Yvon Lévesque

[Petitions, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are no longer surprised to see Ottawa acting like a banana republic and ignoring them or even harming them, as was the case with the softwood lumber crisis. However, they are full citizens and deserve respect as long as they are stuck in the Canadian system.

So I am honoured today to table a petition signed by more than 1,000 people from the beautiful area of Abitibi-Témiscamingue and northern Quebec, which reads as follows:

We, the undersigned, constituents of the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada—

THAT the processing delays to obtain a passport are unreasonable and drawn out. The citizens of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou do not have access to expedited service when they submit a passport application, and must travel more than 420 km to the closest Passport Office—

Mr. Speaker—

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member mention the economy. I understand that the economy is doing well in western Canada. At the same time, it is being strangled in eastern Canada. I have heard references made to prominent economists. There are prominent consumers who are saying every weekend that gas prices are higher than ever. High prices kill the economy in the west as well as in the east.

Could the member opposite tell me what difference it would make? We know that the tax on the profits made by these companies have been reduced from 27% to 19% since 2003. How can the member believe that a price monitoring agency would adversely affect prices, given that it would have the capacity to summon witnesses? Because that is the main point, for the commissioner to have the power to summon witnesses, who in turn will be required to testify.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we cannot read what the history books have to say about the history, customs and traditions of our nation, that nation's culture will be lost.

It is by studying another culture, one that is different from our own, that we learn about that culture. I experienced this first hand, because I left the countryside to go to school in the city, as a white person, of course. When I went back home, I spent my summer holidays getting to know my parents and siblings all over again. These people face the same problem, because they are not even able to read the books to find this information. It is criminal.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the minister said he intended to issue an apology, but I am very disappointed with the timing of that apology. We are all familiar with the abuse that was inflicted.

The government must admit that it also acknowledges that abuse because it is compensating the victims. In other cases that have already been heard, before awarding compensation, the government apologized.

Personally, I believe the government should apologize immediately, and not wait a year or two, or wait to be defeated, only to say that it should have apologized at that time.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

I am pleased to speak to the House today on residential schools. This will allow us to move things forward for the most affected parties, namely, aboriginals, Inuit and Métis, who, not all that long ago, were referred to as Indians and were seen as somewhat different from us.

I am familiar with residential schools, although not as much as the people I will be telling you about today. Nor were my experiences the same as theirs. I believe I know a little about these institutions from having attended them throughout my childhood, since I was an orphan. The family that raised me could not find the means to give me what they considered a reasonable education on their own. They therefore went to the local bishop for help. At the time, that was the only way to get any help.

I still remember returning to school every September, at a residential school not far from Quebec City, where I would stay for the entire school year, that is, from September of one year to the end of the following June. I am originally from Bas-du-Fleuve, more specifically the Matapédia valley. Of course, the return trip home would have been too expensive for the family that raised me. I swore to myself at the time that my own children would never go to such a school, because every time I went home, I felt like I had new parents and new siblings whom I had to get to know all over again during my summer holidays, which were always too short. I think this could be described as “learning the hard way”.

When I was 13, two months shy of my 14th birthday, I went to work in Abitibi. I did not see my parents again until 10 years later. My first job was loading planed wood onto rail cars. My partner was an Indian, as they were called at the time. He was the kind of man who never raised his voice. Around four in the morning, working a shift that had started at six the night before, when he saw that I was having a hard time handling 8 x 8 x 16 lumber, he would take one end of the board to help me, then load his own, and that went on until six in the morning. I worked at that job for five months, and I never heard him complain. He had been working there for eight years. He had gone to a residential school until he was 15. He did not live with the other employees because he had a little camp on the river. It was not until I went to visit him there that I began to learn about his life story.

When I moved to Val-d'Or, I drove a taxi a lot. Nights and weekends, I often drove one or two aboriginal families who were taking their children back to the residential school near Amos. They spoke French to me, but among themselves, they spoke Indian. To me, Cree and Algonquin were the same language. However, when they cried as they left their children behind, no translation was necessary. The residential school was not very far from their reserve. It took about an hour and a half or two hours to get there, but they had other children and could not afford the trip except to go back for their kids the following summer.

At the time, it seemed obvious to me—and I kept thinking about it because it was so striking—that while I could not understand them on the way there, I had no trouble understanding them on the way back because they were speaking French. Please understand that my pleasure at hearing them speak French was not selfish. From my perspective, I thought that since the English had forced us to speak English, it made sense for them to learn French. My thoughts on the matter were well intended.

Nevertheless, when they arrived at their reserve, it was astounding to observe the parents translating what the children were saying to the grandparents. At that time, my first thought was that the poor old folks had not been lucky enough to learn French like the young ones. Perhaps we were also an oppressed people at that time.

It was not until many years later that I truly understood the magnitude of what I had experienced, even though I counted some aboriginals among my friends.

