Todd Russell

[Health, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal peoples are wondering if the Conservative government learned anything from last year's flu pandemic.

Officials in Garden Hill First Nation in northern Manitoba are struggling with another significant outbreak of influenza. Two people are dead and a third is in critical condition.

With only one full-time doctor for 4,000 people, the community is struggling to respond to the demands on the local health care system.

Why is the government caught unprepared yet again? Where is the support that is so urgently needed?

[Health, December 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is World AIDS Day, a day to reflect upon where we are as a country and as individuals and to recommit, once and for all, to eradicating this terrible disease. Yet it is with sadness that we learn the Conservative government has cut funding to a number of HIV-AIDS projects specifically targeted for aboriginal peoples.

As aboriginal people are one of the most vulnerable groups to HIV infection in the nation, when will the government restore this vital funding?

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Bill C-575, which was brought forward by the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

I am speaking in my capacity as a member of Parliament for Labrador, in my capacity as an aboriginal person, and with the experience of someone who has led an aboriginal organization of some 6,000 people for 11 years prior to coming to this House.

The issues and principles of accountability and transparency are the highest principles that one can aspire to in elected office in whatever form, whether it is municipal, provincial, aboriginal or federal politics. There is nothing wrong with affirming and standing up for the principles of accountability and transparency.

In 2004-05, after 18 months of negotiation, collaboration and consultation at the high-water mark between aboriginal people and the Government of Canada, we developed something called the Kelowna Accord. Under the Kelowna Accord, there was an elaborate, fulsome accountability for results framework for aboriginal people in this country, the first nations people in this country. It was broad based and comprehensive.

It was not just about reporting a simple number. It was more than that. It was about how to deliver results for people at the community level. It involved the element of transparency, but it was about how to deliver results for people at the community level. The accountability was not only at the first nations level, it was at the government level, the federal government level.

We have responsibilities as parliamentarians when we make decisions, when we dispense funds, when we enter into agreements, collaborative agreements with first nations and other aboriginal organizations.

The accountability was mutual. It was not one-sided. It was not directed. It was not just targeted. It was accountability for all, for aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

It also included a first nations auditor general, an independent body funded to oversee the accountability framework to make sure that it was being implemented. This was broad based. This was creative. This was the way forward in terms of accountability and transparency.

When the Conservative government came to power, it killed the Kelowna Accord. It killed that process of accountability. It killed the concept of a first nations auditor general who would have dealt with these issues five years ago.

For five years, what has the Conservative government done about this so-called accountability and transparency in the aboriginal community? It has done nothing and it has said nothing on the issue of accountability and transparency, for five years, either for itself when it comes to delivering results for aboriginal people or in the context of the aboriginal communities themselves.

Let us look at elements of the bill. The member, by her own admission, says much of what is in the bill is already being done. A financial statement approved by a chartered accountant is being done. The member admitted that it is being done already in the contribution agreement.

The member says generally accepted accounting principles have to be applied and there has to be an auditor. It is being done. God forbid the member is admitting that the government does not compel people to comply with those two provisions. In fact, they do in the contribution agreements. The member has admitted as such. The member has said there should be a schedule of remuneration. It is already being done.

There is the element of transparency. How is information accessed and how is it clarified? The member knows quite well that the Indian affairs minister had the power in 2005, when the new Conservative government came into being, and has the power now to make sure that disclosure is there for first nations and for anyone else who wants to go and look at that particular information.

It is not fair to say or to imply that none of it is being done or that it cannot be done, even under existing protocols, program guidelines or, indeed, the law, such as the Indian Act. Therefore, the question is why the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not compelled this to be done with his own authority under the Indian Act. Why can he not do it? Why did he choose not to do it?

Why now, after five years of saying and doing nothing, do we have a private member's bill, not a government-led initiative around this issue but a private member's bill? This gets to the issue of process and intent, which is just as fundamental. There is the legal duty to consult. The courts have told us we have a legal duty to consult with aboriginal people on issues that affect their rights and treaties. Can the member answer if this has been done? Has the duty to consult been met?

The government, only a few days ago, said it now endorses the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Is this piece of legislation, in terms of the process not the content, compliant with those principles outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? If it is not, then the government's words are hollow.

The government said it wanted to do things differently in the era after the apology of 2008. Is there any evidence in the way the government brought this forward that it is in fact doing anything differently? We will let first nations, aboriginal people and Canadians judge for themselves whether it is doing anything differently.

