Jun 17th
- MP
ndp17 hours ago | Ontario, Nickel BeltMr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech, and I would like to assure the constituents in the riding of Rimouski that they are being well served by their MP here in the House.
The member has often mentioned the case of Guy Turcotte. I would like to quote his ex-wife, Isabelle Gaston, and then I would like to hear the member's comments:
Even if I devote my time to changing the justice system, if ministers, deputy ministers, the Barreau and the Collège des médecins do not change their ways, then injustices like this one will continue.
Can the member comment on that?
- MPndp19 hours ago | Ontario, Nickel Belt
First, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Conservative Party would stoop that low and use that as a fundraiser. That should not surprise anybody.
First, it is the victims that we want to protect. I will read a few lines and I would like my colleague to say a few words about this.
We must make public safety our top priority, while respecting the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We support the changes, but it is critically important that we make sure that the cases of defendants with mental disorders are managed effectively and that their mental disorders are treated. For that, we must ensure that the provinces have enough money because they are the ones who manage the situation at the end of the day.
We are used to hearing and seeing the Conservatives pass legislation that the provinces are forced to deal with. It does not cost the Conservatives anything.
I would like my colleague to talk about what happens in the provincial prisons to convicted offenders who are battling mental illness.
- MP
ndp19 hours ago | Ontario, Windsor—TecumsehResuming debate. The hon. member for Durham.
I would caution that we only have seven minutes left in the time allocation motion to hear this debate.
- MP
ndp20 hours ago | Quebec, MontcalmMr. Speaker, we are just five years away from our 150th birthday. As a country, what a great opportunity we have to celebrate the great things of Canada.
More than the name and the mandate of the Museum of Civilization would change. I wonder if my colleague would tell this House how the Canadian museum of history would bring Canadians together from coast to coast to coast.
- MPndp20 hours ago | Ontario, Nickel Belt
I see some CCRAP across the way.
- MPndp20 hours ago | Ontario, Windsor—Tecumseh
That of course was not what the member from Nickel Belt was doing.
Could the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine finish his comments?
- MPndp20 hours ago | Ontario, Windsor—Tecumseh
There is no question that if the Minister of Justice or any other member from the government side wants to intervene in response to the interventions this evening, he or she would be given the opportunity to do so.
The interventions we have had from the two members of the opposition will be taken into account and the decision will be rendered as soon as is practicable.
- MPndp21 hours ago | Ontario, Nickel Belt
Mr. Speaker, we have many validators for our position. My colleague quoted, in particular, Dr. Lorne Holyoak.
We also have the Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Anthropology Society, Canadian Archaeological Association. They have said, “On behalf of our respective associations, we write to express our serious concern regarding the lack of extensive or systematic engagement of the professional community”.
We have Victor Rabinovitch, president and CEO of the museum for 11 years. George MacDonald, founding director from 1983 to 1988, said, “I was shocked to hear”, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, “claim that the Aboriginal Peoples are excluded from the displays in the Canada Hall”.
The Canadian Association of Universities also backs our position.
There has to be a good reason why these associations are all backing our position, could the member expand on that?
- MPndp22 hours ago | Quebec, Montcalm
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put some of the fears of the member opposite to rest. I would encourage her to put those concerns to rest, because in my speech I talked about the staff and the leadership at the Museum of Civilization and what they are going to bring to this new museum in taking it to the next level of its functionality.
We are on the right path in celebrating our history. Not only do I believe it, but I would like to read what a couple of historians have said, not just stakeholders but historians, great Canadian leaders, talking about the museum of history. Michael Bliss, a Canadian historian and award-winning author, said that it is very exciting that Canada’s major museum would now be explicitly focused on Canada’s history. In addition, John English, a former Liberal MP and Trudeau biographer, said, “Congratulations on the Canadian museum of history”. That is a great boost for this museum. Why does the opposition not agree with respected historians such as these?
- MPndp22 hours ago | Quebec, Montcalm
Mr. Speaker, I have to believe that all of us in the House, regardless of the party we represent, truly celebrate Canada as a wonderful place to live and celebrate our history.
I just mentioned the Ontario Science Centre as one example of a facility in my riding that is looking forward to sharing in our great history. My riding is as ethnically diverse as any riding in this country. When there are PD school days or when teachers have an opportunity to bring children to the Ontario Science Centre to experience what it is all about, the lineups are unbelievable. They line up around the block to get into this place to see what it has to offer. That is the type of excitement coming from school children of all ethnicities who have come to this country to learn about Canada, to live a better life and to have an opportunity. They are going to go to that facility and celebrate and learn about the history we are all so proud of.
- MPndp22 hours ago | Quebec, Montcalm
Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest. I am not sure where the hon. member gets his facts. In fact, I am not sure he even believes what he just said.
Let me provide just a couple of numbers. As I stand for this bill, the Canadian museum of history would be an opportunity to celebrate who we are as Canadians. I have talked to curators and executive directors of museums from across the country who are excited about this bill and about the opportunity to share the artifacts, the history of our country, in their own communities. In my community of Don Valley West, in Toronto, the Ontario Science Centre is one of the facilities that very much looks forward to being part of a partnership that would manage and preserve our history. We heard from other speakers that this is happening across the country.
I encourage the member to read the bill and get on board with this. Let us bring this thing to fruition and celebrate our history.
- MPndp22 hours ago | Quebec, Montcalm
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, an act to create the Canadian museum of history.
World-class museums are widely respected centres of independent and inspired thinking. The curatorial staff members in these institutions are provided with the freedom to interpret the artifacts in their collections in a way that promotes independent thought and dialogue.
Our government believes in our national museums. We recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. To maintain the reputation of our museums as world-class museums, their experts must be given the freedom to present a narrative as they see fit. That is why it is imperative that museums remain independent of political influence.
Subsection 27(1) of the Museums Act makes it clear that our national museums operate independently of political sphere. Subsection 27(1) clearly states:
No directive shall be given to a museum...with respect to cultural activities, including
...the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material relevant to its activities;
...its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and
...research....
Bill C-49 would not change the arm's-length nature of the new museum, nor would it change the governance structure that determines the organization's guiding principles.