In the 1980s, I played hockey with one of these friends, who had attended the Canadian junior training camp. I liked to tease him because he did not want to go out for a beer with the others; quite often I would have a soft drink with him. One evening he said I should help him to find some courses in Anishinabe and Cree. I was incredulous. He said that his entire education had been provided at an Indian residential school and that they had taken away his language, his culture and his family. He could not read or write in either Cree or Anishinabe. Therefore, he had no access to his history and his culture.

It was at that moment, I think, that I understood the scope of the experience without even knowing the other abuses suffered. It is somewhat embarrassing to admit this kind of thing. I have come to understand, since being elected, that I did not yet know everything. Today, I am even sure that had he not been aboriginal, he would have been a member of the Canadian junior team because he was really good.

I still see him. In fact I saw him not too long ago when we got the first nations pavilion on the Val-d'Or campus. It was really something to see the look on his face. It was a look of complete satisfaction and hope. He knows that the university will train first nations teachers in their language and their culture. I know that he will try to be there, maybe not to teach—although you never know—but rather to learn to read and write in his mother tongue, Cree, and in the language of his father's side, Anishnabe.

Have they suffered? I think so. Have they healed? I do not think most of them have. I am not an expert, but to hear them speak, if they can learn to master their language, it would be a positive step.

The Bloc will support this motion that the House apologize to the survivors of Indian Residential Schools for the trauma they suffered as a result of policies intended to assimilate first nations, Inuit and Métis children, causing the loss of aboriginal culture, heritage and language, while also leaving a sad legacy of emotional, physical and sexual abuse.

[Quebec Mining Week, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the mining industry in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and in northern Quebec is enjoying great prosperity. It is an important economic engine of development in our resource region.

Exploration and development projects are on the rise. The mining industry generates many jobs and there will be a significant need for workers in the coming years.

Let us acknowledge the progress made by the industry to improve its environmental results through innovative technologies and ethics. Although the production of mine waste is unavoidable, mining companies are investigating procedures that will help them be profitable and at the same time respect the environment.

That is why, with a theme of “Mines in society, a world of possibilities”, members of the mining community will be participating in a number of activities to show what this industry has to offer.

[Sheila Watt-Cloutier, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform this house that Sheila Watt-Cloutier, from Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

This nomination recognizes Ms. Watt-Cloutier's invaluable contribution to social and environmental causes that affect the Inuit and honours her for drawing the world's attention to the impact of climate change and pollution on the traditional way of life of the aboriginal peoples and the Inuit who live in the Arctic and elsewhere.

Ms. Watt-Cloutier, along with 62 Inuit elders, has filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that American greenhouse gas emissions violate the Inuit's environmental and cultural rights.

I want to salute the outstanding work done by this woman, who has made the world's great decision-makers aware of the dangers of global warming, yet has not managed to convince one of the main stakeholders: this government. The Bloc Québécois and I congratulate Ms. Watt-Cloutier on her nomination.

[Nunavik Youth Hockey Development Program, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, 16 boys aged 11 to 13 from Nunavik in northern Quebec participated in the Nunavik youth hockey development program. This hockey program for Nunavik youth was designed to promote the importance of education and crime prevention.

Hockey is helping motivate these young people. To participate in the Quebec City international peewee hockey tournament, each player is required to demonstrate an exemplary attitude in school and on the ice.

Under the guidance of Joe Juneau, a former National Hockey League player, the boys learned the rudiments of hockey and the importance of discipline.

On behalf of all citizens of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, I would like to thank Joe Juneau for partnering with Nunavik authorities, and I would like to offer my heartiest congratulations to these young hockey players who are giving it their all.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, there have been no consultations with aboriginal peoples concerning this bill. In fact, they said so themselves in a press release issued the very day the bill was introduced.

They will approve the repeal of section 67, after 30 years of lobbying for this, only after they have been consulted about their vision and aspirations with respect to this bill and the amending of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I have had discussions with the Liberal government's Minister for Native Affairs, a very nice man with whom I got along just fine. He is from the regions, where there are aboriginal people.

The current minister is originally from a region where there were aboriginal people, but I am not sure if there are any where he is working now. He does, however, have the ability and authority to meet them. Unfortunately, he does not seem to have done so.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced and given first reading on December 13, 2006, although—as I must point out to or remind all members of this House—this was in spite of the promise made by the Government of Canada to strengthen ties between the government and first nations peoples.

That promise included improved cooperation and discussion with first nations peoples in order to develop federal policies that affect or have important specific repercussions on members of the Assembly of First Nations.

The promise was made on May 31, 2005, and was part of the follow-up subsequent to a promise made by the Prime Minister on April 19, 2004, at the Canada-aboriginal peoples round table. The then Prime Minister himself said:

It is now time for us to renew and strengthen the covenant between us.

