Mr. Speaker, we are now only a few minutes away from adopting a bill on which my party the government and our Reform Party colleagues have worked for many hours.
Before getting into the nuts and bolts of the bill before the House today, I would like to talk about how my perspective on the work of a parliamentarian has changed. It is light years away from what I expected my work as a parliamentarian to be, especially as a critic for a sector as difficult and complex as Indian Affairs. We sometimes think that the life of a parliamentarian, before we actually experience it ourselves, is very easy and that it is cocktail parties every evening.
Since coming to Ottawa, and especially these last two weeks, I have not had time to go to cocktail parties; I have only had time to read through agreements one-foot thick in order to analyse them very quickly.
I think I can say that I have learned to appreciate the complexity of the issues. For instance, since aboriginal issues are a federal matter, and being a member of a sovereigntist party, I have always adhered to the principle that we have two nations in Canada, Quebec and the rest of Canada. My point is that Quebec and Canada sometimes have different ways of approaching the issues.
As a critic for the Official Opposition in a federal Parliament and as a member of the sovereigntist party, one has to be very diligent to ensure that one's positions are implemented. I am delighted to see that Quebec has led the way in this respect. The hon. member made this point earlier with respect to James Bay and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement-the Cree and the Naskapis-and I think this is a first in Canada. We led the way, and this fact has given me some very important tools. The issues are also complex because within the territory occupied by these two nations, there are about 600 native bands, each with its own identity.
The word complex applies not only to the relations between two nations and the 600 native bands in Canada. Especially in Quebec, the situation is extremely difficult with regard to the aboriginal question. Extremely difficult, because unfortunately, we have tremendous problems with some of the reserves. I think the federal government is not doing everything it should to resolve these problems. My point is that the situation is not an
easy one for a parliamentarian, especially an Indian affairs critic.
There are other aspects which make being an Indian affairs critic a thankless job. The minister tables a bill for first reading, the same afternoon we receive a stack of documents a foot thick, and the next day I have to rise in the House to make two speeches. Imagine the amount of work, even if we are told subsequently that these documents were in public domain, we have other things to do as well. So not only do we have a difficult job but there is also a tremendous amount of work involved. We are now on our fifth bill on aboriginal affairs in two weeks, C-16, C-25, C-33, C-34, and C-36, and I personally introduced a motion on the north.
Imagine the work we have to do! And that does not include our work on the standing committee. The committee has to go on with its study of the bill. Once again, I thought I would stay up all night only once during this session, but I did so twice, thanks to my friends in the Reform Party, because we discussed the issue all night. Fortunately, the hon. member for Jonquière relieved me at 2 a.m., because the sitting was starting to seem very long indeed, but I tell you that the job of Indian affairs critic is not an easy one.
It is also vital for a critic to explain to his party how important it is to respect and understand the First Nations. And that is not always easy, considering the difficult and volatile context I just mentioned. It is also necessary to show that one has the political will, and I think the Bloc Quebecois, by supporting land claims in the Yukon and self-government for aboriginal peoples, has shown that it is prepared to understand these people.
It may be scant consolation but I did find it satisfying to see that, despite all this hard work, I was able to sense the frustration of these people in the Yukon who had to wait 21 years for these negotiations to be concluded. All of the work that we have had to do to reach this third reading stage is nothing compared to the frustrations these people must have felt over the years.
Understanding and respect are important considerations. I have in my office the Indian and Northern Affairs map showing the 600 bands scattered across Canada. Approximately one hundred different languages and dialects are spoken by these bands and first nations. Imagine the wealth of native culture, particularly with respect to language.
As for the environment, in our economic analyses, our environmental concerns have always taken a back seat to other priorities. The opposite is often true for native peoples. We have to understand that the environment often tops their list of priorities. These are important considerations when it comes to adopting a bill such as the one now before us because, as we will see, the bill's provisions focus at considerable length on the environment.
We also have to understand that in our view of modern economy, the main thing is for shareholders to earn as many dividends as possible on their shares. However, their primary concern is the environment. They are not interested in measures that will enhance or stimulate their economy, because these could harm or endanger the environment. We must also understand this extremely important aspect of native culture.
Last but not least, I want to touch on the question of power or authority. Later on, I would enjoy talking with the people of the Yukon to hear their views on power and democracy, and specifically on parliamentary democracy. We are accustomed to seeing people yell "yea" and "nay" and rise one by one for hours on end. In our system of parliamentary democracy, this is quite acceptable. However, for some this process is hard to understand because their concept of power is quite different.