As is the case with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the board of trustees of the Canadian museum of history would be “responsible for the fulfillment of the purposes and the management of the business, activities and affairs of the corporation”.
The mechanism would ensure that this arm's-length institution remains an independent and respected centre for research and for learning.
The board of directors of the Canadian Museum of Civilization uses five key objectives as its guiding principles. These principles are:
Knowledge
...focus on the creation and dissemination of knowledge.
Authenticity
...communicating accurate information which is balanced and in context.
Coherence
...aim to be consistent, united in purpose and easily accessible.
Choice and Respect
...we can never include all themes, all perspectives, or all proposed artifacts. Our choices are informed by respect....
Canadian Perspectives
...present Canadian contexts, comments, or reactions on subjects of wider significance.
In addition, let me bring to the attention of my colleagues, who have expressed concern about the independence of our national museums, the existence of a document developed by the Canadian Museums Association and the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization.
In 2004, these widely respected organizations collaborated to develop the “Roles and Responsibilities of Museum Boards of Trustees”.
Museums across Canada have been encouraged to adopt these guidelines and use them as a reference point for a board's roles and responsibilities when dealing with issues related to museum policies and procedures.
An important statement is made at the very beginning of these guidelines:
All board members are fiduciaries who have the museum's collections, property, premises and resources in their care as assets in trust for present and future generations.
Clearly, this is a significant legal obligation that board members take seriously. They are in place to ensure the responsible stewardship of the museum, not to accommodate the wishes of members of Parliament.
The Canadian Museums Association's ethics guidelines speak quite clearly to the responsibilities of the board of trustees:
Whatever its formation, it is the legal entity that is accountable to the public and to the museum community for the policy, financing and administration of the museum.
It is evident that the board is not accountable to politicians.
The ethics guidelines also mention two key public trust responsibilities for museums: stewardship and public service. The guidelines state:
The trust of stewardship requires museums to acquire, document and preserve collections in accordance with institutional policies, to be accountable for them, and to pass them on to future generations of the public in good condition.
The trust of public service requires museums to create and advance not only knowledge, but more importantly, understanding, by making the collections...available to all the communities served by the museum. To this end, museums seek to be public focal points for learning, discussion and development, and to ensure equality of opportunity for access.
When we speak specifically of the case of boards of trustees for crown corporations, we can also turn to the Financial Administration Act, or the FAA, to provide very clear information on the responsibilities of boards of directors. Especially relevant to the topic, we see in section 109 of the FAA that “the board of directors of a Crown corporation is responsible for the management of the businesses, activities and other affairs of the corporation”. This is how we would ensure that the Canadian museum of history would operate freely and independently.
With all these measures in place, one must wonder why there are lingering doubts as to whether the Canadian museum of history would be able to maintain its independence when it came to its quality programming. Clearly, the museum would be equipped with many controls to ensure that it operated as it should.
Our government will continue to play a legislative role when it comes to our national museums, but when it comes to putting that legislation into operation, responsibility for content and exhibitions rests with the administrators, the curators, conservators, researchers, the board of trustees and all those who have helped solidify the reputation of Canada's museums as world class.
The management and staff of the Canadian Museum of Civilization are well respected and they have built a world-class museum. Nothing in Bill C-49 would change how the museum operates. Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues to support this very important legislation.
As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. After all, Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.
- MP
ndp22 hours ago | Ontario, DavenportMr. Speaker, I was hoping to get to the Canadian Air and Space Museum, which existed for many years on the site of the former military base at Downsview Park. It was in a historically designated building, plant 2 of the de Havilland factory. The crown corporation that owns and runs Downsview Park decided to kick out the museum, tear down the historical building and build a hockey rink in consultation with the Maple Leafs. That was somewhat misguided. We should try to preserve, not destroy, Canadian history using whatever government resources are available. That was not done in the case of the Canadian Air and Space Museum.
- MPndp22 hours ago | Ontario, Davenport
Mr. Speaker, I only wish that the Twitter hashtag had been, “PrimeMinisterialHistory”, but unfortunately, that is not what it is and in order to accurately state it, and I will not state it again because I understood your reference, I had to state the word which was the hashtag.
In any event, the concern has again been raised by the Twitter verse that the party opposite is attempting to rewrite history by its review of the standards that Canadian schools are teaching. I am not sure what the boards of education across the country are thinking, but they cannot be happy.
- MPndp23 hours ago | Quebec, Montcalm
Mr. Speaker, as we face our 150th anniversary, a very special time for all Canadians, would my colleague tell us how people in his riding will celebrate such a special time and how the Canadian museum of history will impact his riding and the museums and facilities that are local to him?
- MPndp23 hours ago | Ontario, Davenport
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the foreshortened debate on Bill C-49. After only one hour of debate, the Conservatives decided it was time to shorten the debate even further by imposing time allocation.
The minister referred to this legislation as having been on the books for eight and a half months. We are not in control of the agenda; the other side is in control of the agenda. If it chose not to bring it forward over the past eight and a half months, that is not our fault. The minister might want to speak to the government House leader to find out why it has taken so long for the bill to come forward.
Members opposite keep saying that we are creating a museum. This bill would not create a museum. It would destroy one museum and out of its ashes build another. It is a good idea. We on this side think a Canadian historical museum would be a good thing to have, but we should not destroy the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which has an entirely different mandate and an entirely different purpose than a Canadian museum of history.
The mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization is:
—to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behavior by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements and behaviour, the knowledge derived from them and the understanding they represent.
This is a very broad and ambitious goal and the museum has met some of that goal over the course of the past 23 years that it has been in existence.
I have been there. It is an absolutely amazing place. What it puts forward is way more than just history. It is in fact about the culture and civilization of not just Canada, but of many places in the world, and of Canada not just the country, but Canada as it existed before the white man arrived. This is also in that existing human cultural achievements.
The new mandate of the Canadian history museum is
—to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.
I emphasize the word “Canada's” history and identity because we now lose the notion of civilization. Canada did not exist officially until 1867. Does this mean we are only to discuss things that happened from 1867 forward, that the contributions of the fact that this continent was peopled by native North Americans long before any of us Europeans ever arrived on the scene? Is that not to be considered as part of Canada's history? It is hard to tell from the statement of mandate of what the intention of this history is.
