Media.Knet.Ca

INAC Prentice tells the House of Commons (see transcripts below) that "This House should apologize and I am confident at the end of the day that this House will apologize." But then goes on to say that they will await the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (five years and $60 million from now) before issuing such an apology. AFN National Chief Fontaine calls for a "timely and appropriate" apology.

+++++++++++
Statement by Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine regarding today's Opposition Motion in the House of Commons

     OTTAWA, May 1 /CNW Telbec/ - "I am very pleased that the House of Commons will apologize for the misguided and racist residential school policy, which originated in that place, and which resulted in profound harm to generations of Indian residential school students, our families, and communities.

     Those of us who were personally abused, as well as those who suffered intergenerational effects of abuse, deserve the fullest, most sincere, and complete apology from the representatives of the Canadian people.

     I applaud the efforts of Gary Merasty, MP for Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, and the support given to his motion by all parties in the House of Commons. This has been a long time coming. By this apology, I sincerely hope that some of the pain and suffering endured by our people will begin to heal.

     We expect that the Prime Minister of Canada will apologize in a timely fashion and in an appropriate public ceremony so this matter can finally be put behind us."

     Phil Fontaine
     National Chief

     The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization representing First Nations citizens in Canada.

-30-

/For further information: Bryan Hendry, A/Director of Communications, (613) 241-6789, ext. 229, Cell: (613) 293-6106, bhendry@afn.ca/

+++++++++++++
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice Makes a Statement in the House of Commons

May 1, 2007 TIME: 10:42 a.m.

LOCATION: HOUSE OF COMMONS, OTTAWA
PRINCIPAL(S): THE HONOURABLE JIM PRENTICE, MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND FEDERAL INTERLOCUTOR FOR MÉTIS AND NON-STATUS INDIANS

Speaker: Resuming debate, the Honourable Minister of Indian Affairs.

   Hon. Jim Prentice: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In beginning, I dedicate my words to something that's previously been written in this country by one of my favourite authors Aretha Van Herk in the book Mavericks where she said as follows, "Demolished by diseases like smallpox and tuberculosis, struggling with byzantine and ridiculous rules, fighting to stay alive, Canada's first peoples have enacted an astonishing feat by refusing to fade away and vanish for all of the deliberate or accidental attempts to erase their presence."

   Now I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter before the House today. I hope in my comments, Mr. Speaker, to raise our discussion beyond partisanship, to frame a debate that will carry Parliament and indeed this country beyond partisanship and the pointing of accusations. For the sake of all of us, for the sake of Canada I hope that we can all rise to the level of that requirement and I hope that we all avoid crossing the line. Because in dealing with this sad chapter of Canadian history we will all require that because both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians will require that we do that and because at the end of the day the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is so fundamental to the process that we are now engaged in will require us as parliamentarians to rise to that level, Mr. Speaker.

   And I observe such as others such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu has in a previous context "Neither genuine repentance nor atonement on the one hand nor forgiveness on the other is possible in the shadow of partisanship."

   I begin therefore, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the government will support the motion of the honourable member from Desneth é--Missinippi--Churchill River. (Applause.)

This House should apologize and I am confident at the end of the day that this House will apologize.

   The obligations, on the other hand, of the executive branch of government, tied inextricably to the terms of the residential school agreement and to the eventual results of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission require some discussion in the House and I propose to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, in my comments.

   I think that it is important that the historical record reflect accurately upon this matter. I have not been in this house for much of my life but I have been here for three years at this point. I am somewhat taken aback at how quickly revisionism has taken over what has transpired with respect to the residential school matter and while partisanship can be forgiven in that I suppose all members of the House from time to time seek refuge there, the revision of Canadian history is an entirely different matter which I'm not prepared to countenance in this House, Mr. Speaker.

   It is this government that brought an end to the denials of the past. It is this government that executed on May 8th of 2006 the Residential School Agreement negotiated after much effort with the lawyers involved on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, the class action plaintiffs representing some 12,000 individuals in this country, the Assembly of First Nations and the churches of Canada.

   Now an apology on the part of the House of Commons is necessary and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of which I intend to speak will deal with this in some detail but as we begin, Mr. Speaker, in reading a book entitled A National Crime by John Malloy and in asking why the House of Commons should apologize I would simply quote from the introduction which in part is a conclusion of the book.

