Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 113 (Official Version)

That a special committee of the House be created to continue the work on electoral reform as outlined in the 43rd Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs from the 38th Parliament and to make further recommendations on strengthening and modernizing the democratic and electoral systems; that the membership of the special committee be established by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House within five sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2); that the special committee have all of the powers granted to standing committees by Standing Order 108; that there be a maximum length for speeches by members of the special committee of 10 minutes on any single item; that the special committee be authorized to hold hearings across Canada; that the special committee be allowed to look into creating a citizens’ consultation group and issue an interim report to the House on this matter within six weeks of the special committee being struck; and that the special committee table its final report in the House of Commons no later than March 1, 2008.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a motion that seeks to continue the important work started in the last Parliament to follow up on the recommendations made in June 2005 by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and to move Canada forward on reforming our electoral system.

Motion No. 262 calls for the creation of a special committee of the House, as well as a citizens' consultation process to make further recommendations on strengthening and modernizing the democratic and electoral system of Canada.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the former leader of the NDP and long-standing parliamentarian, Ed Broadbent, who has been working on electoral reform for more than 50 years. Ed Broadbent was instrumental in the procedure and House affairs committee that made recommendations to the House, recommendations that were unanimously passed with the support of parties but were never acted upon.

I want to publicly thank Ed for his perseverance on the issue of electoral reform, to bring our country in line with most of the world's democracies to make Parliament more accountable to voters.

In a speech at Queen's University in March 2005, Ed Broadbent gave the following summation of why electoral reform is so necessary.

The truth is that the most seriously flawed component of our democratic society is our profoundly undemocratic electoral system. We have impartial courts and the rule of law, a Charter of Rights & Freedoms, a vigorous independent civil society and an independent press, but our electoral system is an outdated, non-representative, conflict-prone, gender discriminating, regionally divisive mess, bestowed to us from a pre-democratic era. The good news is that governments in six provinces have begun to embrace this issue and are calling for major reforms in their electoral systems. And with a minority government in the House of Commons, federal electoral reform, initiated by the New Democratic Party, has at last been put on the Parliamentary agenda.

I am pleased to carry on the work of Ed Broadbent and other NDP MPs like Lorne Nystrom and, once again, also in a minority Parliament, place electoral reform on the parliamentary agenda. It is possible to get work done in a minority Parliament and the time for electoral reform is long overdue.

People in my riding of Vancouver Island North and all across Canada want the House to move forward and decide how to reform or modernize our electoral system because our current electoral system is outdated and unfair. It has been in place for more than 100 years. When it was created, there were only two major political parties and now there are five. It came into effect before we had electricity, before women were persons under the law and before first nations had the right to vote.

In 1974, we made changes to Canada's political financing laws. We introduced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 and the Access to Information Act in 1983. We changed parliamentary processes along the way, including the election of the Speaker by secret ballot and overhauled the Canada Elections Act in 1996. Further political financing reforms were passed in 2003, and in 2004 changes were made to candidate registration.

We have been studying the question of reforming our electoral system for over 25 years through various government task forces and royal commissions. We had the Pepin-Robarts task force in 1979, the Macdonald Royal Commission in 1985 and the Lortie Commission in 1992.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs did extensive study in 2004 and 2005, hearing many witnesses and travelling around the world to study other parliamentary systems. Its report to Parliament in June 2005 forms the basis of the motion I am presenting and that I am urging all parties to support.

In its Speech from the Throne in 2005, the previous Liberal government pledged:

To examine the need and options for reform our democratic institutions, including electoral reform.

(1105)

In response to the 43rd report, the previous Liberal government said:

Nevertheless, it is essential for every democracy to take stock regularly, to ensure that all aspects of its system of governance meet the needs and aspirations of its citizens. The Government of Canada has a duty to build on Canada's strong democratic traditions by modernizing our democratic processes to ensure that they reflect the values and interests of Canadians.

Motion No. 262 calls upon the government to continue the work that was started in the last Parliament, to follow the recommendations of the procedure and House affairs committee's 43rd report to Parliament to strike a special committee to hold hearings across the country and to make further recommendations on strengthening and modernizing Canada's electoral system. However, the most important part of the motion is the creation of a citizens' consultation process.

Following the recommendations of the 43rd report, the citizens' consultation group would make recommendations on the values and principles desired in Canada's democratic and electoral systems. As Nathalie Des Rosiers, a witness at the 2005 procedure and House affairs committee, said:

There's a gap between Canadian values and results, and that troubles a lot of Canadians.

If we are to hear what Canadians want, then we must engage them at the grassroots level on the values that they want to see represented and design a system that meets those goals. Everyone counts and so should our votes but, more and more, Canadians feel that their voices and choices are not heard.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in its report to Parliament in 2005, found that:

A major source of worry for many Canadians, and many Parliamentarians, is decreasing voter turnout in Canadian elections. It is a particular concern that young people, and certain ethnic and social groups, are less likely than others to vote.

Between 1988 and 2004, voter turnout dropped dramatically in federal elections. In 1988, it was 75.3%. In 1993, it fell to 69.9%. In 1997, we saw a further drop to 67%. In 2000, it was 61.2%. In 2004, only 60.9% of Canadians bothered to vote. Last year, in 2006, the turnout rose slightly to 64.7% but this is still not anywhere near acceptable.

The Law Commission of Canada, in its 2004 report “Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada”, states:

For the past decade or so, Canada has been in the grip of a democratic malaise evidenced by decreasing levels of political trust, declining voter turnout, increasing cynicism toward politicians and traditional forms of political participation, and growing disengagement of young people from politics.

It contributes to the under-representation of women, minority groups, and Aboriginal peoples. Critics maintain that countries with first-past-the-post systems routinely under-represent women and minority candidates.

It prevents diversity within the House of Commons. As a result of regional concentration, disproportionate votes to seats, and an under-representation of women and minority candidates, legislatures within this system lack a diversity of voices in political decision-making processes.

This system favours an adversarial style of politics.

That is something that we see daily in this House.

The Law Commission further states:

--many citizens want to be involved, want to have a real voice in decision making, and would like to see more responsive, accountable, and effective political institutions.

This is something I have heard from many of my constituents and from people all across the country. Canadians are telling us that every vote should count. However, in the last election, 665,940 votes for the Green Party elected zero MPs, while only 475,114 votes in Atlantic Canada elected 22 Liberals. It took 89,296 votes to elect each NDP MP, 43,339 votes for each Conservative member, 43,490 for each Liberal and 30,455 for each Bloc MP to get elected.

When ordinary citizens feel disenfranchised from the process, they tend to not participate. They feel their votes do not count.

(1110)

When we look around the world, we see that other industrialized countries have embraced a fairer system of electing their representatives. We can look at the example of other Commonwealth countries such as New Zealand, a longstanding Westminster democracy that adopted proportional representation in 1993. Nigel Roberts, in New Zealand: A Westminster Democracy Switches to PR, said:

--the change can be regarded as a good example of how to move from one voting system to another. It was done only after a great deal of research, debate and public consultation. Most experts on electoral reform would agree that major electoral reforms should not be undertaken lightly, and the move to...PR in New Zealand was certainly not undertaken likely.

New Zealand's Royal Commission on the Electoral System sat for over a year before releasing a detailed report in which it defined the following criteria for testing both first past the post and other voting systems: fairness between political parties; effective representation of minority and special interest groups; effective Maori representation, the Maori being New Zealand's indigenous ethnic minority; political integration; representation of constituents; voter participation; effective government; effective parliament; effective parties; and legitimacy.

At the same time, however, the royal commission stressed that no voting system can fully meet the ideal standards set by the criteria and pointed out that the criteria were not all of equal weight. New Zealand's parliament is an example of how we can have diversity. As Nigel Roberts again points out:

Six parties are represented in the [New Zealand] new Parliament, each in close accord with the share of the votes it won throughout the country as a whole; the system is highly proportional. There are now 15 Maori in the House of Representatives, and Maori are represented in the New Zealand Parliament in rough proportion to their numbers in the population as a whole. The same is true of Pacific Islanders, and the country's first PR election also saw the election of the country's first Asian MP. In addition, the overall proportion of women in Parliament rose from 21 per cent in 1993 to 29 per cent in 1996...Furthermore, voter turnout in New Zealand was even higher in 1996 than it had been in either 1990 or 1993.

There are many members of Parliament who know it is time to change our electoral system. In its throne speech, the current government talked about electoral reform, saying:

--this Government will seek to involve parliamentarians and citizens in examining the challenges facing Canada's electoral system and democratic institutions.

The Law Commission of Canada agrees:

While there is no single magic bullet that will instantaneously stimulate Canadians' involvement in the political system, a consensus appears to be emerging among political parties of all stripes, experts in electoral behaviour, and grassroots organizations that electoral system reform is a good starting point for energizing and strengthening Canadian democracy.

I urge the government to implement the recommendations of the 43rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee to have open, meaningful engagement with the citizens of Canada and have their values and principles reflected in an electoral system that works for all Canadians.

The people of Canada are concerned about many issues: climate change and the environment, fairness and affordability for working families, and the war in Afghanistan, to name but a few. I share their concerns and I believe that a fairer, more representative voting system will give us a government that is more responsive and accountable to their concerns.

The makeup of our Parliament should reflect the will of the voters and the diversity that is Canada. The time has come to change our electoral system for the better. Everyone matters. Every vote should count.

(1115)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent presentation and for putting this motion forward to the House. I applaud her for laying out the history of this issue, particularly the work done by my predecessor, the former representative from Ottawa Centre, Mr. Broadbent.

I want to ask the hon. member about one of the things that is critical in this issue and was cited by her: civic participation. In the report that we are asking to be implemented, all parties called for citizen engagement. I wonder if she would shed some light on that. The government claims to have a process in place. Would she comment on that?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell:

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, I know that the Conservatives have said they want to have a citizen consultation process, but as for what their process is, it is a contracted out process to their hand-picked friends. It is a closed process. They do not want, as they say, special interest groups to take over.

I have to ask, though, who are these special interest groups? Women? First nations? Ethnic minorities? These are exactly the people we need to hear from. That is why the recommendation from the 43rd report is for a consultation process that is very broad. We want to have the values and principles that Canadians want to see in an electoral system.

(1120)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in her motion, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North states that there would be “a maximum length for speeches by members of the special committee of 10 minutes on any single item”. It may make sense, but I am puzzled by it is. I am not sure what that means, given that the special committee will be needing nationwide reporting back in more than a year from now. What is the point of this particular item that just seems out of place in this motion?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time limit referred to as required in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2) is a rule of the House for the length of speeches in committees.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has essentially said, by eliminating all of its funding, that the Law Commission of Canada does not perform useful work. The member mentioned one useful example on electoral reform. I am sure that the commission also is essential for women's issues.

I wonder if the member believes that the Law Commission of Canada does useful work. If she believes it does useful work, I wonder if she could give us some examples.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell:

Mr. Speaker, I was able to refer in my notes to a fabulous report that the Law Commission did about electoral reform in Canada. The Law Commission did an extensive study on the impact of the unfair, archaic voting system and made recommendations to the procedure and House affairs committee to reform our democratic system. I hope the House will pass this motion so that these recommendations now can be implemented.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, PR seems like a great idea. Being a neighbour of Prince Edward Island and now physically linked to the Island, where politics are like religion and are taken very seriously, I think that one of the reasons the experiment failed was that it became very complicated. When we get talking about MMP, STV and SMP, all the various methods of PR, is there a way of making this more communicable to the Canadian public and therefore more acceptable?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a very complex issue, but it can be simplified. When we go out to ordinary Canadians about the values they want to see in their electoral system, we can come up with something that would work for Canada, that this House could put forward, and we could explain it. It would not be that hard. We had a citizens' consultation process in British Columbia and came up with the STV system, which 57% of Canadians--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Lanark--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the gist of my presentation today will be to point out that in view of the very aggressive set of initiatives already introduced by the government on the subject of electoral democratic reform, both in this chamber and for application to the upper House, the motion by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North is effectively redundant.

I want to start my comments by pointing out that the government in its throne speech indicated that it was going to focus intensively on the challenges faced by Canada's electoral and democratic systems. This was done in part in response to the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the last Parliament.

Seeing as the New Democrats are talking about the report of this committee as if it is holy writ or, indeed, brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses, I note that in fact it was not; it was brought down by a group of us, including me.

Let me just read for members what the report said, because it does not say quite what the New Democrats represent it as saying. It states that a “citizens' consultation group”, along with the parliamentary committee, should:

--make recommendations on the values and principles Canadians would like to see in their democratic and electoral systems...[this] would take into account an examination of the role of Members of Parliament and political parties; citizen engagement and rates of voter participation, including youth and aboriginal communities; civic literacy; how to foster a more representative House of Commons, including, but not limited to, increased representation of women and minorities, and questions of proportionality, community of interest and representation;....

Some of this is being taken care of through the citizens' consultation process that is currently under way, as the government has announced, and which has a much broader mandate than what the hon. member is proposing in her motion, but it is a mandate that reflects accurately what was proposed by this committee when it made its report in June 2005.

Indeed, we have made sure that the consultation group reflects what the committee wanted. At the time when I sat on that committee, I was not a fan of that process, but Ed Broadbent, who is constantly cited in the NDP's arguments, spoke in favour of that particular type of process. I said that we would have the usual suspects showing up at this process, and he said, “Sure, it will be the usual suspects, but they have a lot to say, and it is a good process”. The committee voted for it and the government is following through on the recommendations of the committee.

Now the New Democrats have discovered that they really favour another proposal, the citizens' assembly proposal, which Mr. Broadbent fought against vigorously when it was brought up by the Conservatives and which is why the Conservatives put a dissenting report advocating that proposal into the 43rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee. Thus, when the NDP members refer back to this through a revisionist version of history, we must recall that it is a little bit different from the way it actually worked when it happened.

I now want to list some of the legislative initiatives that the government has moved forward with on the subject of democratic reform, because this is really an extraordinary push forward. We are doing more on this issue than any previous government has ever done.

I will start by pointing to the Federal Accountability Act, which changed the rules for financing. It made them much more restrictive, eliminating corporate and union donations and reducing individual donations to $1,000 per capita, ensuring, in other words, that money and affluence are not the determining factors in financing political parties, and therefore ensuring that parties can operate on a level playing field.

We have moved forward on a number of items that deal with making the electoral system fairer, such as Bill C-31 to get rid of electoral fraud, a bill that the NDP opposes although all other parties in the House support it. It is a bill that will do a great deal to make the system much fairer and will ensure that no Canadian is disenfranchised, because electoral fraud disenfranchises everyone who is affected by a vote outcome that can be determined fraudulently, and that is a real problem.

The increased electoral fairness through Bill C-16, which is now in the Senate, having been passed by the House, will ensure that elections occur once every four years, not when the Prime Minister chooses to call them based upon whether his or her party is high in the polls. That was a terrible wrong. It was abused by the previous government repeatedly. This initiative will ensure that it is not abused again. This follows, of course, a series of legislative initiatives adopted at the provincial level, first in British Columbia and then in Ontario, to ensure that provincial elections are also on fixed four year dates.

(1125)

We have also moved forward on Senate reform. Bill S-4 limits the tenure of senators to eight years. We are having a tremendous problem getting that bill through the Liberal controlled Senate. The government has initiated this bill. It makes sense. It is going to ensure that senators are not effectively appointed for life. Frankly, this is the first time we have seen any serious attempt at Senate reform in the history of this country.