We have in the Canadian Museum of Civilization an internationally regarded icon of something more than just history, and it is associated with the war museum. In France, there is no museum of war. There is a museum of peace and it too is internationally regarded as a place to discuss something other than historical artifacts leading to war, or historical art leading to war or whatever wants to be discussed. That notion of discussing peace lends itself to an international recognition. The notion of discussing civilization lends us to an international recognition, which I fear we will lose by focusing on only history and only the history of Canada.
In terms of the amendments that were proposed by the various bodies in the foreshortened again committee stage, one of the ones that the minister referred to earlier, was the suggestion that there should be curatorial independence. Curatorial independence means that the museum, whether it is the Museum of Civilization or the museum of history, should be in a position to decide itself what it wants to display, how it wants to display it and whether it should take on controversial displays.
The minister said today in the House, “As the minister, I have never once, nor could I ever interfere with the decision of a museum to put on an exhibit or not”. When he said that, I could not believe my ears, because it was just a few short months ago that an Ottawa museum, the Museum of Science and Technology, put on an exhibit that the minister said, “The exhibit does not fit within its mandate. Its content cannot be defended and is insulting to taxpayers”.
The minister will stand and argue that he did not actually tell the museum not to run it. When a minister gets up and publicly states that something is not within its mandate and is insulting to taxpayers, he is questioning the curatorial independence of that museum. To stand here in the House today and suggest he has never done it is beggars belief.
When the museum put on that display, it was clearly going to be controversial, a display that the museum itself and its curators decided was important and within its mandate, but the minister interfered.
Is that making a statement publicly that something is not within its mandate and is insulting to taxpayers somehow not interfering in the mandate of the museum or in the ability of the museum's curators to have curatorial independence? In my view it does. Whether the minister actually pulled the display off the shelves with his own hands is not really the question. The question is whether the minister publicly went against the decision of the museum itself. That is what we, on this side of the House, want to see more strongly placed in legislation as we get the opportunity because of the events of the past year.
The third point I will make is the concerns we have about creating a museum of history at the same time the government has gone about rewriting history. For example, even today, when the minister said that he never did that, yet he did a year ago, is rewriting history. It is suggesting that it did not actually happen.
However, we are concerned we have a government that wants Canadians to be more focused on battles, on wars, on the War of 1812, on the relationship with the British Crown, on the battles that Canada has been in since Confederation and maybe a little before, because we have been talking about the War of 1812.
Twitter uses hashtags to get people interested in a topic, and the hashtag is, “HarperHistory”. That hashtag was created because the Prime Minister started to rewrite history in the House of Commons in question period by making erroneous allegations about the NDP. That hashtag, “HarperHistory” resurfaced again in the past few weeks when the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage decided to undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of significant aspects of Canadian history.
There was a breakdown, a comparison of relevant standards of courses of study offered in primary and post-secondary institutions and there were considerable numbers of people responding to the hashtag, “HarperHistory” who were—
- MPndp23 hours ago | Quebec, Montcalm
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his inspired presentation.
I have heard a lot of the speeches and questions this afternoon. It is interesting that the last questioner asked whose idea this was as he had not heard anybody in his riding talk about changing the name or recommending that it was a good idea. Once the minister of heritage made the announcement, many people in my riding said it was a great idea and it would be the next generation of a great institution in this country.
With that thought in mind, I should mention that this facility has not been renovated in decades. The $25 million investment in the facility would really boost the quality of the facility, the display space and presentation ability. I wonder if my colleague could tell us how that money would be used.
- MP
ndp23 hours ago | Ontario, Algoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMr. Speaker, if we were to say that we wanted to improve the museum, it would not a big deal. I think we would all be in favour of that; it is how the government is actually trying to change the museum in its entirety.
Let us look at the waste of money. There is no problem investing in the museum and adding more stuff. There is already a lot, and they are going to be storing what is already there. We know that there are problems storing pieces of history. The preservation of it is unique.
When we look at administrative costs for this new museum at a time when we are trying to have a bit of restraint, we can see that it will be an estimated $500,000 to change the name and logo, et cetera. That would add to the more than $400,000 that has already been spent on consultations and promotional material for the museum.
How can the member justify putting all of that financing, a waste of money, in redefining the whole museum?
- MPndpMon 2:15 pm | Quebec, Montcalm
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague spoke about the Canadian museum of history, he talked about the 150th birthday that Canada would soon be celebrating and the importance of the museum.
Could he reflect for a moment on its importance to his riding, how this museum would tie directly into his riding and how his constituents would then celebrate our 150th birthday of Canada?
- MPndpMon 1:40 pm | Ontario, Windsor—Tecumseh
I declare the motion carried.
- MPndpMon 12:55 pm | Ontario, Windsor—Tecumseh
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
- MPndpMon 12:40 pm | Ontario, Windsor—Tecumseh
This period is set aside for questions regarding time allocation and the bill. Both are allowed.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage may proceed with his question.
- MP
ndpMon 12:25 pm | New Brunswick, Acadie—BathurstWith regard to the Centre of Excellence for Evaluation (CEE) of the Treasury Board Secretariat: (a) why is the 2012 Annual Report on the Health of the Evaluation Function not available online; (b) why are official languages not included in the 2011 Annual Report on the Health of the Evaluation Function; (c) how are official languages integrated into the work of the CEE; (d) does the CEE work closely with the Official Languages Centre of Excellence and, if so, how; (e) how are official languages integrated into the evaluation function as regards expenditure management in the public service as a whole; (f) why are official languages not included in the Leadership Competencies for Federal Heads of Evaluation; (g) why are official languages not included in the Policy on Evaluation; (h) how does the CEE ensure that federal institutions have access to external evaluators with official languages experience when necessary; (i) how many CEE employees work on files with an official languages component; (j) does the Framework for Professional Development for Evaluators have an official languages component and, if so, what is it; (k) why has the Audit and Evaluation Database been offline for a number of weeks, and when will it be working again; and (l) how does the CEE ensure that the tools it provides on its website take into account its official languages obligations?