I can give you some typical examples of what happens on some reserves when negotiations take place. Because we are used to delegating authority, our first instinct is to say: Let us go meet with the appropriate authorities. We come before the band council and to our great surprise, after several negotiation sessions, we realize that the band council is not the only authority on the reserve. First nations have a very different view of authority than we do.
I realized that sometimes the band council says yes one day, and no the next. Why? Because there are other authorities on the reserves with whom we are not in the habit of dealing. Among others, the elders have some authority. We view the elders as important, wise people, but for the natives, it goes much further than that. The elders are responsible for the presence of the others on the reserve and are seen as very wise. Others look to them constantly for advice and counsel.
This view of authority is very important because when a band council has made a decision, the elders may that same day or in the days that follow give their view of the decision made. There are also the clan mothers, a totally different phenomenon than what we have in our society. Native societies are often matriarchal societies, whereas ours is a patriarchal society. We are accustomed to seeing the father as an authority figure, as the one who gets angry and who metes out punishment. The opposite is often true in native communities. Mothers have a great deal of influence, considerably more than they do in our society. Therefore, it is important to design new systems and new centres of authority within each reserve.
We are used to the way things are done here in the House and often in the agencies we deal with. Decisions are made by simple majority. Fifty per cent plus one vote is all that is required to
make a decision, and the minority is then asked to come on side. They, on the other hand, will often debate an issue far longer until a consensus is reached. I think these things are important, because I want my colleagues to be aware of what it means to negotiate and hold talks with aboriginal nations. It is also very important to go there first-hand, as I did on several occasions, to try to establish such relations and see how they work. This may be a thankless assignment, but it is also extremely rewarding and, from a cultural standpoint, I must say that rubbing shoulders with them has been an ongoing source of personal enrichment for me.
Now, concerning the bill-I hope you will forgive this aside, but I felt it was important to get it out before launching into the mechanics. What is self-government? A quick definition would relate the "self" to independence, the ability to make decisions in relation to a central authority. This is what will be before us today with the bill. And "government" means the act of governing and providing political direction. So these people will effectively be able to make decisions on very specific points of jurisdiction, which are in the agreement that I will explain later. This is what self-government means to some extent, and I thought it was important to start with a brief definition.
In keeping with the argument I developed previously, no two self-government agreements can be exactly alike. Some people associate self-government with a territorial base, and this is so in the case before us today. Others already have a territorial base and are not necessarily seeking to expand that territory, but rather want to be given specific points of jurisdiction.
Again, depending on their culture, they will ask the government during negotiations to give them back such and such area of jurisdiction-be it education, health care, social services, police or language. These areas may vary from one nation or reserve to the next.
We must understand that there is no general model. It cannot be said that self-government will be handled the same way for all 600 bands in Canada. That is impossible.
I pointed out earlier the importance of knowing their culture, their language and their respect for the environment, that is, their great customs and traditions firmly rooted in their genes, I would say. Some preconditions must be met before this type of negotiations can be entered into. I think the first nations must be willing to take control of their own destiny. The Yukon people that I have met seem to have this will. They showed us time and again that they wanted to plan their own future and get rid of the famous Indian Act guardianship. If the minister and the Liberal government are to be believed, they want to dismantle the Department of Indian Affairs and revoke the Indian Act.
I think this agreement fits in with the idea of taking control of their own destiny and getting rid once and for all of the Indian Act and the guardianship of Indian Affairs.
There is also a will to respect other people's cultures. I think the Bloc Quebecois has also shown that we were able to understand these people and that they understood us as well. I noticed a little sadness when debate dragged on, but they must understand that we are living in a democracy under a system different from theirs and that, unfortunately, they had to go through the process that took place here in recent days. So I think they are in a position to understand that this is the way the Canadian government operates.
I now want to make a short statement on what I said at the beginning of my speech about the importance of the James Bay Agreement affecting the Cree, as you know, and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement affecting the Naskapi. That is something the Bloc Quebecois must rely on because it was a first, an agreement that was hard to reach, I admit, but so rewarding and important in paving the way for other aboriginal nations.
I want to congratulate Quebec on how it approached these very complex negotiations with aboriginal nations. Not only was Quebec willing to negotiate but it made an effort to understand, as the money it spent on this demonstrates.
We see again that Quebec, to its credit, has a strong value system and that its respect for other peoples is reflected in these agreements. For instance, if we consider the financial impact and what the Government of Quebec contributed through Hydro-Quebec, most of the money in these agreements came from Hydro-Quebec and the Government of Quebec, while the agreements that have been before the House lately include very little in the way of financial input from the provinces involved.
