Yvan Loubier

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 5th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-23. Earlier, I listened carefully to the reply by the parliamentary secretary to my questions on where exactly in the bill it was clearly set out that all these parameters, all these institutions, and the framework of this legislation, were truly optional, in the following context.

If the federal government wants to slough off its fiduciary responsibilities, can it do so by the back door, using this bill? The answer is yes. Why so? I will demonstrate, if I may, and then will get back to some other essential information.

When I met the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a few weeks ago, he assured me beyond any doubt that, with the government's amendments, the new provisions in the bill would protect those first nations that did not wish to take advantage of the new framework imposed by Bill C-23.

He told me, “It will be beyond any doubt, and departmental staff will not have the right to use the means at their disposal, even intimidation, as has sometimes been the case in past files. That will be made clear”.

Looking at the amendments introduced by the government, however, we see there is no assurance that, once Bill C-23 is passed, there will be no government directives to the effect that, for example, any first nation's application for funding, or its ability to benefit from established programs, will not be subject to a directive indicating to the recalcitrant nations, “If you want to benefit from the program, or if you want to continue to get the funding to which you were entitled in the past, you absolutely must implement the provisions of Bill C-23”. There is no assurance whatsoever.

My references just now were not to isolated cases. This is, in my opinion, the best tool to relieve the federal government of any fiduciary responsibilities. That will be easy for the federal government, once the bill is passed. I am not saying that it will not benefit certain first nations, but they are the richest ones, the ones with the possibility of levying property taxes and borrowing from financial institutions.

As for the others, I believe we must have confidence in the aboriginal leaders. These are intelligent and thoughtful people. My colleague from Churchill mentioned that 61% of the chiefs of Canada's first nations have come out against this bill. The parliamentary secretary has just told us that, even if there were only one first nation that would benefit, he would fight for it.

That is the best way to divide and conquer, to arrange it so that, among the first nations, where there is usually great agreement on the defence of the basic rights of the aboriginal peoples, in comes a bill of this sort. The first nations are divided; two classes of members of the first nations are created; and they say, “Even if it is only of benefit to a few, we will pass it, despite fierce opposition by the 61% that do not want it”.

It would have been interesting, especially yesterday during the vote at report stage, to see the Prime Minister take a different approach. He brags about wanting to establish a new relationship and harmony between the first nations and the federal government, which has been sorely lacking over the past few years with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whose mind was made up, who wanted nothing to do with aboriginal claims, who took a hard line and disregarded the unanimous opposition to Bill C-7, for example. Relations between us and the aboriginal people have suffered incredibly as a result of the former minister's attitude to the governance bill, or Bill C-7.

The Prime Minister tells us he wants to establish a new relationship. He even held a first nations summit—quite recently, just a few days ago—where he talked about new directions and self-government and so forth. He stood up yesterday, all smiles and fervour, and gave his unconditional support to Bill C-23, completely disregarding the fact that the majority of these first nations oppose this bill.

Before leaving, he actually greeted first nations members who were sitting in the gallery and who were extremely upset about what was happening. Yesterday, they found out that the new framework for harmonious relations between Ottawa and the first nations was just a smokescreen. The current Prime Minister will do exactly as his predecessor did; he will try to impose his views on the majority of first nations.

This is no way to act. When Bill C-7 was introduced in the House, we argued strenuously against it. Even on an initial cursory examination—we looked into it more closely later on—we realized that what the government wanted to propose was as shameful as the Indian Act that has been in effect for 130 years.

We spoke out against this legislation and we fought it, because the first nations have unanimously asked us to do so on their behalf. Unfortunately, the first nations were not at the table of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

When we are discussing the future of the first nations and redefining relations, it seems to me that first nations officials should be at the table to be part of these discussions. In this regard, the treaties that were signed decades if not centuries ago, were not agreements reached by Europeans, by pioneers who subordinated first nations and looked condescendingly on them. These agreements were reached through a negotiation process.

The first nations never gave up any authority over their lands. They never gave away any part of their lands either. Over time, over the past 130 years, with the Indian Act, we have violated the rights of first nations, we have parked them in reserves and told them “Do not worry, we will give you something to drink and eat”. We deprived them of their resources, of their traditional activities and of their hunting and fishing grounds. We also trampled on their institutions.