Bill C-43, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate, would allow for elections of senators. They are called consultative elections because we have to respect the constitutional prerogative of the Governor General to appoint senators.

That bill is interesting not only because it would allow for democracy to finally reach into the Senate and elections to occur within the Senate, but elections under this legislation would not be by means of the first past the post system. Rather elections would be by a single transferable vote system, in short, a proportional system that attempts to ensure that broader preferences come forward and are represented in choosing a senator. It would have the same effect in the Senate as what occurs in the Australian senate, for example, which uses a similar system where a broader range of preferences is expressed. This is a tremendous step forward.

I find it interesting that when talking about proportional representation the New Democrats always take great pains to avoid talking about the one piece of electoral reform legislation that is actually before the House right now, the attempt to introduce proportional representation in the upper house of Canada. In listening to the New Democrats talk about this, one would think there is nothing going on there at all and that it is not worth discussing.

Focusing on something that can happen right now in this Parliament is very important. The issue came up when the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London introduced a motion in the procedure and House affairs committee last week asking that the committee consider a variety of democratic and electoral reform issues, including the issue of proportional representation in the upper house. The New Democrats on the committee voted against it. They ensured that the motion would be defeated.

I do not detect a pattern of behaviour that is logical and actually beneficial toward moving forward on the democratic reform file. The New Democrats are trying to focus on a single hobby horse in a way that suits their interests best.

I find it interesting that Ed Broadbent advocated the idea of electoral reform. During the election campaign when the New Democrats released their election platform, that party moved from favouring more proportional representation as a general theme and letting Canadians look for the best solution, to directly choosing the solution that would be given to Canadians, the multi-member proportional system.

That system has some merits. That system is used in Germany and New Zealand, both of which are respectable democracies, but it not the only available proportional system. For example, it is not the system used in Australia's upper house, which is proportional. It is not used in Malta or Ireland. All of those countries have a single transferable vote system. It is also not the system used in Australia's lower house which uses the alternative vote system. It is not the only proportional system, but it was the only one that the NDP wanted to advocate.

The New Democrats were actually advocating it. They were saying it was essential to move from our system to that system when the MMP system, the multi-member proportional system, had just been defeated in P.E.I., where it received less than 40% of the vote, and an alternative system, the single transferable vote proportional system, had been adopted by almost 60% of British Columbians in another referendum.

We have to be careful. When we look at what the New Democrats are proposing we have to ask ourselves, do they favour proportional representation? Do they favour changing the electoral system in a way that reflects what Canadians want, which means maybe not choosing that system up front, or do they favour the system that is likely to produce the best result in terms of numbers of seats for New Democrats if their vote total does not change? In other words, the NDP is saying, “Without actually changing our appeal to the Canadian people, how can we get more seats in the House of Commons?”

That is not a beneficial approach. We have to work on allowing Canadians to make these decisions themselves.

(1130)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party for their speeches on this important issue.

For all of us it is a question of demonstrating to Canadians that our electoral system bears a reasonable proportion of the seats received to the votes cast. We have heard reasons for that. It is a direction we are going in for sure.

The Law Commission of Canada issued a report in the spring of 2004 which recommended a mixed proportional system. I must underline that the Law Commission of Canada statute requires it to engage in the fullest possible public consultation, as well as deep social research, both of which went into that massive report. It is perhaps the most comprehensive review of voting systems in the Commonwealth if not the broader democratic world. So, a lot of the work has been done. I will come back to that in a moment because it is important.

Following that commission report, we heard in the 2005 Speech from the Throne, with communication between the NDP and the Liberal government at the time, that we would look toward reforming the electoral system. The procedure and House affairs committee has come up with its report. Whether we go ahead with a special committee of the House or whether it is a subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee or that committee as a whole, we are inexorably moving forward under all of these demands and recommendations to seriously consider electoral reform in this country, not the least because six jurisdictions in Canada are looking at it very seriously.

British Columbia already looked at it once through its citizens assembly. It held a referendum at the time of its last fixed term election. My hon. colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned that it was barely passed; it was actually barely not passed in that it received 58% of the vote, a majority of course, but there was a 60% threshold put on it. That will be proceeded with in the next provincial election in British Columbia. The question will be put again. That was between the preferred single transferable vote system that the citizens assembly came up with and the current first past the post system.

Ontario is having a citizens' assembly as well. That is pushing us inexorably toward considering it federally. As well there are four other jurisdictions considering it.

I would equate this to the rise of medicare and our public health system which started at the provincial level. There was, I guess, a lot of resistance in Saskatchewan when that was put forward, but then in operation it became a model for the whole country.

I think the provinces have already started this process on its way and, as I say, through the House committee, through the Speech from the Throne and through the Law Commission of Canada, we have actually started on that route ourselves.

The purpose is to get some relative proportion between the number of votes cast and the number of seats obtained. Other members have mentioned the underlying even greater importance, the reason for that basic need is so we do not have groups in our society who are underrepresented because there are some barriers in our electoral system to their full participation.

I would add the outcome of regional disparity. Under the simple first past the post system, we have a huge disparity between the number of seats in any one region or province and the number of votes cast there for any particular party.

I have great sympathy for the NDP's long-standing interest in proportional representation because that party is disadvantaged. The NDP historically has been getting a lesser proportion of the seats than that party's proportion of votes. This is common for third parties in Westminster-style first past the post systems. The concern comes from that.

(1135)

In that regard the current prime minister, Tony Blair, before Britain's 1997 election thought, as the mythology goes at least, that he was going to get a minority government and he needed the support of the Liberal Democrats in order to hold government. He made a deal that if he formed government, he would have a royal commission on electoral reform and put that to a vote against the current system.

Roy Jenkins, a former minister of the crown and wonderful biographer of some of the most important people in British history, including his most recent work on Winston Churchill, was made royal commissioner. In 1998 he came up with a breathtakingly sensitive, wise and tested system to blend the first past the post system with proportional representation. He very effectively shielded out all of the shortcomings of each and reinforced the strengths of each in a mixed member proportional system, which bears some real resemblance to the Law Commission report.

In passing, the member for Vancouver Island North mentioned the Law Commission of Canada and its president, Nathalie Des Rosiers, who is a former fellow law commissioner of mine before I entered politics. The question was asked as to what kind of work the commission has done.

The commission did the monumental study, after consultation and research, that was probably more extensive than anything done in this country on institutional child abuse. The centrepiece of that was the residential schools abuse which became the basis for the residential schools settlements, reconciliation and a number of reforms, awareness and recognition of that injustice in our country. The commission also opened up the debate on the same sex marriage issue by doing a major report in the late 1990s on civil unions. It looked at a lot of the complicated issues in a highly intelligent way as to the state's role versus the church's role in the solemnization of marriage. The commission has done a lot of breathtaking work on restorative justice as well.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, mentioned, it is passing strange in a way to see the budget of the Law Commission of Canada cut to zero, which may not actually be possible for the government to do without the consent of the House. It is a statutory and independent institution. It has statutory responsibilities to fulfill. If the government is able to reduce the commission's budget to zero, there is an issue of legal capacity that we have to carefully look at.

A new citizen consultative process has been announced by the government. The Prime Minister mentioned it about three weeks ago and it was mentioned again today. This is curious for a number of reasons.

We have a parliamentary process through the House committee which is just getting going again after the last, might I say, unnecessary election, but it also is subsequent to what has already been introduced. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington mentioned the democratic reform issues that the government has already brought forward. Whether it is terms, election of senators, fixed elections dates or the political financing aspect, how can we possibly take the government seriously when it says it is going to consult Canadians after it has already introduced all of these changes? It seems to be a little backward.

Let us do something meaningful and substantive with the citizens consultation. There are two models in Ontario and British Columbia that are highly representative and deliberative. Let us not just use a polling firm and a think tank to go out and have a few discussions across the country. Let us look to what the Law Commission has done. It is a statutory, independent public institution. Let us look to our parliamentary direct responsibility and role through our committees. Then let us have discussions with Canadians in a really fulsome way without barrelling forward with changes that do not benefit from that wide consultation and acceptance by the public. Let us do it in a way that will encourage the public to take part fully in elections in the future.

(1140)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Motion M-262 put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. I thank her for having proposed this motion.

First off, let me say that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting this motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North because it duplicates the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Considerable work has been done, and the committee has expended a great deal of time and energy as well as taxpayers money to produce its 43rd report, pursuant to the order of reference of November 25, 2004, that, further to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommend a process that engages citizens and parliamentarians in an examination of our electoral system with a review of all options.

In March 2005, members of the committee divided into two groups and travelled to several countries in order examine at first hand the experience of electoral reform and to see how those countries had consulted and engaged citizens in the reform process. Seven members travelled to Scotland, England, and Berlin, while six other members travelled to New Zealand, and Australia. During these trips, the members had the opportunity to meet with a wide variety of politicians, academics, representatives of political parties and electoral commissions, and persons involved with electoral reform, and to study at close hand the systems and reform processes used, if any.

The committee approached this study resulting in the 43rd report by hearing from a number of witnesses. These included representatives of the Law Commission of Canada; representatives from various groups involved with public policy; academics who have studied issues relating to electoral reform and public consultations; and representatives of various provincial initiatives involving reviews of electoral systems. All of these individuals and groups have been extremely helpful in providing members of the committee with valuable insight on how to approach the issue of electoral reform, the ways in which to review the existing electoral system, and how best to consult with and engage citizens.

Moreover, a call for tenders for public consultations on Canada's democratic institutions and practices went out on January 9 in response to the April 4, 2006, Speech from the Throne, which stated that:

Building on the work begun in the last Parliament, this Government will seek to involve parliamentarians and citizens in examining the challenges facing Canada's electoral system and democratic institutions.

The consultations will address various issues, including political parties, the electoral system, the House of Commons, the Senate, and the role of citizens. These consultations are to begin March 9, 2007, and an interim report is to be tabled by May 23.

The motion tabled by the member for Vancouver Island North proposes a number of elements already included in Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, and in Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act. Let us take a look at some of these elements.

Bill C-16 would relieve the Prime Minister of the prerogative to call a general election at the most auspicious time for the political party in power.

This bill has other positive spin-offs. It supports the work of Parliament by enabling elected representatives to better plan their work and by preventing elections from interfering with the adoption of the estimates. It also promotes voter participation. Contrary to what the Conservative government would have us believe, democratic reform as set out in Bill C-16 will not lead to an upheaval because it will not bring major changes to the status quo.

(1145)

In a minority government, the opposition will still be able to overthrow the government and trigger an election at any time because this bill does not challenge the fundamental principle that a majority of parliamentarians can decide to trigger an election if they feel it is necessary.

A fixed election date system only works if the government in power agrees to it. Since the Prime Minister retains the right to recommend that Parliament be dissolved at any time before the fixed date, he can call an election whenever he chooses, with a good reason to do so.

The other element in motion M-262 relates to Bill C-31, which seeks to reduce the opportunity for fraud or error, improve the accuracy of the national register of electors, facilitate voting and enhance communication between election officials, candidates, parties and voters.

Bill C-31 was the product of close cooperation among the political parties. The government listened to the opposition parties when it introduced Bill C-31. The Conservative government should take the same approach to other issues, instead of stubbornly pushing its law and order agenda, and it should listen to the Bloc Québécois, which is calling for rehabilitation rather than repression. Moreover, instead of insisting on dismantling the gun registry, the minority Conservative government should listen to the Bloc Québécois, which is calling for better control over the registry costs.

As I have already said, the purpose of this bill was to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for fraud or error. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I participated in the work leading up to the introduction of this bill in the House of Commons, so I can say that a lot of work went into it.

The committee includes representatives of each political party, all of whom cooperated effectively, thus enabling us to achieve our goal of improving the electoral process and strengthening the public's faith in it.

The bill also proposes another change that the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for: assigning each voter a unique identification number. This unique identifier will appear on the voters' lists, eliminating duplication and making for better lists. It is important to point out that this unique identifier will be randomly generated and assigned by the chief electoral officer.

In our opinion, other concerns are more pressing that motion M-262, such as the fiscal imbalance, which the Bloc Québécois, on behalf of all Quebeckers, is calling on the government to correct by transferring $3.9 billion to Quebec.

There is also the crisis in the manufacturing sector. The Conservative government's economic laissez faire approach is no response to the challenges manufacturers face to modernize, innovate and equip themselves better in order to compete with foreign companies.

These are just a few of the issues that we think are more urgent than creating a special committee to continue the work of electoral reform, because, as I said a few minutes ago, that work has already been done, and at a considerable cost.

(1150)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this motion to the House of Commons for us to debate and to vote on.

I begin by referring back to some comments made by other members. In particular, I challenge the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington who said that the motion did not address electoral reform as put forward in committee. He also indicated that Mr. Broadbent was not in favour of the consultation process. He might want to change his take on this. We know Mr. Broadbent fought vigorously in committee for a parallel track so we could have citizen consultations. No one else did that. It was his work that allowed us to have the process in place. I want to put that on the record.

The government is trying to hijack electoral reform for its own purposes. Ironically, it is saying that it knows better than citizens. Let me explain that.

Before the Christmas break, my party put forward its intention to bring this issue to the House of Commons. We were being transparent, as we have been consistently. We let Canadians and Parliament know that we would bring this motion forward in the House. It was no secret.

Interestingly enough, after Christmas the government scurried and found a process to allow it to say it would move on the issue. It attempted to take it out of the hands of Parliament and therefore Canadians, because Parliament represents the interests of Canadians. The government said it knew better. It talked to its friends in consulting firms and lobbyists and put together a package. By doing this, it could say that it consulted Canadians. This was not good enough.

The terrible irony is that is not democratic. The whole point of the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the last Parliament was to ensure that Canadians would be heard, not only by their MPs, but through genuine citizen consultations as well. We know the previous government dithered on this, did not get to it and was unable to meet the commitment.

We are asking this Parliament to honour the commitment of the previous Parliament and deal with this issue. In the 2005 Speech from the Throne and the 2006 Speech from the Throne both governments, different political parties, claimed they would honour electoral reform. We are providing that opportunity for all parties.

It is passing strange that the Bloc Québécois says that everything has been done. It sounds to me like those members receive their message track from the government. Maybe this gives us an indication of more things to come with respect to the budget. They have said that all the commitments in the 43rd report from the procedure and House affairs committee have been honoured. They forgot to tell the House that the most important part of the report was to have MPs consult with citizens as well as to have citizen consultations.

I know the first past the post rewards the Bloc Québécois, and maybe that is something it does not want to encounter. I do not know. It is strange that those members would give us the impression that all the concerns, which were laid out in the report, and the commitments made to Canadians for a process occurred when in fact they had not.

The motion of my colleague is like a concurrence motion. It is asks this Parliament to commit to something it did not get to in the last Parliament. Canadians are very concerned. My predecessor on this issue, Mr. Broadbent, clearly outlined measures. He said that it was important to have ethics and accountability in government, and that might include a ban on floor crossing, which has not mentioned by the Conservative government. The Conservatives are concerned about electoral fraud vis-à-vis the opportunity for voter fraud. However, they do not mention candidate fraud, for example, when a candidate runs for the Liberals and then the next day becomes a Conservative.

(1155)

Canadians are more concerned about candidate fraud than they are about this supposed potential for voter fraud of which there has been very little, in fact four cases over three elections. We have had more candidate fraud than we have had voter fraud, so that has to be addressed.