   Mr. Malloy asks this question, "How did this happen? How were responsibility and Christianity perverted?" He concludes as follows. "One conclusion becomes unavoidable. Despite the discourse of civil and spiritual duty that framed the school system there never was invested in this project the financial or human resources required to ensure that the system achieved its 'civilizing' ends or that children were cared for properly. Nor was there ever brought to bear the moral resources necessary to respond to systemic neglect or to the many instances of stark physical abuse that were known to be occurring. Furthermore, it is clear that throughout the history of the system the church-state partners were aware of the historical circumstances and moreover that they came to understand the detrimental repercussions for all Aboriginal children of their residential school experience."

   That summation, Mr. Speaker, I think encapsulates what we will probably hear more of from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission over time.

   And I must say, Mr. Speaker, that all of this began Canada many years ago. This is a school system that was conceived in the period leading up to 1892, was brought to fruition in the years thereafter and was not entirely dismantled in this country until the late 1970s.

   Now the apportionment of blame and responsibility in that context is one in which many Canadian governments have a responsibility to share. This is a system that was conceived and carried forward under successive Canadian governments for close to 100 years. So it is part of our collective history and this sad chapter of what happened in our country is something that we will collectively have to come to grips with and I return to my comments that it is something that we will only come to grips with if we do so in a fair way without accusations, recriminations and without the pointing of fingers in that respect. And the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which I wish to speak to at this point will be fundamental to all of that.

   The history of this matter is that there were approximately 130 residential schools in this country operated by four major church denominations: the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the United Church, the Catholic Church. And the total attendance at these schools was over 150,000 Aboriginal Canadians. There are 80,000 Aboriginal Canadians alive today who attended these schools. The descendants from those people number somewhere between 250,000 and 350,000 Canadians.

   In 1990, the first lawsuits were filed against the Government of Canada in respect of this matter. In 1998, as my friend has pointed out, in a statement of reconciliation, Canada acknowledged its role in the Indian residential school system. And in 1998, much was accomplished with the creation of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation which had a $350 million endowment and $40 million in additional funding provided thereafter. This foundation administered in excess of 1,300 individual community projects to come to grips with this chapter in Canadian history.

   In 2003, a national resolution framework was launched to contribute to reconciliation but at that time, Mr. Speaker, the matter continued to move forward in this country by way of litigation, class action lawsuits between First Nation claimants and the Government of Canada. And at that time an alternate dispute resolution was put in place.

   Now in the 38th Parliament of Canada and that's where I'm concerned about some of the revisionist history that has taken place here, at that time the Conservative Party was in opposition and I would point out for the record, for posterity, if you will, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Party not only has led the way on this matter by finalizing the agreement of May 8, 2006. But the Conservative Party together with the other opposition parties in the House of Commons at that time fundamentally drove the process that led to the residential school agreement.

   And one need look no further, Mr. Speaker, than the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, finalized on April 7th of 2005 with the cooperation of the then opposition parties in the House of Commons - the Bloc, the NDP Party, the Conservative Party - opposed at the end of the day by the Liberal government, opposed by the Liberals at committee and during a concurrence motion that passed by one vote in this House of Commons. And so, Mr. Speaker, if we wish history to be clear, one need look at the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of April 7th of 2005.

   And at that time the state of affairs in this country was that we had an alternate dispute resolution process which had been the subject of continuing pressure and questioning in Question Period because it had been disclosed that of every dollar spent in dealing with the claims of people who had been wronged by the residential school system, 80 cents on every dollar was spent on bureaucracy, civil servants, lawyers, experts, adjudicators and only 20 cents made its way through to the victims of this sad chapter in Canadian history.

   And at one point it was a celebrated case that disclosed these facts. The system was so hamstrung with rules that an elderly woman in her 80s had taken her ADR case forward and it turned out her allegation of physical cruelty was that she'd been confined in a closet, as I recall, for three days with her sister. Her claim was disallowed on the basis that she had not been confined solitarily. That's the sort of thing that was going on only three years ago in this country, Mr. Speaker, before this government concluded this agreement.

