James Lunney

[Petitions, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I actually have five separate issues to present here today but, with your permission, I would like to do at least two of them. The first one has to do with an important issue dealing with log exports from private lands.

These constituents from British Columbia are calling on the federal government to act inasmuch as logs from private lands are regulated by federal control rather than provincial control. They are drawing to the attention of the House that of approximately a million acres of private forest land on central Vancouver Island, nearly 70% of those logs are destined for export.

They are therefore calling on the Government of Canada to implement a tariff on logs exported from private lands to level the playing field and ensure that Canadian mills, as well as secondary industries that rely on the byproducts, are given equal opportunity.

They are asking the government to work with the province of British Columbia to implement a similar tariff on logs exported from Crown land.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some attention to my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, British Columbia. I am surprised what the member has said about this bill. Does he not realize that the act was one of the first passed by Parliament? The current Fisheries Act goes back to 1868, some 139 years ago.

He talked a lot about the north coast of British Columbia. Of course, British Columbia was not even part of Confederation when the act, which we are currently managing fisheries under, was passed by Parliament. The need for an updated fisheries act has been glaring for a long time. This bill is an attempt to correct it and make it possible to manage the fisheries, about which he says he is concerned, more effectively.

Why does the member continue to persist with fearmongering that there has not been consultation? The member knows, as well as other members here, that consultation on how to fix this act has been going on, in a general sense, for at least seven years.

He also knows that it is not the normal parliamentary process to put a bill in circulation for broad consultations before it is presented in the House. It happens occasionally, but it is not the normal practice. In fact, I was involved in the health committee that took on an issue like that prior to a bill being tabled. It was presented in a draft form. That happens occasionally, but it is not the norm in this place.

Why does the member continue to fearmonger, as well as other members who are objecting to this, on the public's misunderstanding of the normal process? He knows full well that if the bill passes at second reading stage, it will go to committee and members of the fisheries committee will travel the country and hear from witnesses. They will come to Ottawa and we will go where they are. There will be extensive consultations with everybody who has something to say on this issue. Everyone will have a chance to state their views on the bill.

An old saying is that everybody is in favour of progress; it is change they do not like. Why do those members continue to play on people's fear of change when they know full well the parliamentary process will allow ample consultation in the months ahead?

[Gasoline Prices, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about the recent spike in gasoline prices across the country. In my home province of British Columbia, gas prices reached $1.28 per litre yesterday.

Our government has introduced programs to help Canadians save on gasoline such as the ecotransport strategy, the eco-auto program and support for public transit. However, there are some in the House who have advocated higher gasoline taxes for Canadians.

Could the Minister of the Environment enlighten the House on whether higher gas taxes are good for Canadians?

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has a wealth and depth of experience in these matters. I would not by any means put myself forward as an expert on these issues, but I certainly have taken an interest in genuine reconciliation. In South Africa, there certainly is a model of what people went through.

I do not know if the circumstances are exactly the same here, but I think we have been on our own spiritual journey in Canada with our first nations people. I certainly want to acknowledge, as I did earlier, Elijah Harper and the leaders from the first nations community who went through that process of bringing politicians and non-aboriginal communities together to address some of the hurts of the past.

I know there is a tremendous movement among first nations who have a genuine heart for an expression of forgiveness for things of the past, who want to put some of those issues behind and find and embrace together a future in which we can all walk together in a different way.

I like that concept of learning to walk together. I think that first it involves a sensitivity in recognizing past failures, but it involves having a genuine heart to listen, to engage and to help one another. Frankly, I think that is what good neighbourliness comes out of. A good community can be built that way. It is a dynamic for which I am not sure government has all the tools to employ, but I am hopeful.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member sits on the Standing Committee for Aboriginal affairs and Northern Development and I know that she does have a heart for the issues relating to first nations.

The question of education in British Columbia was worked out in cooperation with first nations representatives, leaders, chiefs from many bands, regional chiefs and provincial authorities. Certainly it was the choice for the community of first nations in British Columbia, of whom we have a very large representation. I have a large representation in my own riding.

