Yvan Loubier

[Points of Order, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to your attention a situation which arose yesterday in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources during a debate in connection with a time allocation motion presented by a Liberal member of the committee.

While we were debating that motion, and while my colleague from Winnipeg Centre had the floor, a member of the Liberal Party, namely the member for Miramichi, raised a point of order with the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources and moved the previous question, which is not allowed by the Standing Orders. To quote page 786 of the House and Commons Procedure and Practice :

The moving of the previous question is prohibited in a Committee of the Whole as it is in any committee.

Further on the same page it states:

—the moving of the previous question would prevent Members from proposing amendments and considering the legislation to the fullest extent possible.

In this case, the motion in question was a time allocation motion, and my colleague from Winnipeg Centre had the floor.

The committee chair ignored this procedure, this Standing Order, and allowed the previous question to be moved. We challenged this decision by the chair. It is immediately obvious that the chair was, and still is, in complete contradiction with the Standing Orders of the House, and those applying to committees.

It is true, as you stated yesterday, that the committees are masters of their own proceedings and procedures, but still those procedures must comply with the Standing Orders of this House and those applicable to the proper conduct of committee business.

In this case, the committee—and in particular its chair, by his actions—has demonstrated that it needs to be brought back in order. It has very clearly gone beyond the Standing Orders and, as the preceding citation demonstrates, is preventing the members from doing their job properly and effectively.

I would, moreover, like to submit to you another situation that occurred in this same committee during the first part of its deliberations yesterday. The chair used disgraceful language, unworthy of his office, unworthy of the institution we respect, and unworthy of any member worthy of that name. He used foul language, calling me “chien sale” and “enfant de chienne”. He repeated these terms several times.

I appeal to you today, given these two situations which do no honour to the institution or to the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. Since the chair of my committee was not able to act as the guardian of my rights and privileges, therefore, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice , page 261, you are:

—the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

Moreover, on the previous page of that book, we see that:

The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to intervene, because the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources contravenes the Standing Orders by his cavalier management of debates, and cause the chair to reverse his decision to allow the moving of the previous question.

I also ask you to intervene to have him stop using disgraceful, unparliamentary language that is particularly unworthy of a committee chair, because we cannot continue in this way; we cannot work effectively to defend the interests of the people we represent in this kind of working environment.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak about the most recent federal budget. I could have started this budget critique by talking about how the Minister of Finance has quite deliberately underestimated, once again, the federal surplus for this fiscal year and next.

Because the new Minister of Finance has done exactly the same thing as his predecessor. In fact, he has resorted to the same trickery in underestimating the surplus. Therefore, to a certain extent, he has distorted the democratic debate we should be having here. We do not have a true picture of public finances. How can we judge the relevance and value of government measures, without knowing the real range of possibilities available to this government to benefit the public and serve the public interest?

I could also have talked about those left out of this budget. The most important such group are the self-employed, who are still unable to take advantage of employment insurance. There are also the workers who have suffered from the softwood lumber crisis. And yet, the other side of the House had proposed implementing measures to at least partially bandage their wounds following the Americans' refusal to budge for the past few years.

We could have also mentioned the first nations peoples, who were totally left out. It sounds good to mention them in the throne speech. Aboriginals and their problems have been mentioned in at least three consecutive throne speeches. Each one calls for new arrangements to be negotiated with each nation. But when the time comes to take concrete action, nothing really substantial is offered.

I would like, instead, to talk about a new measure found in this budget which no one has said very much about. From the outside, it might seem very positive, but when one scratches the surface, the reality is rather Kafkaesque. It is in true Kafkaesque tradition.

I am referring to the new employment insurance benefit for compassionate care leave. We have been talking about it for a long time. Even the last Speech from the Throne said that people who decide to stop working for a short period of time to take care of a sick loved one, deserve the chance to do so without penalty.

The last Speech from the Throne gave the example of a mother who has to take care of her sick child. It said that the federal government was prepared to take measures to allow her to provide care without penalty.

The budget includes an initiative that is quite peculiar when examined more closely, and could lead to very dehumanizing, inhumane and cynical situations. On close examination, it does not measure up to be a good program.

For instance, we are told that this compassionate leave initiative will come into effect in January 2004. That is one year from now, which is too late; it is too far away. They also say that a parent will have a maximum of six weeks to take care of a sick child, but are quick to add there will be a two-week waiting period.