What are we doing today? We are proceeding more slowly, in a more polished manner, but we are doing the same thing. The large majority of first nations keep telling us that they are not satisfied with this bill, just as they unanimously told us that they disagreed with Bill C-7. We fought on their behalf against that legislation. We won because Bill C-7 was set aside.

However, have we actually won? This government has more or less the same attitude as the previous government. In fact, this government is the continuation of its predecessor.

It might be interesting to stop imposing things on first nations. It might be interesting to negotiate as equal partners. Such was the spirit of the initial treaties. There was a wampum belt, which was a kind of symbolic but no less real contract in terms of provisions. These treaties talked about two peoples making their way in parallel, each looking after its own affairs, in harmony, sharing the land, not transferring it from the first nations to the first Europeans.

Has our attitude changed? Yes it has. As a Parliament, we feel it is our mission to keep first nations in line. We do not care about harmony. We could have kept on working on this bill until things were perfectly clear and truly optional. For example, it is out of the question for ancestral lands to be used as collateral, or one day become the property of large financial institutions instead of belonging to first nations.

We could have agreed on a way to ensure the development of all first nations in order to do something about their desperate lack of wealth.

We could have agreed to fast track self-government negotiations while at the same time moving to adopt institutions which would have been optional and used only by those first nations ready and willing to do so. First nations that were forced by the government through the back door, against their will, to accept certain parameters of Bill C-23 should have been provided avenues of redress. This could have been done. Why was it not?

How can we allow ourselves to say that, if 40% of first nations agree, we can disregard the other 60%? Those who see this as the path to harmony should realize that they do not have the right attitude.

At a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, I put a question to the deputy minister in charge of negotiations regarding the expression “inherent right of first nations to self-government”, which is to say outright self-government. I asked him what was the status of these negotiations at present and what timeframe he envisaged to reach a settlement, to make agreements. These agreements would allow first nations to benefit from development tools such as government, community-based decision-making related to their identity, their culture, and even to aboriginal institutions which were scoffed at in the past.

I asked him when he thought the negotiations on self-government would end. He could not say. He only said that a lot of resources were needed to finalize the talks. That should be a government priority. We should not put the cart before the horse. We should not create institutions that are not suited to the vast majority of first nations.

My colleague from Churchill was quite clear on that when she asked what wealth the majority of first nations will be able to apply the provisions of the bill to or to benefit from. There is a high level of poverty in the majority of first nations communities. Basic needs are not even being met.

With respect to housing, for example, this year, 450 units will be built in Quebec, when it is 8,700 that are needed. Most of the existing housing stock has problems. There are chronic mould problems.

Where in this bill is there a possibility for these first nations to escape the poverty cycle? There are also socio-economic problems. What have we to offer for the young except a dead end? Does the bill deal with that? No.

The only possible answer is to speed up the implementation of self-government and give back to the first nations the ability to pursue their inherent right to self-government, which is entrenched in our Constitution. First nations need the tools to bring about their own development. Only after that should we consider the use of institutions that will gradually become major tools for the pursuit of that development.

What is our response to the problem of multiple substance abuse among first nations youth? What does a bill like this do about the lack of safe drinking water in many areas? Something is wrong. We are setting up ultra-modern institutions that can meet the needs of the rich, but not the real needs and circumstances of native peoples.

When we consider the situation now, two things should be done, as I said several times. First, we should provide adequate resources. And by adequate, I mean resources that are urgently needed to speed up the conclusion of self-government agreements so that we can eventually leave the first nations alone. They should become equal partners. Let us stop patronizing them and trying to impose things the overwhelming majority does not want. That is the first thing we should do.

Then, we should adopt a contingency plan. As I was saying earlier, there are urgent problems on first nations lands, serious socio-economic problems. Members of the first nations are left to their own devices.

What is happening in Lac Barrière with the unsanitary homes, is nothing new. I have seen the same thing in many aboriginal communities across the country. These people are being left to their own devices. Sometimes there is not enough money to hire a teacher, for example, to keep the school open in September.