Let us ask as well whether it believes in the law that says aboriginal people have the right of self-government. What does that mean? I will ask the member to answer that question. Does she believe in that principle? Does she believe in the inherent right of self-government? I would say that the evidence speaks to the contrary.

What is the intent, then? If it is already being done, what is the intent? I would like to give the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar the benefit of the doubt and say it is being done for legitimate or substantive reasons, but I truly cannot find evidence of that.

I believe it is an attempt to brand all first nations chiefs and councillors as somehow corrupt. I believe that in some ways it is making an insinuation about the nature of first nations leadership and governance. I believe that it perpetuates myths and stereotypes in society that sometimes exist about aboriginal people and, in this specific case, first nations people. That is what the evidence tells me. That is what I feel it says, because there were different ways of doing it. There were different processes that could have been undertaken to get to the same place.

In order for a piece of legislation to work, it should be done in collaboration and consultation, and we should support the substantive issues surrounding it, such as housing, water and education. Liberals stand for transparency and accountability in all governments, including first nations, and we will fight for accountability and transparency with respect, in collaboration and in consultation with those affected, and we will do it by being critical of this particular bill and asking the tough questions that need to be asked around Bill C-575.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for bringing that fact to light in the House. It is a reality that exists. If the government has not taken proactive measures to deal with the dire situation that exists at the registration office, it will only get worse as we move forward.

It is one thing to say that we have justice in principle if the bill goes through, but we also have to have justice in practice. What is the use for a person who potentially could become re-registered under the bill if the person has to wait two, three, four, or however many years in order to put that into practice?

I would again take this opportunity to call upon the government to be transparent and accountable and to ask what plans it has in place, what concrete steps it has taken, to address what could be a rise, and maybe quite a dramatic rise in the short term, in terms of new registration.

It is a question that is welcomed, but I will say that the answer has to come from the government. Right now we see no evidence that the government has put any concrete measures in place to deal with potential new registrants.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-3.

I first want to congratulate Sharon McIvor who fought for 25 years. It is unimaginable to us that she would fight for 25 years for justice and equality, but that has been her struggle. Her case was launched in the late 1980s. Before her, we had women like Mary Two Axe Early, Ms. Sandra Lovelace and Ms. Corbiere-Lavell, all who fought these battles for equality and justice for aboriginal women.

It is unseemly that it takes a generation sometimes to address an issue of inequality, something that could be so glaring that we all can recognize it. However, our system did not allow that to happen.

I said this in my opening speech when we talked about Bill C-3. I really do not care what government was in place at the time. There is something wrong with the system when it takes 25 years to achieve some type of equality or equity for individuals, and in this case many individuals.

Sharon McIvor court case was won at the B.C. Supreme Court. It was at that time a very broad decision that affected many areas of the Indian Act in terms of giving rise to residual discrimination, sex discrimination, gender discrimination.

The Government of Canada appealed that decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled much more narrowly on the facts and only affected certain sections of the Indian Act.

When the decision came out, the government tried in some way, shape or form to engage first nations people through something called an engagement process. It did not call it a consultation process because a consultation process gave rise to various legal parameters or certain expectations. It called them exploratory processes on something as fundamental as discrimination, as equality. The government did not engage in a consultation process, but rather in an exploratory process.

When the bill came out, it was a disappointment for many aboriginal women in our country and for many aboriginal groups that testified at committee. They said that the government had an opportunity to end sex discrimination under the Indian Act once and for all, but it did not do it. Instead Bill C-3 is very narrowly scoped and only speaks to what the court ordered the government to do.

The court ordered the government to deal with two particular clauses and that is all the government responded to, not saying that the government did not have it in its power or did not have the authority to scope the bill in such a way to end sex discrimination once and for all.

Some of those who testified at committee said that in fact it gave rise to other issues of inequality, where a woman for example would have to discuss the paternity of her child, whereas the same would not take place for a male.

Even though the bill narrowly speaks to the B.C. Court of Appeal decision, there are concerns with Bill C-3. Are they that substantive? Perhaps we should let Sharon McIvor speak, the lady who fought this for 25 years. She does not like Bill C-3. She does not feel the bill responds to the questions that she put to the court as a complainant. She now has taken her fight, where? To the United Nations. She is launching a complaint against Canada, saying that Canada has not responded adequately to the issues that were raised in the court case and Canada has not responded adequately with Bill C-3 in terms of ending gender discrimination once and for all.

