Debates of Feb. 7th, 2019

Indigenous Languages Act

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, speaking of the north, I am wondering if my friend can address the concerns that have been raised by the ITK regarding the way the bill was consulted on prior to its introduction. With respect to the bill itself, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami are not happy. I do not know if that position has changed from the comments I read from its leadership yesterday. There is no denial of support from other indigenous groups around the country, but certainly when it comes to the Inuit, they are not happy with the status quo.

I am wondering, as a resident northerner, if the member has some answers for the Inuit, who are looking for something a lot more hopeful than what they have seen here so far. This one group represents 60,000 Inuit. I am not talking about a small organization. This is something serious and substantial. It is feeling quite upset about the legislation as crafted, according to its public comments.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, the Northwest Territories is in a different position than the rest of Canada. In the Northwest Territories, we have recognized 11 official languages, nine of which are indigenous. We recognize the Inuit languages as official languages.

I think we are going to see a lot of discussion on this issue. Committees will be looking at it and making recommendations. I think the concerns of the ITK will certainly be considered. However, it is important that each indigenous government be involved. I look forward to the indigenous governments in my riding leading the discussion and developing the strategies that are going to be needed. There is nobody who can tell an indigenous government how to save its language except itself.

We also need the commission to be in place to provide oversight. We as members of Parliament, we as the government, have to make sure that we are in a situation to provide the resources, such as funding resources, materials and the other requirements, the indigenous governments may need.

[Yvonne Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today and speak on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabeg people. I know that if Algonquin Elder Commanda were here today, as she was on the day when she opened our new chamber, she, too, would be happy to speak to a bill that speaks to preserving the languages of Canada's indigenous people. Many indigenous people across Canada are happy to see it.

In my own language, the language of my ancestors, the Inuit language, Inuktitut, I say nakurmiik or “thank you” for allowing me the opportunity to serve in this place and to speak to the bill today, and to speak in strong support of it.

Bill C-91 , the indigenous languages act, is aimed at supporting indigenous people all across our country and for doing what they have been trying to do for a long time in the absence of government, which is continuing to carry forward the language and culture they had been accustomed to and were born into.

In particular, it is appropriate that we are providing this language bill in Canada at this time, simply because it is the year of languages for the United Nations. If we go back in time and look to see when people started advocating for the bill, it was in 1995.

In 1995, Canada was moving in that direction. UNESCO had found that many languages within the world were disappearing. Canada, like other nations around the world, was called upon to preserve language and to preserve the language of indigenous people in particular.

Over that period of time, very little attention was being paid to what was happening. In fact, no action was taken whatsoever.

Also in 1995, the royal commission called upon Canada to begin working, right away, with indigenous people across the country; to start revitalizing language; to start establishing a foundation on which we could support indigenous efforts that were already taking place to preserve language within the country. However, no action was taken.

A colleague across the House asked why it took so long to get where we were. It is a question best asked to that side. In 2005, there was an indigenous-led task force on aboriginal languages. It recommended, very clearly, to the Conservative government of the day that it include initiatives to do just that. It would include legislation, such as what we have brought forward today, that recognized the Constitutional status of indigenous languages in the country, that would be funded, that official languages would also have a national council to coordinate their efforts and that a full strategy be designed, whose only goal was to ensure that indigenous language was revitalized and carried on in the country.

It is 25 years since the time those things happened. Nevertheless, we are here today. We are here because we have listened to what indigenous people have said to us. They have said quite clearly that the Government of Canada needs to do more to preserve indigenous languages in our country.

Over the last two years, in particular, we worked very hard with indigenous groups, first nations, Inuit and Métis, to ensure we would get this right, that we would bring to the House of Commons the very first bill to preserve indigenous languages in Canada and do those things that they had asked. I am very proud today to be part of a government that is acting and doing just that.

I think my colleague from the Northwest Territories probably said it best when he talked about why the languages of indigenous peoples had disappeared over the years.