In reality, the parent who takes care of a sick child will be entitled to four weeks of benefits. Why is there a penalty? This is beyond comprehension. In the beginning, when you decide to stop working because your child is seriously ill, you should not be penalized for two weeks. Above all, it should not be set out in writing that there is a two-week waiting period. It is an utterly cynical initiative.

In addition—and this is where cynicism is added to sarcasm and insult to injury—we are told that the program is for a parent, a child, or a spouse who will very likely die in the next six months. This is the condition that must be met. In other words, Human Resources Development Canada will require proof that the child you are taking care of will die in six months in order for you to receive net compensation of four weeks of employment insurance, because there is already a two week penalty.

I have questioned the value of such a measure. I wondered about the current procedure. The Employment Insurance Act contains a provision allowing a parent to stop work in order to care for a child. For a number of years now, over-zealous departmental employees have felt this provision entitling people to care for a sick family member was at odds with the one requiring them to be available for work.

I have had recent examples of this in my riding, which have resulted in unbelievable exclusions. For instance, there is the case of the mother of a child with a brain tumour. The child had been ill for a year, but the doctors could not find the cause. The mother herself fell ill from the stress of not knowing. She applied for employment insurance, and normally would have been entitled to it under the current provisions. She had to take her case to the board of referees. The three members were unanimously in favour of her claim, saying she was entitled to benefits to care for her sick child, having fallen ill herself from the stress and worry.

The Human Resources Development administration at Saint-Hyacinthe appealed the decision of the board of referees and took it before an umpire in order to have the case reviewed. Imagine, taking to an umpire a case that had been unanimously accepted by a board of referees concerning benefits to a mother whose child had a brain tumour.

Fortunately, public pressure, and the efforts by my office and by the MAC, a coalition for the unemployed, managed to get the appeal dropped. That was fortunate. But is this much effort necessary every time, is public pressure required just to get people to see common sense? That is the way things are at present.

How is this being replaced? With the program I have just referred to: six weeks, including the two week waiting period, in order to qualify for employment insurance benefits for one or the other parent to look after a seriously ill child, provided they can establish that the child will die within six months. If a program like this is not Kafkaesque, if it is not dehumanizing, if it is not devoid of compassion, then I do not know what it is.

Given what has happened over the last seven years, following this government's EI reforms—and the example I just mentioned proves this—we know quite well that when it comes time to interpret the act over-zealously, and for the local Human Resources Development Canada office to issue cold-hearted correspondence to workers, they are capable of being inhuman.

Will we be seeing notes like the following:

Dear Ms. X,

Since you were unable to establish that your child will die within the reasonable timeframe of six months, we hereby notify you that you do not qualify for compassionate care leave.

Sincerely,

“A bureaucrat”

Is this the type of correspondence we should expect? Those are indeed the eligibility requirements for EI leave to provide care for a child who is seriously ill. That is the type of correspondence that a mother who wants to care for her sick child will receive, because one of the two parents must always make that terribly difficult decision. It is either the mother or the father who will look after the child who will die within six months, but not both. That, too, is incomprehensible.

There is not a scintilla of humanity in what was presented; there is not a scrap of compassion. Imagine the surreal, Kafkaesque administrative straitjacket you find yourself in when you are in the grips of a very dramatic situation, when you are dealing with the blow of fatality, when your child is extremely sick and, on top of that, you have to establish that he or she will die in the next six months.

This should be the kind of correspondence you receive in that type of situation:

You have proven beyond any doubt that the person you wish to provide care for is likely to die in the coming six months. We are pleased to notify you that you qualify for benefits.

That is no way to run a program, void of any compassion, and then call it a special program that was established for compassionate reasons.

Sometimes, I ask myself how the government is running the public administration. It would have been so simple to produce a short memo to HRDC officials and tell them, “from now on, if parents are providing care for a sick child, they will qualify for EI benefits for the maximum number of weeks” rather than coming up with a program that is as Kafkaesque as this one, which tops cynicism with sarcasm.

[Lubicon Lake Cree Nation, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the present Prime Minister, then Minister of Indian Affairs, said the following in connection with the Lubicon Lake Cree Nation, “The Liberal Party understands your concern—. We support the swift resolution of all claims, and consider the Lubicon claim to be a priority”.

Members of this nation are still living in shacks with no running water and their community suffers from a dramatically high level of crime and multiple substance abuse.