- MPndpMon 12:25 pm | Ontario, Davenport
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I have lost count now as to the number of closure motions the government has put forward to limit debate, but it is clear the members opposite have virtually no regard for what parliamentary democracy is all about. We are now rushing through debate and consideration of every bill that comes before the House. Yet, when it comes to the democratic process itself, the government has failed to provide the bill that it has promised for I do not know how many months on reforming the democratic system to allow Elections Canada to have more oversight over spending and how elections themselves are conducted.
The government is only interested in pursuing its agenda in a rapid-fire way, in a way that undermines the very ability of Parliament to study and debate matters, while at the same time refusing to put forward the changes to the elections process that it has promised over and over again. We are at the point where we honestly do not believe the legislation will ever come forward.
Could the government tell us when the reforms to the elections process will be coming?
- MP
ndpMon 12:15 pm | Manitoba, Winnipeg CentreMr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by tens of thousands of Canadians who call upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. More Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms, institute a testing and removal program for property owners and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.
- MP
ndpMon 12:05 pm | Ontario, Hamilton CentreMr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to its study of chapter 6, “Transfer Payments to the Aerospace Sector—Industry Canada”, of the 2012 fall report of the Auditor General of Canada.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of the Commons, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
- MP
ndpMon 11:55 am | British Columbia, Skeena—Bulkley ValleyMr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages keeps insisting that the charges related to Saulie Zajdel's are only related to his time as a municipal councillor.
How does he know that none of these potentially illegal activities happened while he was in the minister's office? Does the minister really have no concerns about fraud, corruption or breach of trust that may have occurred while Mr. Zajdel was working in his office?
Why is he dismissing these concerns so casually?
- MPndpMon 11:50 am | New Brunswick, Acadie—Bathurst
Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-377, the Conservatives are going after unions the same way the IRS went after the Tea Party in the United States. The Canada Revenue Agency is trying to squeeze $72 million out of unions.
The Minister of National Revenue continues to claim that she has not put a figure to the penalties, but an internal document from her agency proves the opposite. Why?
- MP
ndpMon 11:45 am | Ontario, Hamilton MountainMr. Speaker, we know the PMO likes to have its dirty work done by backbenchers, and now we have had it confirmed that this is exactly how the unconstitutional union disclosure bill came to be. An access to information request revealed that the government asked the Canada Revenue Agency to provide language for the bill, hardly a normal procedure for a private member's bill.
Will the Conservatives finally come clean and admit that this attack on workers came straight out of the PMO?
- MP
ndpMon 11:30 am | Ontario, Timmins—James BayMr. Speaker, it sounds like the Liberal speaking notes from the sponsorship scandal.
Let us try something else. Saulie Zajdel was hired by this minister as his special adviser in Montreal. He was part of the Prime Minister's entourage on the trip to Montreal in 2012.
He is now charged with abuse of trust, fraud and corruption. What exactly was he doing working for the Minister of Canadian Heritage? Did the Minister of Canadian Heritage hear any of the rumours that were swirling about Montreal, about the reputation of Mr. Zajdel before he hired him?
- MPndpMon 11:25 am | Ontario, Timmins—James Bay
Mr. Speaker, a prime minister once said, “The RCMP is doing very independent work...the Auditor General...is a very important independent officer of the House and both of them are doing their jobs.... I have nothing else to add.”
Who said that? That was Jean Chrétien defending the Liberal sponsorship scandal, sounding an awful lot like this Prime Minister, speaking of which we now know the RCMP is investigating the secret payout to Mike Duffy.
Has the current Prime Minister been in contact with the RCMP and who is the point person in his office for ensuring the full co-operation with the RCMP and the PMO staff?
- MP
ndpMon 11:20 am | Quebec, OutremontMr. Speaker, we do know that Saulie Zajdel was a star Conservative candidate. We know he got a patronage job from that minister just days after his defeat. We know that he was going around Mount Royal acting like he was the member of Parliament and not our distinguished colleague. We know that a little over a year ago, Zajdel joined the Prime Minister at a happy hour pub stop for some Conservative fundraising. We know that Zajdel was arrested today on a series of corruption charges.
What we do not know is what Zajdel was doing on the payroll of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages. Tell us.
- MP
ndpMon 11:20 am | Nova Scotia, HalifaxMr. Speaker, so many Conservatives under police investigation and yet, so little contrition.
Let us stay on the topic of criminal investigations involving the Conservatives. In February, the Prime Minister claimed that he had personally reviewed Pamela Wallin's spending and found nothing unusual about it. However, in August 2012, the Senate administration found problems with Ms. Wallin's expense claims.
Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore this information?
- MPndpMon 11:15 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood in this House and said that he had not been briefed on the audit of Senator Pamela Wallin's expenses. He insisted that he knew nothing, but last week, Senator Wallin revealed that she had indeed briefed the Prime Minister's Office in detail.
Who is telling the truth: Senator Wallin or the Prime Minister?
- MPndpMon 11:05 am | Ontario, Davenport
Mr. Speaker, VIA train 92 derailed last year, killing 3 and injuring scores. Last week the Transportation Safety Board made three recommendations: that railway cabs be made safer so that engineers are better protected; that recorders be on board so that investigators can find out what happened after a crash; and the most important recommendation, that railways be required to put into place automatic braking systems to prevent these crashes.
Recorders were recommended 10 years ago. There has been no action from the Conservative or predecessor Liberal government. Safer cabs are mandatory on new locomotives, but too many are grandparented. Automatic braking systems, the norm in most of the world, are not even on the minister's radar when he talks about the reports of the safety board.
The board said the conditions that resulted in the Burlington crash happen once a month, a frightening statistic. It recommended action on the part of the government to prevent future deaths.
We in the NDP are calling on the government to act to implement these sensible recommendations. To do otherwise is to fail to stop a ticking time bomb.
- MP
ndpMon 10:10 am | Ontario, Option NationaleMr. Speaker, that is a great question from my friend and colleague.
The reality is that if we look at the omnibus budget bills that have had legislation in them, they have not had proper study. I would point to the Investment Canada Act, which for the third time is being changed in a budget bill, because it has been botched so many times because it has not gone to the committee properly. It has not gone through the due diligence process.