I come from a region of the country where we are very proud of our indigenous and northern roots. In Labrador, we have two very distinct indigenous languages, Inuktitut and Innu-aimun. A lot of work has been done on preserving those languages, by communities, by the people who live there, by the elders, by generations of people. Over the last couple of years, we have been able to help them by investing in the tools they need, by investing in preserving the language within their schools and after school programs and by helping them prepare the products they need to continue to teach and carry on in that way. It is very difficult.

The area I come from, while I grew up not knowing the language of my ancestors, many others grew up in communities where people continued to speak the language on a very small scale. However, there are huge generational gaps between those who speak it as their mother tongue and those who are just starting to learn the language again. The gap is under 14 and over 65. That is basically where we see the language gap in most of the indigenous languages in my region. In other parts of the country, people do not even have that. Even that has disappeared. Therefore, so many people out there are really starting with the basics.

They lost their language as a result of assimilation and the residential schools, which we have talked about and have heard about in that unfortunate chapter of history that affected so many indigenous people. They lost their language because they were never permitted to speak it, as my colleague from the Northwest Territories said. That opportunity was removed from them, and not throughout just one or two decades but throughout many decades of our history.

Canada will never allow that to happen again. That is why we support bills like Bill C-91 before us today to ensure it does not happen again.

When we look back, we know that three times over the past 25 years the issue has come to the attention of government at certain points in time without action. The last call was through truth and reconciliation. When the prime minister of the day made his commitment on behalf of the government and to all Canadians that we would honour the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, this was one of the very things he committed to do.

I am really pleased that we are able to bring this legislation forward. I am also pleased that in so many regions in the country, many people still speak their mother tongue, like the people of Nunavut. Of over 33,000 people in that territory, most still speak their mother tongue, their language of Inuktitut. They are an example for all of us to live up to. However, we also know it will take early intervention and support to make this happen.

Today, as I conclude my comments, I want to thank all of those who had a hand in making this happen. I want to thank all indigenous people in Canada for not giving up and having the resilience to carry on. I want to acknowledge that this is certainly a great step forward in what has been a long journey for indigenous people.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-91 will be a historic move toward healing and rebuilding of our indigenous identities and pride across Canada. We as a nation made a mistake in our actions on residential schools and the forcing of young aboriginal youth to speak only English. We now can make right what we made wrong.

There are 13 weeks left in this session. Do you commit to working co-operatively with the opposition parties to get this done?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member is very well aware that he is to address the questions to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Yvonne Jones]

Madam Speaker, I certainly commit to work with all people in the House of Commons to do what is right for Canadians and to see this legislation pass. I always believe that through committee, there are opportunities to strengthen legislation to ensure we are capturing the voices of all those who are concerned. I have confidence in members at the committee to do just that.

I look forward to the day when we can stand in the House of Commons and proudly vote for the legislation.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was going through the language included in the bill. The reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is mentioned three times, twice in the preamble and then once in the actual legislation. However, in clause 6 of the bill, under the heading of “Rights Related to Indigenous Languages”, there is a reference made to section 35 of our Constitution, but there is no reference given to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I know the Liberal government voted in favour of Bill C-262, which seeks to bring all Canadian law into harmony with that document. Therefore, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could provide some explanation as to whether that has been an oversight or if there is in fact going to be further amendments to the bill to bring it into harmony with the document of the United Nations.

[Yvonne Jones]

Madam Speaker, I am getting some help from my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for Languages, but I have been reassured and I am happy to assure the member that in clause 5 of the bill, in the last paragraph, it certainly speaks to the United Nations declaration. It says that the act will help “advance the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.” Therein lies our commitment.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we stated a number of times in the House, this is an important bill to finish our debate in the House at second reading and have it go to committee. I want to note that it just came here on Tuesday and today is our first day of debate.

More important, when I listened to the parliamentary secretary's speech, I heard her talk about pride in what her government was doing on the indigenous file. Does that pride include what we have learned about today, where someone from British Columbia, a well respected leader and the first indigenous woman to became Attorney General of Canada, was unceremoniously thrown under the bus by the Prime Minister? What does she have to say about how that shows her government's respect to be nothing more than a veneer?

[Yvonne Jones]

Madam Speaker, I never thought I would get the opportunity to stand in the House and compliment my colleague, my friend and a fantastic indigenous leader in the country. She represents western Canada very well, but also represents indigenous people at the cabinet table in a way we have not seen in a long time.