Worse yet, the federal government has allowed the area of the Lake Lubicon Nation land claim to be occupied by super-polluting major oil companies. This has had disastrous effects on the health of those now living in the area.

The federal government has also allowed major forestry companies to clear cut the area, with disastrous effects on hunting, fishing and trapping grounds, to such an extent that the percentage of social assistance recipients in the community has risen from 10% in 1980 to 95% at the present time.

With all this, the United Nations has accused Ottawa of violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Mr. Prime Minister, keep your promise.

[Microbreweries, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, microbreweries in Quebec and Canada are facing unfair competition from large Canadian breweries and small foreign breweries, which, unlike our microbreweries, benefit from a reduction in their national excise tax.

During the prebudget consultations, the Standing Committee on Finance unanimously recommended that this excise tax be reduced.

Could the Minister of Finance explain why, despite the injustices suffered by microbreweries, and after 38 of them have had to shut down, no such measure was included in his budget?

[The Budget, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois asked for a lower federal excise tax rate for microbreweries, to help them compete with large Canadian breweries and with foreign microbreweries. This measure was also recommended in the prebudget report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

The Minister of Finance chose to ignore the committee's unanimous recommendations. Could he tell us why?

[Aboriginal Peoples, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to invite all members of this House to meet first nations leaders from across Canada today, after 3 p.m., in Room 238-S, Centre Block.

This will provide us all, the Liberal MPs in particular, with an opportunity to learn more about aboriginal peoples and their aspirations.

This reception and the display that goes with it will help us discover the true reality of the first nations people as well as their positions on the various bills that will be coming up for debate in the House in the months to come.

This government needs to give up trying to convince Canadians and Quebeckers, and MPs, that its relationship with the aboriginal community is harmonious and constructive. To find out the truth, come and meet and greet the key stakeholders.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, who is often very clear-headed and compassionate, I think that this is not the case when it comes to Bill C-19.

As I was explaining earlier, the principles contained in this bill may look good. We even gave our support in principle when the bill was introduced. The problem is how we are going about this. We are doing everything backwards.

We have not granted self-government, nor have we encouraged it for some first nations. Yet, we are already imposing systems that treat them like municipalities.

My colleague says that not all communities are alike. Do they need to be alike? Do we need to manage one nation the same way as another? Would we impose our way of doing things on France, on Belgium and on the U.S.? There are traditions and there are also customs.

Recently, the Standing Committee on Finance heard from an American expert who had studied the evolution of aboriginal communities in the United States. According to him, the governance experiments that worked were those that respected first nations' ways, their ancestral practices for choosing leaders and managing and making decisions that affect the community. That is what worked.

Other attempts to impose standardized methods were a complete failure. We need to consider the experience gained elsewhere.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my Alliance colleague, I must say that he has repeated at least two clichés that have been around for years regarding aboriginals, things that the general public are being led to believe are true. However, it is false to claim that aboriginals waste more money than Canadians and Quebeckers.

I could give examples of mismanagement. Every year, for the federal government alone, the Auditor General has seven or eight thick volumes full of examples of government bungling, overinflated bureaucracy, waste and financial administration decisions that are totally ridiculous and shameful for us as taxpayers. That is the first thing.

When the Auditor General appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, she did not say that there was more waste within aboriginal communities or that management was not as good; she said that these communities were overaudited.

This means that not only are they required to file audit reports and not only do 96% of the 633 first nations meet those audit requirements, but it is excessive. They are overaudited. There is not enough auditing here, and there is too much of it there.

According to another very popular cliché, billions of dollars are handed out to the first nations and yet things do not improve. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs manages billions of dollars. As I said earlier, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is responsible for implementing a shameful, outdated and racist act, the Indian Act, that treats the aboriginal people like children.

One has to wonder why, after spending billions of dollars, we have been unable to assist the plight of the aboriginal people. Is it because we should be getting rid of this infamous act? Is it because we should be getting rid of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and implementing self-government for the aboriginal people so that we can negotiate with them nation to nation and let them control their own agenda? It does not make any sense: we are not giving them money, we are granting them compensation for all the harm we are causing them on a daily basis. That is what we are doing.

Do members not think that aboriginal Canadians would prefer to have their own government, to be self-governing, to choose their own leaders according to their traditions and customs? They deserve as much dignity as us. We have to be careful here. The Alliance is much too fond of clichés.