They recognized the need for an upgrade in the standards. The province of British Columbia is very much engaged and is willing to take on responsibility and, in partnership with first nations, expand bringing the standards of the province into first nation communities. I think it is the right kind of partnership. Certainly it is for British Columbia, but again, that was a decision that was entered into willingly by the first nations representatives and provincial representatives.

Inasmuch as the provinces bear the responsibility for the education of the rest of the community, it seems like a very good and workable model. Other communities will have to appraise it for themselves and willingly enter into such agreements if they seem appropriate. Personally, I hope this model will work in many other jurisdictions.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in response to the motion by the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

First, I would like to congratulate the member for Okanagan—Shuswap for his contribution to the debate. He is the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Not only is he well informed on the issues, but I know he has a heartfelt and deeply felt concern for first nations peoples.

Also, for their contributions, I would like to compliment the member for Kitchener—Conestoga and the member for Peace River, who spoke earlier in this debate.

Canada's new government is committed to improving the quality of life for first nations, Inuit and Métis. In order to achieve this goal, action must be taken on many fronts and with many partners. Action must involve not only planning for the future but reconciling with the past.

Earlier in the debate today, the member for Yukon read into the record a letter of apology from a church official. It seems to me that true reconciliation is a spiritual journey, even as forgiveness is a spiritual exercise. I have the greatest respect for a former member of Parliament, Elijah Harper, who in his day started a process of healing and reconciliation.

In response to the member opposite, the member for Winnipeg South, who suggested that I need to talk to some of the people who have been hurt by the residential school experience, I want to say for the member that I have heard the cry of persons separated from their communities and cultures.

I have heard the cry of desperation of elders today in many communities as they see a new generation of young people plagued with suicide, depression, substance abuse and hopelessness. In fact, in response to a challenge from a member of a band council, I spent two nights and three days in one such community. I just hung out with them to better understand life on the reserve.

We are all involved in a journey of reconciliation. Let us all walk softly and learn to listen to the heart.

The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement received final court approval on March 21, 2007, barely five weeks ago. We are confident that this fair and honourable agreement will foster healing and reconciliation between aboriginal people who attended these schools, their families, and all Canadians.

We also know that we need to look ahead to the children who are the future of these communities, but the quality of education that has been available in on reserve schools is often inadequate and first nations students suffer the consequences.

This is a state of affairs that had to be addressed. On this front, I would like to elaborate on the measures described by the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

In December last year, the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act, Bill C-34, was enacted. This was landmark legislation in many ways. It enabled first nations in British Columbia to take a significant step forward toward a brighter future.

The provisions in legislation allow first nations in British Columbia, in partnership with the province, to take control over and assume greater responsibility for primary and secondary schools in their communities. The legislation offers first nations an effective mechanism to improve educational outcomes of students attending on reserve schools in the province.

Access to this mechanism is entirely optional. No first nation will be forced to use it. Any first nation that chooses to do so, however, must ensure that its schools meet specific educational standards. As I am sure my hon. colleagues recognize, standards are essential to effective accountability.

The act requires participating first nations to ensure their schools meet provincial standards and to make it easier for students to transfer from one educational system to another. Eventually, differences in the quality of education provided by on reserve and public schools should disappear.

Although it will take time for all on reserve schools in British Columbia to attain provincial standards, first nations are working hard to achieve this goal. Leading these efforts is the first nations education steering committee, or FNESC. In the past few years, FNESC has devised a method to measure and assess performance of on reserve schools.

The First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act articulates a new approach to on reserve education. This approach was designed by first nations to address the challenges facing on reserve schools in British Columbia. Although the legislation applies only to on reserve schools in B.C., it also stands to influence the course of first nations education elsewhere in Canada. It may in fact inspire first nations in other regions of the country to devise appropriate solutions of their own.

The agreement that is at the heart of this legislation was signed in July of last year by Canada's new government, the province of British Columbia and FNESC. It proposes an administrative model that will foster improved educational outcomes. This model will engage first nation communities in education and lead to more relevant curricula.