   Now, Mr. Speaker, the April 7th report of the Standing Committee left nothing to the imagination. It documented the failings of the process at that time, the absence of any evenhanded process, the absence of adequate compensation, terming the compensation to be grossly inadequate, documenting, I quote, "That the process was proceeding too slowly, allowing too many former students to die uncompensated, that it used a dispute resolution process that was disrespectful, humiliating and unfeeling and which revictimized former students." I recall being in committee, Mr. Speaker, when members of the Conservative Party pointed out to the government at that time that they had never in their time in the House of Commons as members of parliament heard testimony as moving as what they heard in the work leading up to this report. And it was pointed out at that time that there were high structural costs and egregious burden of proof and that it was a process that students did not trust.

   The committee at the end of the day in a report that was quite straightforward, was three pages in length, expressed its regret at the manner in which the alternate dispute resolution process was being administered and provided eight very straightforward recommendations at that time.

   The first was that the government proceed with urgency. The second was that it terminate the alternate dispute resolution process. And the third, Mr. Speaker, was this and if one wants to search and find the source of the residential school agreement that today provides some hope for this country and some reconciliation of where we are going to go, it lies in the third recommendation which was as follows. "That the government engage in court-supervised negotiations with former students to achieve a court-approved, court-enforced settlement for compensation that relieves the government of its liability for those former students who are able to establish a cause of action and a lawful entitlement to compensation."

   For the first time, a recommendation from this House of Commons approved in the concurrence proceeding that there be court-supervised negotiations with former students, a court-approved, a court-enforced settlement, Mr. Speaker.
At the end of the day, that is exactly what this government did on May 8 of 2006.

   In addition, Mr. Speaker, there were comments with respect to legal fees. There was a recommendation that there be an expedited settlement of those claims involving aggravated circumstances such as sexual and severe physical abuse. Again, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day that is precisely where this government has arrived at.

   But I wish to emphasize in particular, Mr. Speaker, recommendation number 6, "That the government to ensure that former students have the opportunity to tell their stories to all Canadians in a process characterized by dignity and respect cause a national truth and reconciliation process to take place in a forum that validates the worth of the former students and honours the memory of all children who attended the schools." A Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

   Herein, Mr. Speaker, lies the birth of that concept as the way forward for this country. It is a concept that I feel strongly about. A little known matter in this House is that I spent some time in South Africa in the days after Apartheid as South Africa moved from Apartheid to its current form. I was a constitutional advisor to an organization there that was dealing with the dismantlement of the Apartheid structure. And I watched as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was struck in South Africa unfolded. I watched as it assisted South Africa in coming to grips with a very sad chapter of their history and I became a believer in the importance of that kind of an approach as a method for this country to come to grips with this sad chapter of Canadian history - a forum which would allow all Canadians but in particular First Nation citizens who had been victimized by this process an opportunity and a way to come forward to tell their stories to ensure that their stories were recounted, recorded in Canadian history and a method at the end of the day, Mr.
Speaker, for all of us to come to grips with a chapter in Canadian history that belongs to no single party, to no single government but really to all of us as Canadians as a result of the hundred years of history.

   Now, Mr. Speaker, in the days following that, Mr. Frank Iacobucci, formerly Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada was appointed as the government's representative, the search for a court-supervised settlement process began. And an interim agreement was in fact announced, as I recall, on November 23rd of 2005, having been concluded on November 20th of 2005. That of course was in the shadow of the election of December 2005.

   And during the election the Conservative Party indicated at that time that it would be supportive of such an agreement providing two conditions were met. The first was that a final agreement needed to be concluded and the second was that court approval needed to be secured. Neither of those steps had been taken in February of 2006 when the Conservative government was elected.

   I can assure the House that although the residential school matter was not strictly speaking the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs in the days following the formation of the government - responsibility rested elsewhere in the government - I took the completion of this agreement very seriously and I can tell to the House that there were extensive meetings in my office of Mr. Justice Iacobucci, Mr. Phil Fontaine with the Assembly of First Nations and we struggled to bring this to a close. We struggled to bring the resolution of the terms of the agreement such that it could be taken forward for a court-approved process.

