John Duncan

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to express my supreme disappointment at the hoist motion put forward by the Liberal critic on aboriginal affairs. There was no signal that this would happen. The committee has been planning and preparing for witnesses for testimony. The same opposition party, in the last Parliament, expressed every desire to get this bill before committee and it has now done just the opposite.

Contrary to what the member said, there have been all kinds of consultations, There were 103 consultations across Canada during this process.

The member talked about the drafting of Bill C-28, the amendments to the Cree-Naskapi Act, and the responsible approach that was taken. That same approach was taken on the development of this bill. A draft proposal was shared with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and others. Millions of dollars were spent on consultations leading up to and including the development of this. We have heard from a number of vulnerable first nations women who supported this initiative.

The member talked about the United Nations. The UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights slammed Canada in 1998 and then again in 2006 for not giving aboriginal women the same rights on reserve as those off. The same goes for the UN human rights committee in 2006, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people in 2004, the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing in 2007, and the list goes on.

Why is the member for Labrador taking such precipitous action with no notice and with obvious negative consequences for vulnerable people? This legislation is long overdue.

[May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government has made significant progress on education and aboriginal issues over the past three years working with willing partners to achieve tangible results. We have demonstrated a new practical approach of working with aboriginal governments and organizations, the provinces, the territories, and the private sector to address clear priorities in an effective and targeted manner.

In aboriginal communities throughout Canada, this is paying off and producing results. With budget 2009, our government continues this commitment with $1.4 billion for priority initiatives aimed at improving the well-being and prosperity of aboriginal people in Canada. Our approach is working. We are getting real results.

[May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the question from the member for Timmins—James Bay.

We believe that first nations students are entitled to an education that will encourage and inspire them to stay in school, an education that will enable them to get the skills they need to find and keep good jobs. Part and parcel in this is the need for quality learning environments that ensure first nations children have the best possible facilities to help them succeed in their studies and start building a solid foundation for the future.

Our government is fully aware of the calls for a new school in Attawapiskat. We remain committed to assisting the first nation in finding solutions and alternative funding sources for a new elementary school for the community. Members of the community walked away from talks on this. We hope they return. We stand ready.

Since 2000 INAC has invested over $5 million in Attawapiskat for temporary classrooms and expansion of the high school. The department also provided more than $8 million in formula-funded operations and maintenance specifically for the schools.

What is more, Health Canada inspections continue to show temporary classrooms present no health and safety concerns. Further, the amount of classroom space in the community meets the federal government's level of service standards which are comparable to the standards applied to provincial schools.

As always, health and safety will continue to be our guide on this matter, not how many photo ops or how much political spin or rhetoric is generated by the MP for Timmins—James Bay. This member also said, in the Timmins Times in December of last year, that there is a process in place for a new school to be built in Attawapiskat. He could not give a date for when a new school would be built if he was to be part of a government formed with the Liberals and the Bloc. So he agrees with our government, but only when asked tough questions by a select few reporters.

We are committed to ensuring that aboriginal Canadians can share fully in our country's economic opportunities. That is why the Conservative government is putting special emphasis on improving education for first nations, with tripartite agreements with the first nations and provinces. Nothing demonstrates this more than budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan.

With its action plan, the government provides $1.4 billion over two years for specific initiatives aimed at improving the well-being and prosperity of aboriginal people. These new investments include $515 million to accelerate first nations infrastructure, focused on schools, water, and critical community services such as health clinics, nurses residences and policing, to name a few.

These investments also include an incremental investment of $200 million over two years for building 10 new schools on reserve and 3 major school renovations.

Our government recognizes that life chances improve with quality education, and to obtain a quality education, a quality learning environment is essential. These recent investments demonstrate clear action toward this goal and we will continue in this endeavour.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the remarks of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

I would like to ask him a brief question. How does this bill respond to the aspirations of the Oujé-Bougoumou band to be recognized as the ninth Cree band?

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague on the committee. We have certainly enjoyed the testimony in dealing with this act. There is all-party agreement that this should proceed.

I was interested in the member's comments about the dispute resolution process. I know this was something she asked specifically about at the briefing provided yesterday.

Before I do that, I want to mention that last week I was at Stoney Nakoda, in Bighorn, Alberta. They have a very extensive reserve, with three major communities that are quite separate geographically, in southern Alberta as well as up near Rocky Mountain House.

Despite that difference and a large population, they have a 93% retention rate, very similar to the retention of people living in the Cree communities we are talking about. My point is that the regional differences the member is pointing out are not restricted to one part of the country.

However, going back to the dispute resolution issue, the member has looked at the language and she has a distinct interest. Is there anything in the language that could be written in a different way, or is she simply going to wait to see how it performs as a new model?

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my question for a fellow committee member, and a very enlightened representative on the committee, also deals with the mandate that the Cree government will have under the bill, which is much of its legislation will be allowed to meet or exceed provincial or federal standards. This allows individual governments at the community level to make their own choices.

Does my colleague think this is a good way to go?

[Points of Order, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was informed that I would be allowed to read that, so I was not pushing the envelope in any way. Yes, I would like you to review it. There were partisan statements from other members during members' statements prior to my turn in the rotation and they were not cut off.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a major question of policy difference here and I request that you review the actions that were taken.

[Points of Order, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to appeal to you regarding being cut off after two sentences of my S.O. 31, otherwise known as statements by members. Mr. Speaker, I believe you said that personal attacks were not allowed during our S.O. 31 statements. I think that if you examine my words, you will find that what I said were statements of fact, not as you described.

I believe that my statement should have been allowed. I was explaining what people said before a vote, on the record, and then how they voted or did not vote. In my planned statement, of which I delivered only two sentences before being cut off, I make this comparison four times.

The statement I was going to make was that the NDP member for Western Arctic campaigned against the billion dollar gun registry boondoggle and last week he forgot to vote against it. The NDP member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River said, “I am very pleased to tell the House that for eight—

[Firearms Registry, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member for Western Arctic campaigned against the billion dollar gun registry boondoggle and then last week he forgot to vote against it.

The NDP member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River said, “I am very pleased to tell the House that for eight years, since the turn of the century—

[Yukon Land Claims and Self-Government Agreements, April 22nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2003-04 annual report of the Yukon Land Claims and Self-Government Agreements.