Bob Nault

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say in the House everyone believes that the importance of changing an old archaic act called the Indian Act, which is 127 years old, is one of the most important pieces of business in the House of Commons.

Besides that, this legislation is in committee before a second reading, which is the only piece of legislation before a committee before second reading, with one obvious interest by the minister and the government; that is to ensure we have the best piece of legislation we possibly can have to improve the lives of first nations people.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday and I will repeat today, this is way too important to trivialize the work that we are trying to achieve on behalf of first nations people.

It is safe to say that we all agree that the status quo is not sustainable. We have to find ways to work with aboriginal people to improve their fundamental governance structures which will also help to improve their economic opportunities. That is the mission of the government and should be the mission of all members of Parliament in the House.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is a standing offer for all aboriginal leaders and communities to participate in consultations with the Government of Canada. My point is very clear. The option to protest is to consult and be involved in the process with the Government of Canada.

Let me read what has occurred so far under phase one: 135 information sessions have been conducted across nine regions; 335 consultation meetings have been held both on reserve and off reserve; and 8,465 first nations citizens have participated in consultation meetings. That is just the beginning of the first phase.

The second phase, which is going on now, I will read a little later into the record.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there you have it. What the member is basically articulating is the fact that they want assimilation. They do not believe in the unique rights of aboriginal people. They do not believe in the treaty rights or aboriginal rights of first nations people. That is not the policy of the government. It is not the policy of our Canadian citizenry.

Quite frankly, the enabling legislation of Bill C-7 is an interim step toward the inherent right of self-government, which is what this government believes in.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how a member can be a critic and never read a piece of legislation himself.

First, the Indian Act is very much a paternalistic, prescriptive piece of legislation.

Bill C-7 is an enabling piece of legislation that would do three things. It would allow a code for electoral purposes. It would allow the Financial Administration Act. It would allow for administration as a code to allow first nations to improve their fundamentals of governance with the idea of allowing first nations to develop that on their own, using their traditions and their cultures. That is very different from what has been described by the member.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is such an important matter that I think everyone in the House would agree that the status quo first nations people find themselves in today is totally unacceptable.

The objective of the consultation and work of the government, and all parliamentarians, is to improve the quality of life of aboriginal people. We cannot do that by backing off every time someone disagrees. We have to come to the table, work with each other to come up with better improvement and better laws, and the way to move ahead is with Bill C-7.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since 1996 when we brought in the new policy dealing with aboriginal communities vis-à-vis housing, we have built some 2,600 new homes in the communities. Yes, it is true we are concerned that because of the population growth we are having difficulty keeping up.

Part of the new strategy in working with the AFN and the funding we have given them to work with us on housing was to develop the kinds of programs and services where first nations, through land use planning and community planning, would be able to develop their own housing stock. Of course that housing stock would be part of their equity so they could buy and sell--

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that since 1991 on reserve units have increased by 70%. The government has been moving on delivering programs and services and the kind of financial resources necessary to subsidize housing on reserves.

Is the member suggesting that it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to produce a house for every first nation family? I do not think so. Our role is to deliver the kinds of policies and programs that allow first nations to have their own housing based on their own abilities to--

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is our housing policy is a subsidy to first nations based on a per capita. The amount of $137 million a year is transferred to first nations governments that have responsibility for housing. It is the plan of the government, working with first nations communities, to develop strategies so they can be homeowners like all other Canadians.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the policy dealing with housing on reserves is intended to create a market process to allow first nations to enter into a market and to have mortgages like other Canadians. I do not think it is suggested that the policy is intended to produce a house paid for by the Government of Canada for every first nation family. That is not the direction of the government. The new policy that was put in place in 1996 was intended to do just that, to move toward market conditions.