On the point of electoral reform, Mr. Broadbent along with others argued that the antiquated first past the post system will require major democratic reforms. To reach a degree of fairness in our present electoral system, he reasoned that a mixed system of individual constituency based MPs like we have now and proportional representation is necessary to erase the imbalance in the House of Commons.

I should note it is the model in New Zealand. New Zealand used to have a Canadian style system of concentrated power and there the voters rebelled against the alternating Labour Party and National Party dictatorships. Electoral reform now ensures coalition cabinets.

The present Prime Minister, in a paper with Mr. Flanagan, wrote:

In New Zealand, which used to have a Canadian-style system of concentrated power, the voters rebelled against alternating Labour party and National party dictatorships: electoral reform now ensures coalition cabinets.

Those are his words, not mine. That is our present Prime Minister writing that not that long ago, in 1997.

I agree with him that we have tired of this kind of dictatorship, this benevolent dictatorship as some have called it, where a party can receive 38% of the vote and have a big fat majority.

The problem is that the government along with the Bloc does not want to actually encounter this issue with Canadians because we need to deal with this issue.

I want to speak about the issue of democratic reform vis-à-vis the problems in terms of regional representation. In our system, where there are only votes that transfer into seats and are those which are cast for the candidate who gets the most votes, which is our first past the post system, the major disadvantage is for opposition parties.

Remember that under Preston Manning the Reform Party was shut out of seats in Ontario despite the fact that it received 20% of the vote. The system is also bad for governing parties. In the 1980s, for instance, the Liberals under Mr. Trudeau received 23% of the popular vote in western Canada. This should have meant 20 MPs from the west instead of the two who were sent to Ottawa.

As an anecdote, Mr. Broadbent, who was the leader of the NDP at the time, was approached by Mr. Trudeau and asked if he would not mind having a coalition government because Mr. Trudeau was so worried about the lack of representation in the west. Mr. Broadbent looked at the menu of choices Mr. Trudeau was offering policy-wise, and thanked him but said, not this time. A wise choice.

If we were to have a system structured as such, we would have regional representation built in. I turn to the examples of the last election. What happened in Montreal and Vancouver was a travesty. We had highway robbery of the democratic system by the Conservative government.

In the case of Montreal, Mr. Fortier was taken out of the back room and thrown into the cabinet with a portfolio of great importance. In Vancouver we saw what happened with candidate fraud with the Minister of International Trade. He was a Liberal one day and of course became a Conservative the next day.

If we had a system similar to New Zealand which would take away from the concentrated power that is a dictatorship, as the Prime Minister stated in his paper, we would have a system which would represent regions as well. That work has been done.

The work we have put forward is the mixed member, not the multi-member as the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington suggested. That would allow members to be elected first past the post so they would be representing their riding and to have people assigned proportionally.

That is exactly the system that would ensure that we would not have these dictatorships as the Prime Minister suggested and it would ensure that we have regional representation. The Conservatives, having won power, could have had someone representing those regions where they were not successful, in the urban areas like Vancouver and Montreal, and they would have the legitimacy of having an elected person in cabinet.

(1200)

I am delighted that we are debating this issue. I look forward to the vote and encourage all members to vote for what is a very progressive, insightful and important motion.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

* * *

Points of Order

Bill C-293—Development Assistance Accountability Act—Speaker's Ruling

[Speaker's Ruling]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader on February 16, 2007, concerning amendments reported by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on February 1, 2007 to Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

[English]

The parliamentary secretary referred to my previous ruling of September 19, 2006, where I addressed the need for a royal recommendation for this bill. At that time, I identified several clauses in the bill which contained the provisions for the authorization of new spending for a distinct purpose.

To quote from the ruling:

The Chair has reviewed this matter carefully and agrees that the establishment of the advisory committee for international development cooperation provided for in clause 6 clearly would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.

Similarly, the provisions in clauses 7 to 10, which describe the functions of the advisory committee with regard to the process of petitioning and reporting, are also functions which would require the authorization of spending for a new and distinct purpose.

As such, clause 6 and clauses 7 to 10 cause the bill as a whole in its current form to require a royal recommendation. Accordingly, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill unless a royal recommendation is received.

(1205)

[Translation]

In his intervention, the Parliamentary Secretary asked for an assessment of the effect of committee amendments on the clauses identified by the Chair. He also raised questions concerning the operation of clauses 3 and 4 which he contends affect the terms and conditions attached to the original legislation.

The Parliamentary Secretary cited previous rulings which underlined the need to adhere to the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation and not only to the amount of spending.

Finally, he referred to the fact that the Chair did not consider clauses 3 and 4 in its ruling of September 19, 2006.

[English]

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development adopted a number of amendments to the bill following my ruling on September 19, 2006. Notably and most importantly the committee deleted clause 6 which created the advisory committee. The committee also deleted clauses 7, 8 and 10 which dealt with the functions of the advisory committee, and amended clauses 3 and 9 so as to remove references to the advisory committee.

Therefore, the provisions which were earlier identified by the Chair as requiring a royal recommendation because they were related to or were dependent upon the establishment of the advisory committee were removed from Bill C-293.

I will now turn to the issues involving clauses 3 and 4 of the bill as addressed by the parliamentary secretary.

Clause 3 is known as the interpretation clause and contains definitions for the terms used in this piece of legislation. The parliamentary secretary notes that the committee introduced a definition for “official development assistance” which reads as follows:

“official development assistance” means international assistance

(a) that is administered with the principal objective of promoting the economic development and welfare of developing countries, that is concessional in character, that conveys a grant element of at least 25%, and that meets the requirements set out in section 4; and/or

(b) that is provided for the purpose of alleviating the effects of a natural or artificial disaster or other emergency occurring outside Canada.

He argued that this definition and similar provisions in clause 4 alter the terms and conditions of the original legislative authority and consequently cause the bill to require a royal recommendation. The parliamentary secretary raised some important points that the Chair wishes to address, the first being that provisions in subclause 4.(2) oblige the minister to consult.

The Chair is of the view that this sort of provision does not create new spending for a distinct purpose. Consultations like this fall within the ongoing mandate of the minister. The Chair, however, does have serious concerns about the claim that provisions in the definition add new conditions and criteria to official development assistance that is, “concessional in character, [and] that conveys a grant element of at least 25%”.

The parliamentary secretary argued that these provisions alter the conditions and qualifications originally attached to assistance for developing countries as found in subsection 10.(3) of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act which reads as follows:

The Minister may develop and carry out programs related to the Minister’s powers, duties and functions for the promotion of Canada’s interests abroad including:

(b) the provision of assistance for developing countries.

As this is a fairly broad statutory provision, the Chair conducted some further research, to better understand how existing official development assistance, as presently authorized by acts of Parliament, was currently being provided.

The Chair turned to the departmental performance report for the Canadian International Development Agency for the year ending March 31, 2006. On page 8 it states:

In 2005-2006, CIDA's authorized budget was $3.3 billion and its actual spending was $3.1 billion, disbursed mainly through grants and contributions...CIDA's budget is part of the International Assistance Envelope (IAE), a jointly-managed envelope which funds official development assistance (ODA), as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Development Assistance Committee.

I will not give all the letters for those but I am going to refer to them now.

[Translation]

And in footnote 4, it says:

ODA is defined by the OECD-DAC as funding transferred “to development countries and multilateral institutions provided by official government agencies which meets the following tests: (a) it is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective, and (b) it is concessional in character and conveys a grant element of at least 25%”.

(1210)

[English]

The Chair notes that the criteria presently used for the disbursement of grants and contributions for official development assistance, as explained by the government in the departmental performance report, is identical to the criteria found in clause 3 of Bill C-293.

Bill C-293 at first reading only contained a reference to the OECD-DAC in clause 3. Amendments adopted in committee simply inserted in the interpretation clause the full text of the existing criteria used by the government. The Chair therefore must conclude that the conditions and qualifications, which were attached to the original authorization for spending, have not been altered in any manner. If anything, the bill reinforces the criteria presently employed by the government itself. Consequently, in the unique context this bill presents, and despite an impressive demonstration of scholarly research by the parliamentary secretary who quoted from previous rulings of mine and of Mr. Speaker Fraser, I must conclude that these provisions in Bill C-293, as amended, do not cause the bill to require a royal recommendation.

The Chair has examined carefully all other amendments adopted by the standing committee and can confirm that none of these additional modifications would require a royal recommendation.

To summarize then, the deletions made by the committee eliminated the problematic issue set out in my earlier ruling last September. Consequently, debate on this bill may proceed and the Chair will put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form, which requires no royal recommendation.

I thank all hon. members for their patience in listening to this rather lengthy explanation and ruling.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Canadian Human Rights Act

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, let me clearly state my support for the bill in principle. The repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is long overdue. Initially, the section was implemented as a temporary measure. However, temporary has turned into many years and it is time to rectify the situation. It is time to ensure all first nations have the protection that most Canadians take for granted.

For too long first nations people have been subject to lesser standards than non-first nations people. Deplorable living conditions, substandard educational facilities and the lack of adequate health care highlight the vast gap that exists between the first nations and non-first nations people of Canada.

The previous Liberal government had set out a comprehensive consultative process to begin to address this gap. The process culminated in the signing of the Kelowna accord, an accord signed by all national first nations organizations, all provincial and territorial governments and the Government of Canada. The Kelowna accord was abandoned by the Conservative government. This really had the effect of shaking the confidence of the first nations people across Canada.

In my riding communities such as Sandy Lake, with Chief Pardemus Anishinabie, Fort Hope, with Chief Charlie O'keese, and Kasabonika, with Chief Gordon Anderson, all felt that this would be first step in ensuring that the gap was addressed. They felt the Kelowna accord was something that they could support and it was something that would make a difference on the streets of their communities.

Many believe the Kelowna accord was just a starting point. Again, the goal was to narrow that gap and ensure that they could enjoy some of the benefits that mainstream Canada enjoyed. The reality is much different on the first nations. Sometimes that is quite a harsh reality.

Section 67 contributes to this gap. By not allowing first nations people on reserve to file human rights complaints, the government continues to send the message to first nations people that they are not treated equally. This is not acceptable and the repeal of section 67 is a step in the right direction filling this gap. However, there are serious concerns that I have with the government's approach to the implementation of the bill.

I have had the chance to discuss the bill with the Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. Grand Chief Stan Beardy represents Treaty No. 9 in northern Ontario. The Grand Chief has worked tirelessly to improve the living conditions for his people. I have been fortunate to receive his advice and counsel on specific issues facing the constituents of my riding of Kenora. He represents 49 first nations communities, many of them remote in nature, spanning a territory that is close to two-thirds of Ontario. With a constituency of over 45,000 people, the Grand Chief is acutely aware of the needs and priorities of his people. His comments regarding the bill were very direct, “There must be more consultation”.

We have been witness to the ineffectiveness of legislation that has been imposed on first nations without proper consultation. We must learn from the past, and this is too important an issue to proceed too hastily.

I have also been fortunate to have the counsel of Grand Chief Arnold Gardner, Grand Chief for Treaty No. 3 first nations in my riding. He echoed these sentiments for consultation, believing that consultation would be the only way to move the first nations' concerns forward. I agree. The government must stop its paternalistic approach when dealing with first nations.

I spoke about the remoteness of some of these communities and I will take a moment to explain that. Many think it is a community on the end of the road, but when we drive to communities in my riding, like Red Lake and Pickle Lake, which are several hundred kilometres north of Highway 17, the main Trans-Canada Highway, at the end of that road we have to be prepared to fly 500 miles farther north just to get to the edge of the riding.

In that area there are 21 remote communities such as North Spirit, Poplar Hill and Webequie. They all do not expect the government to be part of the consultation in their own small communities, but they want to ensure that their leadership is listened to and they want to ensure the government pays attention to their concerns. They want their leaders involved and they want to know that Stan Beardy and Arnold Gardner have been heard.

The lack of consultation was not the only thing the government overlooked in its haste. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, an authority on the topic of human rights, recommended that a transition period be a minimum of 18 months. The government however has ignored this recommendation and has reduced the transition time to only six months.

First nations communities are already overextended in providing basic needs for their people and now the government would add to this burden by exposing fist nations to new liabilities without providing adequate time for a transition period.

Consultations would provide a better picture of how this legislation would affect first nations. We would also have a better understanding of the concerns that first nations have with the bill.

(1215)

One concern that has already arisen is how the repeal of section 67 will impact existing treaty rights. This is an important question, one that deserves to be answered before the government decides to implement the bill.

The government has decided to examine the constitutional impact of the bill after it has already passed it into law. This is just another example of the government's unwillingness to properly address the concerns of the first nations people. Why not conduct proper consultations with first nations organizations while at the same time examine the legal ramifications of the bill for the existing treaty rights?

I am not surprised to find that the bill did not mention the need to provide first nations with the resources to prepare for this change. I have observed a troubling pattern with the Conservative approach to working with first nations. Conservatives believe it is enough to announce a program without the resources to back it up. We were witness to this with their announcement to improve the water quality on first nation reserves. The Conservatives announced new standards, but did not bother to provide the resources for the first nations to achieve these standards.

Many communities in my area have existing water and sewer plants. They have the infrastructure in the ground, but the new regulations require new upgrades or retrofits and these are expensive. I have already explained the seriousness of the remote sites. In all the communities the infrastructure needs to be improved, but when they are in the far flung areas and can only be accessed by aircraft, the costs are very high.

It is typical of the government: no consultation and new rules with no money or resources to follow them through. Many small first nations want to be heard. The people of Fort Severn, Bearskin Lake and Muskrat Dam in my riding all want to know, whether it is water or section 67, that the government of the day will listen to their concerns.

We see this approach again with this bill. The government would like for section 67 to be repealed, but it is unwilling to provide the resources needed for the first nations to prepare such claims. The Assembly of First Nations mentioned the example of the lack of access to public buildings on reserves for people with disabilities.

With the repeal of section 67, first nations would be exposed to a liability under that circumstance. However, many first nations do not have the resources to make improvements according to these standards. Without providing resources needed, the government will only exasperate the current situation whereby first nations are already struggling to provide for the people who live in the communities and on the streets.

Another concern with the legislation is a lack of an interpretive clause. The measure had been recommended by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and again the Conservative government ignored this advice. An interpretive clause would assist the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Tribunal in reviewing claims against first nations governments, agencies and institutions. AFN has argued that it is imperative to include such a clause to ensure the balance between the collective rights and the rights of the individual. This is an important balance that any future legislation should not infringe upon.

While discussing the need to strike a proper balance between collective rights and the rights of the individual, the issue of jurisdiction is inevitable. Who should be responsible to address human rights claims arising from first nations individuals? The Assembly of First Nations is a proponent of the creation of a first nations human rights tribunal. However, the government has once again ignored the advice of AFN. There is no mention of such a tribunal in the current legislation.

I reiterate my support for the repeal of section 67, but I repeat the need for fundamental changes to the legislation. The issue is too important and we have waited too long for them to bring this legislation forward in haste. We must do it right. Every person living in Canada should have the same right to bring forward human rights complaints. This will be a positive step toward building a stronger relationship between the government and the first nations people. Beyond this, it is the right thing to do, so let us make sure we get it done right.