I would like to talk about another incident that happened at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. Someone said, “Aboriginals have trouble managing their affairs”. It was a senior official whose name I forget, but it was someone hired by the Liberal government of Canada. Speaking about their finances, he was saying, “Several communities are overly indebted”.

I asked what proportion. It was 30%. I then asked him, “Could you say the opposite? In maths, we say that 100 minus 30 is 70”. We could therefore say that 70% of the aboriginal communities manage their affairs well and are not overly indebted. This is a little more positive, this is a clearer indication of what is going on.

I reminded him that the federal government, with an accumulated debt of $530 billion, cannot be an example for anyone. There is a central government and a huge accumulated debt of $530 billion. As for giving advice to the aboriginal people, 70% of whom manage their affairs properly and have no excessive accumulated debt, I think we can forget about that.

The public hears all these clichés and believes them. Then, when we settle land claims or resource claims or hunting and fishing claims, people say, “This is disgusting. They are being given so much. They already have billions of dollars. They are being given all the land, all our taxpayers' money”. This is the result of the clichés that some friends of the Alliance, even by some individuals who used to sit in this House, are repeating all over the place.

I think we must be very careful when we talk about aboriginals and we must also be honest with what we say about them.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, you took me a bit by surprise. I thought that the government had a bill to defend, especially when it is its own bill. However, we find that even the government's own members are not willing to defend a bill such as Bill C-19.

We can see why. Bill C-19 is part of a major federal offensive, along with Bills C-6 and C-7, against all the traditional land claims and the rights of Canada's first nations, such as the inherent right to self-government, the right to a land base, the right also to compensation for the 130 years during which they were subjected to the Indian Act—the most retrograde law ever conceived by man, and this law was created right here in Canada 130 years ago. All these rights, as well as the respect to which our first nations are entitled, are being trampled by Bill C-19. And, of course, Bill C-19 is part of a whole scheme that also includes Bills C-6 and C-7.

We always come back to the same basic problem. When the government came up with Bill C-19, it had not even bothered to adequately consult first nations. This is an attempt to shove a bill they do not want down their throats. This is an attempt to undermine their credibility, to say for example that the Assembly of First Nations does not represent all first nations in Canada, which is false. There is even a federal law that recognizes the Assembly of First Nations as the spokesperson for first nations in Canada.

But, as the old saying goes, divide and conquer. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has taken this old adage to heart and is being quite machiavellian in how he applies it.

They are even going to bypass the Assembly of First Nations and choose some Liberal Party sympathizers. The selected individuals picked by the Liberal Party of Canada and by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will then say that they agree with the government, that everything is great and that everything in the bill is great.

We tried to amend Bill C-19. We tried to convince the minister that this bill was not quite right, that first nations had very legitimate claims, that they wanted to be consulted and that they wanted to be respected for who they are. The minister turned a deaf ear.

Many representations on Bill C-19, C-6 and C-7 were made. Currently, Bill C-7 is at the committee stage. Each time we have proposed amendments to improve the contents, to ensure that the rights and demands of the first nations of Canada are respected, the minister has turned a deaf ear and said, “I know what I am doing. I consulted, I have held 400 meetings since last year and this is the result of those consultations”.

What the minister forgets to mention is that those 400 consultations were probably each about five minutes long. How can the first nations, under such circumstances, make positive contributions? Because these bills are for them. How can they satisfactorily contribute to replacing the much-hated Indian Act with legislation that recognizes and respects them for who they are?

We had supported the principles in Bill C-19. Given that the minister does not want to hear about the major changes that need to be made, we are forced to change our minds. We will oppose Bill C-19, which is part of a broad offensive to get first nations to accept the unacceptable, which no Canadian, and certainly no Quebecker, would do.

Bill C-19 creates a statistical institute, a tax commission and a first nations financial management board.

As if aboriginals needed three additional ultra bureaucratic entities. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's speciality is bureaucracy, cumbersome administration and piles of paperwork. Aboriginals do not need any of this. They want nothing to do with it. These are not their real problems.

This is not what they talk about when they appear before us in committee or when we meet with them individually. They want us to address the real problems in the aboriginal communities, such as land claims that have been on the back burner for decades, compensation for the harm caused to them and aboriginal health issues.

In terms of health, there is no need to draw a picture. Across Canada, aboriginals' health is worse than anyone's. They contract infections that no longer even exist in our communities. For instance, there is a high incidence of tuberculosis among the Lubicon in Alberta.

