give effect to longer term planning and relationship-building with other levels of government and private sector partners.

The second is a more stringent nomination process. We want to address those deficiencies.

The third is an election appeals process. The bill would remove the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development from the election appeals process.

The fourth is offences and penalties. It would provide offences and penalties surrounding corrupt activities and interference with the electoral process, similar to the Canada Elections Act that we operate under.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. He spoke at length about public consultations.

The first part of my question is to find out what type of consultations we are talking about. Were there any face-to-face meetings?

All summer long there was a huge movement called Idle No More. I was wondering whether the public consultations took advantage of this movement to meet face-to-face with the different leaders who were there, and whether anyone took advantage of this large gathering to hold public consultations. This was a golden opportunity to allow people to express themselves. I was wondering whether anyone took that opportunity.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with 42 first nations communities in my riding, I have had the opportunity, then and subsequently, to sit down with first nations people in particular who were involved in those.

It is fair to say that we found a lot of common ground. The Winnipeg Free Press said as much, that the government could and would find common ground with first nations that were perhaps frustrated in reality with all levels of government, including their own.

This first nations election act takes an important in that direction to deal with some of the issues that were mentioned during those protests and some of the debate that ensued around the difficulties they had with some of their own levels of government in their respective communities.

There are other issues, for sure. We are certainly working through those. In terms of the consultative process, as I said before, there were several consultation sessions with first nations leaders, governance experts in the first nations academic community and community members. In addition to that, as I said, the minister of aboriginal affairs, as he was then, received direct inputs from community members and stakeholders, including first nations leadership during that consultative process.

We appreciate that it was in fact led by first nations organizations. That is the hallmark of real leadership and success.

To that end, I am satisfied that the test or threshold has been met and this bill reflects their express views and wishes with respect to the kind of legislation that would support good governance of first nations.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity here, quite late on Tuesday night, to speak to this particular bill.

It has been my viewpoint over the past two years on the aboriginal affairs committee that the Conservatives really have not been consulting in the correct fashion with first nations across the country. They come in with the wrong attitude. What we really need is to have first nations design the legislation that they would like to see enacted for their governments, their people and their nations. We can then take that in Parliament and understand how we can amend it so that it works.

However, we have the opposite way and we saw that with the accountability act, an act that really was an unfortunate piece of goods that came from the government. It was universally condemned by first nations. They did have a couple of supporters there, but they were some very specific people who had problems in their own particular communities. Those who understood the nature of the first nations-Canada relationship rejected the accountability act.

We are now at Bill S-8, the safe drinking water act, which we would think that everyone could get behind and support. However, once again, we see that the method of consultation and delivery of these bills is simply not working. The Conservative government is not providing the first nations with the opportunities to design the legislation so that it works for them. In this case, with the Senate putting forward Bill S-8, we also have the additional problem that we cannot make requirements for resources to ensure that first nations can actually meet standards that they would all want to meet.

The history so far of the majority government has been of one that refuses amendments. I think of Bill C-47, when we put forward some 45 amendments on a bill that only affected Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Of those 40-some amendments, the Conservatives turned down all of them, even though the amendments were designed to make the bill work better. They were not coming from people who had great opposition to the bill. They were coming from people who were concerned that the bill should work right.

In other words, once again the Conservatives failed to provide a methodology of consultation that delivered a product that people could get behind. I see that this pattern is being repeated with Bill S-6. The Conservatives did go into some consultation. They did hold meetings with first nations. They got recommendations from first nations about how this bill should be set up. The problem is that when the bill showed up, those recommendations were not carried forward in the fashion that the first nations had assumed.

We can see that in the problem with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. The first Grand Chief, who was involved in the consultation side of it before the bill was put out, was pretty happy with what was going to happen. He said that, but then when the bill arrived in the Senate, the Manitoba Chief that I quoted in my question to the parliamentary secretary said, "no, that is not what we are after".