We have to fight here, as we did in Winneway for example, for Chief Mathias. We asked for supplementary funds to prevent the school from closing in his community for lack of a teacher. There was a two month delay.

Now, chief Mathias has to deal with forestry companies that want to cut trees on his land. This Algonquin community does not get any royalties. What kind of world do we live in? We are in 2004, and we still have the old colonizing attitudes that existed a few hundred years ago.

We must accelerate self-government and introduce emergency plans to force the communities with the most problems to solve their dramatic social and economic situation.

I wish that the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the new Prime Minister had more consideration for first nations. I know that, with my speech, I will disappoint some of the first nations that would like to see this bill passed quickly.

However, we would have liked a renewal. As I mentioned earlier, the government could have reached out to all first nations in Quebec and in Canada and said, “Listen, we will take a few more weeks, but the outcome will be approved unanimously, or with a very wide consensus”. If this project had been proposed at the Assembly of First Nations' convention, the attitude would have been totally different.

I sensed some openness on the part of the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I also sensed some openness on the part of the new Prime Minister. However, in view of the facts so far, as of yesterday at least, when we voted on the report stage of this bill, my opinion has changed. The Prime Minister and all the members of the government, including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, have missed a unique opportunity to demonstrate that perhaps now was not the right time to pass this bill, and that they should review the whole bill so as to reach a consensus.

In addition, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development could have announced—before continuing debate on this bill—that he intended to put more resources into negotiations about self-government. He did not do so. There is nothing there but words and speeches; the attitude and actions are not there; it is just not enough.

A few weeks ago, as I mentioned earlier, the deputy minister responsible for the negotiations admitted it, but not in so many words, by not providing a target date for the conclusion of the negotiations for the 80 self-government and claims tables. He sounded the alarm. Since the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Erasmus-Dussault report, was published there has not been any real acceleration in these negotiations.

The Erasmus-Dussault commission, as hon. members will recall, talked about 20 years for a wide range of things to be put in place so all negotiations on self-government could be concluded and the first nations would finally be able to take charge of their own destiny and develop their communities in terms of what they are and what they want to become.

At this rate, in 50 years, nothing will have changed. In 50 years, our successors will say, “Listen, many negotiations still have to be concluded. There are still first nations living below the poverty line with unemployment rates as high as 75% in some communities; there are substance abuse problems”.

The Erasmus-Dussault commission provided a golden opportunity to change things. Ever since the report was tabled, it is as though it never existed. The attitude seems to be, “Since we have given ourselves 20 years, we can take our time”.

We cannot take our time anymore. It has now become a national emergency. We absolutely have to redefine a number of things. We have even been criticized by organizations like the United Nations. That is incredible. And we are turning a deaf ear.

With the support of my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I would like to move the following motion in amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-23, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be not now read a third time because it fails to meet the needs of most first nations.”

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 5th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary misunderstood my question. I am not saying that there are isolated cases involving public servants. What I am saying is that the government wants so much for this law to apply that it might give directives to its officials to make it totally mandatory to meet the requirements of the law.

The federal government has found a backdoor method of setting aside its fiduciary duties, by passing this bill and making the first nations responsible—against their wishes—for applying the provisions of the law.

These are not isolated cases. They might be directives from the government, which has an incredible desire to apply the provisions of this law. My fear is that the federal government will throw its fiduciary responsibilities out the back door.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 5th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. He talks about this being optional and says that the legislation will not apply to first nations who are not interested.

Can he tell me precisely where in the bill it says that first nations not wanting to comply with the provisions of this legislation will be protected? Also, how can we protect first nations from officials at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who might say to them, “If you want this money, you have to comply with the requirements of this legislation”?

We saw cases during our tours and meetings with first nations representatives where officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development—like the former minister of that department—were incredibly arrogant. They pointed the finger at the first nations and made them comply with their requirements.

How can we protect the first nations from such behaviour that I am sure will take place? Tell me exactly where I can find the optional aspect of this bill. Where exactly?

[Foreign Affairs, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. colleague could answer the following: how exactly is it awkward that the Prime Minister has stated his intention to hold little get-togethers between leaders? Could he explain what he meant by that statement? Awkward how? We certainly find it so.

