Romeo Saganash

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The motion before us is an important one. I would like to thank the member for St. Paul's for moving it. I must point out that the issue it raises is not a new one for us. The fate of missing and murdered aboriginal women across Canada has been on the national agenda for over 10 years.

We had heard horror stories, and we have heard them again this morning. Yet the federal government stubbornly refuses to do anything to get to the bottom of this.

However, let us put that aside for just a moment and let us focus on one number, 600. That is the estimated number of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada. They are 600 daughters, sisters, mothers, nieces, cousins, friends and neighbours. These women are not faceless. These women are not nameless. They are part of us, part of our families and part of our communities. The thought that in Canada, a country that prides itself on being a fair, a loving and compassionate society, that we would see something like this happen, and continue to happen, is, quite frankly, disturbing.

That thought is even more striking when we are faced with a government that does not miss a chance to call itself the only party of law and order in this land. The Conservatives are the party of double-bunking and mandatory sentencing, the party of climbing aboriginal incarceration rates, the party of funding cuts to rehabilitation programs that work. The Conservatives never miss a chance to wag their fingers at the opposition, while crowing that they alone are on the side of victims. Yet it is the same government that eliminated funding to the Sisters In Spirit program in 2010.

Some of the members opposite will react to these facts by calling me biased, an enemy or even a socialist, as they often do, but I want everyone to know that I am the son of a Cree woman, the brother of five Cree sisters who raised me, and the father of two Quebec Cree daughters who make me proud every day.

What I have to say today does not come from my party or my opponents. It comes from my conviction that we must fight for justice in this country.

I want to be very clear on that point. I am the son of a Cree woman, the brother of five Cree sisters who raised me, and the father of two Cree and Québécoise daughters who make me proud every day

When coming into this chamber today, it is not my party, my opponents or anything else that dictates my thoughts on this; it is my belief in standing up for what is right in this country.

All my life, I have been lucky enough to be surrounded by strong women, like the 600 women we are talking about today. I cannot imagine the pain it would cause me if one of the women who holds an important place in my life were to experience the same fate as the 600 missing and murdered women we are talking about today.

I know that I am not the only one in the House who feels this way. We are all parents, brothers, sisters or cousins, and we all have people we love in our lives. You do not have to be an aboriginal to understand the pain that these 600 families are feeling. I strongly believe that, despite our political differences, each and every one of us wants to put an end to this terrible situation in Canada.

Let us be clear. This terrible situation is still ongoing. The numbers are continuing to rise rather than drop. The danger is still there. An inquiry could help us to see how to make our cities safer for everyone.

The dangers we are seeing are also evolving. Over the past months we have seen the Idle No More movement activate more and more aboriginal people to speak out about their rights and their culture. It is a renaissance that has great potential to improve this land for the better. While this movement has seen great support from both aboriginals and the public at large, there are still some in our society who strongly oppose what Idle No More stands for. Sadly, some of those opponents have resorted to thuggish tactics that have no place in Canadian society today.

For instance, in late December, news broke about a case in Thunder Bay where an aboriginal woman who was simply walking down the street was abducted and sexually assaulted by two men. News reports on the case noted that while she was being assaulted by these two men, they said, “you Indians deserve to lose your treaty rights”. They also reportedly said that they would strike again.

In response to the understandable fears that this case raised, students at the first nation Dennis Franklin Cromarty High School were all given personal safety alarms. Yes, I said personal safety alarms. Imagine having to carry an alarm just to go to school safely. Now imagine being the parents of those children sending their loved ones hundreds of kilometres away from home just to get a high school education, knowing that a measure like that is deemed necessary in a country like Canada. I do not think that any member in this House believes that is right, yet here we are debating whether we should be investigating the root causes of this phenomenon.

There are other cases near Sault Ste. Marie of reports of an Idle No More organizer receiving death threats. The organizer received a package at the home of her sister with a letter inside saying, “You are a dead piece of...”, and I will not say the word in this honourable chamber, but it continued with, “A good Indian is a dead Indian. Stay away from the Sault”.

That was what she received for standing up for her rights.

These people that I just mentioned, much like many of the 600 victims we are speaking about today, were simply quietly going about their business. They are working hard to get an education and improve their community. However, they face many difficulties similar to those experienced by the 600 victims we are talking about here.

This proves that the problem has not yet been resolved and that something must be done. We owe it to them and to future generations to get to the bottom of this problem and to take the necessary steps to rid our society of it.

To conclude, I had the chance this morning to meet with some of the families of Sisters in Spirit. I stand here this afternoon deeply troubled, profoundly disturbed, and I must admit, emotionally challenged, but like the women I met this morning, this afternoon I will stand strong until we bring justice to them.