Out of all the indigenous people I have come to know and respect in my life, this individual, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, for Canada today, stands tallest among them all. No position at the table of the Government of Canada stands for the citizens of the country that is either higher or lower with respect to our contribution. The ability to sit at the table and to have that say is fundamentally important, and I applaud her for her work.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today in this place and add my voice to the discussion around Bill C-91.

The House may not be aware that today is End It Movement Day. It is a movement to end modern-day slavery in our country and around the world. The people who participate wear a red X on their hand. Many may not know that within Canada, human trafficking probably happens within 10 blocks of where they live if they live in the city and within 10 miles of where they live if they live in the country.

Modern-day slavery has many faces in Canada, but the vast majority of cases, about 50% of them, involve indigenous women and girls. That is why I am wearing a red X on my hand today.

Bill C-91 is about respect and about protecting indigenous languages here in Canada. Many bills have been brought up about this issue, and the government has spoken in length about it as well.

Back in December 2016, the government said it was seized with this issue and would table some legislation. Now, at the eleventh hour of this Parliament, the government has tabled a bill, and here we are, discussing it today.

I find it frustrating to see the government's approach to supporting something. Supply management is a good example. It says all the time that it supports supply management, but it has very narrowly cast that support. The support is purely for the two words, “supply management”. It is the same in this case as well. The government says it supports indigenous languages, but that is really just the two words, “indigenous languages”.

Many times when we support something, the actual thing that needs to be supported needs the entire surrounding infrastructure or the surrounding society to support it. Only supporting the end result does not necessarily help the actual goal we are trying to achieve.

Let us use the case of supply management as an example. It is really great for the government to say it supports supply management, but when it takes milk and dairy products and animal proteins out of the food guide, it is not supporting supply management whatsoever.

A couple of people who work in my office are coffee connoisseurs. They always ask me why I put cream in my coffee. They think I am ruining the coffee by doing so. I tell them I support supply management, so I put cream in my coffee. Supporting supply management means actually supporting supply management and targeting the actual issue.

We are seeing that again with this indigenous language bill. It says we are going to support indigenous language and we are going to have an ombudsman and all of these things, but if we do not support communities and do not support the culture of these languages, they will become dead languages.

I know a bit about dead languages. I know a bit of Latin. It is a language that is used all the time, but it is not a spoken language. There are records of languages that have been brought back. I understand Hebrew is one of those languages that has been brought back from being a dead language to a language that is now alive and well.

I failed to mention at the beginning of my comments that I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton West.

This is a great bill. I am sure that we will take the language, codify it and keep a record of it. Many organizations around this country are working on translating the Bible into all indigenous languages.

The House may be aware that both the German language and the English language were codified when the Bible was translated into those languages. There is a language known as High German. It was not really a language spoken by anybody, but it was the language that the Bible would have been translated into for a big swath of the world that spoke Germanic languages. It codified the whole language into a common language.

We are seeing work being done on that around the country. The funding that will be coming through this legislation will probably support many of those initiatives. I support that idea.

The point I am trying to make is that we would like these languages to be living languages, not dead languages, and in order to do that, we need to support communities. What does supporting communities look like? For one thing, we have a rich heritage in this country around the fur trade. Canada was built on the fur trade. I always say Canada was built on a number of things, such as the fur trade, the railway and other things, but the fur trade for indigenous peoples was a major part of the economy. It is a shame that today we do not champion the fur trade in this country.

Representatives of the fur trade association were in my office the other day, and they told me that fur will not even be on the winter Olympics uniforms. I do not know if anyone saw that Canada Goose recently came out with a new lineup of jackets designed by an Inuit designer. They are amazing jackets. They have nice fur on the hood. I am sure there are more fur products on the inside as well, though I could not see. The fur trade is what made these communities sustainable. Their languages were able to survive with or without government funding, and the Inuit are a prime example of that. Most them still have their languages because it is a vibrant community.