I reinforce the comments made to me by Grand Chief Stan Beardy and Grand Chief Arnold Gardner about the need for consultation. They want to be heard. As such, I would encourage the government to commence consultations with the representatives of the first nations community to better understand the impact that this legislation will have.

(1220)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1225)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1230)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1235)

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

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

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

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

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc mentioned that the minister thinks he is an authority on all first nation issues. I would dare say that he is the only one who would think that.

The 42 communities I represent have very little or no access to the minister. I would like to say for the record that we had total access to the previous minister, with whom I had chance to serve, in the Liberal government. He was in my riding and in the communities. The grand chiefs, both three and nine, had separate meetings with him.

Whether it is with regard to section 67 or any other issues in his area of Quebec, has my friend from the Bloc had any access to or consultations with the minister? Is there any access at all to this level of government that the minister is supposed to represent to ensure we hear the concerns of first nations?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Lévesque:

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

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

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

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

(1240)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues and speak to Bill C-44, a bill that seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by repealing section 67 that pertains to the Indian Act. Section 67 reads:

Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.

At the outset I can say that I am a very staunch supporter of human rights. I have spoken publicly on this topic many times. Therefore, I support the bill in principle. What I do not support is the lack of sensitivity and understanding of the perimeters of the bill and its implications on the aboriginal way of life.

I am also saddened by the fact that the Conservative government failed to listen to many interventions already made in the past about the approach to take with the step to repeal section 67 that no one is arguing with, mainly the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Canadian Bar Association, to name a few.

I am also disappointed that the government failed to work with the very people who will be impacted by this legislation to draft a bill that has their blessing, the first nations of Canada.

Many members have spoken to the technical aspects of the bill. I will speak more to the human elements and the fine balance of collective rights versus individual rights. I will also speak to the need for an interpretative clause, as recommended by the Human Rights Commission in more than one report.

In its report entitled, “A Matter of Rights:”, the Canadian Human Rights Commission review panel amplified that point by saying:

In repealing section 67, it is important to ensure that the unique situation and rights of First Nations are appropriately considered in the process of resolving human rights complaints.

The commission stressed that there be an additional clause that provides an interpretation of how individual rights do not ultimately discriminate instead on legitimate collective rights.

I will read an insert from AFN's report which states:

In previous submissions on section 67 the AFN has strongly advocated for the inclusion of an interpretative clause. Our rationale for doing so relates to our concerns about the effect of federal legislation in undermining our collective rights and its strong interest in achieving an appropriate balance between individual and collective rights.

The Indian Act is an instrument that has been used to undermine the “collective” economic, social, cultural and political rights of First Nations Peoples in Canada for more than 100 years.

This same CHR report spoke strongly of the need for provisions to enable the development and enactment in full consultation for first nations. It was also sensitive to the timeframe required to implement the changes and gave a more realistic transitional period of between 18 and 30 months so that first nations and the commission are ready and prepared to work to resolving complaints efficiently, effectively and quickly. There needs to be time given to adapt to another fundamental change to a different way of doing things.

Aboriginal people suffer constantly because of decisions made somewhere else that do not give us any opportunity, first, to be part of the process that leads to that decision. Then we must live with it and are usually not given any chance to phase in the change. Canadians wonder why we are suffering social consequences.

Governments have had over 100 years to implement the Indian Act, as imperfect as it is. Now they are asking bands to implement Bill C-44 in six months. Where is the fairness in that?

The previous Liberal government was building a strong relationship with the aboriginal communities and worked with concerned people on the scope of legislation before it was tabled in the House.

(1245)

First nations should also be given resources, not only to implement this change but to help develop the interpretive clause so sorely needed with this legislation: funds to do capacity-building, funds to explain the changes to everyone, funds to develop procedures and implementation systems, funds to phase it in and to do the work in the language required to reach the people who will be affected.

We see examples already in the world of fundamental changes happening, but also of how the people are slow to follow in the actual practices. The western world rejoiced in the fall of the Berlin wall and also when Communism was no longer a way of life in Russia, but we know that people have been slow to exercise their new freedoms. There is always a need for transitional time for life changes. Six months does not cut it.

I am sure we can go to these countries and see the people still learning to embrace their new freedoms and exercise their democratic rights. Why would the Conservative government think it would be any different for first nations? Does it think they are not the same as other human beings, which would then, of course, defeat the whole purpose of repealing this section? I say this because the Conservative government is sending mixed message to the aboriginal peoples of Canada in how it is treating all its aboriginal files, without any sensitivity and true deliberation on the issues.

I also want to address briefly the issue of individual rights versus collective rights. I know this is a difficult concept for our Conservative friends to understand but it is a real concern for us, as aboriginal people who stand firmly on the issue of our collective rights.

In my riding of Nunavut, we chose within our modern day treaty to own the land collectively and not individually. This is a fundamental difference in our way of dealing with real estate than most Canadians. One of the things that I am really worried about with this legislation is that it may be a first step to putting the land under fee simple, which would then cause a total erosion of aboriginal claims among the first nations people.

Also, when there is an economic opportunity, like a park or a mine opening, most aboriginal people want the collective to benefit rather than a select few. How we achieve this can be in the area of hiring practices or in awarding contracts and giving preferences to our members, or in providing programs and services exclusively or on a preferential basis to members where justifiable. This is done for members who are usually not benefiting from this economic activity or prosperity of their region.

Sometimes there is a need for affirmative action programs for a group of people who are already disadvantaged in order to get them to a level playing field. We need to ensure that first nations have that flexibility within reason to address the social dilemmas facing many of our aboriginal communities. First nations must be given that option.

One example I can give with my own modern day treaty is that we need to get mining companies or even the different governments to have an impact benefit agreement with the people who live there. That would ensure that the benefits are reaching and benefiting the people who live there and not all of the money is going out of the territory.

However, I am very sad to say that this legislation chose to ignore that and I must question why. Is there another reason for this? Because there is no provision for that in this legislation, I can stress the lack of sensitivity to the realities of our lives as aboriginal people.

I strongly urge the government to make the bill more user friendly and not another imposition and another change in which they had no opportunity to be part of the decisions leading up to this change. I had thought we were past that stage in Canada's history. Do not make us live it again.

(1250)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's intervention on this important piece of legislation.

I am struck by the fact that it has been 30 years since human rights became law in Canada. It was implemented in 1977. Initially section 67 was brought in as a temporary measure to provide time, presumably, for consultations that were going on. Over the ensuing 30 years there have been several attempts to correct what was supposed to be a temporary measure. The difficulty is that when the consultations have been engaged, they drag on to the point where parliaments have not been able to fix this as it should be done.

Considering there has been so much delay in getting section 67 corrected, would the way that has been proposed here not be better, that it go into committee, be subject to testimony, and there be six months for implementation. This at least puts a deadline on moving this process forward. I would like her comments on that.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell:

Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose this change. It is how it is being done.

People have to understand that some of these communities are barely given enough funds to cover their operations, such as, providing housing, education, clean water, keeping the facilities up to par, just the funds for a band. We will have to explain to people what this change will mean to them. Processes have to be put into place. We will need to do capacity building in the communities.

Some of the bands and reserves are not big operations. Some of them are very small communities. Even though we do not have bands in my territory of Nunavut, I can relate to some of these communities. When only 300 people live in a community, we have to serve our residents on all levels. If we are asking people to fundamentally change how they operate, they have to be given time to deal with the change. Resources and a process are needed to deal with the complaints, and I just do not see six months as a reasonable time to deal with it.

If we look historically at what has happened with some of the procedures, parliament has gone into elections and bills have died on the order paper. This is beyond the control of the people who are trying to pass the legislation.

The AFN, the Native Women's Association and even the Canadian Bar Association are asking that there be an interpretive clause in the legislation which we do not see. We are very worried that there will be an unjust balance in how these complaints are taken care of if we do not have that kind of interpretive clause.

We are not against people having their human rights defended, but there needs to be ample time to phase it in and also an opportunity for the people who are affected to make sure that there is a good understanding of collective rights versus individual rights.

(1255)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Nunavut brings an honest and sincere attitude as well as a great deal of respect to this issue. She speaks with great knowledge.

We on this side of the House see a theme emerging from the government. The government has no will to consult with stakeholders on any piece of legislation. We saw that on income trusts. There was absolutely no consultation with the financial community. I am very leery about the fisheries act that will be coming forward in the next number of weeks and the sheer lack of consultation. An essential basic aspect of developing legislation is to include people in the process.

My colleague from Nunavut is a very respected member with respect to a number of aboriginal issues and is very much dialled in with many national aboriginal groups. I would like to ask her what the response has been from these groups. Have they been consulted? Has there been any respect shown for the concerns they have brought forward?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell:

Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the interventions on our side. I thank other opposition members for also speaking to this issue.

Lack of consultation is a great worry for all of us on every file, but especially on aboriginal files. The former Liberal government encouraged real relationship building between aboriginal peoples of Canada and the Government of Canada. Not only were cabinet ministers engaged in consultations with our people, but our former prime minister took it upon himself to make it a personal mission. He told every cabinet minister that they would not be making legislation without people's input. We were very comfortable with the steps that we were going through in our consultations on different files with the former government.

It is hard not to mention the Kelowna accord. That process engaged many aboriginal people in this country. We were right at the national table speaking with the people who had the ability to change legislation or policies. I do not think we will ever stop regretting that lost opportunity.

The lack of consultation was also very painful for communities that were given the hope that they could be engaged. It is a sad situation when hope is taken away. Hope is one thing that is needed in our aboriginal communities, hope for a better future, hope for better opportunities in education and economic development. I just do not see that right now in the discussions the Conservative government is having with aboriginal people. Even to say that they are having discussions is pushing it. This legislation was introduced obviously without any input from the aboriginal communities. Otherwise there would have been an interpretive clause and more of a phase-in period that would have been realistic to bringing in such a change to communities.

(1300)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on the resources available to aboriginal and Inuit communities in her area because this will obviously take aboriginal governments and communities some resources to implement.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell:

Mr. Speaker, this does not affect my riding directly because we are not covered under the Indian Act, but I can understand what the communities will be facing if they are not given the resources to deal with this change.

Any change is difficult for all of us. In order to implement changes the proper resources are needed to make sure people understand exactly what it is that is changing, what opportunities are being opened up to them. People will be trying to understand what this means for them and their communities.

As I said in my speech, not everyone is going to realize what they can do to improve their lives if they feel that they have been discriminated against. Unfortunately, some people have lived with that situation for so long that they accept it as a way of life.

We are going to have to teach the people how to embrace this new freedom, for lack of a better word. We need to do it also in the language that people can understand. Not everyone in aboriginal communities speaks English or French, so it has to be explained in the language that they work with and live with and that takes a lot of resources.

There is going to have to be capacity building. There is obviously going to be paperwork involved. Some bands are already having great difficulty with all the administrative challenges, so resources will be needed with respect to this legislation.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, today I want to spend my 20 minutes explaining that this is not going to be as easy a process as people might think. It appears to simply be taking a clause out of bill; obviously it is a motherhood clause whereby we would give everyone human rights. That seems pretty simple and straightforward, and a lot of us in this House agree with that.

For a number of reasons, this is not going to be that simple. I do not think the media, a lot of whom have tuned into this, or some members of Parliament realize the important debate underlying this particular removal of one simple clause. We are talking about the coming together and cooperation of two entirely different cultures. They have different linguistics, rituals, forms of government and collective rights, and different ways of governing, and we are going to apply legislation related to a right from one onto the other.

Mark my words: this is going to involve a very serious debate on this issue in committee and, as this bill is being discussed, on this larger issue. Some of the problems that some of my colleagues have already outlined, and which I will again emphasize, simply are created by the inappropriate preparation of this legislation. The government could have reduced a lot of the amendments that will have to be made to make it more reasonable and appropriate.

Bill C-44 is related to an amendment to the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act, passed in 1977, prohibits discrimination during employment or provision of services by governments. This bill would remove a clause that basically says discrimination caused by the Indian Act is okay and cannot be charged against. I am going to just go through some of the issues I see here and some of the things that have to be taken into account for this very worthy cause to be successful and to be undertaken properly.

First, of course, is resources. If we were to try to implement laws in Canada today without any police or prosecutors, to some extent like we are trying to do in Afghanistan, obviously it would not work. These things are involved when we are implementing a new law. As for ignoring this issue completely, unfortunately this government seems to have a habit of doing this. I think we have asked different justice ministers about this three times. On each occasion, the answer was no, there was no provision and there was either no calculating or insufficient calculating of resources. I remember that in regard to the two times I asked, the first time he said that the improvements to society because of this bill will pay the costs.

First, with regard to this particular bill, the witnesses suggested there would be more costs to society and it would be a backward step, so that would not work, and even if it did, of course, the Financial Administration Act does not work that way. We cannot take some general improvement in society to pay for the implementation of a bill. In the other act, the Minister of Justice just said that it was the public safety minister's problem and he can pay for it. If a government seriously wants legislation to pass, to be implemented and to work, it is obviously going to analyze the resources.

In regard to this particular bill, first nation governments and institutions, especially as strapped as they are, will need training. They are going to need implementation funds. There are all sorts of costs to bringing in laws, obviously, both for them and for the federal government.

Of course, the federal government has a big purse for defending itself. It has a lot of lawyers itself. All governments are always defending themselves. But what resources do first nations have? People think they just add things to first nation governments or aboriginal governments and there is a wealth of resources, but they are strapped for cash. They do not have resources for anything except for what has been given to them for specific reasons by other levels of government. On a day to day basis, they are scrambling to implement the things they have to implement now.

If we impose more demands on those resources, like we would by this act, where are they going to take the resources from? From the things that we have already found wanting, such as housing, education and even safe drinking water? They have no other resources and there are none contemplated here. Just imagine, for instance, the number of buildings and facilities in first nations communities across the country that are not wheelchair accessible. In regard to this bill, there are all sorts of potential costs to first nations with no analysis of what they might be, with no provisions, and with no suggestion by the federal government that they would be paid for.

(1305)

Another very important area, as mentioned by some of my colleagues, is an interpretive clause. I will discuss it more later, but when we have, in a cooperative, diverse society such as ours, a coming together of two entirely different cultures, we are going to need, and the experts have suggested it, an interpretive clause as to how this would be applied to first nation governments and institutions. This has come out before, in many recommendations

The third major area that will require discussion and improvement is consultation. I do approve of the government's clause in the bill that there will be a review after five years, but that is too late. In this day and age, it would be insane for any government, both politically and legally, not to consult with first nations on such a major issue as this, which is entirely in the essence of the philosophy of defining collective and individual rights. Consultation is just mandatory now when major changes are made. Court case after court case has indicated that with first nations we must do consultation. It would make no sense at all to go forward without consultation, as the government seems to be doing. A number of members have already spoken to that point so I will not go on at length.

The next is the time needed to put this into place. The government is giving six months. There is no possibility that such a major change could be in place in six months given all the training and resources that the government has not come up with yet, given the interpretation that it has not come up with yet, and given the preparation and training of first nation governments to deal with these complaints under the human rights commission. No one, including the government, has suggested that six months would work for the training of police and setting up of systems in Afghanistan, so for this there should be a far more reasonable time. I am suggesting 30 to 45 months to put all the pieces in place, pieces that have not even been started yet.