He also added, and I feel this represents another promise:

No longer will we in Ottawa develop policies first and discuss them with you later. This principle of collaboration will be the cornerstone of our new partnership.

To my knowledge, the Prime Minister did not refer to just any partnership, rather, a new partnership and, as far as I know, no other new partnership agreements have been suggested or put forward to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, on which I sit.

However, on December 13, 2006, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs issued a press release to announce the introduction of a bill to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

If there was consultation with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada or perhaps other aboriginal associations unknown to us, the minister has a problem, unless of course, he himself is aboriginal. He should not be ashamed. That would be completely honourable. There would only be a problem if he considers himself an authority with the power to negotiate on behalf of aboriginals.

But he is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and as such, we know that we do not need to remind him that it would be a conflict of interest, especially since, in 2004, the government promised to strengthen ties between the government and first nations peoples. Accordingly, in the future, the government must consult first nations peoples before developing any policies concerning them.

According to a joint press release issued by the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Phil Fontaine, and the Native Women’s Association of Canada on the same day that this bill was tabled, it seems that after 30 years of lobbying, they agree with the principle of repealing section 67, but only after due consultation has taken place.

Even though this had been in the works for 30 years, the government did not consult the first nations, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations stated. As the government's representative, the minister also did not respect the promise made on May 31, 2005.

In 1977, the Minister of Justice, Ron Basford, considered section 67 to be temporary because, even at that time, the government had promised not to amend the Indian Act without consulting them at length.

In the opinion of the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, there had been no working meeting of any sort with the Assembly of First Nations or the Native Women’s Association of Canada or with both organizations together in order to discuss Bill C-44.

We must consider this approach as a slap in the face or even worse. Personally, I would consider it an insult, a measure to delay the final and complete recognition of native peoples.

What can we expect from a government that voted against adopting the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, a government that refused to recognize the Kelowna accord and that, today, is attempting a diversionary tactic for the sole apparent purpose of delaying recognition of the rights of native peoples of Quebec, Canada and the provinces?

This government should not claim that it is surprised to have an increasing number of chiefs, associations and native leaders demand the autonomy needed to develop by joining, in Quebec in particular, the national movement for autonomy and sovereignty over their land and their nation, a Quebec movement which is very much in keeping, one can understand, with their vision and their aspirations.

Moreover, why should we be surprised by the astronomical costs of negotiations between the various departments and the first nations, when the laws and regulations that relate to them are developed without consultation?

Why should we be surprised by the waste of human energy in all the efforts made by aboriginal people to be recognized, when the laws that relate to them are either incomprehensible or ill-suited to the facts or situations?

What can possibly be gained from all these strategic little battles to stifle these people economically, if it is not just to make the talks drag on long enough so that, at the end—perhaps in 100 years—there will be no one left to whom this applies or, if there are some left, these people will be so much in debt that they will have to give up their rights to pay off the money they owe?

I am making this point, because the government's strategy is to force their associations or communities to give up their claims, or else face bankruptcy, so that in the end, it can impose its vision on these people and leave them to fend for themselves.

Quebec has had to endure this stifling treatment for a long time, and it is still, to this day, at the mercy of some drawers of water who are putting up all sorts of obstacles in its path. That was the case just recently, when two ministers from Quebec cowardly betrayed the people who voted for them in order to allow a centralizing government to put the Quebec nation in a position of weakness.

Indeed, who is not aware of the fervour shown by this government with taxpayers' money—25% of which comes from the Quebec nation—to protect Ontario's monopoly over the auto industry? However, when the time comes to protect Quebec's primary sector, namely the aircraft industry, we see two yes-men from that province take it upon themselves to make them admit that they are opposed to the vision of their anglophone colleagues to not protect that industry, contrary to what they do for the auto and oil industries. That is sad.

Who is not familiar with the statement made by a certain Prime Minister, who is still often quoted, to the effect that, when it comes to the auto industry, we are talking about Ontario. In Quebec, it is the aircraft industry? The agreement that was just signed benefits that industry in Ontario and in the western provinces, at the expense of Quebec.

All Quebeckers are ashamed to see, even in this day and age, fellow citizens proud to betray them and, more importantly, proud to do so publicly, in the hope of gaining some prestige, and to come and tell us that, when it is good for Ontario and western Canada, we must not interfere with a free market.

I happen to think that the auto industry was, and still is, also a free market. Oil companies have always been a highly subsidized free market reserved for Ontario and certain specific provinces.

Did we not also see this weakness in a Conservative member from Quebec just last week, when the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages tried to justify, quite awkwardly, but agreed to giving more privileges to unilingual anglophones in the army, while denying unilingual francophones the same privileges and appointments?

What are we to make of all these Conservative members from Quebec who turn themselves inside out to go against the interests of Quebeckers, even giving them the finger during a vote on supply management?