Where I am from, many of the Woodland Cree people still speak the language, and their communities are thriving. Why are they thriving? It is because the economy is thriving. No doubt a generation has lost the language due to the residential schools, but when communities come together and operate well, the language continues to thrive, so we see that bills like Bill C-69 do nothing. We say we want to support languages and indigenous communities, but then the government introduces a bill like Bill C-69, which hamstrings all of the northern Alberta communities that rely on the economy that pipelines, the oil patch and resource development bring to northern Alberta. The government says it supports indigenous languages, but it supports them in a very narrow way. We need to ensure these communities have a good economy; then the language will flourish.

Another area that is frustrating to me is the language around firearms that the Liberals in particular use all the time. They seem to be very suspicious of people who own and use firearms on a regular basis. It is our indigenous communities that use, own and work with firearms on a regular basis. The language and laws coming from the Liberal government, particularly Bill C-71, are onerous to all first nation communities for sure. Firearms are a big part of their culture. Firearms are a way of life for them, so to say we are going to support their languages and culture and then make it more onerous to own a firearm is not supportive of the culture whatsoever.

Lots of people say we already have languages and ask me why I think it is so important. We all have a world view, a narrative, a place that we belong in the world, and being part of a culture that has identifiable languages and creeds and those kinds of things gives us our sense of belonging in the world. A language does that to a large degree. Studies bear out the idea that when people feel they are tied to a language, a people, a land and a culture, they are much more successful in nation building and culture building.

For all of those reasons, I support this bill, but I find it ironic that we are here at the eleventh hour debating a bill to support indigenous languages.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that the creation of the commissioner is intended to do is give the commissioner the opportunity to work with indigenous groups within regions. In every region, there are going to be unique needs vis-à-vis language and the rehabilitation of language and the opportunity to make sure the language is in first nations schools, whether it is in northern Alberta or, in my case, in northern Ontario.

How does the member sees the commissioner's job as it relates to bringing back the Cree language, in particular for young people? That is the challenge. Now that there is satellite TV and the things that young people have, it has changed young people in communities, no matter where they are in Canada. I want to get a sense from the member as to how he sees the commissioner's role in the area that he represents.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, we were just talking about this at committee as well. One of the groups I am very proud of in northern Alberta is the Kitaskinaw Tribal Council, which has an education authority that runs six schools up there. Language education is part of that program. They teach the Alberta curriculum from their perspective.

I know in Alberta there already has been a lot of overlap between the education systems on reserve and the provincial system. The Kitaskinaw Tribal Council was built to bridge those jurisdictional issues, and it is already doing that to a large part. I am sure the commissioner's office will be working hand in glove with Kitaskinaw.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who is also a member of the indigenous affairs committee, for the great work he does and for his commitment. He talked about language being just one component of what is going to be necessary in moving forward with reconciliation. It was also very interesting that he brought up something that is important not just to rural areas but also to many indigenous communities in the country, which is the use of firearms and the trade in sealskin products.

To what degree does he think the policies of the current government around firearms are inconsistent with what is important for the communities he represents?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did address that in my speech. I have seen a little in the media about the first nations in Quebec being annoyed with the legislation that is coming in there, and the fact that the federal government seems to be working hand in glove with the Quebec government on the long-gun registry there.

It just seems tone deaf to me. The government says it is our most important relationship, but then does not support the fur trade in an adequate manner and tries to make restrictive firearms laws all across the country. Those things are incongruent. If we want to support our first nations communities, we need to ensure they are able to live their lifestyle the way they need to.

[Yvonne Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, the bill is really about preserving and revitalizing indigenous languages in the country. I want to make sure we are maintaining that focus, because we have been everywhere from the food guide to firearms under this debate.

Does the member opposite not agree that a large part of reconciliation with indigenous people in our country is ensuring that we revitalize indigenous languages and give them the full support of the laws of the country to preserve their language for themselves and generations to come?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I said I was supportive of the bill. The point I am trying to make is that in this place, things get very siloed. We say we support indigenous languages and come out with a bill that supports that idea, but we must take a little broader view of it. The Liberals say they support indigenous languages, yet they are failing to understand a lot of the indigenous culture.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, The Environment; the hon. member for Bow River, Justice; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Transport.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. We, of course, support the bill and support sending it to the heritage committee after it gets through the House.