When it comes to the person who fought for 25 years, we must be sensitive to her opinion and give some credence to the fact that she is not happy with the government's approach to Bill C-3.

Some will ask if the title of the bill accurately reflects the intent of the bill, which is to provide equity. Many would argue that it tries to achieve that objective, but it would be wrong for the House to think the legislation would resolve all of the issues of inequity based on sex. Now we are at a crossroads.

We get up here at third reading debate and we hash it out, me for 15 or 20 minutes, the parliamentary secretary for 15 or 20 minutes, and somebody else in the other party for 10 or 15 minutes as if we are going to accomplish anything. We are faced with the decision now of whether we should support this bill as it is.

It is not the best bill in the world. We know that. We know that it was not arrived at properly by the government. We know that there are many dissenting voices out there. There are those, too, who believe the piecemeal approach is not the proper way to go forward.

Jennifer Lynch, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said:

The Committee has already heard that the Indian Act has had discriminatory effects, including residual gender-based discrimination.

A case-by-case, section-by-section approach to resolving discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act will be costly, confrontational and time-consuming.

Moreover, the Act places the burden on complainants who do not necessarily have access to legal resources.

The approach by the government is not what one would prefer. It is narrow, not broad, and it does not end all gender discrimination under the Indian Act.

The government says that it does speak to and has spurred debate around other fundamental issues that the bill does not specifically raise. I tend to agree that in some regard the bill does not raise these issues, but they are there in the public purview. They are a matter of debate. Those issues of jurisdiction, of citizenship, and of who determines membership must be talked about. They must be acted upon.

As one of what some people call the “enlightened” countries in the world, we have one of the staunchest pieces of colonial architecture still in place, and it is called the Indian Act. A law in this place, in this House, determines if one is an Indian or not. Issues of culture, descendancy, self-identification, and self-governance do not determine it. We in this House actually determine who is a status Indian, the identity of a person. It could not be more outdated. We know that fundamental change has to come.

The government asks how we will deal with this fundamental change. Again, it is not going to be a consultation. It is going to be an “exploratory process”, as I heard the parliamentary secretary say. We should be thoughtful. We should not rush it.

God forbid we would rush it when this discrimination has existed for generations and it takes a single individual a generation to resolve even some aspects of it. I know we cannot rush it, but we have to give it some prominence. We have to be able to say that the government is sincere in terms of its approach.

Consider what “exploratory” says to a citizen out there, to a first nations person who is just looking at what some of the issues might be. I am sure our relationship with first nations and aboriginal people in this country has given rise to enough issues that we do not have to basically explore them anymore. We have to sit at the table and do something about them.

That is what the apology was supposed to be about in 2008. It was supposed to be about a renewed relationship, a post-apology approach to aboriginal issues in this country that we should try to resolve.

We do not see much of a difference in the government's approach. It is the same old business as usual. Deal with what the courts told us to deal with and only that. Other substantive issues that require change that will affect the well-being of first nations people for generations to come we will talk out in something called an exploratory process.

To me, the government has the ability to go beyond that, to truly engage, to truly consult. I respectfully would ask the government to engage aboriginal people in a substantive way. To me, this exploratory process seems to be just something we put out there so that we could get the support of first nations, or to at least get Bill C-3 through the House.

The minister in public says that we will not touch this exploratory process until Bill C-3 passes in the House.

We could be doing a lot of work prior to this bill actually receiving assent in the House, then in the Senate, and being signed off by the Governor General.

We also need to raise issues around implementation. That was touched on by the hon. member opposite. We asked if the department was ready. We asked if the register of Indians was ready. The government really did not answer those questions satisfactorily.

We asked other questions. Do we have an expedited process for these people who have been waiting so long for registration? Do we have an expedited process to make sure they are not bogged down in bureaucracy for years and years, having faced this gender and sex discrimination for these decades and generations? The government cannot tell us if in fact it has an expedited process, or a way to approach this, that will be acceptable to people.

I am sure many in the House who have first nations in their ridings get letters all the time from people complaining about the process. I received an email from one person who has been dealing with the register of Indians for 20 years about getting status. It is unacceptable.

While the government is touting equality in the House under Bill C-3, it must also put that into practice when it comes to implementation. The onus is going to be on individuals to apply, to provide some very detailed and personal information. It is only incumbent upon the government to make sure there is a process that people feel is fair and they have some confidence in.