[Foreign Affairs, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, after his initial hesitation about the UN's role in the Iraq conflict, yesterday found the Prime Minister in Washington proposing little informal get-togethers, no less, for the heads of state to privately come up with solutions to world problems.

Is this proposal by the Prime Minister not just another attempt to minimize and trivialize the United Nation's role in conflict resolution?

[Canada National Parks Act, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am done. We support Bill C-28. That is all.

[Canada National Parks Act, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on Bill C-28. We support this legislation.

However, I want to say that I am upset this morning after reading in the newspapers that, in 1995, $38 million were spent to fight sovereignists in Quebec, to betray democracy. I will continue to say and maintain that each and everyone of those people over there is a robber of democracy.

[Canada National Parks Act, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the federalists stole the referendum from us in 1995. I can take the insults and abuse from the President of the Privy Council; it does not bother me one bit, because it concerns the future of my people.

As for the $38 million put into the referendum campaign, it is disgusting. It is shameful. It is a miscarriage of democracy. These are dishonest people. These are people who thwarted democracy. These are people who have deceived the entire population of Quebec and I continue to maintain that—

[Canada National Parks Act, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak briefly on Bill C-28.

First, I too want to salute my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain and tell him how much I enjoyed making his acquaintance. Even if we did not often have the opportunity to work together, we crossed paths numerous times in the lobby, and he was always truly kind to us. He always had a smile on his face. So I want to wish him a wonderful retirement.

That said, we support Bill C-28, first because it corrects a past error with regard to land transfer agreements. Furthermore, I also salute the initiative to expand the land base of the first nations in question.

Population growth among the first nations is nearly double that of non-natives. So their need for space and housing is also growing. As my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry indicated, I consider housing for aboriginals to be a top priority.

This bill appears to have the support of all the parties. When a group such as Greenpeace supports a plan, with regard to the environment, that says it all. It means that, environmentally speaking, there is almost unanimous support for this bill.

I was listening earlier to my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain ask if the non-aboriginal communities in the surrounding areas were consulted. I have another perspective on this plan to transfer lands and negotiate for lands and shared lands, as under the draft agreement with the Innu in Quebec.

When the Europeans first settled here, they did not ask the first nations for permission. When the aboriginals were parked on reserves, 130 years ago, they did not give up their rights to their lands. However, non-natives thought they had and exploited those lands without asking for their permission.

So, when we talk about this kind of agreement and other negotiated land claim agreements and aboriginal land use agreements, we need to keep an open mind and be prepared to make reparations. Legislation like this one is an example.

However, this alone will not suffice. It is nice to make the reserves larger but, fundamentally, reserves as such are concepts that should be completely eliminated, and negotiations on self-government, along with a valuable land base for aboriginal communities in the future, should be accelerated.

This is called the inherent right to self-government, also known as ancestral treaty rights, which clearly established, for the most part, the lands that belonged to the first nations when the Europeans first arrived in Canada.

I am in favour of this bill. It is a step in the right direction as far as an agreement on housing is concerned but I would remind the government that aboriginal housing is in a crisis situation.

Here again are the statistics I have been bringing up virtually every day for the past month. There are 93,000 housing units on the reserves of Quebec and Canada, and a large number of them have problems with major construction defects or generalized mildew and mould.

Not only do most of the 93,000 units have potential problems, but they have to house 113,000 households. So there is a shortfall of 20,000 housing units at this time. On some of the reserves I visited with my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain, there are close to two whole families living in one two-bedroom house. It is, for example, not unusual to see twelve to fifteen people under one roof. This makes no sense at all.

If memory serves, my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry has just referred to a project to construct 160 housing units and said that 36 units were needed in the very short term.

At the present time, thousands of units are urgently needed, so there is an absolute necessity to draw up an emergency plan for the construction of new housing for aboriginal peoples. In Quebec and Labrador along, there would have to be 8,700 built this year, and the plan is for only 450. The situation is becoming desperate.

It can be readily seen that the Bloc Quebecois is not here just for the sake of opposition. Despite what they say on the government side, when good government bills are introduced we support them. This has happened on a number of occasions. When, on the other hand, they are bad bills and do a disservice to the first nations, or to the population in general, naturally we come down heavily on the government.