I want to thank all the speakers today. There were a lot of well-thought-out comments on the bill.

We believe that the bill before us is both pragmatic and reasonable. My colleague from Bow River said that “the Government of Canada was part of the destruction of indigenous languages and we need to be part of the solution.” Hopefully, Bill C-91 will be a step toward that.

The Right Hon. Stephen Harper said in his June 11 residential school apology that:

First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools....

The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact.

That is very true.

The legislation before us was first promised in 2016, so I have to ask, as has been asked by previous speakers, why the delay? Why is it so late in this session that it is finally introduced? We have just 13 more sitting weeks before we break for the summer and the election. Although, I am sure that there will be hopes otherwise, there appears to be very little chance that the bill will actually become law before the House rises.

Over a year ago, the government seemed to place a higher priority on other bills instead of this one, and I will give the example of Bill C-24, which was called the Seinfeld bill about nothing. What was Bill C-24? Basically it was to codify the name change from Public Works to Public Services and Procurement, and also to change the accounting within the appropriations on how we pay the old ministers of state. That is it.

I have to ask, if no relationship is more important to the government, why was a bill codifying a name change of a ministry more important than bringing this bill forward? This issue encapsulates the lie about the government's claim of no relationship being more important.

I will talk about the issue of safe drinking water on reserves. The government has promised to eliminate the drinking advisories by 2021, which is fantastic and we support that. However, government members stand time and time again in the House and say how far they have come, and that they have take so many off, but they never mention the fact that for every two they have taken off since coming to power, one has been added.

In fact, it was even on its June website that 62 had been lifted but 33 had been added. If we go to the website today, we will see that it has actually taken off that portion of how many water advisories have been added. I have to ask, as the government members stand up again and again touting their success, why have they taken this off the website? What are they are trying to hide?

On the fiscal transparency issue, one of the first things the government did was lift the law for first nations to have fiscal transparency for their members. If we go to the government's departmental plan for Indigenous Services, which is the plan the government has to fill out, publish and table in the House and that the minister herself signs off on, one of its goals states that it is going to reduce the number of first nations complying with the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. Literally, the goal that is stated right in the departmental plan is to reduce the number of first nation bands complying with the transparency act by 23%. Now, I have to give the government points, as it actually succeeded partly on that. The departmental results plans that were just published show it reduced it by 8%.

The Auditor General Michael Ferguson who recently passed away, in his 2018 report, commented about the government splitting Indigenous Services and Northern Affairs. He stated that splitting the department into two different departments could be a step forward toward improving services for first nations, but that we won't know unless there's a way to track outcomes.

This goes back to the departmental plans. The departmental plans tabled in the House show what the government's priorities are, where it will be spending the money and what its planned outcomes and targets are going to be for the money spent and the actions for the year. In Indigenous Services, 50% of the targets set are to be determined.

In his report, the late Michael Ferguson stated that if we want to move forward in serving first nations, we need to see planned outcomes, but the government's response is to table a report where 50% of the goals for Indigenous Services for the year, their targets, their planned outcomes, are left blank. As well, 55% of the dates in their planned outcomes are left to be determined and 61% of the previous year's results are left as not applicable. Here is the government, again, with no relationship more important, stating the goals for Indigenous Services but that the government is not going to say what it did last year for comparison.

Again, I bring my colleagues back to what the late Michael Ferguson said, which was that we are not going to get better services unless we can judge the outcomes.

Remember that 50% did not have any targets at all. When they did set them, 21% of the targets show a decline or no improvement over the previous year. How are we going to move forward and help improve indigenous services when the government, for half of the Department of Indigenous Services, says it will not set a goal, and when it does set a goal, fully 21% show a decline from previous years?

For Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, one-quarter of their departmental plans show no goals for this year and 92% would not state what it was the previous year. Again, we have nothing to compare it with. I am going to give colleagues a couple of examples.

For the percentage of on-reserve, department-funded first nation drinking water systems meeting required standards, there was no improvement over three years. The government is planning to spend, I think, $1.2 billion in the budget. There was $400 million in the Liberal slush fund of vote 40, but their own plan shows it will not improve.