The next area that I think needs to be discussed is the area of aboriginal and treaty rights and the effects on aboriginal treaty rights. These are longstanding and very complicated. Some are constitutional. Some are a moral imperative. They have to be looked at and analyzed and there is no sense that it has been done in the development of the bill. We have been given nothing whatsoever in regard to the effects of this bill on these complex situations, nor has there been analysis of the effect of the bill on those rights. I am not saying it cannot go ahead, but obviously we have to analyze those effects, make sure this can go ahead legally and morally and see if any adjustments have to be made.

In the modern treaties, it is not so much a problem, because in most of the modern treaties the first nation or aboriginal people have to come under the human rights legislation. For those aboriginal people who are worrying about whether it is possible, we can see good examples of this, such as the Cree, the Tlicho, many of the Yukon first nations, the Nisga'a, and the Westbank, who do fall under human rights legislation. We can see that it is working, but it is all the other situations that have not been analyzed.

That leads to a very worrying aspect of the development of legislation by the Conservative government. Normally, legislation is developed through a very thoughtful process, after long study by the officials in the bureaucracy. They finally come forward, after having looked at all the things I am talking about, with recommendations in all of these areas and with the effects of a bill. That just does not seem to have occurred this time, obviously, or all these things would have been looked at and addressed one way or another. This is a very serious charge.

When we were doing the justice committee in Toronto, we heard from a person who told us that basically this was also not occurring with the preparation of justice bills. Previously there had been vast public consultation, with officials from the bureaucracy looking at all aspects of a bill and then bringing it forward. This was not being done in the justice bills that were being so widely criticized by a vast majority of the witnesses. That was obviously why they were being so widely criticized: they had not gone through the proper preparation.

(1310)

I want to talk about the sixth area of concern. It is related to institutions. It may be more appropriate to have an aboriginal institution deal with charges against aboriginal governments and institutions. Most members who have been in the House for a few years realize that a number of bills have been passed recently that have very appropriately expanded the institutional operation of first nations, and they have created a number of first nations institutions to have them deal with new powers given to aboriginal people rather than existing institutions that may not be as sensitive or knowledgeable about the area. That is a whole area that has not been looked at and commented on.

There are other areas in justice development that of course need priority attention from the government. In my area, the Teslin Tlingit Council has been negotiating for years to get its justice system into place. It has evolved through land claims. As well, the Carcross Tagish First Nation is working on new family law that it needs support for.

I want to make it clear for those watching that the exemption that would be removed only allows it to be about discrimination that is caused by the Indian Act, so that aboriginal people on treaty land can continue, as they do about 40 times a year, to lodge complaints against the Human Rights Commission if it is for other human rights violations in their communities. This is just a narrow scope. Although the Indian Act is fairly large and pervasive, it is only the actions relevant to the Indian Act.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Nunavut, was explaining, this would not apply to self-governing first nations that no longer come under the Indian Act, because there would be no discrimination caused by the Indian Act.

As I said, I think this is a far larger debate than the media and some MPs think it might be, because of the great debate it brings up between collective and individual rights and the differences between the two societies. I think of the collective ceremonies of potlatches and sun dances, and I think of the family law being developed by the Carcross Tagish Band, where family relationships and who is responsible are much broader and different in first nations.

I think of first nations people not “owning” the land. What says that kind of system cannot work? I represented Canada in Mongolia recently. It was Mongolia's 800th anniversary. No one owns the land. Vast herds move around on unowned land. There are very successful producers. There is nothing to say that any type of society's laws, institutions or procedures cannot work or that any one is better than another, but I believe that in Canada we can come up with a made in Canada solution. We can compromise and work together to accomplish something that will work in a practical way for all of us.

I want to talk a bit about the history of the development of this exemption. This is not the first time it has been tried. In talking about that, I also want to show support for some of the changes I have recommended in the first part of my speech.

This has been brought forward a number of times since the Canadian Human Rights Act was implemented in 1977. In 1992, Bill C-108 was put forward but did not pass first reading. The second time was in the year 2000. There was a report called “Promoting Equality: A New Vision”. All the aboriginal groups at the time had asked for a repeal but thought a blanket repeal was inappropriate, and once again, they thought an interpretive clause was required for the very reasons I set out earlier. That supports one of the points I have made.

The third time it came up was under Bill C-7. The women, who were probably the most drastically affected by this, still brought up the question of collective rights. Bill C-7 did not go through, but it was a much larger bill so there were other elements that prevented it from getting through.

(1315)

The fourth time it came up was in a report in a special study on the repeal of section 67, entitled “A Matter of Rights” in 2005. Once again it hit the nail on the head when it said there should be an interpretive clause in order that individual claims, to be free from discrimination, are considered in light of legitimate collective interest. It also talked about the need for consultations which a number of us have already explained that are so sorely lacking. It recommended 18 to 30 months for implementation, not the 6 months in the bill or the 30 or 45 months that I was suggesting. It also talked about institutional adjustments, which support the six suggested areas that need improvement, study, additions or amendments that I spoke about earlier.

The report also talked about resources which was my very first point, so we are not taking this money from areas that are already in dire need in first nation communities: health, education and housing.

The fifth time it came up was in 2006 in a report entitled “Access to Justice and Indigenous Legal Traditions”. Once again the report suggested that there a multi-year plan to fully engage and meaningfully consult with first nations and aboriginal communities on the repeal of section 67 and again there was no consultation. It talked about a comprehensive multi-year plan and access to resources, and other points that I made earlier which would be needed to make this work at all.

If the bill goes into effect and there are no resources, obviously it will not work. Some might say that aboriginal women in remote areas could perhaps access legal aid to put their complaints forward to make it work or the court challenges program or the Law Reform Commission. Lo and behold, the government has cut all those programs either entirely or in part. Therefore, what type of resources is the poor aboriginal woman in some remote community going to use to engage in these new-found powers and abilities to protect herself?

The UN has also brought up the potential repeal of section 67 in 2004 by the special rapporteur, in 2006 by the human rights committee and in 2006 by the committee on economic, social and cultural rights. All were in favour of the repeal of section 67.

I want to talk about the reaction of various groups. The Native Women's Association of Canada and similarly the AFN said that this would be a disaster without consultation for the various reasons I have mentioned on numerous occasions already.

The AFN suggested the need to look at an aboriginal institution for the implementation in the aboriginal community. It talked about an interpretive position once again to safeguard the important collective rights while balancing the rights of the individual. It talked about resources, so we can see over and over again the six points I made at the beginning of my speech are being supported by all sorts of experts in other areas. The input and consultation, if it was done, was not taken into account in what has been presented to Parliament. It talked about how it would affect the housing shortages if resources were taken away to implement this law in order to train people and to have their officers working to defend them on claims under the bill. It talked about a minimum of 30 to 45 months for implementation which is exactly what I recommended earlier in my speech.

Other supporters of the repeal of section 67 were the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. In general, there has been editorial support for this in all regions of the country.

I would like to summarize the six serious points I have given with all sorts of backup from experts, from previous reports and from first nations consultations. We need the resources. We need to look at interpretive cause under this coordination of cultures. We need to look at consultation that should have been done long ago. We need to look at the timeframe to realistically implement this. We need to look at the potential impacts on aboriginal treaties and rights. We need to look at aboriginal institutions to possibly implement this.

(1320)

Finally, this is a much larger issue. We can support this and come up with a made in Canada solution, but we have to have a very sensitive and open discussion, and understanding among Canadians where collective rights are viewed with importance but come together with a practical Canadian solution so that this can work for everyone's benefit.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought out two points that I would like more information on. I asked my colleague from Nunavut about consultation, or the lack thereof, throughout this process and on this piece of legislation. Could the member comment on the groups and various agencies he has been in contact with and the concerns that have been raised over consultation or the lack thereof with moving this piece of legislation forward?

The other issue I would like the member to comment on, and he mentioned it twice through his presentation, pertains to the resources that are going to be needed by the various communities in order to build capacities to address this. I understand fully that these communities are not in a position that they can draw any moneys from their A-based budgets, and that they should be given the opportunity to have access to additional funds should this legislation go forward.

Is there any indication of where that would come from? Is there any indication of what kind of money we are talking about? What are some of the costs to the community that may arise by the passing of this legislation? Does this legislation do anything to help the communities deal with those types of challenges? Could my colleague please comment on those two areas?

(1325)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, on the first question of consultation, that is a very important point. Court cases after court cases have indicated, and fairly so, that when we are impacting first nations, aboriginal, Inuit and Métis people, we have to consult. Obviously, in a law such as this that has such a dramatic effect on their whole way of life, on their whole world view of life, we need to consult. Was this in any of the documents and in any of the government's speeches that this had been done?

The people most affected, some of the biggest stakeholders, the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada both basically said that this law would be a disaster without that consultation. The reason is that they would bring up in their consultation many of the points I brought up in my speech.

It is inconceivable in this day and age, with what we have been through with first nations in the last decade in reviewing them on a government-to-government relationship, that such an important bill and concept would be brought forward without consultation, especially a bill like this where they are generally supportive of the principle.

In relation to the member's second question on the cost, the Government of Canada would not survive a day if we did not fund our prosecutors, if we did not fund our lawyers to defend it, if we did not fund our policemen, or if we did not train all of these people to implement laws.

People do not understand that first nations do not have any money. They do not have the revenue generation that we do. Many of them have higher levels of unemployment, but they do not even have the tax base that we do. They only have government grants for a specific function that the government has given them.

What are we going to do? Are we going to tell them to break the law and take away money from housing to defend themselves because there are going to be a lot of cases here? This would not have come up if there were not a lot of cases that are going to come forward. There have been many instances. As I said, there are already 40 a year, the Indian Act being very pervasive. Imagine the number of cases relating to employment or the provision of its services or the provision of housing.

Look at scarce housing resources. The first nations have to give those to someone. Are they going to be charged a number of times? They are going to need lawyers. They are going to need to train their staff. All this costs money. As I said, they would be acting illegally if they took it from some other purse. I ask the government to please look at this and come up with some resources to go with this act, so it can be successfully implemented.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning consultation. The member made this one of the key elements, that is, the lack of consultation by the government, particularly with a group that is most affected by the piece of legislation being discussed.

It is reminiscent of what had happened, and on which we heard testimony just recently, on another government bill, Bill C-30, the alleged clean air act, where the AFN came before the committee and was asked directly by myself and others what level of consultation it had received. The government had made a whole series of presumptions about first nations involvement around the environment, particularly around carbon sinks and the use of massive tracts of land. The AFN had a longstanding dispute with the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative one. The element of consultation had been left off the table. The government just proceeded to go ahead with legislation and decision making before consulting.

Many Canadians watching this will be confused. The reason this is such a critical point is it has been proven time and time again in the courts, from coast to coast to coast in this country. First nations have gone to seek rights and due diligence from government, and the courts have interpreted our Constitution and our laws, and said that the government has an obligation to consult prior to making those decisions.

I know the member has a number of first nations in his riding. With respect to mining in particular, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which his government brought in, had no real basis for serious and concrete consultation, which led the Tahltan and the TRT, the Taku River Tlingit, and a number of other groups, to long litigation battles, seeking just the common decency of consultation.

Is it not time that we do a broad cast across a number of pieces of legislation, not just this badly designed one, but a series of them, because government is clearly not willing to listen, no matter which political side of the spectrum it is, to the courts, to the first nations people? Should we not truly engage in real consultation with the first nations people?

(1330)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague entirely. What is needed is basically a whole change in attitude by government on consultations with first nation people. We are moving into the modern world.

In my particular riding, we have signed land claim agreements in which consultation was mandatory on items that affect first nation people. To some extent, the Department of Indian Affairs understands this, but time and time again we have other departments that just move ahead and on occasion forget that there is a mandatory requirement to consult.

Some members are wondering why their bills do not go through, why there are problems, and why the opposition is against them. They would have a lot better defence for these bills had they done this required consultation with first nations and other groups in advance.

Let me just read what the Assembly of First Nations said on consultation about this particular act:

The Government of Canada has not consulted First Nations, even though this action was anticipated almost three decades ago. Now, the government intends to simply repeal this section without due regard to the unique legal context and development of associated capacity for First Nations relating to the CHRA.

I do not think I need to say any more.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-44. This is an important bill because it addresses an important aspect of first nations' organization and shared reality: their relationship to human rights and freedoms.

Any Quebecker who thinks about first nations cannot help but think about René Lévesque who, as we all know, was not only the founder of the sovereignty association movement, but was also a man with a very generous vision of our relationship with first nations.

When he was premier, René Lévesque introduced a motion in the National Assembly to recognize Quebec's 11 aboriginal nations as nations. The word “nation” implies recognition of a people's history, language, institutions, will to live, and territory. It implies that they deserve to be considered not just a society, a minority or a group, but a nation.

The term “nation” also implies self-determination. Self-determination is the right to decide one's own future, the right to decide one's own destiny, and the right to create one's own vision for progress.

We must support Bill C-44 in principle. This reminds me that a former Supreme Court justice, Justice La Forest, was given a mandate by Allan Rock or Anne McLellan. One of those former justice ministers chose him to oversee a working group on the modernization of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Justice La Forest came to two major conclusions. Like all New Brunswickers, he is very endearing.

Justice La Forest concluded that social condition should be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act as prohibited grounds for discrimination. As unbelievable as it sounds, social condition is not currently grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Eight provinces and territories have it. Quebec was the first to include it. Yet the federal government never updated the Canadian Human Rights Act by including social condition.

Since 1997, I have repeatedly tabled bills to ensure that this is done. Other members have done this as well. I know that in the other chamber, in the Senate, Senator Kinsella, who has become the Speaker of the Senate and is a professor specializing in human rights, has also tabled a bill to this effect.

Judge La Forest's second recommendation was to remove the exception made under section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the act would apply. All Quebec and Canadian citizens, no matter what their origin or position in society, whether or not they are a members of a first nation, are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

First, a distinction must be made. The Canadian Human Rights Act is not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is a constitutional document adopted in 1982. You will recall that this was a very unhappy time for Quebec because the charter was adopted without the agreement of the National Assembly.

(1335)

At the time, under both René Lévesque and Claude Ryan, everyone was well aware that this was no the way to treat one of the founding peoples of Canada, that is, Quebec, which had significant experience in the protection of human rights; in 1977, it instituted the Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which continues to this day to guarantee judicial, social and economic rights. It is considered to be one of the most thorough documents on human rights. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects individuals who receive the services of the federal government or in areas where it has jurisdiction, such as banking, national transportation, financial institutions, the RCMP and the federal government itself.

Anyone who believes they are the victim of discrimination by a federal institution, agency or office can invoke the Canadian Human Rights Act, which has significant repercussions for intergovernmental affairs.

It is a pleasure for me to note how well my caucus is served in intergovernmental affairs because the member for Trois-Rivières is our critic and looks after this file with sensitivity and wisdom.

The Canadian Human Rights Act lists 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination. I am going to mention them for everyone's benefit. They are: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion—regarding which the Supreme Court has handed down some landmark rulings—age, sex and sexual orientation. I was in this House when we amended the Canadian Human Rights Act. This was in response to court rulings and to representations from all the groups involved in the protection of major civil liberties. It was the then Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, who amended the Canadian Human Rights Act. Later on, he was appointed to the United Nations by the Liberals but, unfortunately, the Conservatives did not renew his mandate at the UN.

The Canadian Human Rights Act protects our fellow citizens who receive services from the federal government, or its agencies, against discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status—whether or not one is married; as we know, some very important rulings were made by the Supreme Court, including on custody and income—family status, disability and, what is more unusual, conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

When that act was passed, section 67 provided the following:

Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.