Many people do not clearly understand the role of the opposition, and that includes people like Jean Lapierre, who goes around saying that we must vote on the right side, that is the side of the government, the side of power. Despite his great experience, he still does not get what the role of the opposition is. Our role is, basically, to make governments better.

If there is no opposition in a parliamentary system, there is bad government. Dictatorships is what they are then called. If Jean Lapierre sides with dictatorial regimes, then he has a problem.

It is the same for the President of the Treasury Board. He says, “Vote for the right party. Vote for the government. The opposition has nothing to offer”. That means he does not understand either and does not grasp the role of the opposition, which is to make much better governments and to reflect views that are slightly different from the government's, but that nonetheless represent the views of people who put their trust in us.

Even those who do not vote for us expect a strong opposition in order to avoid having a puppet government, a banana republic government that greases its own palm, or the palms of its friends.

Look at the sponsorship scandal. We did a public service. Had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois, no one would have known about the scandal. It would have been covered up. No government Liberal MP, no backbencher—not even a Liberal MP from Quebec—ever once stood up to denounce the sponsorship problem.

Yet on the opposition side, we have been talking about it for years. We have asked the government hundreds of questions. If it had not been for the opposition, we never would have known about the nearly $1 billion that was spent to promote Canadian unity and to steal the 1995 referendum from us. For that was what they did. It was a miscarriage of democracy. Nearly three and a half times more was spent than either camp was allowed to spend under Quebec's Referendum Act.

This did not bother the federal government. In this case we could say that the government was above the law. It took away Quebec's right to a referendum on sovereignty. Money from taxpayers in Quebec and Canada was used to skew the referendum in Quebec.

Is there any doubt that we lost the referendum by 30,000 votes because the federal government stole it from us? It used our taxes to deliver a hard punch, to thwart democracy and Quebeckers' freedom of choice.

Even federalists in Quebec should be upset because of what happened in 1995. Indeed, these people willingly took part in this democratic exercise. They wanted to debate the issue of Quebec's political and constitutional future, but the federal government came from behind, totally foiled this democratic debate and stole the referendum.

I feel that we are sovereign in fact, but that the federal government has covered up the result that we should have had in 1995. This is a shame. I am saying this calmly, but I am enraged. This rage will help me beat Liberal candidates in Quebec.

This aspect alone of what they did in 1995 is an incredible disgrace. It was an act of dishonesty, it was robbery, it was a denial of democracy and it was very reprehensible. They will pay dearly for that. In any case, I am making a commitment today to achieve sovereignty for Quebec and to work very hard in the coming years, regardless of their darn millions.

To top it all off, the President of the Privy Council is laughing about this. He is laughing because he stole the referendum in 1995 with the federal government's hundreds of millions. This is unbelievable. This is dishonest, these people are crooks—

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we oppose most of the amendments proposed by the government because they add nothing to the issue and improve the bill not one bit.

As far as concordance of the French and English is concerned, of course we support that. For the rest, however, the amendments do not include those that the minister had promised to ensure that the provisions of Bill C-23 would not have to apply to all the first nations.

The minister, and the minister before him, have told us “Well now, if a first nation does not want to take advantage of the provisions of the new first nation fiscal and statistical management act, it will not have to”.

I admit to some doubts on this statement by both the former and present ministers of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When we travelled the country in connection with the bill on first nations governance and specific land claims, we came to realize that DIAND employees in a number of communities acted as if they were the lord and master, and made decisions on the future of aboriginal communities that were often contrary to what the band councils had decided. We heard about a few such cases.

I have doubts about the good will of those who will have to apply this new legislation on the financial and statistical administration of the first nations.

When I spoke just now on the first group of amendments, the last point was the most urgent problems being faced by the first nations, those not dealt with in this bill, in the amendments, or in any other bills introduced so far by the government.

It seems that this government does not understand that there are a number of communities in Quebec and in Canada having to cope every day with problems that would cause us to immediately declare a state of emergency if they occurred in our communities.

The housing problem is probably the most urgent one at this time. For the benefit of those listening to us, I will take a few minutes to document the severity of this housing crisis in our first nations communities.