The consultation process is wrong. The consultation process does not deliver the goods for first nations. That is the problem here and the government has to change its direction in order to make legislation that truly represents first nations' points of view. The legislation is for the first nations. This legislation does not affect other people in Canada. The legislation is for the governments of the first nations. Therefore, it should really have those elements as the prime elements within the legislation.

That seems to be simple. We are not here to force our way upon other governments. We are here to provide guidance and accommodation and to make the system work.

Conservatives have a different view. They view it from that economic development lens. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that. Implicit within all the work that the Conservatives are doing is the idea that economic development for the first nations is the most important element. The most important element is not what the first nations want, not what the first nations deserve, but what will make economic development work. That is the Conservatives' point of view.

What we see in legislation over and over again is that message. What is important for economic development is the primary thing that we will see in legislation that comes from the Conservatives on first nations issues. If first nations go along with that, and the government can get some to go along with that, those will be the quotations that are used. Those will be the validations that Conservatives seek.

What really is needed? We really need to listen to the first nations. This legislation is for them, it is not for us. It is not telling us how we are getting elected. It is working with the first nations to come up with a system that they endorse, that they want for their very valid self-government efforts.

In the consultation process there was probably a little more give, a little more understanding, but when it came back to Ottawa, the changes were made to ensure that it worked for the government and it plans. That is the reality of what we are dealing with.

We have trouble with the bill. We also have trouble supporting it at second reading and taking it to committee. We have done this over and over again, but we are not getting any results. We are not getting the government to come onside for valid amendments to bills.

That is the process by which we all want to engage in here. This is what we want to do at committees. We want to have the opportunity to take what the people want, take what the government wants, come up with some compromises. We do not want this hard line attitude about the committees and about how amendments are dealt with at committees. That is not working for us. What we are saying is that will oppose this bill at second reading because it does not what the first nations want.

It is a tragedy that we cannot take the bill to committee with some kind of assurance that some of the important elements that need to be fixed in the bill will be fixed. However, when we beat our head against the wall and do not get results, then we should quit beating our head against the wall. That is sensible.

We can fight it here in Parliament. We can go to committee and hear the witnesses who will say that they want amendments and to make the bill work properly. That is what we have heard over and over again. With all the legislation that has come in front of us, it has always been the case that the first nations witnesses who testify want solutions. They do not want to go away empty handed.

It is a tragedy and it is wrong. That is not the way we should do government. Government is for the people. The people who are affected by legislation are the primary concern of the legislation. This is not for all of Canada. This is for first nations. They have the primary say here. If we go against that principle, we are really going against the principle of democracy if we are not allowing the people who are affected by the law to have the dominant say over how the law is put together.

If a law affects all Canadians, then we all have a say in it. The responsibility is different. However, in the case when we are making laws for first nations, first nations that have a constitutional right of self-government, that have been in this land for thousands of years, who signed treaties, they should have a say in it. We did not take the land away from them, we signed treaties with them. The Queen agreed about how these treaties were taken care of in 1763.

That is our history. Do we want to rewrite history? We should write it the way it has been done.

I really would like to get along with the government on legislation for first nations when it starts getting along with first nations and when it starts listening to first nations. This is what the legislation is for. These are the people who are affected by the legislation. It is not for businessmen, not for those who look upon reserves as potential new sources of land and resources. No, it is for those people. Let us remember that when we deal with legislation. If we do not, we are simply not doing the job that, as Canadians, we know we should be doing.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

I find it interesting that we have something to learn from the first nations with regard to governance and particularly with regard to consultation.

The first nations hold band councils and they meet together to discuss issues and reach a consensus. They have reached a number of consensuses over the years. We could learn from this dialogue. It would be worthwhile to use this approach as a model for the way we work together in politics.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, having grown up with, gone to school with and spent my life with first nations people, I find them to be some of the warmest and most accommodating people I have known. They are people who are there for each other.

It is interesting that in the Dene language there is no word for “thank you”. They had to invent a word for it because their culture says that taking care of each other is not a “thank you” issue, but an issue of responsibility.

It is a wonderful culture. It is a culture that all Canadians could learn from, and we should respect that culture in every way in the legislation that we pass in the House.