There is common ground we could work on. That is the whole point of bringing in experts and bringing in people to help work on legislation. Even on my own private member's bills I have done that. When we brought in people on my right to repair bill, it made it better.
- MP
ndpMon 10:05 am | British Columbia, Nanaimo—CowichanMr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Windsor West for his comments. One of those comments was on the fact that the bill, like many of the other bills that impact on aboriginal issues, originated in the Senate. Of course, as the member pointed out, it is unelected and unaccountable.
One of the previous members talked about wanting this piece of legislation to ensure a sound, open and transparent process for elections in first nations communities. Of course, what we have recently seen on the Canadian electoral scene is that many Canadians feel that the last federal election, in particular, was not sound, not transparent and not accountable.
I wonder if the member could comment on the difference in accountability first nations would be held to, because they do not have access to an independent tribunal or electoral commission whereas Canadians in the federal and provincial systems do have an electoral commission. I wonder if he could talk about the difference he sees.
- MPndpMon 10:05 am | Ontario, Option Nationale
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that with this piece of legislation, the minister and the Governor in Council would still have far too much power compared to us, who at least have the Chief Electoral Officer who can bring some public accountability to cases.
We have had a number of situations that have taken place that need to be pointed out. We had the robocalls in the last election. We had a member in the House who overspent prior to his election. He had to go back to the people, and he lost his seat. Now we have other Conservative members, in the same situation, who are in a fight with the Chief Electoral Officer.
At least there is that process we can appeal to, and at least there is that process Canadians have, under law, that will be taken up.
- MPndpMon 9:55 am | Ontario, Option Nationale
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate about this issue. It is a very important one for our aboriginal and first nations peoples.
One of the first things I thought about is my good friend who passed away, Earl Scofield, who was a senator. He flew 17 missions in a turret during the Second World War and later on came back to Canada, where he contributed not only socially but politically. He was involved as a founding New Democrat and also contributed many volunteer hours across the community, as a veteran and also as a citizen in our community. I could not help but think about some of the lessons he taught me about inclusion, the importance of listening at times and at times making sure to take the advice of others. Sadly, the government has not done that.
I thought about my own community and its relationship with the aboriginal communities in actually founding this country. There was Chief Tecumseh, who assisted Sir Isaac Brock of the British forces in defeating General Hull in Michigan to ensure our country would be born. There was co-operation. At that time it led to quite a significant quote by Sir Isaac Brock. Talking about Chief Tecumseh, he said, “A more sagacious or a more gallant warrior does not, I believe, exist”. That showed the level of developed maturity and relationship of trust that was created there.
It is important to talk a bit about process and then get into the bill. It is interesting that we have the unelected, unaccountable Senate as the kick-start to the bill, none of whose members has the same type of accountability as those in the House do and as others who are elected in the country do. That is unfortunate because often when bills come through the House it allows the elected body to move the bill through the proper process and channels.
In the past in this Parliament, closure has been moved many times and committees have been moved shorter than would allow for what could be done in terms of analysis. Bill S-6 is now going through this process. That is rather unfortunate.
It was interesting as well that one of the members on the government side said the government has introduced Bill S-6 for this, and meanwhile other bills that have been passed in this chamber, such as Bill C-290, the sports betting bill, languish in the Senate. It was passed with unanimous consent in this House, as no members decided to rise during any of the process to oppose it, to force a vote. It went unanimously to the Senate and it still sits there today. It seems we have our processes backed up and backwards. It is important if the House ever wants to get back on track that we look at those issues and a more balanced approach to processing legislation.
Bill S-6 would create an election cycle longer than two years. That is something important. One of the things we heard was that, when there is a controversy or contestation of an election, a two-year turnaround time is not enough because it could take that amount of time to actually do a full-out investigation. As my colleague pointed out, with the limited resources of the RCMP and the technical nature of these types of investigations, they could take a long time and be very burdensome.
Therefore, moving to the four-year element is something we could support. It has also been something consistent with other types of democracies. For example, in recent years city councils in Ontario moved from a three-year cycle to a four-year cycle, giving extra time for governance. That is important because with the turnover that can take place and the types and intensities of campaigns, they can be quite a distraction from actually getting some of the work done that needs to be done.
I point south of the border, where some of the U.S. elections are held every two years. I know from congress and senate that some of those that are on a two-year cycle for governance are literally fundraising constantly for their campaigns. Therefore, moving to the four-year cycle is something that could provide some greater stability and some improvements, and it is something we do support.
There would also be the ability to have a common election date, giving the minister of aboriginal affairs the power to order the first nations with community-designed elections to adhere to new regimes. It would also provide for election appeals through courts rather than through the department of aboriginal affairs. There would also be penalties for breaking election rules, and penalties are important.
First nations initially supported the bill, but here is the catching point. They asked for some amendments related specifically to the opt-in and other amendments as well. They have decided they cannot universally support the bill now.
The bill is just the beginning of what needs to be changed in the Indian Act.
I want to touch on the three election methods. The first is an election according to the provisions of the Indian Act. I will get into the problems later. The second is a community-designed or custom election whereby a first nation is allowed to adopt its own rules for an election rather than follow the Indian Act provisions if it has always been recognized by the federal government as selecting leaders by custom or if it submits written codes, approved by the majority of band members, for the approval of the department. Last is according to the provisions of a self-government agreement. Therefore, three different styles of elections that can take place.
The first, which was enacted under the original Indian Act, has caused several problems over the years on a wide range of social and justice issues that I cannot even get into, given their degree. They have gone on for many years.
The Indian Act displaces first nations' traditional political cultures and political systems. It actually intervenes in some of the existing cultural systems that have been in place, thus undermining them.
The Indian Act created the two-year election cycle. As I noted, and I think it is important, a two-year election cycle is not a lot of time for members and their councils to work together to create good governing environments. Having four years would be a benefit to all.
As well, right now, the minister and the Governor in Council have a significant degree of power over a first nation's elections and governance structures, including being able to determine the size of the council. It is critical that band councils have more flexibility with regard to the size of the governance structure they want. This is done in other governing systems, whether it be the House of Commons or in municipalities in Ontario. Again, the size can be worked on by the government.