When we passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, why did we want to exclude the first nations from its scope, and particularly people who live on reserves? This was meant to be a transitional provision, because we wanted to negotiate with the first nations to prepare them to develop conciliation methods, to prepare them for the fact that complaints might be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and, ultimately, a notice to appear before the Human Rights Tribunal might be issued.

Section 67 was meant to be a transitional, temporary provision, not a permanent one. The various governments that have been in office have all failed in their responsibility to negotiate with the first nations.

(1340)

It is not the first time, as my colleague from Chambly just reminded me. He could give us countless examples, himself, with regard to employment insurance and the POWA, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment. Examples abound of governments that renege on their commitments.

The government did not negotiate to create any mechanisms suited to the first nations. We are talking here about areas such as culture, heritage, traditions and the justice system. How can we not think, for example, of what justice means to our aboriginal people?

As a matter of fact, the Law Reform Commission tabled an excellent report on the subject. The Conservatives have abolished that commission. Could we have ever thought that a government would be so mean-spirited as to abolish such an important consultative body? May I add that that body was chaired by the dean of the University of Ottawa law school, Nathalie Des Rosiers.

It was with astonishment that we realized that this government is not keen on doing intellectual work. It does not want to create situations where it would be confronted with its values and its vision, which is we know is a right-wing vision. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I am not saying that the Liberals are above reproach, but since coming into office, the Conservatives have proven that not only the economic right is alive and well, but also the social right. We had not seen that from a government in a long time.

How can we not be outraged, for example, by the fact that the government is planning to cut $2 billion, not from tax shelters or subsidies to oil companies, but from literacy programs, from Status of Women Canada and from programs aimed at helping those in need?

Coming back to Bill C-44, what is really sad about this bill is not the principle. We recognize that aboriginal nations are different—as I pointed out—in terms of justice. On that, the Law Commission of Canada pointed out that restitution is possible, and not merely restitution in the form of fines and imprisonment. When an offence is committed in an aboriginal community, people sit down together and figure out how restitution can be achieved. Restitution could involve the offender putting himself or herself at the direct service of the victim. There are all sorts of innovative and more interesting ways to look at justice than our conventional sentencing mechanisms.

We can surely agree, in 2007, that the specificity of aboriginal peoples cannot preclude offering impervious guarantees concerning human rights. We can no longer tolerate the notion of two categories of citizens: those who are protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act and can invoke it when discrimination occurs, and those who are excluded.

The Bloc Québécois agrees that section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be removed from the act, as Justice La Forest recommended.

However, there is one thing we do not understand. Our critics who sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development know what this is; we do not understand why there was no prior consultation with aboriginal groups and the first nations.

(1345)

It is true that the bill provides for a six month transition period as soon as section 67 is repealed. Nonetheless, that is not very much time considering the adjustments that will be necessary.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in Delgamuukw, in Mitchell and in so many other cases, reminded us that the federal government has a specific responsibility toward aboriginals: it is their trustee. When the charter was passed in 1982, section 35 recognized specific ancestral rights for the first nations stemming from the fact that they were the first inhabitants of this land. It is unacceptable that the federal government, in its capacity as trustee—as part of its fiduciary responsibilities—is not consulting the first nations.

Again, the Bloc Québécois does not have a problem with the principle of the matter. We agree that 30 years after the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed, it is conceivable, normal and desirable for the first nations to enjoy the same protection, same rights and the same constitutional guarantees. When discrimination occurs, they have to be able to lodge a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and ultimately call for a human rights tribunal, if necessary.

This is the federal government's responsibility as a trustee. Moreover, if the member for Abitibi were with us today, he would remind us of that fact. Our colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would do the same. If the federal government has one fiduciary responsibility, it is that it must never take action without first consulting extensively.

This is what is so sad about the current situation. No one in the first nations was consulted, be it their authorized spokesperson, Phil Fontaine, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, the women's groups or young people. We believe that this is not the way to do things.

Failing to consult these groups is a black mark on the federal government in its relations with the first nations. Obviously, it is not the only one. We know that this government has a very poor record when it comes to the first nations, especially on the issue of housing.

We know that the first nations are a young people. Demographically and statistically, they are undergoing great changes. They are a people with an extremely high birth rate. Young people make up a large segment of the aboriginal population. This reality raises the whole issue of equitable access to housing.

The government has a fiduciary responsibility to the first nations. Sadly, it is doing a very poor job of living up to its responsibilities and has not put sufficient resources for housing on the table.

Since I see that my time is almost up, I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-44. It was in favour when Justice La Forest issued his recommendations in 2002. We believe that human rights and freedoms should apply equally to first nations people living on reserves and people living throughout Canada and Quebec. Nevertheless, it saddens us that the first nations were not consulted. We hope the government will learn its lesson and will not introduce other legislation without holding consultations.

(1350)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I listened to his comments with interest.

Last month, my colleague and I were in Africa together where we visited three of the poorest countries in the world: Benin, Burkina Faso and Mali. We took part, with local parliamentarians, in seminars chaired by the Speaker of the House. We travelled together in an effort to support democratic development in Africa.

I would like, if I may, to put three short questions to my colleague. Firstly, I noted that Conservative members have not said a word about that today. Does it mean that they have absolutely no interest in this issue? Does my colleague believe that such is the case?

Secondly, I know that the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended a transition period so that aboriginal communities would have time to adapt to the change and to interpret the Human Rights Act. Does he agree that there should be a transition period?

Thirdly, does he think that the government should try to meet the actual needs of aboriginal communities in terms of education, jobs, poverty, drinking water and health? Does he agree with me that not honouring the Kelowna accord is a sad a terrible thing? I am very disappointed about that. Does he agree with me on that?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. First, I too recall with great pleasure our trip to Benin, Mali and Burkina Faso to do training in the democratic practices that must form part of a parliamentary democracy. I have very fond memories of that trip and I am impatiently awaiting his photographs.

Second, of course, my colleague is entirely correct. It is disturbing to see how things are being done. Once again, the issue here is not the principle. However, it would have been worthwhile to hold consultations with the aboriginal peoples. Yes, I think that the transition period provided for in the bill is inadequate, considering what the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended. And yes, it is unfortunate that the Kelowna accord, to which $5 billion had been allocated, if memory serves me, has been abandoned.

I know that our critic, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, has brought a lot of pressure to bear regarding this. I know that he is also following the work being done by the United Nations on a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples very closely.

So obviously this government does not have the best track record when it comes to respect for the rights of the first nations.

(1355)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my hon. colleague from the Bloc. Three parties have been calling for more consultation on this bill or they have been saying that the consultation has been inadequate. I agree completely with that. For parliamentarians to understand the complexity of the changes that this will require in a lot of the practices of first nations across the country, this can only be gleaned through proper consultation. It is complex. It fits with many of the practices and customs.

If we move this bill along, how does the member think we will be able to achieve any kind of goals of consultation within a committee process?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his question. I would repeat: the Bloc is greatly saddened by the fact that this bill has been brought before us so hastily.

Our colleague is correct to point out that the fiduciary duty that the federal government has to the first nations would have called for them be consulted. I think that the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations has expressed his disappointment in this regard. Once again, I think that the issue is not the principle of the bill, it is the fact that there have been no consultations. If the bill is adopted, there will be repercussions if the first nations are not allowed sufficient time. When a government behaves too stubbornly, when it is unduly obstinate, I think that this is never in the interests of our fellow citizens.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hochelaga has really echoed a number of the concerns that have been brought forward to the floor with regard to the implementation time and the transition period.

We are looking at the six month period for transition with the bill as put forward by the government. However, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has recommended an 18 to 30 month transition period, so that is obviously of concern. A lack of consultation is another concern.

One concern my colleague did not address was the cost. These aboriginal communities are those least able to accommodate this type of change. Within their A based budgets, within their annual operating budgets, I cannot see them taking money from an important aspect of running their communities such as housing, social program or whatever it might be. That money has to come from somewhere and it could be substantive.

Perhaps my colleague could make a comment on that. Will there will be costs? What kinds of costs will there be? Where should the money come from?

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I am sorry, but the hon. member for Hochelaga will have to respond to the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso when we return to this bill.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Rideau Canal

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that I am speaking about the Rideau Canal on Heritage Day.

Stretching from Ottawa to Kingston, the canal opened 175 years ago. It encompasses many communities, all with unique heritage: Seeleys Bay, Newboro, Westport, Portland, Perth, Rideau Ferry, Smiths Falls, Merrickville, Burritts Rapids, Kemptville and Manotick.

The canal was built to move troops and supplies from Montreal to the Great Lakes without fear of attack by Americans along the St. Lawrence River.

Lieutenant Colonel John By set up camp just a few hundred metres from where I stand today to begin this remarkable project.

Over the years, this oldest continuously operating canal of its type has become a major tourist attraction. It is a heritage river, a national historic site and, hopefully, will soon be a world heritage site.

I encourage everyone to learn more by searching on the Internet for the Rideau Canal and visiting all the sites listed there.

* * *

(1400)

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the poppy eradication program that just began in southern Afghanistan by the U.S. and the U.K. will be an unmitigated disaster that will dramatically increase the threat against our troops. Destroying this crop removes the only source of income for poor Afghan farmers, will undo years of development work and will drive the population toward the Taliban.

Instead of being silent, why has the Prime Minister not picked up the phone and called President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to tell them to stop this colossal blunder? Why does our government not lead an effort to work with the Afghans to use the poppy crops for the production of pharmaceutical grade narcotics that are desperately needed in developing countries? Why does the government not support this plan that will protect our troops, provide Afghan farmers with money to feed their families, Afghanistan with a value-added industry, and the developing world with the medications they desperately need?

The Conservative government must speak out against this quietly unfolding disaster and do it now.

* * *

[Translation]

Alexandre Morin

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, last week, any mother or father of a teenager would have empathized with the family of Sillery's Alexandre Morin.

Sixteen-year-old Alexandre Morin, an athlete, did not come back from a routine run last Wednesday during a snowstorm. Emergency personnel and hundreds of volunteers helped search for the teenager. These people gave generously of their time and energy as they searched competently, methodically and patiently, fervently hoping to find Alexandre alive.

Saturday morning, they learned that Alexandre had died. He was found buried under the snow at the bottom of a cliff.

The Bloc Québécois and I would like to offer our sincere condolences to his tragically bereaved parents, as well as to his friends and the volunteers.

We would like to express our admiration for the solidarity shown by all of those who tried to save Alexandre and who sought to console his family and friends.

* * *

[English]

Passport Offices

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, as in many other rural areas of Canada, constituents in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan are experiencing long delays in the processing of their passport requests. The nearest passport office is in Victoria which serves all of the residents of Vancouver Island.

One constituent, a senior, told me that he had arrived at 7 a.m. to line up for the day and was turned away when he reached the front of the line at 3:30 p.m.

Compared to southern Ontario, British Columbia is woefully underserved by passport offices, with only four in British Columbia, one in Victoria and three in the greater Vancouver area. In comparison, there are 13 passport offices in southern Ontario.

Unlike people in southern Ontario, British Columbians face geographic barriers, including mountains and ferry crossings, to visit their passport office. If it is too busy, there is no other option, unlike people in southern Ontario.

British Columbia is rapidly growing, especially in an area like the Cowichan Valley with a population that increases dramatically from year to year. It is time the minister opened a passport office to serve central Vancouver Island.

* * *

Canada Winter Games

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in less than a week's time, Canadians will discover true northern hospitality when Whitehorse plays host to future Olympians and the Canada Winter Games.

As the member of Parliament for Yukon, I am thrilled that my riding will be home to Canada's largest sporting event this year. It is also the first time that a community north of the 60th parallel will showcase a sporting event this big.

As Canadians watch for the first time, many will witness traditional Inuit and Dene games in sports as challenging as they are fascinating, sports such as the knuckle hop, the head pull and the one foot high kick. There will be stick gambling, swing kicks, the snow snake, moose skin ball and the pole push.

Canadians will also discover northern culture with exhibits from artists, dancers and musicians, the finest of the north, for all to enjoy during an incredible 14 days and nights in Whitehorse. I urge all Canadians to tune in on their television.

Let the games begin.

Massi cho, merci, gunalchish.

* * *

Terrorism

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the actions of terrorists who blew up the train in northern India killing at least 66 innocent people. These terrorists who seek to kill and to destroy must be brought to justice.

As Canadians, we condemn this act of terrorism and the loss of human life. I wish to extend condolences to the families of the victims. I trust the governments of India and Pakistan will conduct a full investigation.

This attack is an obvious attempt to undermine the improving relationship between the neighbouring countries. This train, known as the Samjhauta Express, the friendship train, is seen as a symbol of the budding peace process.

In this globalized age, there is an increased danger of transnational elements who have the ability to transport terrorism.

By now it must be obvious to all parties that we must remain vigilant and continue to safeguard our security and protect our citizens.

* * *

(1405)

[Translation]

Jutra Awards

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the ninth annual Jutra awards gala was held yesterday in Montreal. Every year, these awards showcase the creations of Quebec's film industry.

Our government wishes to congratulate the artists working in Quebec's film industry for their outstanding contribution to the development of Canadian cinema and its presence around the world. This year, a number of feature films were nominated in various categories.

The Government of Canada salutes all of the winners honoured during yesterday evening's ceremony, especially the artists who created Congorama, which took home the Jutra for best picture of 2006.

We are proud of Quebec's film industry and we hope it will continue to flourish as it showcases our country's creative talent and cultural diversity at home and around the world.

Once again, congratulations to all of the artists and winners honoured last night at the Jutra awards.

* * *

Older Workers

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservative government says, not all workers over 55 can find new employment after the plant they worked at has closed.

We have a delegation of such workers on Parliament Hill today. In December 2005, the Olymel plant in Magog shut down. Seventy out of the 450 employees were over 55. All have undergone retraining over several months. Yet, 48 of these 70 have been unable to find new jobs, for lack of job offers. That is the reality.

There are textile factories in Cowansville and Magog where more than one third of the workers are 55 and over. Imagine what would happen to them if these factories were to shut down.

* * *

[English]

Terrorism

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Coalition Against Terror called on all MPs to support the extension of two critical anti-terrorism measures. They state:

We are deeply dismayed that Canadian MPs are talking about significantly diminishing Canada's capacity for fighting terrorism by removing critical provisions from Canada's Anti-terrorism Act.

We urge all MPs to approach this vote with the security of Canadians in mind.

They go on to state, “We hope that federal MPs will join fellow Liberals, such as the members for Mount Royal, Etobicoke North and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, in supporting such an extension”.

Our government is concerned with maintaining the safety and security of all Canadians. It is unfortunate that the Liberal leader has stated his opposition to extending these measures despite the advice of his colleagues. Perhaps he will heed the advice of those Canadian victims of terror.

* * *

Heritage

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are marking Heritage Day, a national celebration created by the Heritage Canada Foundation and observed on the third Monday of every February.

Heritage Day brings attention to some of the neighbourhoods and landscapes that reflect Canada's rich cultural heritage, for instance, in urban places like The Main in Montreal, or the Byward Market and St. Brigid's Roman Catholic Church in Ottawa—Vanier, the riding I have the honour of representing, or in rural places like Tilting on Fogo Island in Newfoundland, and the Ukrainian Four Corner Settlement in Gardenton, Manitoba.