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from the member for Mount Royal whom, I believe, is one of the great legal minds we have in the House today.

I would like to make a comment and ask him a very specific question about his speech and about this motion in particular. I know that he used to be the justice minister in a Liberal government. We also know that this has been an on-going problem for at least 10 years. The government could have already addressed this problem. Unfortunately, at this stage we are still just debating a motion.

Families are calling for a far-reaching, national, independent public inquiry into this matter. As a lawyer, can the member for Mount Royal explain the difference between this request for a national public inquiry, which is being called for almost unanimously from coast to coast, and the special parliamentary committee proposed by the motion?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who always shares thoughtful remarks.

We all agree on the need to modernize the RCMP as an institution. We also agree we need to address the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP, which has been going on for quite some time. This is a key part of this debate. Our party also proposed establishing an independent civilian body that would examine complaints against the RCMP. As my colleague pointed out, with the RCMP being one our country's fundamental institutions, it must remain credible in the eyes of the public. I would like him to comment further on this.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her very enlightening presentation.

One of the amendments our party suggested dealt specifically with the independence of the complaints process in an organization such as the RCMP. The public should never have to doubt such an organization's credibility. That recommendation came not only from our party, but also from a few witnesses who appeared before the committee.

Could our colleague elaborate further on this?

[Aboriginal Affairs, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's speech to his Conservative caucus and the comments by one of his MPs and one of his senators do not bode well for Canada's aboriginal peoples.

The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, wants tangible results by spring.

It is hard to know who is responsible for this file in the Prime Minister's Office, but could a Conservative member tell us what tangible steps will be taken to fulfill the commitments made by the Prime Minister at the January 11 meeting?

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech, which was excellent as usual.

I would like to comment on something that is of concern to us here on this side of the House. The current Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was one of the strongest opponents of the Nisga'a Final Agreement, which today serves as a model for other agreements. Some may recall that this minister said that the treaty would haunt Canadians for generations to come. Those are his words.

We are not concerned about these scare tactics because there have been success stories. My colleague spoke about them at length.

I would like to hear the hon. member talk a bit more about these success stories, which are beneficial to aboriginal people and all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment first.

I would like to remind the minister of something. On several occasions, he referred to our Métis, Inuit and aboriginal peoples. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North also mentioned that five times, according to my count. He talked about our aboriginal peoples. I want to remind them, and put it on the record, that I am nobody's Indian in this chamber, to paraphrase another politician from the House.

Could the minister define for the House exactly what he means by willing partners? I talked about it briefly in my presentation. He referred to that on a couple of occasions.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize when reading article 19 that it concerns a process that needs to take place between member states and indigenous peoples worldwide, in this case Canada and the aboriginal peoples here. The government has a duty to consult and accommodate first nations and aboriginal peoples in this country under the Constitution. Now that norm is also part of international law. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets out in many articles the obligation to co-operate, to consult and to agree with indigenous peoples.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear this challenge issued to us from the other end of the House. The challenge issued by my colleague will be answered in 2015, I promise.

I am well aware of the importance of relationships. Yes, the Kelowna accord addressed some fundamental issues and sought to meet the basic needs of aboriginal communities. Congratulations on those efforts. However, they came a little too late, since the accord was signed on the weekend right before a federal election.

I would like to come back to what my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan was saying earlier. Our discussions should focus on the relationships we ought to have. Our discussions should focus on new relationships between the federal government and Canada's aboriginal peoples.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today in support of this important motion put forward by my colleague for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I wish to thank her for her tireless efforts and dedication. I consider it a privilege to work alongside such a strong Canadian representative in our ranks.

Today we have a motion of extreme importance before us, one that can represent the start of a better future for all Canadians, if all parties in the House seize upon this important moment.

For nearly two months we have seen the issues of indigenous nations of Canada brought to the fore in ways that have never been seen before, with the Idle No More movement. We have seen peaceful protests, combined with proud expressions of aboriginal culture, raise awareness of these issues like never before. Who knew it would be a round dance revolution that would start this discussion in earnest? This movement has brought many issues onto the public agenda, some of which we are focusing on today and that call upon the government to act immediately.

However, from my observations, Idle No More comes back to some very simple principles: respect, partnership and a better future for all who now call this land home. When we talk about respect, we are talking about respecting the treaties and subsequent agreements that the Crown and Canada have entered into with indigenous nations. When we are talking about partnership, we are talking about the relationship those treaties envisioned: two peoples working together for the prosperity of all. When we talk about a better future for all, we are talking about what is possible if we finally tackle these outstanding issues rather than leaving them to fester.