These communities are struggling with substance abuse problems in young children. Recently we saw young children 6 or 7 years old behind homes sniffing gasoline fumes or glue. These are real problems.

There are major problems with drinking water across Canada. Imagine, that was a discovery for me. Some regions of Canada are in the same situation as the developing countries. I thought drinking water problems were mainly in Africa, where CIDA is doing such excellent work.

I think we need to look a little closer at ourselves and stop thinking that underdevelopment is something foreign to us. The reality is that the first nations have been marginalized. They do not have drinking water. Considering the importance of safe drinking water for health, and particularly for child development, I hardly need say how ashamed this makes me feel. This is a problem that must be addressed.

Moreover, to dispel any old prejudices that may still be lurking in the minds of any of my colleagues, what the Auditor General said was not that there were administrative problems in the first nations communities, but that those problems lay within the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

I see these three new entities relating to taxation and statistics as a way for employees of that department to hang on to their jobs. The right thing to do today would be to abolish the despicable Indian Act, which treats aboriginal people like children and kept them on the reserve for so many decades. This legislation has been around for 130 years now and has stripped them of their resources.

If we abolished the Indian Act, we would at the same time abolish some, if not most, positions at Indian and Northern Affairs. But they will do as they did at Fisheries and Oceans. There are no more fish, but there are hundreds of employees. Why? Because the changes in the fish stocks must be monitored. SInce these people have been monitoring the situation, fish stocks have decreased. But that justifies jobs at Fisheries and Oceans.

It is worse at Indian and Northern Affairs. I met some of the employees when they appeared before the committee. Some had that typical attitude that is so despised, people for whom what is important is to hang on to their jobs, not to work for the well-being of the aboriginal community or to help it break out of the vicious circle that has been in place for the past 130 years and has the first nations mired in chronic underdevelopment, which gets in the way of their future development and their children's future development, and strips them of pride and dignity.

But officials are not there to work on these problems. Of course not, they are there to create bureaucratic entities. The Auditor General said that first nations are overadministered.

Almost all aboriginal communities are required to fill out 168 lengthy forms every year on their administration, on how they operate, down to the last penny. One hundred and sixty-eight forms, do you know what that represents? That is three government forms per week in every aboriginal community. Keep in mind that there are some communities with about 100 people.

It is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that requires this. The Auditor General did not criticize aboriginals for being sloppy when it comes to the administration of aboriginal affairs; she criticized the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for being sloppy and ineffective and for its excessive bureaucracy.

That is who she criticized. Not only has the government failed to rectify the situation, but it has added to the problem. First nations will now have to produce even more reports and fulfill the requirements of even more administrative bodies.

What about the real problems facing aboriginals, that we in Parliament should be solving? What are we doing about drinking water? What are we doing about health problems? What are we doing about education problems?

There is a few million dollars here and a few million dollars there. The government will point to the budget. True, some tens of millions of dollars were given for health, as well as for education, but that is completely inadequate. Particularly since Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19 impose additional administrative requirements. But the resources are not forthcoming. Put plainly, first nations are given the same resources, and they have to fight to keep their heads above water to assert their rights, to fight the federal government in the courts, to build their case and to solve community problems with what little resources they have. These same resources will now be used to fulfill the requirements of these three new administrative bodies and also the new provisions that are contained in the governance legislation, Bills C-6 and C-7.

All of this is outrageous. It really is ignominious. I asked to be given the first nations file because it was a very interesting one, even if it was one we very seldom heard about. I asked for this file because there were things that I wanted to resolve and understand. I have a hard time understanding why a country like Canada, that prides itself on being a country where rights and freedoms are respected, a country that even adopted a charter of rights and freedoms, a country that includes in every throne speech an explicit reference to the aboriginal people and to respect for their culture, their language etc, does not do anything in this regard. It talks a lot, but the disgrace is that not much is happening.

Now I understand why. After the Erasmus-Dussault commission, everything was in place for the Canadian nation and the first nations to negotiate solutions to problems as equals. The report was lengthy. Consultations had been held. But no. Our fine Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a follower of Machiavelli, divided and conquered, and rammed through new measures that were supposed to improve the act, the infamous Indian Act. There was a flurry of protests and all first nations representatives opposed these bills. However, the minister bragged about the fact that he could count on the support of his friends. He has a few aboriginal friends. It looks good to have a few aboriginal friends when you are the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

We are lucky. We are really lucky—and I see that there is agreement here—that aboriginals have not revolted more than they have up to now. Because if I were an aboriginal and I had been treated like that, I would have dumped the standing committee. I would have come to Parliament a long time ago together with all 638 first nations. I would have come to Parliament a long time ago and mobilized numerous resources to say, “That is it. We have rights. You put us in reserves 130 years ago. You crushed us. You took away our dignity. You tried to get rid of us. Now, that is it. You will not repeat the past with Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19”.