In response to the government's cancellation this past September of the commercial heritage properties incentive fund, the Heritage Canada Foundation and its partners are calling for federal financial incentives for rehabilitation that would help Canadians protect their built heritage landmarks instead of seeing them end up as landfill.

* * *

(1410)

Terrorism

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Air-India Victims Families Association is asking the Liberals to support their own legislation. They demand that Parliament extend the Anti-terrorism Act, that the Liberals stop their political gamesmanship and that the Liberals once again support the Anti-terrorism Act for another three years.

The victims say:

We believe that Prime Minister...is doing the right thing for the security of Canadians by attempting to extend this act.

If Parliament decides not to grant an extension to the Anti-terrorism Act, [we worry] that the federal government will lack the teeth to catch suspected terrorists and stop future attacks. This will also seriously impact the ongoing Air India investigation”.

We speak from first hand experience that Canada is not immune from terrorist attacks.

If the Liberals will not listen to the government, will they respond to a collective of over 200 victims family members who lost 329 loved ones in an act of terror?

* * *

Automobile Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, last week, in what has become an all too common occurrence in the auto sector, DaimlerChrysler announced massive job cuts. These layoffs will affect thousands of workers and their families, further impacting an already devastated sector and community.

The Windsor region now has the highest unemployment rate of any major region in Canada and faces a very uncertain future.

Sadly, when we abandoned the auto pact we started to see jobs disappear. Now, for the first time in 18 years, Canada has an auto trade deficit and there is a real possibility that we could be on the verge of losing our auto sector.

Despite this possibility and the disappearance of more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs in both Ontario and Quebec in the last two years, there does not seem to be any sense of urgency on the part of the Conservative government.

Instead of pursuing free trade with such low cost countries as South Korea, the federal government should be negotiating sectoral trade deals.

I call on the government to live up to its rhetoric of action and do what the previous Liberal government failed to do: Implement an industrial strategy to address the problems facing the automotive sector.

* * *

[Translation]

Jutra Awards

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, at the Jutra awards gala last night, the Outaouais region was in the limelight, which thoroughly pleased my hon. colleague from Hull—Aylmer. Winning the award confirmed the triumph of Congorama , a film written for screen and directed by Philippe Falardeau.

Nominated in six categories, Mr. Falardeau's film eventually took away five Jutra awards. Best film, best director, best screenplay, all achievements Mr. Falardeau can be proud of today. Clearly, he knows how to pick his cast, with two of members of the cast taking home best actor and best supporting actor respectively.

On the downside, demerit points ought to be given to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The minister reminded us of a certain Kim Campbell when she stated that this evening honouring Quebec cinema was not an appropriate time to discuss the funding crisis it is facing, a crisis for which she is directly responsible. Sadly, one always wonders whether she has seen any of the nominated films.

* * *

Jutra Awards

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, cinema, with its many forms of expression, represents a fundamental affirmation of Quebec's cultural identity. It allows us to organize ourselves and develop as a people. It is the essential aspect of our feeling of belonging to a shared homeland.

An event last night served as a wonderful reminder of this, as members of the Quebec film family came together to underscore the excellence of its work, for the Jutra tribute awards. The Bloc Québécois would like to heartily commend the creative genius of those artists and artisans who were honoured at the gala.

The gala was also the perfect opportunity for a few articulate individuals to denounce the inaction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which has been a major obstacle to the development of Quebec cinema.

However, Pierre Curzi made an especially relevant comment and I would like to repeat his message here today. He said that, for a society to fulfill itself, it must be a reflection of the nation, a reflection of Quebec—proud, free and sovereign.

* * *

[English]

East Coast Music Awards

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, Nova Scotia, more specifically Halifax, was the scene of the 19th annual East Coast Music Awards.

For the benefit of the foreign affairs and ACOA minister, it took place in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia was one of the first provinces in Canada and our capital is Halifax, not Toronto.

The East Coast Music Awards honour some of the country's most talented individuals who just happen to come from the great east coast.

There is no place like the east coast as a hotbed of musical talent and diverse is the word that best describes the leading winners at Sunday night's award show as country singer, George Canyon; traditional artist, JP Cormier; and the alternative rock bands, In-Flight Safety and the great Joel Plaskett Emergency, each took home three awards.

The night also paid tribute to three icons of the east coast scene: Dutchie Mason, the prime minister of the blues; Denny Doherty and our good friend, John Allan Cameron, all who were lost this last year, and, over the weekend, Dermot O'Reilly of Ryan's Fancy who also passed away.

Though Satan won no prizes, Halifax had a devilishly good time recognizing the greatest array of musical talent on this planet.

* * *

(1415)

Anti-terrorism Act

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to extending the two anti-terrorism measures his own government brought in. He is still having trouble picking priorities.

A long list of Liberals, such as Anne McLellan, John Manley, and the Liberal human rights critic, the member for Mount Royal, all say that preventive arrests and investigative hearings are important tools for law enforcement and prosecutors.

Steve Sullivan, president of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime said, “If these provisions are not extended and more Canadians are murdered by terrorists, someone will have to explain to them why Canada did not do everything we could to prevent such an attack. Before you vote on this issue in Parliament, I urge you to think about how you will answer that question”.

I urge the Leader of the Opposition to rethink his decision and make the safety of Canadians a top priority.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[English]

Government Accountability

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, more than 60 days have gone by since the accountability act received royal assent, but the Prime Minister has still not acted to deliver on its key provisions: restrictions on lobbying, not yet in force; conflicts of interest rules, not yet in force; a public appointments commission, promised, but nowhere to be seen. We have here on accountability the illusion of action, but Canadians want something real.

Why is the Prime Minister failing to deliver on his party's number one election promise?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the accountability act received royal asset just before Christmas. The government and the President of the Treasury Board have been moving quickly to implement its provisions. We hope to have most of them in force by around April 1.

I would say that this is certainly a positive change on behalf of the Liberal Party, which fought this for nine months, which dragged it out, which resisted a public appointments commission and which, of course, delayed passage of the Federal Accountability Act to make sure that new fundraising limits would not apply in the last fiscal year.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister well knows we tried to improve the legislation consistently.

We want to know why, if it was such a priority, the government cannot get it enacted until April 1. If accountability was such a priority, if it was so important, will the Prime Minister explain why he continues to drag his feet on public appointments, on the lobbying ban? Why is he still dragging his feet?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our government is very proud of the Federal Accountability Act. Indeed, I had an opportunity to speak with the NDP member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre, whom I briefed on the issue. He assures me he is concerned about the act coming into force. I have indicated to him that I look forward to hearing input from him.

We would be proud to sit down with members of the Liberal caucus to actually show them how the implementation is occurring. We are very proud of what is happening, as opposed to the delaying and foot dragging that occurred on the other side.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has still not acted on several key provisions of the federal accountability act, even though it received royal assent more than 60 days ago. We have seen no restriction on lobbying. We have seen no rules concerning conflict of interest. The Prime Minister delivers great speeches, but he does not deliver the goods.

When will the government honour its commitments in terms of accountability?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, passing the federal accountability act has been a major priority for this government. We are proud of our work.

It is the Liberal Party that was opposed to passing these measures, most of which will take effect beginning April 1. It has not happened sooner because the Liberal Party opposed this legislation for nine months. This is quite a change. Now the Liberals want to support accountability. We already do.

* * *

(1420)

Justice

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, the Conservatives made ideological cuts to certain programs, such as the volunteer support program, the court challenges program and the literacy program. Now, the Prime Minister wants to once again impose his right wing ideology by appointing only judges who share his philosophy of social repression.

Could the Prime Minister tell us which of our rights judges will stop defending? Those of women, or those of minorities?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this is a bunch of nonsense. The change we made is to put police officers on the judicial advisory committee.

I want to know what the Liberals' problem is with police officers. They started off the beginning of last week wanting to take away the tools that police officers need and want under the Anti-terrorism Act. Then they spent the rest of the week complaining about police officers on the judicial advisory committee.

That is the difference between us: the Liberals keep going after police; we will keep going after criminals.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the decision to impose his ideology on the judicial appointment process goes far beyond criminal justice. The Conservatives are clearly opposed to the rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter.

The Prime Minister feels that we are granting too many rights to victims of discrimination, to minorities and to women.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to rise in this House and say loud and clear that he supports equality for women and free choice?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals always get it wrong. They always go after the wrong target. When they hear there is a problem with guns, they want to go after duck hunters. If there is a problem with crime, they want to go after police officers. I have actually warned my colleague, the Minister of Health that when they start talking about health services in this country, my guess is they will want to crack down on nurses.

* * *

[Translation]

Judicial Appointments

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, it is now abundantly clear that the Prime Minister wishes to meddle in the judicial appointment process in order to ensure that the judiciary is a reflection of himself and shares his values and ideas. This conduct threatens the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen to reason and suspend his decision to meddle in the judicial appointment process?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government made one change to a judicial appointment advisory committee. This government ensured that, in future, there will be a more inclusive representation with the participation of groups such as the police and victims. We believe that it is important that these perspectives be included in the process.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion urging the Prime Minister to suspend his decision with regard to the composition of the judicial appointment committee so that the Standing Committee on Justice could hear witnesses and debate the issue.

Will the Prime Minister listen to the voice of the majority and allow the Standing Committee on Justice to make recommendations to him on the judicial appointment process?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government is responsible for having a judicial appointment process.

This government has taken action and assumed its responsibilities. We do not intend to have advisory committees that are less inclusive than at present.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the statements by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, against the government's decision to steer judicial appointments, we had the negative comments by former Chief Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé and former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer.

In light of these comments from great legal minds, would the Prime Minister not be better advised to defer his plan and hold consultations with the judiciary, the provincial bar associations and various experts on legal and institutional matters, instead of diving head first into a ridiculous plan to select judges in his own image?

(1425)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I read with interest the comments by the former chief justice of the Supreme Court. He is in favour of committees that have no representation from the non legal community. That was not the process, even in the former Liberal government. We believe there should be representatives from outside the legal community, in order to have more inclusive representation.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer said that the Prime Minister was going down the wrong path by wanting to change the appointment process, which affects judicial independence.

Should the Prime Minister not return to the path of common sense and not use judges to make up for his inability to get his right-wing legislative agenda through?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the government, the executive, to have a judicial appointment process. It makes a whole lot of sense for victims and the police to be represented. It is the Bloc ideology that opposes these measures.

* * *

[English]

Foreign Credentials

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, by not recognizing its own credentials of new Canadians, the government is treating new immigrants like second class citizens. It is failing the new Canadians in our country because it does not allow them to use the skills, the talents, the experience and the credentials that they have brought with them.

Last year the Conservatives said that they would come up with $18 million and they would create offices to help sort this out so people could use the skills they brought to the country to help build Canada, but that simply has not happened.

Why does the Prime Minister want to let that prosperity gap continue to grow, leaving more and more new Canadians, hard-working immigrants behind? Why will he not take action as he promised to do?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the leader of the New Democratic Party, that this is a very serious matter. We cannot afford to have the foreign credentials of new Canadians not properly used. It is a tragedy for those people and a loss for our country.

That is why the government in the last budget set aside funds to create a new foreign credentials recognition process for the federal government. Because this matter overlaps jurisdiction of the provinces, we have been consulting carefully with them to ensure the new agency is effective. We will have an announcement on that very shortly.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, there is so much that could be done by the federal government itself, if it could just sort out the relationships between the offices that give the visas and points to these immigrants and the federal departments that try to connect up people with jobs. Then we would not have so many people living in poverty, earning minimum wage, driving cabs when they are doctors and working in restaurants when they are engineers.

The Conference Board of Canada has shown that there are half a million Canadians in this category and that they could be earning $5 billion more of revenue, lifting all kinds of families out of poverty.

Where is the $18 million that was promised? Where are these offices? All the government does is talk. We want to see some action for the new Canadians.

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is right when he identifies the losses that are occurring to the country because of this problem. He is not correct when he suggests that this problem could be totally resolved by the federal government acting itself. He should know, and all members of the House should know, that many professional and other credentials are recognized at the provincial level, not at the federal level. This is why we are coming up with something that will work well with the provinces to achieve these objectives.

The leader of the NDP has been a patient man for many years. If he waits just a little while longer, he will get a promising announcement in this regard.

* * *

Lobbyists

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, like the report from the Prime Minister's special adviser to the Middle East, the Conservatives' promised action on lobbyists seems to be lost.

The Federal Accountability Act requires lobbyists to disclose their activities and prohibits public office holders from lobbying the government when they leave. Yet two months after the act passed, the government has done nothing. The act still waits to be brought into force.

Could the Prime Minister explain his motives in delaying the enactment of the bill when he was once so anxious to see it passed? Why is he stalling on his biggest promise?

(1430)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, for nine months that member and his party stalled the legislation to ensure that it did not come into effect when their leadership convention was going on. They simply did not want the rules to apply.

When I became President of the Treasury Board a short while ago, I was impressed at the progress my predecessor had made on the file, and we are moving in that direction. My mandate is to implement the act, not to stall it.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives had a year to get ready and they did nothing, and perhaps this is why.

Lobbyists like David Salvatore and Kevin MacIntosh, who recently worked for ministers, have even been allowed to lobby their former bosses. In fact, last week Kevin MacIntosh, the justice minister's former executive assistant, registered to lobby over a dozen departments, including the PMO and justice, on behalf of 12 Canadian firms.

When did the justice minister stop sharing an Ottawa apartment with Mr. MacIntosh? Does he still have any business ties to him, including property ownership? How many times has he met his former roommate, turned super lobbyist, since the act passed?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I see the member has moved on from trying to destroy the Canadian economy by shutting down economic growth to now making those kind of scurrilous accusations. That is the type of member he is.

Other members in the House are concerned about the issue of lobbyists. For example, I met with the member for Winnipeg Centre to explain where the government was going on that issue. I am prepared to sit down with other members. If they wish to talk about it in a rational, reasonable way, I am prepared to discuss that as well.

* * *

Government Appointments

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in the last election the Conservatives deceived Canadians when they promised to be as pure as the driven snow. That was before they made over 50 partisan appointments.

Could the Prime Minister explain why, then, he named the Mississauga—Streetsville Conservative candidate, Raminder Gill, as a citizenship judge and why did Mr. Gill not have to go through the normal screening process?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as all members of the House know, the appointments that we have made are all very qualified, including those who have been made to that board. In fact, the chief official on that board, who was responsible for screening, told the committee of Parliament that the individual in question was indeed qualified to do that job.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.):

What he did not say, Mr. Speaker, and he said so to the media, is in actual fact that gentleman never appeared before the board in order to be screened.

We are still waiting for the Conservatives to keep their promise to create an appointments commission and establish criteria to ensure all appointments are non-partisan and based on merit. We are also waiting for the Federal Accountability Act to be brought into force.

The government will not explain Mr. Gill's appointment. Could it explain the appointment of former Alliance candidate, Kerry-Lynne Findlay? Can it justify appointing such a neo-Conservative ideologue to the Human Rights Commission?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, all appointments are very qualified. We did attempt to put in place a public appointments commission, with the person in charge to be one of the most qualified and respected individuals in the country. Unfortunately, the members of the opposition united to dismantle the reputation of that man. As a result, that has been delayed. Otherwise that process would have been in place already.

The difference is, under the Liberal Party we saw appointments like Allan Rock, Karen Kraft Sloan, John Harvard, Yvon Charbonneau, Sophia Leung and a series other former MPs who were given going away parties, including some fellow name Gagliano to Denmark.