These principles are the very foundation of our country. Do not forget: first peoples in this country were not conquered or defeated in some major military battle. Our ancestors welcomed the newcomers to their land, shared it with them and signed treaties that would become the legal foundation for the Canada of today.

These treaties that Canada and the Crown signed with aboriginal nations are an integral part of our foundational documents, along with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We, the NDP, have been conscious of those facts for a long time now, and our policies and approaches incorporate them.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the current government. Its actions and words demonstrate that either it does not know our history or it is choosing to ignore it.

APTN News recently uncovered a staggering example of this very problem. On January 25, it reported details of a leaked confidential accounting of the Prime Minister's January 11 meeting with some first nations leaders. In that document, some very disturbing comments made by the President of the Treasury Board came to light. The document began by stating that he referred to the meeting as a meeting with “a group of at risk Canadians...”. Let that sink in for a moment. The minister of the Crown referred to the leaders and their peoples, not as Cree, Mi’kmaq, Ojibwa, Algonquin, or the proper name of any aboriginal nation; he referred to them as a group of at risk Canadians.

Some might call that a mistake, and others might call it a bad start, when restarting our foundational relationship. Most would call it disrespectful. I would hope that the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka would take the chance at some point during this debate to apologize for that poor choice of words.

Unfortunately, that was not the only comment that came from the member at that meeting. The document went on to quote the President of the Treasury Board admitting that he did not understand the treaty relationship or why that discussion needs to occur before economic development.

I have to question why the Prime Minister took a minister with such lack of knowledge into the meeting, while benching his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who I know has a very strong grasp of the issues, into that meeting. I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge and experience of the hon. member for Labrador, and I cannot help but wonder how serious the Prime Minister is when he leaves such a resource sitting on the sidelines.

The hon. member for Labrador has considerable experience in federal and provincial government consultations. The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and President of the Treasury Board provided a good example of his lack of knowledge. According to the media in his riding, a few days after the January 11 meeting, he explained what he meant by “consultation”. Questioned about the fact that aboriginals were not consulted about Bill C-45, he said that there was a consultation; it was called a federal election. Wrong answer.

Recently, seemingly in response to the Idle No More movement, the government has started to use some language about its duties that I have found rather worrisome. The Prime Minister and his ministers have started to say they are happy to “work with willing partners” when it comes to dealing with outstanding aboriginal issues. The last time I checked, the Government of Canada had a duty to consult and accommodate all aboriginal peoples, not just those the government believes are willing. The government needs to understand it cannot ignore the situations it sees as more difficult. It might be harder to arrive at solutions in those cases, but it will not get any easier by simply ignoring them. As an example, why should the Innu of Labrador find that the Government of Canada will work with them because the government might consider them more willing, while the Innu from Quebec, represented by my good friend from Manicouagan, have their longstanding grievances ignored because the government is not willing to talk to them?

The motion before us today calls upon the government to “commit to action on treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of Aboriginal Canadians, as required by domestic and international law.” However, as we know, the Constitution and international law are continually evolving thanks to new legal instruments, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and court rulings.

I find it sad that I have to remind the House that aboriginal people are among the small number of groups that constantly have to turn to the courts to have their basic constitutional rights respected.

It is estimated that the Government of Canada spends $300 million a year opposing the rights of aboriginal peoples before the courts. More often than not, the government loses those cases. The government has spent billions of dollars in recent decades trying to stop the inevitable, and meanwhile, court decisions are not implemented in a timely manner and progress continues to be impeded.

Earlier this month the Federal Court ruled in the Daniels decision that Métis and non-status aboriginals are Indians under the Constitution Act of 1867. This decision could have big implications once negotiations around its implementation are completed. This case was brought forward 13 years ago by the Métis leader Harry Daniels. Sadly, Harry passed away in 2004, eight years before this decision.

Thirteen years is a long time to have a case before the courts, not to mention it being very costly. For 13 years both Liberal and Conservative governments spent millions upon millions trying to deny Métis and non-status people their rights under the Constitution.

The government has yet to publicly state if it will appeal this ruling. If history is a guide, it is very likely the government will.

Some members on the government benches might be wondering what this has to do with the motion before us today. My answer is simple: one cannot properly act on implementing rights or start to take part in meaningful consultations while at the same time fighting the very concept of these rights in the courts.

In closing, the Conservative government has a lot to learn about this, and I sincerely hope it will begin doing things differently so we can see some real progress. In June 2008, the Prime Minister stood in this place and apologized for residential schools, and he promised a new relationship. Nearly five years later, it is quite clear that very little has changed for the better. We can accomplish great things, and quickly, when there is political will to do so. We in the official opposition have that will.

This motion is meant to help build a better future for everyone.

Meegwetch.