For the percentage of on-reserve, department-funded first nation wastewater systems being treated according to guidelines, there was about a 20% decrease from the previous government.

For the percentage of first nations living on reserves and reporting being in excellent health, there is a decline from the previous government.

Here is a great one, the percentage of DPC requests, which are predetermination requests for dental services, that are handled within the required service standards. Remember this is the government that spent $32,000 on legal bills to fight a first nations teenager from Alberta who needed dental work. The government's goal was to have 95% solved within the predetermined guidelines. Do members know what the government achieved last year? It was zero, not one. The government has time to sue people and time to fight a teenager in court but it cannot even accomplish its own goals.

The percentage of increase of indigenous businesses includes the money that is set aside for government procurements. It has dropped since the previous government.

We have heard from the NDP and others that there is a mould crisis in indigenous housing. In budget 2017, the government set aside $20 million a year for indigenous northern housing. Do members know what the government set aside for Tesla charging stations for rich millionaires, like the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister? It set aside $30 million a year. Thus, we are putting more aside for Tesla charging stations than the money to handle the crisis in first nations housing.

Again, I support Bill C-91. It is a great step forward but we have to do what the late Michael Ferguson stated. We have to set up a system where we can actually hold the government to account for its promises to deliver services to the first nations.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for his speech, but the problem is that he spoke of everything but indigenous languages. He talked about departmental structures, drinking water supply and matters currently before the courts.

It seems to me that those are all direct consequences of measures the previous government took to chip away at indigenous culture.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my answer is absolutely not, and what a ridiculous question.

The issue we are discussing today is Bill C-91, but it does tie in to all the failures of the government. It has stated repeatedly that no relationship is more important than its relationship with first nations, but we have seen, time and time again, that it has tabled documents in this Parliament that contradict everything it says.

The Liberal government lives, breathes and eats hypocrisy. This is another example. I just hope it will take Bill C-91 seriously and work with the people on this side of the House to send it to committee and actually accomplish something for first nations for a change, instead of just standing here making empty promises and empty announcements.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand the member is from the urban centre of Edmonton. There are many aboriginal people who live in Edmonton.

One of the things that interests me the most about this bill and the work that needs to be done is the education in the public school system and the private school system, not on reserve but in the city of Edmonton, and how we would manage to do that under a bill like this. As we well know, a good majority of first nations kids live off reserve. If we are going to make an effort to help young people get the opportunity to learn their own language, we are also going to have to do it in public schools in places like Edmonton.

I wonder if the member has an idea of where he sees this going and if we are going to succeed in bringing these languages back, not just on first nation reserves but in the cities right across Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a fantastic question and I thank the member opposite for that. I hope some of the ideas and suggestions on how we can do that will come out in committee.

In Edmonton there is a lady who is a trustee on the Catholic School Board, Debbie Engel. If Debbie is watching, I am giving her a shout-out. She has helped start a fantastic program through the Catholic school system, where they introduced a mentoring program for first nations students to keep young indigenous people in school. They have also tried to get funding for programs that will actually teach indigenous languages.

The member has an excellent suggestion. I hope we will reach out to the various public and private school systems throughout the country, and invite them in as witnesses so they can testify and give information on how we can make Bill C-91 a success.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for what was really quite a scathing summary in terms of the ability of the government to execute, in the indigenous services department, on its many priorities.

Looking at Bill C-91, could the member make further comments in terms of how we need to carefully monitor what is happening in order to make sure that what the government says it is going to do will be accomplished?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is great will in the House. I have heard it today and I started my speech by thanking a lot of the passionate speakers.

For Bill C-91, there is a great will in the House to get this done, to get it passed fast, to get it to committee fast, and hopefully, against all odds, to have it be made into law before the House breaks.

With this issue on first nations, as with everything else, we need to hold the government, at the time, responsible. It is not necessarily the people sitting in the House today, but the government at large, the bureaucrats, the deputy ministers. We have to hold them responsible for the will of the House, and I do see strong will in this House to make Bill C-91 succeed. We have to make sure we are holding them accountable to make sure the will of the House happens in Canada.