The appeals process is lengthy and lacks rigour. As well, there are a number of other issues for which the Indian Act has not been a proficient and effective way of having these types of relationships.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is opposed to this and have asked for the opt-in process to be changed. Here I would quote Aimée Craft, chair of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association:
[D]ealing with the level of ministerial discretion to include First Nations in the schedule of participating First Nations, this changes the opt-in nature of the legislation. It continues minister discretion to exercise control over First Nations governance and it would result in some First Nations being subjects of the act rather than participants. In addition, the bill lacks clarity as to the standard that the minister will apply in making determinations about what constitutes a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of a First Nation.
To conclude, it is important to go back to the fact that the Conservative government has not done its due diligence on the inclusion of the aboriginal organizations and first nations that are affected by this act. We have heard from my colleague on the lack of outreach and the fact that it is very difficult to pull people out to meetings, because the trust is not there, the confidence that something will get done is not there, and the actions taken that would affect members of first nations and their families will not be in their best interests. We cannot blame that situation for the evolution that has taken place over a number of years and different circumstances.
I want to thank our critic on this issue for the very important work that has been done. The Indian Act needs extensive work. This type of half-effort is not sufficient for our partners out there who feel that they would like to have some changes. I hope the amendments called for can take place so that we can have more support and buy-in from those affected.
- MPndpMon 9:50 am | British Columbia, Nanaimo—Cowichan
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that speech. I know he was pointing to some challenges in first nation communities with elections. However, we know in Canada that in the last federal election there were a number of challenges for Canadians, with low voter turnout, robocalls and some MPs being under investigation for allegedly not following the Elections Canada spending rules.
With regard to first nations, this piece of legislation would only provide for courts as a remedy. There would be no provision in this piece of legislation to have an independent tribunal or a commission, like Elections Canada, for first nations.
I wonder if he would comment on the fact that for many first nations the cost would be prohibitive if they have to end up in courts to dispute elections rather than having that independent process.
- MPndpMon 9:40 am | British Columbia, Nanaimo—Cowichan
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the Conservatives feel about some of the alleged legal difficulties of one of their former candidates when they are talking about selection of candidates.
The former chief of Lac La Ronge Indian Band, Tammy Cook-Searson, raised some concerns with regard to the process of first nations being forced into courts whenever there is a dispute around the electoral process. I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that this act does not specifically allow for either an independent tribunal or an electoral commission, similar to what federal and provincial governments have in place.
- MPndpMon 9:35 am | British Columbia, Nanaimo—Cowichan
Mr. Speaker, although we certainly support the four-year election term under this legislation, there are a number of other parts of the legislation that are ill-defined. We have to look to other instances where people cannot trust what is in legislation. I look to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its ongoing dispute with the government over relevant documents.
In this piece of legislation, clause 41 sets out the regulation process. This regulation process is important because it covers the appointment, powers, duties and removal of electoral officers and deputy electoral officers, the manner of identifying electors of a participating first nations and so on. There are a number of very important clauses that regulations would define.
Nowhere in this piece of legislation is the process outlined by which first nations will be included in the development of regulations. At least in Bill S-8, the clean drinking water bill, in the preamble it said “working with first nations”. However, it does not say that anywhere in this act.
I wonder if the member could address specifically how first nations would be included in the development of regulations.
- MP
ndpMon 9:30 am | Ontario, London—FanshaweMr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, but I have some concerns. It was very clear from my discussions and my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan's interventions with first nations people that not every community acknowledges or buys into what the Conservatives are putting forward. There are legitimate concerns.
I am wondering if the member could advise the House as to what degree the government is willing to acknowledge those concerns and sit down with first nations to resolve issues that affect communities across this country.
- MPndpMon 9:10 am | British Columbia, Nanaimo—Cowichan
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his previous answer to my question. What I heard him say was that it was too expensive to set up an electoral commission for first nations, but he said nothing about whether resources would be made available to first nations that then end up having to go to court to get this resolved. We all know that most first nations are cash-strapped.
I wonder if he could comment on the fact that this is going to be an expensive undertaking for first nations and that the Conservatives are downloading this on first nations once again.
Jun 14th
- MP
ndpFri 10:15 am | Manitoba, NelliganMr. Speaker, I would encourage the member across the way to read the submissions made by first nations leaders from across Canada, when this bill was before committee, and to consider the very serious concerns they brought forward with regard to the very issue the member raised.
We in the NDP believe that Bill S-6 does not, and must have, in any effort to work with first nations to make sure that their elections are more fair, provisions for internal appeal mechanisms. We are very concerned that first nations would be forced to go through the court system to be able to appeal any sort of irregularities or issues that may have come up in elections.
The Conservative government will know very well, as a result of many of its members' election woes, how long it takes to deal with election irregularities that have come up. In terms of expenses and practices, whether it is robocalls or election expenditures, the reality is we do not want first nations to have to go through those kinds of systems when inclusion for an internal appeal mechanism could be easily done.
First nations have raised this. The government, unfortunately, continues to ignore this very serious demand. We believe that the bill, which refuses to heed the concerns raised by first nations, will further marginalize and further oppress first nations people in Canada. We cannot stand for that.
- MP
ndpFri 10:10 am | Alberta, Edmonton—StrathconaMr. Speaker, the member for Churchill is bang on. Her comments certainly reflected all of the testimony that was given at the Senate level on this bill, and certainly reflect the input I am getting from Alberta first nations.
I spoke just a half an hour ago with representatives from the Treaty 8 First Nations, and they are 100% against this bill. They are particularly concerned with the provisions of paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c). All those provisions do is to repeat what is already in the Indian Act and make it clear where the minister of the Crown can interfere with the self-realization and determination by first nations.
The government says it consulted, but it does not seem to understand the constitutional obligation, which is to consult, consider and accommodate. Clearly in this situation it did reach out to Treaty 8 First Nations, but it has refused to listen to their views, which were simply to provide the capacity-building for the customary elections. They would like to have assistance in adding appeal procedures in their customary procedures. The majority of Treaty 8 first nations go by customary procedures. They would welcome some assistance in building capacity so they can have fair and open elections run by first nations.