It is clear that the federal government is very generous to aboriginal people outside Quebec, but the situation is different in Quebec, although, we decided to try to reach an agreement with these people in an atmosphere of mutual respect. It took time, and of course there are still the occasional clashes today. There are still some irritants, but I can assure you that on the Quebec side we are trying to smooth out the rough spots.
I think it is important to point out that the James Bay Agreement was a first, an example that was followed by many other aboriginal nations.
In fact, the list of jurisdictional items that are included in the agreement before the House today was already to a considerable extent included in this agreement, and that is why I say that the James Bay Agreement was a pioneer in this respect.
As far as administration is concerned, and I will now get back to the bill before us today, these people will no longer be dependent on programs administered directly by the Department of Indian Affairs. They will finally be able to say: We have values, we have a different culture and we intend to run our affairs in our own way in accordance with our own culture and traditions and with a greater say over our own economy, which is as it should be in a modern economy.
I wish them good luck with the language aspect, those who are in the visitors' gallery today. Since there are six or seven languages and the common denominator there is English, I hope that aboriginal languages will command a greater appreciation and that aboriginal people will be able to exercise much tighter control over aboriginal languages. I also hope they will not experience what happened in Quebec to the French language.
You know about Bill 101 and Bill 178, and we in Quebec are constantly under attack from Supreme Court judgments. I also know that Quebecers are prepared to respect the terms of agreements with aboriginal peoples. I hope that as far as aboriginal languages are concerned, the Supreme Court will stay put and not do anything that would destroy aboriginal languages in the Yukon as was done in Quebec.
As far as health care is concerned, people will have greater control over health care, which is quite an achievement. I say this because once again, their culture has shown us that they take a very unique approach to medicine and health care. It is a holistic approach which focuses more on prevention than on cures. We see a lot of healing circles, which are an important resource. Kateri hospital in Kanawake, for instance, takes a very different approach. The physicians who work at the hospital went to a traditional white school, but with their culture they also have an approach that is far more holistic, as I just said.
There is a series of other programs, and I do not intend to repeat the speech I made in second reading, but perhaps I could expand somewhat on the roles of the traditional economy and a modern economy. This is something of a challenge for them, and I think they will be able to meet that challenge. The traditional aboriginal economy, particularly in the Yukon, is based on trapping, fishing, fruit gathering, and so on, in the ancestral way. It is an economy which has always existed and I think it should be preserved.
Now we must also ensure that integration into the modern economy does not simply sap and devastate this traditional economy. Knowing the aboriginal nations and the importance they place on the various facets of their traditional economy, such as gathering, hunting and fishing-because this has gone beyond mere subsistence and can also involve marketing activities-I think they will go out of their way to ensure its smooth integration with the modern economy.
I also think it is important to talk about law enforcement. I did not get a chance to speak on the young offenders bill, but I must point out that there are enormous justice problems on aboriginal reserves. It is increasingly obvious that our justice system cannot apply, or is extremely difficult to apply to aboriginal nations. Delinquency rates are high, incarceration rates are also high. This may be-and in fact is-attributable to appalling social conditions. Economic and social conditions are extremely bad, so that people tend to turn to drugs and drink-with all of the resulting ills in terms of delinquency and incarceration rates. So, given the opportunity to administer the justice system a little more, their justice system being slightly different from ours, law enforcement will be more tailored to their standards.
A person who commits a crime may not necessarily have to go before a judge or go to jail. They have a sort of discussion circle, and often the entire community will discuss an adolescent's particular problem and try to develop an action plan to rehabilitate the individual without necessarily imposing incarceration. These are important considerations that must be raised to explain that their culture is different.
The bill contains all of these concepts, and it is safe to say that the people of the Yukon will be taking far greater control over their future. I will conclude to leave a little time for my friends in the Reform Party. The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-34, as we stated in committee and at second reading.
I would like to review some of the points raised by the hon. member who preceded me. I think the Reform Party left aboriginal people and, I think, other Canadians with a bad impression; people think they may be going too far. I think people in the Reform Party might take advantage of the next few minutes to try to erase the picture which Canadians and aboriginal people now have of them. Naturally, I would ask them to vote in favour of Bill C-34.
Finally, the elders who were there will be pleased to note that the present generation has concluded an agreement which will benefit their children's children. This agreement was entered into peacefully, without the use of weapons, solely through perseverance. I ask all of my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-34.