   There were extensive negotiations dealing with a number of outstanding difficult question at that time - how to arrive at a final agreement, how to ensure adequate financial provisions were made in a budgetary sense for this agreement and how to arrive at an agreement that would be in the best interests of all Canadians. And Minister Oda, I should say for the sake of the record, was very involved in this at that time.

   At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the agreement that has been concluded required extensive work over the last year to complete. The courts process involved proceeding forward with nine jurisdictions to secure a court approval. That process is not entirely finished at this stage. It has been approved by all nine jurisdictions but the terms of the agreement provide for an opt-out period. The essence of the opt-out period is that if an adequate number of First Nation claimants decide that they do not wish to be part of this agreement then the agreement is voidable at the option of the government. And so the legal process is not yet completed, Mr. Speaker, and is moving forward.

   The agreement, as I think everyone knows, is a very fair and generous agreement, one which I take immense personal satisfaction as a Canadian in seeing come to fruition and one which this government takes pride in. It provides most -- importantly, I should not say most importantly, it provides importantly for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that will be established together with a research centre, a budget of $60 million and a five-year mandate. The government is currently engaged in the process of selecting the three commissioners, one of who must be an Aboriginal Canadian.

   It is my sincere hope, as happened in South Africa, Mr. Speaker, that this matter will be dealt with, that the whole issue of apologies, the whole issue of how this country is to find a way forward will be dealt with by the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, that it will be dealt with in a manner which speaks of the dignity and the integrity of the Canadian people in wanting to come to grips with this chapter of our history and that the executive branch of government will need to see that document because the full history of this will not be disclosed. We will not have explored the full depth of the history of the residential school agreement, of this chapter of Canadian history until the work of that commission has finished, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. (Applause.)

   Speaker: Questions and comments. The Honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

   Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, I commend the honourable member for his dignified statement but I have three questions. One of them is having told us that his party will support the motion put forward by my honourable friend, could he clarify whether this amounts to a government apology or merely parliamentary support for a motion introduced by the other side of the House. I was simply unclear as to what the intention of the government was in that respect. And I ask this question because I've been in this House on numerous occasions in which the minister has been asked directly whether the government and the prime minister will apologize about this matter and an apology has not been forthcoming. So I need clarification as to what the minister has just told us in this House and I ask this furthermore because the government has been very quick to apologize on other matters - the Chinese head tax - but has been, I think it is fair to say, curiously resistant about a public apology in this crucial matter of our history so I am unclear and would be grateful for the minister's clarification.

   And, finally, would it be fair to say that this commendable action by the minister to support our side of the House's resolution, that this action would not have occurred at all had we not presented this motion? It seems to me that he should clarify what the government's precise intention is here. Is this a government, prime ministerial apology or simply support for an opposition motion? Exactly what has he told us in the House this morning? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

   Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Indian Affairs.

   Hon. Jim Prentice: Well, I thank the honourable member for his thoughtful comment and his gracious response. What I've indicated to the House is that the government is prepared to support the motion that has been put forward calling upon this House to apologize. And, as I said in my comments, I anticipate that the House will apologize. I anticipate that this is a motion that will pass successfully. I acknowledge it is a motion brought forward by my honourable colleague.

   I think in my comments I've tried to indicate, however, that the position of the executive branch of government in the circumstance where we are in the midst of the implementation of the May 8, 2006 agreement, an agreement which is still very much before the courts, which still requires the completion of the opt-out period in respect of which advertisements are currently taking place in major newspapers across this country, is a separate issue. And I think I've also indicated that I attach enormous significance. This has been something that I have personally believed from the time I became involved in this chapter of Canadian history as an opposition member in this House that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the key to the way forward for us as a nation because it is there that we will come to grips with what happened. It is there that we will come to understand the damage that was done to Aboriginal people and to this country by the misguided efforts that were undertaken.

   And I have looked to South Africa as a comparison and I note in that context that -- have noted previously that as and when the Reconciliation Commission had completed its work it called in one of its recommendations for an apology by the government at that time to those people who had perpetrated violations of human rights.