- MPndpFri 10:10 am | Manitoba, Nelligan
Mr. Speaker, the words from the member on behalf of the Treaty 8 First Nations and first nations from Alberta are critical to this debate.
We have a recurrent theme here. There are first nations from across the country that are opposing bills that the government is putting forward by raising specific concerns, and still the government is unwilling to listen to first nations. If the government wanted to make a difference, it would listen to first nations when it comes to the need to invest in capacity-building. It would respect first nations who see the customary band election system as appropriate for them, and it would respect the fundamental notion that first nations know best what they need for their own people.
The current government's approach has been to do what first nations have come to expect from federal governments. Unfortunately, in the last few months we have seen a great zeal from the government for imposing legislation on first nations, to silence their voices, to stop debate from happening so their voices could not be heard. We risk having legislation that would further marginalize first nations, further disempower them, and that would break down the kind of enthusiasm and interest that first nations have to make a difference for their communities, for their regions, and fundamentally for our country.
- MPndpFri 10:05 am | Manitoba, Nelligan
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for his compliments on the beauty of my constituency and northern Manitoba. It is indeed true.
However, I will respectfully disagree with the rest of his comments. I find that the status quo, if that is what we are talking about, is a colonial paternalistic approach that the government has taken on bill after bill. I had the chance to speak, along with first nations, against Bill S-2 on matrimonial property rights. We are hearing some of same themes here. First nations are not being heard and their concerns are not being taken into consideration, and the government continues to impose this bill. That is the status quo that first nations have seen from the Conservative government and the Liberal government before that, for far too long.
If anything, there is a chance now for the government to listen to first nations, to step up. There is a chance to take the leadership that is required to work with first nations and make real changes when it comes to repealing the oppressive nature of the Indian Act. They can truly work with first nations who want to make a difference for their communities and want to build a better future. That is what New Democrats are calling for.
- MPndpFri 9:45 am | Manitoba, Nelligan
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in opposition to Bill S-6, yet another bill that the Conservative government is putting forward about which first nations have a great deal of concern. Certainly he NDP believes it is a serious matter and that first nations voices, like on any issue that pertains to them directly or indirectly, must be heard.
I rise to speak to the bill on a very important week, a very important anniversary for first nations in Canada. Five years ago, the Prime Minister rose in the House of Commons and apologized to residential school survivors, their families and their communities and he committed to a new relationship. He committed to a new beginning in the Crown-first nations relationship. Fast forward five years later, and not only have we not seen a new relationship, we have seen the government continue to impose legislation after legislation that flies in the face of that commitment.
Bill S-6, like bills that have gone forward, misses out on the critical piece, and that is first nations consultation. What first nations raise in terms of concerns must be reflected in the bill.
We have a case now with Bill S-6 where the government is applying rhetoric regarding empowerment, the importance of fair elections and stability in first nations, concepts which are very worthwhile and sound great. However, when we scratch the surface and start looking at what was said in the Senate when the bill was being discussed and when we start hearing directly from first nations and first nations leadership, we realize the bill is not about empowerment and it does not provide the kind of stability that first nations need when they come to their electoral system.
The NDP believes strongly that as a result, the bill cannot be supported. The government must go back to the table with first nations and listen to the very concrete concerns they have raised directly with members of the government. As we know, this has been debated in the Senate and changes must be reflected in a bill that purports to deal with making first nations elections fairer to allow greater stability in the community.
The bill establishes rules for elections, apart from the Indian Act. These include an election cycle longer than two years, the ability to have a common election date, elements that have been raised by first nations and need to be addressed. We agree with the need to address these issues, but we share the serious concern that first nations have brought forward, and that is Bill S-6 gives the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the power to order a first nation with community designed elections to adhere to the new regime.
We want to see first nations' elections improve, but this is basically tinkering around the edges of the Indian Act and does not address the extensive powers of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development over the right of bands to determine their own future.
In making that statement, it is very much founded on a critical concept. We have a federal government that has committed to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights, yet putting forward Bill S-6 very much disrespects that commitment. I quote from article 18 in the UN declaration which states:
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.
Unfortunately, when we turn to the legislative summary of this bill, it indicates that:
First Nations may choose to opt in to the new elections regime proposed under the legislation, or they may be brought under the new elections regime by ministerial order in some circumstances.
We in the NDP stand with first nations in expressing our complete and utter opposition to this very point, a point that challenges the commitment that the government and our country made to the UN declaration of indigenous rights. It flies in the face of the promise the Prime Minister made of a new beginning and a new relationship.
According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 240 first nations hold elections pursuant to the Indian Act, 341 first nations conduct custom or community-based elections rather than elections under the Indian Act, and 36 first nations select their leaders according to their self-government agreements.
We have heard real concern expressed from many first nations about the short term of office for first nations leadership positions, and I certainly know this from the first nations that I represent. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year term of office imposed on first nations by the Indian Act is too short to provide political and economic stability, often creating deep divisions in communities.
I have had the chance to get to know many chiefs and councillors across northern Manitoba who have struggled when that has been the case in their communities. They have brought forward ideas, a visionary approach to governing their community that perhaps differs from the approach of leaders who have come before them, but two years is not enough time to make changes and get the community on the path that they would like it go down based on the support of their community members. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year timeline must be removed.
I would like to note that we also agree with the substantive concerns with the Indian Act elections that relate to the degree of ministerial intervention, the lack of an adequate and autonomous appeals process and the absence of flexibility to set the terms of office and determine the size of councils.
We believe it is extremely problematic and, frankly, reeks of colonialism that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would be able to interfere through ministerial order, as is clearly stated in this bill, in elections on first nations.
I would like to refer back to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and some of the recommendations they made back in 1996. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples said:
With respect to elections, a key proposal was to develop community leadership selection systems and remove the application of the Indian Act as a preliminary measure to re-establishing traditional forms of leadership. To accomplish this, the following steps were suggested: community level development of custom codes; community development of local dispute resolution procedures; regional first nations capacity and advisory bodies.
Again, some of the elements that were recommended back in 1996 are not present or appropriately resourced under the current legislation.
We have referenced a sticking point under subclause 3(1), which states that “The Minister may, by order, add the name of a First Nation to the schedule...” of first nations participating in the new election system.