The agreement is complicated, but its significance is straightforward and yet momentous for first nation students. Simply put, it will enable them to acquire a quality education that will meet provincial standards and also will have cultural depth and resonance. Not only will students be equipped with the educational tools they need to enjoy a prosperous future, but they also will be firmly grounded in their culture and heritage.

The First Nations Jurisdiction Over Education in British Columbia Act is the product of an initiative led by first nations to address the particular circumstances of on reserve schools in British Columbia. It is a prime example of the success that can be achieved by governments and first nations working in partnership toward a worthwhile end.

First nation students in British Columbia will reap the benefits of this approach. It is hoped that more first nations across the country will follow suit with their own strategies. We have often stated that only by working in partnership with aboriginal people and communities can real progress be made.

In my own riding, the vanguard of a new generation of educated young first nation individuals are already coming back to their communities to strengthen a new generation of leadership. Malaspina University-College in Nanaimo has a total student body in excess of 10,000 students and one of the largest aboriginal student populations in the province.

Quality education is at the heart of what makes individuals and communities strong. It is a basic requirement for prosperity and self-sufficiency. Canada's new government is determined to continue working with our partners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to promote the means for improving the quality of education available to aboriginal people. It is one of the basic and essential components of quality of life.

With the final court approval of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in March, we have moved toward reconciling with the past. With the First Nations Jurisdiction Over Education in British Columbia Act, we are looking to the future. Canada's new government is confident that, working with our partners, yet more progress can and will be made.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all members of the House identify with the hurts of first nations people related to residential schools.

I hear the member acknowledging that the government members are going to support this motion and yet she stands in her place and has the audacity to declare that the parliamentary secretary who asked the question made a misrepresentation. She stands in her place and declares some fabricated notion about a date some five years in the future when she alleges the executive may decide to apologize.

There are people in the House who want to exploit the hurt of first nations people for their own political purposes and I think they are as bad as the separatists who would take “la belle province” and replace it with “je me souviens” in order to exploit an ancient hurt to advance their own political purposes.

What gives the member the right to stand in her place and exploit the hurt of first nations people? Does she not know the government apologized in 1998? The churches apologized and what gives her the right to exploit the hurt of the first nations people?

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the opposition member's party has a lot of respect for the United Nations. Let us consider the UN's perspective on setting deadlines that are not well thought out.

Recently, the Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Afghanistan, Christopher Alexander, appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence. He said that the UN finds it ill-advised and dangerous to set deadlines unless the factors that promote instability are under control. Mr. Alexander also suggested that by rushing to get out, we offer hope to enemies of the transition.

Does my colleague agree with the opinion expressed by Mr. Alexander, the UN's representative?

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question as well. He seems to ignore that in fact it was the Liberals themselves who sent our troops into Afghanistan. We are part of a coalition of some 36 nations working to help this developing nation. Why is it that the Liberals now are so determined to undermine the good efforts of our Canadian Forces over there?

The military is giving their greatest effort ever, or at least in modern years, to establish this new country, working with developing Afghan security forces and our NATO partners. We are putting millions into relief efforts and our Canadian aid agencies working over there, with micro-finance programs helping women and women and girls getting education for the first time in a generation and perhaps in many generations. We are working to establish infrastructure in that country. We are giving hope to a nation that is just developing in the modern world.

Why are the Liberals in such a rush to undermine the good efforts that we are making and to send a message to the Taliban that if it puts our troops at risk and if it hammers our troops a little harder, maybe we will do just what the NDP wants and pull them out tomorrow rather than complete the mission and--

[Petitions, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about 17 pages of signatures from people in Surrey, B.C., Delta, B.C., Regina, Manitoba and Ontario, concerning Bill C-404.

The petitioners call upon the government to recognize that natural health products promote health and wellness. They ask for improved access to natural health products that would allow Canadians to better manage their own health and relieve pressure on the Canadian health care system.

They call upon Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to natural products by removing the goods and services tax on them and enacting Bill C-404, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act.