They appeared a few times before the United Nations. Their claims were even successful. There are, for example, the Alberta Lubicon. They are in the news now because, several decades ago, they had been promised their territories, which they are entitled to, and they were also promised compensation.

What happened in the meantime? There are rich oil and gas companies in Canada. They have the support of the Minister of Industry even if they are hurting the economy now and even if the price of heating oil has gone up 30%. The minister is on their side. He is siding with the oil and gas companies. This is not the first time that the government has sided with them.

As soon as major oil deposits were discovered on the land claimed by the Lubicon, we started hearing that they might not have any right to them, that the land might not be theirs. In the 1930s, official papers were even falsified. What a fine reputation. If you do not believe me, the matter was taken all the way to the United Nations, where the Canadian government was criticized for its lack of respect for the human rights of the Lubicon Lake Indians.

Quite clearly, the Lubicon no longer had any territorial rights. As soon as these rich oil fields were discovered, the matter of profits for large oil companies arose. These companies cozy up to the government, and this has been going on for decades.

The government was both defendant and adjudicator, collecting royalties on the oil resources developed by the big companies. So, the Lubicon were ignored. And this injustice has been going on for 70 years. Even a UN resolution was not enough to shake the government.

Government representatives go around the world presenting Canada as a supporter of rights and freedoms, talking about our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while within Canada there are these injustices. After 130 years of the Indian Act, the government is spreading the injustice and making matters worse with bills that no one wants, namely Bill C-6 and Bill C-7. The aboriginal nations do not want these bills because they do not respect who these people are; they do not respect their cultures and traditions.

It is totally unacceptable to be presented with such bills, especially since there is a common thread linking the three we are debating, when we include Bill C-19: an attempt to erode the rights of aboriginal people. The federal government is trying to shirk its fiduciary responsibility.

Why I am making such a statement? Because there is no non-derogation clause in Bill C-19, in Bill C-6, or in Bill C-7. A non-derogation clause would reassure first nations by guaranteeing that, despite the provisions found in Bills C-19, C-6 or C-7, their aboriginal rights, their inherent rights to self-government, their land rights, their rights to compensation, and their rights to pride and dignity are not beign threatened. This is what a non-derogation clause is all about. There is no non-derogation clause in these bills even though, in the past, such clauses were included to reassure aboriginal nations about the fact that even though a bill brought about some changes, even though it included new provisions, their claims and their rights were not in jeopardy. A non-derogation clause does not give them anything, it simply gives the assurance that their rights will be respected.

Over the past 30 years, in a number of rulings, the Supreme Court has consistently come down in favour of respect for aboriginal nations and their inherent right to self-government. These decisions compelled the federal government to settle numerous disputes that had been going on forever.

All these rulings were in favour of aboriginal nations and, today, we fare faced with a situation where, instead of following up on the rulings of the Supreme Court, instead of implementing the recommendations of a royal commission of inquiry that tabled its report a few years ago, the government is repeating its past mistakes. Instead of treaties written in archaic language over a century old, we have modern bills that are every bit as insensitive and cruel to aboriginal nations.

For all these reasons, we will strongly oppose Bill C-19. We will also strongly oppose Bills C-6 and C-7, which are utterly objectionable.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois members will fight for the aboriginal nations of Canada and Quebec, not to give them more rights than we have, but to ensure respect for the rights that they do have, and to settle disputes once and for all, in a climate of respect and dignity, nation to nation. Equality between nations must go beyond words; it must be a concrete reality, and it must be based on respect and dignity.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is forgetting that the money is not his, it is the taxpayers'. Incidentally, a large part of that money comes from Quebec.

The minister is also forgetting that there is, when it comes down to it, only the one set of taxpayers. This year, given the Minister of Finance's surplus, it would have been easy for him to reduce federal taxes so as to allow the provinces to raise theirs, and thus to be able to finance their own initiatives within their own areas of jurisdiction, namely health, education and some other areas, without squeezing money out of the one and only taxpayer, who has to bear the brunt of the federal government's bungling.