The other problem with this legislation is the regulations in clause 41. The clause provides for the Governor in Council to have broad and general powers to make regulations with respect to elections.
We have had the chance to hear from many leaders and people involved in aboriginal governance who have expressed their opposition to the current iteration of Bill S-6, and I would like to read into the record their voices.
Before I do that, I want to also acknowledge that we have seen a very problematic pattern by the government in bringing in closure on debate regarding first nations bills. We saw it with Bill S-2 and we saw it with bills that came forward prior to Bill S-2.
For us in the NDP, it is absolutely fundamental that first nations voices be heard in committee in order to best shape legislation or to give us the opportunity to challenge legislation on their behalf.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that the Conservative government has done everything in its power to muzzle the voices of first nations and to silence them when it comes to speaking out on bills that have everything to do with their communities. That is unacceptable, and it once again reflects the colonial approach that we have seen from the current government time and time again.
Having said that, I would like to read into the record some of the messages we have heard from first nations people when the bill was at the Senate committee.
I would like to start with a quote from the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak. He said:
This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC. It appears to be an attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code. I am hopeful that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations.
There are a number of key messages here, including the reference to the need for meaningful consultation. He acknowledges that there are problems, and that one of those problems is the unilateral imposition of this framework that would greatly affect first nations.
I would also like to quote Jody Wilson-Raybould, the B.C. Regional Chief from the Assembly of First Nations. She spoke to the problems with clause 3. She said:
These provisions essentially give the minister the ability to impose core governance rules on a First Nation, which, if ever used, would be resented by that First Nation, would not be seen as legitimate in the eyes of that nation, and would probably add fuel to an already burning fire.
Ultimately, each nation must, and will, take responsibility for its own governance, including elections.
Tammy Cook-Searson, Chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, noted:
My main objection to this bill is the lack of positive change from the old Indian Act. Neither the Indian Act nor Bill S-6 incorporate the constitutional principles of the inherent right to self-determination and governance. The authority in this bill remains with the cabinet and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada instead of moving towards a greater responsibility with First Nations for our governance.
Aimée E. Craft, chair of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, came to the Senate committee on February 29 and presented, saying:
[D]ealing with the level of ministerial discretion to include First Nations in the schedule of participating First Nations, this changes the opt-in nature of the legislation. It continues minister discretion to exercise control over First Nations governance and it would result in some First Nations being subjects of the act rather than participants. In addition, the bill lacks clarity as to the standard that the minister will apply in making determinations about what constitutes a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of a First Nation.
These are first nations leaders, and Aimée Craft is a specialist when it comes to the legal aspect of the bill. They all express serious concern about a number of points in Bill S-6.
It was also noted that:
Ultimately, how attractive this legislation will be to any First Nation will depend greatly on what is, or what is not included or provided for within the Regulations. However, it should be kept in mind that Regulations are designed and intended to be amended easily and quickly. Therefore, while a First Nation may opt into the First Nations Elections Act on the basis of what it considers to be attractive Regulations, there is no guarantee that the Governor in Council will not change those Regulations to something that a First Nation may find less appealing.
There are a number of concerns. What I find extremely problematic here is the Conservative government's continued approach in imposing legislation and refraining to hear from first nations on very serious matters that have everything to do with their capacity to be self-determining for their own people, yet the Conservatives turn around and use broad-sounding language that may sound great to a lot of Canadians but that certainly hides the true facts.
I think of the first nations that I have the honour of representing and the kinds of challenges that I have heard from people when it comes to their election systems and the barriers they face when it comes to the Indian Act.
I know that the Conservative government has also jumped on the bandwagon of critiquing the Indian Act, yet it is ironic that so many first nations point to the Indian Act as being a colonial tool that oppresses first nations further.
Is imposing legislation on first nations not a sign of further oppression? Is that not a sign of that spirit of the Indian Act that sets out to impose systems and attitudes from the outside upon first nations?
The imposition of legislation without proper consultation, without heeding the calls for changes to this legislation, speaks to the attitude that the federal government somehow knows better than first nations, that somehow it can intervene and fix what is happening.
If there is anything that we have learned from history, it is that such an attitude will not get us anywhere, that it will further marginalize and disempower first nations. That is something I hope would cause some real concern among government members and would cause them to think twice about what they are doing on bill after bill.
Many government members, as was evident in the debate around Bill S-2, represent first nations. What are they hearing from their members? There are repeated messages of repealing the Indian Act and putting an end to the kind of oppression that has been imposed by a history of federal governments, by the Crown, but this is not the answer.
First nations must be at the centre of the future that they carve out for their communities. First nations must be at the forefront. The issues of governance and elections are fundamental to first nations' capacity to determine their own future. Instead of imposing legislation, the Conservative government ought to sit down with first nations and make changes that reflect their needs and their voices.
Unfortunately, we have not seen that kind of attitude from the federal government. Instead we see a continued attack against first nations in bill after bill. These bills fly in the face of respecting first nations' treaty and aboriginal rights and they fly in the face of the UN declaration on indigenous peoples. They disregard the serious concerns that first nations are bringing forward as they demand that the federal government step up and take leadership.
On the issue of elections, I have heard a lot of concern from first nations that they simply do not have the capacity to put forward the kind of governance plan that they would like. That lack of capacity is fundamentally tied to the lack of funding and the cutbacks that we have seen by the federal government, building on cuts by previous Liberal governments when they froze funding to first nations at 2%. Now we are seeing cuts to advocacy organizations that also are involved with service delivery in education, training, housing and health.
First nations have always extended a hand out. They want to work with the government. They want to make change in their communities. We in the NDP are proud to stand with them in opposition to Bill S-6. We call on the government to change course and truly begin a new relationship with first nations people in this country.
- MPndpFri 9:10 am | Manitoba, Nelligan
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today.
The first petition I am presenting in the House of Commons is in support of Bill C-473, introduced by a colleague from Quebec.
The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to pass this legislation, which aims to achieve balanced representation in the number of women and men serving as directors on boards of crown corporations.
This bill reaffirms the NDP's position on gender equality in all aspects of our society.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 234 Next »