We also want to talk about what the impacts are. Mr. Clatworthy, a noted demographer, said that approximately 45,000 may be eligible for registration. That is not to say that they are all going to register on one day or indeed get it in one day, one week, one year, or even two years.

The government said some months ago that it did not have figures. It could not tell us how much it was going to cost. It could not say how much of an impact it was going to have on a band, or a council, or a first nations government. It could not say how much it was going to cost. It could not say how many people would actually pick up for non-insured health benefits or post-secondary education as two programs they would be eligible for without a shadow of a doubt.

The government has not thought out the implementation of it, and I do not believe it has thought out the impacts of it. That, to me, speaks to an issue of sincerity. It does not do just do what it is forced to do. It goes beyond that and makes sure that once something comes into law, it has the means and resources to effectively deal with it.

Otherwise, what will it be like for a first nations woman or her children who can now get status when she finds out that she will be bogged down in bureaucratic red tape at the registration office, or for the new member of a band that does not have the resources to deal with those programs and benefits that the new member should receive as a registered Indian? That will not speak very highly of the government, which touts one thing in the House but does something different outside of it.

At the end of the day, there is a process in the House that I am not necessarily totally comfortable with, but we are part of it. We cannot change the bill. We have to live with what we have. It is not great, but we have to live with what we have.

We will be forced to vote on this particular bill. We may be grimacing or not quite happy doing so, but we may have to support it. That is what we are caught in so many times in the House.

With all sincerity, I believe the government sometimes designs things in this manner. To me, it does not speak well of a government when it designs things in a manner that puts parliamentarians in a very difficult position.

We tried to make amendments to the bill. We did everything in our power to amend the bill, first as a committee when it was referred to committee, and then as parliamentarians. We tried to make it more palatable to all of us here in the House, to make it more palatable to people like Sharon McIvor and other women and other families out there who want to end sex discrimination once and for all. The government shut us down and would not allow us to do it.

The procedure in the House is that we have to have consent many times in order for amendments to be made to a specific piece of legislation. When we brought those amendments forward, the government fought against them and said it did not want to broaden the scope of the bill. It only wanted to deal with what it was told to deal with by the B.C. Court of Appeal. That approach speaks volumes about a government that talks about equity but does something different.

In closing, I want to again thank the women and their families who have given so much of themselves and their lives to fight for equality in this country. Hopefully in the future we as a Parliament can be more open and more respectful to them and their needs in their fight for justice and equality.

[Status of Women, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the government not going to call a public inquiry, but now we find out that Sisters in Spirit, the group leading the charge for justice for 600 missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls and their families, is being told by the Conservative government to stop asking questions, to shut up and to shut down. It is a disgrace.

Why is the government attacking the group that is speaking for the 600 missing and murdered women and girls who can no longer speak for themselves?

[Status of Women, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the nearly 600 missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls are victims of racialized, sexualized violence, and that demands a public inquiry. Without an inquiry we will never know why the number of missing and murdered first nations, Inuit and Métis women is so shockingly high.

Why can the government call an inquiry into missing salmon, but not when it comes to these 600 missing and murdered women and girls? Why is there no justice for these women?

[Member for Nepean—Carleton, October 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member only apologized after the Conservatives attempted to have the media conceal the story. Apologies do not seem to mean anything to the member. He has a history of being forced to apologize for offensive language, offensive gestures and, most disturbing, for insulting every aboriginal Canadian. When are the Conservatives going to understand that yet another apology is not going to work?

The member has clearly demonstrated that he is unfit to be the Prime Minister's personal representative. Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister fire his parliamentary secretary?

[Member for Nepean—Carleton, October 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is the subject of an RCMP investigation after a serious security breach on Parliament Hill. He barged through a security checkpoint before his car was inspected and before he was even identified, a clear violation of security rules. Apparently it is not just the Prime Minister who thinks he makes the rules.

The member pretends to be tough on crime. Why does he think the law applies to all Canadians except him?

[Petitions, October 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise and present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the communities of Pinsent's Arm, Charlottetown, Port Hope Simpson, Mary's Harbour, and Red Bay. It calls for a common sense approach to EI by extending the pilot project which would enable five additional weeks of EI.

They also call upon the government to keep the pilot projects dealing with the best 14 weeks and enabling workers to keep 40% of their earnings. This is good for employers, it is good for employees, and it is good for our country.