What a shame for all of Quebec to see some lazy people publicly claim to represent their voters, but devote their energies to destroying them, in order to get a few crumbs. All these free thinkers elected in the Conservative Party under false pretenses have become a major hindrance to the economy and to the development of Quebec. Perhaps they could try to find work in this country after the next election.

I understand full well the mistrust of the aboriginal people toward this government. Quebeckers feel it as well, and the few voters who thought it might be worth a try will change their minds once they become aware of the scandalous behaviour of those in whom they put their trust.

In my opinion, the day the country of Quebec recognizes all these aboriginal nations, a number of other countries will be inspired to follow suit. However, to do so, it will take a decision by a nation that has had the same problems that all aboriginals are currently experiencing across Canada.

I am proud to have the Cree nation in my riding.

I am proud of the progress they made, first through the James Bay Agreement and then through the peace of the braves agreement. The latter, which reflected the utmost respect for the aspirations of first nations people, was achieved thanks to the understanding shown by the Parti Québécois under their visionary leader Bernard Landry. That kind of understanding is typical of Quebec. Quebeckers, just as the Cree, are just waiting for some kind of recognition similar to the peace of the braves on the part of the federal government to propel the dynamic Quebec nation towards new challenges.

Is it really possible that today, in a country that a recent Prime Minister called the best country in the world, we are still discussing such a fundamental right as the right of first nations people to the most basic protection guaranteed by the Canadian Human Rights Act, from which they are excluded under section 67, originally subsection 63(2), which reads as follows: “Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act?”

According to Ron Basford, then justice minister, this provision was necessary in 1977 because of the government's commitment not to review the Indian Act while—and he did say while—consultations with the National Indian Brotherhood and other organizations were still underway.

This provision was controversial from the moment it was introduced. It was thought to be particularly prejudicial to first nations women who were already deprived of status under the existing Indian Act that was considered discriminatory.

During consideration of that bill, which was known as Bill C-25 and which was to become the new law, several witnesses were called upon to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. They said that this exception was unfair and reprehensible, that it was an insult and that it showed the worst kind of indifference about human rights.

The minister even considered section 67 as a temporary necessity, suggesting that Parliament would not be in favour of maintaining this exception indefinitely or very long.

He misjudged the parliamentarians who came after 1977 and even 1985. Would we be wrong to think that the various governments prior to 1985 were more democratic than today's governments, especially having known the Liberal majority governments, the Liberal minority government in 2004 and the Conservative minority government that has been in power since 2006 and defies majority decisions of Parliament?

It may be that, after 13 consecutive years in power, the Liberals lost touch with reality and thought they were invincible. That is what usually happens when a party governs with ignorance and indifference. The Liberals likely realized that when the voters punished them.

As for the current minority government, it is disturbing to see this inexperienced government, with limited skills and members from Quebec who represent their constituents' interests neither bravely nor ethically. To see this government defy the will of Parliament, the will of the people of Quebec and Canada, with even more arrogance than the previous government raises concerns about democracy.

I believe that the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada were right to come out in favour of repealing section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, provided that the government honoured the commitment made on May 31, 2005, following the promises the Prime Minister made on April 19, 2004, to hold discussions with the first nations in order to develop federal policies pertaining to them.

Do I have to repeat what the Prime Minister said at the Canada-aboriginal peoples round table on April 19, 2004 to remind this House that this bill, in both form and substance, runs counter to existing agreements and would lead to further disagreement?

Reaction from the people most directly concerned was not long in coming, and on the very day this bill was introduced, the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada issued a press release reiterating the conditions for recognition of any bill concerning them, even though they were very anxious to see this section disappear after 30 years of lobbying.

Knowing the astronomical costs of negotiating with aboriginal peoples and the differing interpretations of existing legislation, as well as the government's promises regarding the procedure for enacting new legislation or entering into new agreements that concern aboriginal peoples and have a specific impact on them, it is obvious that the government acted without due regard to the unique legal context and development of associated capacity for first nations relating to the Canadian Human Rights Act both in tabling this bill and following its introduction.

Understandably, it is difficult to believe in the good faith of this government, which has also opposed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and killed the Kelowna accord.

Like me, many of my colleagues represent aboriginal and Inuit constituents and, contrary to the members and ministers from Quebec in this government, they do not feel the need to double cross them to win over their less interested colleagues or their leader, who does not seem to be interested at all.

My colleagues and I will maintain our unwavering commitment to our constituents as well as our solidarity with other peoples like ours, which yearn for self-sufficiency, their most fundamental rights and loyalty from their elected representatives.

Naturally, we will consider the current approach so that we can define our position with respect to it. Should we ever decide to support it, we will do so only to be able to study it in committee, make amendments and hear evidence from first nations peoples.