* * *

[Translation]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Tony Blair's adviser, Nicholas Stern, met with David Suzuki today, and the two joined forces to remind the government that environmental issues have major economic implications in addition to environmental and social implications.

How many warnings from international experts does it take for the Minister of the Environment to open his eyes and understand that he must set precise, significant greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets immediately?

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government does not need warnings from environmental leaders. We are taking action. The only reason is that we are the first government in Canada's history to say it is ready to bring in regulations to reduce greenhouse gases and improve air quality. That is our priority. We on this side of the House are taking action.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, setting precise reduction targets is the prerequisite for setting up a carbon exchange.

Will the Minister of the Environment acknowledge that the carbon exchange must be established in Montreal because that is where derivatives are now being traded?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as I said last week to my colleague from Montreal, I have already met with representatives of the Montreal Exchange. I have listened to what they have to say. Of course, some of them want it to be in Montreal and others want it to be in Toronto. If I were to ask my colleague, the Minister of Labour, he might suggest Jonquière or Alma. We are in the process of making a decision. More information will be supplied as soon as possible.

* * *

National Defence

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the army refuses to provide medical treatment to reservists who fought in Bosnia and who are suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. Simon Boies, a member of the Hull Regiment, is one of them and he wants to remind the Prime Minister of the commitment he made in November, when he said that his government would not treat our soldiers the way they were treated in the past, but that it would treat them properly upon their return from missions.

How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that the army is not able to properly care for its reservists? After all, he made a commitment in that regard.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We are spending $352 million more this year than last year on behalf of veterans affairs. We have opened a number of clinics across the country.

We are working very closely with DND to recognize symptoms very early so treatment can begin earlier. The health of the soldiers is the most import factor, no question about that.

* * *

[Translation]

Canadian Television Fund

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, cable distributor Shaw has suspended its contributions to the Canadian Television Fund. Shaw is demanding guarantees that changes will be made to the fund before it resumes making payments.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage remind Shaw that no guarantees can be offered as long as it refuses to meet one of the conditions of its licence, which is to pay its dues to the Canadian Television Fund?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to Canadian content.

Last week, I asked Vidéotron and Shaw to resume their payments. I am happy that Vidéotron has resumed payments. Shaw has indicated that it is willing to work with the CRTC and the government to improve the system.

I am happy that all the parties are working together to make the system better.

* * *

[English]

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of how Conservatives waste taxpayer dollars.

This past July the former human resources minister went to Winnipeg to present a fake $100 child benefit cheque. Her flight alone cost 20 times the monthly child care benefit. Now we learn that she exceeds the Juno joyriding heritage minister for her love of limousine travel.

While on a junket, she spent $750 on limousine rides, almost eight times the worth of her so-called child care benefit. The cheque was fake; her expenses were not. How can she justify them to Canadian parents who she has shortchanged?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, going to Winnipeg to make the announcement was part of our campaign to ensure that all parents who were eligible for the universal child care benefit were aware that it had been launched and how they could apply for it.

All my expenses were perfectly within the guidelines.

(1440)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, back home we would say that the bottom is gone right out of her.

The same minister blew another $800 on limousine service to a Confederation Club luncheon on April 20. Last March she wasted $1,300 on airfare and, yes, another limo ride to promote the student summer job program. Some promo, this is the same program her government slashed by $55 million, eliminating 25,000 student jobs.

Why do Conservatives value limo rides more than they value Canadian students and Canadian parents?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again, all my expenses were completely within the guidelines for ministerial expenses.

However, there is a question I would like to ask. Why are those members so concerned about those expenses, which they are comparing to the universal child care benefit, when it was their leader who said that he would take away the universal child care benefit?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that is not all. To arrive in style at a country fair last September, the very same minister rented yet another limo, spending $862 so she could take in the sights for four hours.

The minister spent more on one four hour limo ride than her Conservative government gives to parents in one year. How does she justify that?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, where I live and where I travel there is often very limited access to public transit. Where I live there is no public transit. We have a choice of a taxi drive. That is it. We do not have access to airplanes as they do in Montreal.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, a taxi costs $3 per kilometre.

On September 7, 2006, just before she went to a festival, she made an announcement in Toronto about social housing. Again, she spent $1,000 of taxpayers' money on limousines for two days and $300 to go from Pearson Airport to downtown Toronto.

How can this government justify the image of injustice projected by this waste of public funds?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the difference between our government and the previous government is the use of Challenger jets.

[English]

The biggest difference is that every time the Liberal ministers wanted to go anywhere, home for the weekend or otherwise, they were not getting into a car. They were getting on a Challenger jet for the occasion.

In fact, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie had no trouble having the Challenger fly empty to Montreal to pick her up for a cabinet meeting, when there is a commercial flight maybe every hour. That is the real difference.

* * *

Air-India Inquiry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today the head of the Air-India inquiry is threatening to shut down the investigation. Can the Prime Minister respond to former Supreme Court Justice John Major's statement that he is receiving heavily censored documents and this practice will seriously hurt the progress of the inquiry?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised at today's story. Let me be clear. As I have instructed, it is my understanding that Justice Major has been given, unedited, all documents that related to the Air-India inquiry.

What is at issue in about 10% of the cases is a dispute about what, by law, can and cannot be made public. I have instructed my national security adviser to meet with people in the various departments to impose a non-restrictive interpretation of the law and to expedite resolution of this dispute as quickly as possible.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has refused the NDP request to set a time for a debate and a vote on whether or not to extend the mission in Afghanistan beyond 2009. Documents I have obtained through access to information show that the Chief of the Defence Staff is already way ahead of the government. The CDS has detailed plans going until 2011 for deployments.

Will the minister tell the members of the Canadian Forces and their families what General Hillier has planned for them?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question a number of times. The member again is confusing the military internal plan, which is based upon the Afghanistan compact, and government direction. If she reads the plan in detail, she will notice that the military acknowledge that they are committed to the end of February 2009. However, they plan beyond those dates because the Afghan compact goes until 2011.

(1445)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the government needs to come clean on this. Will the Royal Canadian Regiment be returned in February 2010? Will the PPCLI be returning in August 2009 for their third or fourth rotation? Will the Van Doos return for their third rotation in August 2010 as General Hillier's planning documents indicate?

It is hard to see where civilian oversight is taking place at DND. How can the military plan rotations that Parliament has not approved?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government has said that we are committed to the end of February 2009. No further decision has been made. The government, when it finds it appropriate, will make the decision on what happens if and when the events occur after 2009.

* * *

Child Care

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the government promised a child care program that was supposed to give parents some choice, but in over 12 months it has failed to deliver even one new child care space.

My municipal government has just reported a shortage of 9,000 spaces, and it is the same across the country. If parents in my constituency need a child care space, what choice is the government giving them?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this new government did of course deliver the universal child care benefit within five months of coming to power.

We did commit to creating spaces through the child care spaces initiative, starting in 2007-08, but I point to a quote from the former deputy prime minister, Sheila Copps, who said, “The last agreement saw some provinces rake in millions without creating one day-care space”. She was speaking of her own government.

What hypocrisy.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.):

Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, the government continues to boast about its measly $100 per month cheque, but parents are now receiving the notice of taxes due on this money. Single parents will have to pay the highest rate.

The former minister spent $750 on a limousine to deliver the first cheque, but now it is tax time and the government has come collecting. Will the current minister be spending hundreds of dollars on limousines to collect the tax from the Winnipeg family that received the initial cheque?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member should really direct that question to her own leader. It is her leader who said he would take back 100% of the universal child care benefit, something that today goes to 1.4 million families on behalf of 1.9 million children, for $10 billion over the next five years.

That is something the leader of the Liberal Party said he would take away from Canadian families. Shame on him.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, while parents are receiving a notice of taxable income as a result of the Conservative plan, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development is announcing virtually nothing for families.

Parents are still waiting for the child care spaces promised by the Conservative government, but nothing has been delivered. Another promise broken by this government.

For the umpteenth time, can the minister tell us where these new child care spaces are that he promised in 2005? Where are they?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out again that according to the deputy prime minister of the old Liberal government their party did not create one space in 13 years.

I say to the member again that we did make a commitment in 2007-08 to start delivering on these spaces. That of course will come on top of the $10 billion that will go to families over the next five years through the universal child care benefit.

We are delivering choice to Canadians, something the leader of the Liberal Party says he will take away from Canadian families. The Liberals should be embarrassed.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear. The government has not managed to give even one additional child care space to Canadian families.

Parents who need child care in Atlantic Canada and across the country must place their names on waiting lists for their child to have a space in daycare. They have no choice, because there are no spaces available. Some child care services even report that the situation is getting worse.

Will the minister admit that his government has made the situation worse for Canadian families? I would like to hear him admit it, once and for all.

(1450)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what makes it worse is that the leader of the Liberal Party will go to 1.4 million families and say to them, “We are going to take away your choice in child care”. It is the Liberal way: our way or the highway.

This government will not put up with that. That is why we are here to support Canadian families with $10 billion over the next five years. We are delivering for Canadian families.

* * *

[Translation]

Older Workers

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, in the past year, several thousands of workers have been laid off in the Eastern Townships and hundreds of them are workers 55 and older who are without work in my riding. This is the case for former employees of Olymel in Magog, the textile plants in Magog and soon others in Cowansville and Farnham.

What is the government waiting for to remedy the situation and set up a real program to help older workers who are victims of mass layoffs? Obviously, under the circumstances, the targeted initiative for older workers—the TIOW—is ill conceived and totally ineffective.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, whenever there is a layoff it is a tragedy for those involved. That is why this government has moved very quickly to put in place a number of different programs and measures to help them. Service Canada reaches out to these employers.

We have also moved forward with a targeted initiative for older workers, a program that members in the House supported initially. It is designed to make sure that people do have options once they are in that situation and that we do not just pension them off and cast them into the dustbin, like some other parties would have us do.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps conducting studies. For a year now the Conservative government has been giving us the same speech as the previous government, saying that it is looking into the implementation of an income support program for older workers. It even set up another committee on January 23. In the meantime, older unemployed people and their families are paying the price. There is no need for a committee: the studies have been done and the needs are known.

Why does the minister not immediately implement an income support program for older workers, as his government promised to do in the last budget?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's question again, we have implemented a program for older workers with the targeted initiative for older workers. It is true that we have undertaken a study to look at this very important issue. It is a serious issue. But we have gone beyond that. We have also extended benefits in areas of high unemployment. We have extended the benefits so that they fill out the entire income year, the entire working year.

This government, in 13 months, has done more for workers and the unemployed than the previous government did in 13 years.

* * *

Aboriginal Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Merasty (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I participated in a conference with survivors of the Ile-à-la-Crosse boarding school. They are frustrated that the Prime Minister will not honour his repeated promise to compensate them. Why? Because the Prime Minister was too negligent to check if the school qualified for the settlement and then proceeded to trample on their spirits.

A recent Meadow Lake Northern Pride editorial stated that “the Ile-à-la-Crosse survivors are victims of not only physical, sexual and emotional abuse...but also of the [Prime Minister's] negligence”.

The Prime Minister directly promised compensation in radio ads in my riding. When will he honour his agreement and his promise?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the residential school agreement continues to work its way through the court system, with the anticipated date of completion being this fall.

The school that my friend refers to actually burned to the ground in 1905. There are no survivors from that school. There is an application process under the agreement, article 12 as I recall, by which survivors can apply for inclusion. I have met with the individuals to which my friend refers and have encouraged them to pursue that application, but I have warned them that they will not qualify.

* * *

Anti-terrorism Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today the Air-India Victims Families Association, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, and the Canadian Coalition Against Terror all called on parliamentarians to extend two crucial anti-terrorism provisions brought in by the former Liberal government.

Several prominent Liberals and a growing number of Liberal members of Parliament have stated their support for extending these measures.

Can the Minister of Public Safety explain to the House the importance of these measures for the safety of Canadians?

(1455)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, up until 9/11 Canada had the tragic record of being the country that had the most citizens killed in a single terrorist attack. That was, of course, the horrendous Air-India bombing. Families have an opportunity to find out about what went on, but the Liberal leader wants to take away the very provision in the Anti-terrorism Act that would allow authorities to get to the bottom of this.

I am just asking, if he does not want to accept the advice of former deputy prime ministers of the Liberal Party, and if he does not want to accept the advice of the Supreme Court, which has upheld this as constitutional, can he find it in his heart to support us to leave this in place?

* * *

Homelessness

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, while the wealthy are getting richer, many of Canada's low and middle income families are one paycheque away from homelessness.

We are spending less money on ensuring that people are not sleeping on the streets. The government will claim it cares about homelessness, but actions speak louder than words. Under the Conservative watch, $70 million has gone unspent. When will homeless organizations see this money? When will this money be spent on the people who really need it?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member's facts are not correct. Every year since the national homelessness initiative has been in place, there have been projects that have gone beyond the end of the fiscal year. The funding has followed. That money is being spent.

This government is acting on homelessness. We announced $270 million for the homelessness partnering strategy in December and $1.4 billion in a housing trust for the homeless. This government is acting.

By the way, those are measures that the Liberals voted against.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, he says the money will be spent. Really?

The previous Liberal government wasted half a million dollars on evaluations and it seems the Conservative government is going to shortchange the program again. Why are homeless Canadians being left without help? Organizations in my riding of London--Fanshawe are still waiting for money promised months ago. These funds were needed before the winter started. Through countless cold snaps, services have operated on a wing and a prayer.

Why is the government sitting on the cheque while people are cold and on the streets?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, these organizations that the member refers to do tremendous work, which is why they are central to the new homelessness partnering strategy. We have moved to ensure that there was extended funding through the national homelessness initiative so that these groups had funding to carry them through the end of the year. They will have new funding starting in the new fiscal year.

The question is, when we are moving on all of these issues and doing so much good, why does the NDP engage in this kind of destructive ankle-biting when it could be doing some good and helping us?

* * *

Foreign Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, for over a year Brenda Martin has languished in a Guadalajara prison for allegedly being part of a phony investment scheme. I have a copy of a sworn affidavit from the scheme's mastermind that clears Ms. Martin of any involvement. Indeed, Mexican authorities have said they will release her if they receive the affidavit from Canada.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs prances around the world saying that he is standing up for Canadians in trouble when he actually does nothing. Will the minister now do his job and deposit the affidavit with Mexico and help free this innocent Canadian?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have been very involved in the case from the very beginning. In fact, I can assure the member that foreign affairs waived the embassy's standard fee that was normally applied in cases like this for humanitarian reasons. We have been in contact with members of the Martin family. I can assure the member that consular officials are doing everything possible, everything within their power, and everything within the law to assist Ms. Martin.

Rather than the hon. member getting up and casting aspersions, and simply trying to point the finger and blame somebody, he could try for a change to be a little helpful. It might actually assist Ms. Martin as she languishes in the jail he is so concerned about.

* * *

Youth

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, youth--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(1500)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. No one is denying the popularity of the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville, but despite the enthusiasm with which his presence is greeted, we have to be able to hear his question now. He has the floor for that purpose, not for the purposes of general applause.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Wajid Khan:

Mr. Speaker, youth participation in cultural activities is extremely important. I believe that youth benefit greatly when they can participate in the diversity of Canadian communities. Obviously, the opposition does not care about youth.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House what the government has done to address this very important issue, particularly in the greater Toronto area?