We are told that Indian reserves have slightly more than 93,000 housing units. There are 113,000 households for 93,000 units. Therefore, we have a 20,000 unit deficit, and 20,000 households are left without a home or are forced to share one with another household. In several first nations communities, we have seen occurrences where 12 to 15 people share two bedrooms. In certain communities, it defies imagination.

A few months ago, my colleague from Champlain and I went to Weymontachie, in my riding. This is an Attikamek community where housing needs are critical. Housing is inadequate, but that is not the only problem. All the houses in this reserve have a chronic problem of mould and mildew. They have to be torn down and rebuilt.

The situation is similar in many communities, but I am taking Weymontachie as an example because we went there a few months ago. To tear down these houses and build new ones, all they have is $35,000.

Just try to do that today: tear down a house, dispose of the rubble and build a new house for the modest sum of $35,000. It does not make sense. Just buying the materials and using the house building expertise of first nation people in this community to put up a new house would cost at least $85,000. And the house would be bought at cost. What can you do with $35,000?

These are buildings that will not stand the test of time. They are basic buildings made of materials that are often of very poor quality. Because they have to save money somewhere, the design is quite basic. The result is that a few years later the same problems resurface, because they could not get an adequate ventilation system or adequate windows to prevent mould and mildew.

It becomes a dead end. When we ask questions, departmental officials tell us that there is no budget for contingencies, there is no plan to make up for the time lost and deal with the shortage of 20,000 housing units in the short term, and there is no additional money earmarked to deal with problems such as mildew or inadequate water and sewage systems.

This is Canada, this is the 21st century and there are communities that are living like people did in the previous century. The government, which acts as a trustee for these communities, is not tackling the issues. It would rather introduce bills that are far from being unanimously supported by first nations, and it does not even think about helping them deal with glaring needs such as housing.

Earlier, I mentioned some figures that apply to Canada. The Quebec and Labrador chapter of the Assembly of First Nations also conducted a study recently. In fact, that study had to be adjusted with Statistics Canada as regards the methodology used, because there were discrepancies of up to 75% between the figures provided by Statistics Canada and those of the first nations. After consulting with Statistics Canada, it was determined that the first nations were right.

Why should this come as a surprise? Who is in a better position than a first nation member to explain what is going on among first nations? It is not Statistics Canada, here in downtown Ottawa, that is in a position to know what is going on in Weymontachie, in Winneway, in Mashteuiatsh, among the Six Nations or others across Quebec and Canada.

In Quebec and Labrador, it would take 8,700 housing units this year to meet the needs of first nations. However, only 450 units will be built this year. This does not make sense. There is no contingency plan. There is nothing. The government would rather not bother with such things. It is trying to impose legislation that is opposed by 61% of first nations communities, instead of trying to achieve a consensus and come up with a bill that will truly help first nations develop and settle issues such as the crying need for housing units.

They seem to be incapable of identifying the real needs. And yet, the first nations lobby and carry out studies. You have no idea how many studies they do, for free, to help the government. They have been doing them for decades in order to explain their situation. Despite everything, even after the Penner commission and the Erasmus-Dussault commission, the one element that would speed up implementation of measures to solve these problems has not been found.

Once again, I am disappointed, because I thought the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was more open and more flexible on this, and that he was not like the former minister, whose mind was made up and who was not even aware of the needs of the communities. I am astonished to see that there is no amendment to satisfy the wishes of the majority—not a minority, but a large majority—of the first nations who do not want this bill.

It is not because it would have been impossible. It would have been possible to say that since some first nations, especially in British Columbia, wanted this bill, it would apply to them, correcting the point we mentioned about the fiduciary duties of the federal government. Arrangements could have been made. But instead there was nothing—no exceptions.

We know how things work at Indian Affairs. They use intimidation. If first nations do not want to come on side then they are intimidated, funding for their schools is delayed, for example. That is what happened in Winneway last year. We should have made interventions here in this House for the Winneway budget to be completed so that this Algonquin community could hire the teacher it needed to keep its school open.

It is inconceivable. Communities cannot be run like this. That is why I was saying, during the debate on the amendments in Group No. 1, that it is vital that we move more quickly toward self-government. It is the only solution.

We will, of course, vote against this bill.