Anita Neville

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on National Aboriginal Day, the government has once again abandoned aboriginal Canadians. Canada took the lead in developing the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Now, when it is time for the government to support it, the government rejects it.

Adopting this resolution would be a sign that the government values the rights and the contributions of aboriginal Canadians. Why does the government continue to abandon Canada's first citizens? Why does the government not think that Canada's indigenous people should have the same rights and the same privileges as all Canadians?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my hon. colleague opposite the same questions I have asked others before, with an additional one.

First, I want to acknowledge his comments about the residential schools agreement, which the previous government negotiated and booked. We are delighted the current government has implemented that. Also, I am very pleased that the new government has implemented the water strategy planned and developed by the previous government.

Does the member think it appropriate, and I have asked this question of other members before, that we drain the schools in order to fuel the water policy? We have heard much about education. We have heard about skills shortages. We have heard about lack of facilities in education. We know that moneys are being taken out of education projects and are being put into water facilities. Does he support that kind of activity?

The other question is for the member and his colleagues. I want to get some clarity from members opposite as to whether they agree with the statement made earlier in the day that just under four centuries Canada passed from an unsettled wilderness through agrarian and industrial revolutions. Do they agree with the concept that four centuries ago, this country was an unsettled wilderness? Would he comment on that?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions and comments for the member.

First, I welcome his comments about the residential schools agreement. It was agreed to in principle by the previous Liberal government. The dollars were allocated by the previous Liberal government. It is important that all members of this House acknowledge the inequities and the injustices of the past. I am delighted that the party of the member opposite sought to affirm what the previous government brought in.

I have a number of questions for the member.

He references the water issues. What my first question would be, and it is a question I have asked others, is whether he thinks it is appropriate to drain money from school projects, two in particular that we know of already and with probably more to come, to enhance the water projects when indeed we know that $400 million was allocated for enhanced water management development and the training of those who manage the systems.

Second, the member talks about structural change and its importance. I agreed with him earlier today that it is important. I do not deny it. As an aside, I note that there was no prepared text on that. What he heard was what I responded to.

Again, though, I would ask him what I asked one of his colleagues. Is he aware of the legislation brought in by the previous government that dealt with the First Nations Land Management Act? Is he aware of the fiscal management act? Is he aware of the oil and gas act? Is he aware of the commercial and industrial act? Is he aware of the structural change they have brought about for first nations and aboriginal peoples? There is a model of structural change, but I do not think we can hide behind it.

Last, could he please elaborate to this House on what his vision is of consultation with first nations? I think it is important that we understand the relationship the government anticipates having with aboriginal peoples.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about the nature and importance of the relationships. I wonder if he would expand on the importance of the relationships in establishing the Kelowna accord.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's description of what the government proposes to do to improve water supply. In fact, it is a ringing endorsement of what the previous government was planning to do and had under way.

I would like the member opposite to comment on the appropriateness of draining money from school projects to fund water projects. I would ask him to comment on what he would say to the people of Big Horn and Sunchild in Alberta whose funding for their school capital projects is being deferred so that the water work can be done. We know that condensation has been causing leaks. We know that the carpets are torn and need replacing. We know that the schools do not have a gymnasium.

We talk about education as a priority here. It is a real concern. The government has not lived up to the commitment of the $400 million that had been allocated under Kelowna for water which would not result in the draining of funds from education projects to water projects.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her kind words. I have a number of questions coming out of her presentation.

I am glad she restrained herself in terms of the blame game. It is time we moved on from the blame game. There is a common objective and goal, and it is important that we stop blaming one another and move on with it.

Is my colleague is aware that currently money is being drained from school projects in order to fund water facilities and the training of water technicians to run the facilities? School projects are being stopped because moneys are not sufficient.

When we talk about what has not been done, is the member opposite familiar with the First Nations Land Management Act? Is she familiar with the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, the oil and gas and moneys management act, the commercial and industrial development act? These issues were front and centre on the agenda of the previous government, and will have a profound economic impact on aboriginal people.

I have one final question which relates to matrimonial real property. I sit on two committees, the status of women and the aboriginal affairs committee. She and I serve on a committee which is addressing this issue. I have been really puzzled about why members opposite on the aboriginal affairs committee have been very reluctant to re-submit to the government the report done by that committee on matrimonial real property. It was a comprehensive report--

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded by a question like that. Leadership takes courage. When one speaks of the Kelowna accord, there is not one member who would say it is perfect. It was a series of concessions, compromises, discussions, negotiations and it was important.

I am very surprised that the member opposite has not seen the transformative change accord between the government and the province of British Columbia that has been signed. If he says that he has spoken to Gordon Campbell and the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs, he will know that it was Mr. Campbell who indeed led the charge across this country to ensure that the Kelowna accord was ratified. It was massaged to ensure that it was agreed to by all involved.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the member's support of this motion.

The money from Bill C-48 was not part of the money established under the Kelowna accord. Some $700 million was allocated under previous agreements leading up to Kelowna and $4.5 billion was new money allocated under the agreement. The money was booked, available and documented by the government in a fashion that only the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance could remove the funds.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, the previous government understood, recognized and acknowledged the nationhood of aboriginal peoples in this country. As such, we worked with them on a nation to nation basis acknowledging, listening, cooperating and collaborating so that there was not fragmentation, so that we were able to come in with a holistic response.

The key to the success of the previous government's dealings with aboriginal peoples was its willingness and ability to listen, to operate as equals, to understand the relationship and the historic context in which we were operating to ensure that aboriginal peoples have the best opportunities as they move forward.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was anticipating the member's comment on structural reform. There is no question that structural reform is required. Legislative changes must be made and we have to move forward. To wait for structural reform is to do a huge disservice to the communities that we are speaking about. Structural reform has to move forward incrementally in consultation with first nation communities across the land. The member knows as well as I do that structural reform is a substantial undertaking. It will take years to move forward. While I acknowledge the necessity of it, I do not believe it is in any way an impediment to implementing the Kelowna accord.

I speak of empty rhetoric because we see very little happening from members opposite, while I know that many of them are committed to this issue. The previous government had moved on this agenda. The Kelowna accord came about as a result of this agenda.

It is really important that the previous government built relationships with aboriginal communities. This is not a situation where one tells; rather, one asks. One works with; one does not dictate. Relationship building is the essence of Kelowna and what the previous government was about. With respect to the successes and failures that were there, the successes came about by working together and the failures of the past came about by not listening to and not working with.

While I accept my colleague's comments about structural reform, I believe that the previous government made tremendous strides in dealing with first nations, aboriginal peoples, Inuit peoples, Métis peoples, and we are very proud of it.