   It would seem to me that the task at hand for us as a nation is in a nonpartisan way to move forward, to try to really understand this chapter of Canadian history, to look at the damage that was done to our First Nation and our Aboriginal people and to do it with a Reconciliation Commission that will consist of three very respected Canadians. In fact, we have just now embarked on the process to select those Canadians to ensure that they are beyond reproach, that they are people who are nationally known for their integrity, for their commitment to this beautiful country of ours and people who will get this right.

   My hope is that through the work of that commission we will better understand what needs to be done and the government will look forward to receiving the recommendations of those parties of the commission after they have completed their work and I think only at that time, Mr. Speaker, to be fair, I think only at that time once the full facts are known can the full response from the Government of Canada at the executive branch be offered. Thank you.

   Speaker: Further questions and comments. The honourable member for Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River.

   Gary Merasty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess it is difficult to hear sometimes and people will argue that it's revisionist and it has to be understood that for the most part of written history in this country Aboriginal people did not control the pen. The statements that I talk about are statements from survivors, from the past victims. And if it's indeed an accusation of revisionism then I guess so be it.

   The question I have is the minister made a curious comment on until all the facts are known. The facts are known. The facts are in black and white.
They're written in some cases in blood by many of these people who appeared before these various bodies to talk about their experiences. I would ask the government to proceed with an apology and still proceed with the Truth and Reconciliation, take lessons from truth and reconciliation processes in Africa and other countries and improve upon it in this country. But I distinctly believe and truly believe that the facts are there.

   Speaker: The Minister of Indian Affairs.

   Hon. Jim Prentice: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to revisionism this is a sensitive topic for me simply because I believe the way that we are dealing with this currently as a nation speaks well of our system of government and frankly speaks well of this Parliament and of this House of Commons. And I'm simply concerned that we not get into accusations on this because, frankly, there are members in every single house in this -- every single party in this House of Commons that deserve some credit for bringing this matter forward through to the resolution of the May 8th, 2006 agreement. As I pointed out in my comments, it was really only through the efforts of the opposition parties, all three opposition parties in the 38th Parliament that I think this matter was forced through to a completion and there are several members in this House that deserve some share of credit for that. So I don't want us to go too far down the road of revising Canadian history and I wish those facts to be known.

   With respect to my colleague's statement that the facts are known, well, I say respectfully that all of the facts are not known. If they were all known, we would not be investing $60 million as a nation in a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with respected Canadians that will travel this country and speak to everyone who wants to speak with the Commission over a five-year period. Once those facts are known, I think there will be recommendations, clearly, that come forward at that time from the Commission and the executive branch of the government at that time will have a heavy responsibility to follow through with what I hope will be the closing chapter of this era in Canadian history and deal with the recommendations. And I would be surprised, very surprised if those recommendations at that time did not deal, as the South African Commission did, with the context and the concept of an apology. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

   Speaker: Questions and comments, the honourable deputy leader -- I'm sorry, the honourable member for Sault Ste. Marie.

   Tony Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to commend the minister on some of the comments that he made, particularly where he asked that this very sensitive and important issue be dealt with in a nonpartisan way and that we not point fingers and that we get on with some constructive, positive action and suggested that the House indeed might support the resolution and I indeed believe that it will, a majority of this House will support that. It will be interesting to see if the government caucus will at the end of the day support it. I'm hoping that they do.

   He talked about us being careful not to cross the line and not to be nonpartisan -- and to be nonpartisan and yet in his speech in some places he was very partisan in pointing a finger at the previous government, particularly where, you know, he got into the description of the former dispute resolution mechanism. Just wondering if the minister would share with me so that when I get up later in this debate what he meant by not crossing the line.

   Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Indian Affairs.

   Hon. Jim Prentice: Well, I thank the honourable member for his question. I would simply refer him to the April 27th report of the previous Standing Committee which I think is a seminal document in terms of the steps by this Parliament to come to grips with this issue and to search for a way forward. At the time, the very concept that we would move forward with an omnibus settlement, court-enforced, court-endorsed was something which had not been contemplated in a serious way within Parliament or government and I didn't wish to be partisan in any way in my comments. I certainly have the capacity to be quite a bit more partisan than anything I might have said but I tried to be as statesman-like as I could have. And I simply point out that many people were involved at that point in time and that I do see what has been achieved here. We're not finished but I do see it as a measure of the success that we can have in this country moving forward.