2008-05-16

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2007, less than 200 Tsawwassen Indian Band members participated in the referendum on the terms of its treaty with Canada and British Columbia. A majority of the band approved of the treaty in a vote that was tainted by promises of $15,000 cash payments, free trips and other enticements not permitted by law in any other jurisdiction in Canada. 
None of the million or so non-band residents in the area the treaty refers to as Tsawwassen territory, an area stretching from the Gulf Islands to Langley and Maple Ridge, will have an opportunity to vote on their treaty. Equally disturbing, the terms of this agreement were negotiated behind closed doors with next to no meaningful consultation with those most impacted by the treaty and, significantly, no formal direction from either the provincial legislature or the federal Parliament.
 There was no careful consideration of the terms of this agreement before the passage of the bill by the B.C. legislature. In fact, there will be no real debate in this House. We will be setting a precedent for a new relationship between our longstanding elected governments and a new order of government created by the treaty, all without serious public discussion or parliamentary debate. 
Amazingly, this treaty does not create real opportunities for aboriginal people. It will simply transfer dependency from the federal government to the new band government, but without any safeguards to ensure an equitable distribution of benefits and opportunities.
This treaty will create a company town, where the band government controls or owns virtually all the jobs and resources. This treaty bears little resemblance to the traditional free democratic governing systems by which we govern ourselves and under which a free enterprise economy allows us all to flourish.
Nowhere in this treaty are there provisions for individual rights and initiatives. We will find out too late if the structures created by this treaty will withstand the pressures of corruption, be resilient enough to provide opportunity, and ensure the protection of political and civil rights, all the while coexisting in the larger world where individual rights and a free enterprise economy are at the heart of our democracy.
Once ratified, the treaty settlement will have constitutional status and, as such, will be virtually impossible to change. We will only be able to watch as trial and error exposes the failings of a collectivist model for economic and political rights embodied in this treaty. We all know that such experiments have proved disastrous for the freedoms of people in other countries that have put collectivism ahead of individual rights and initiatives.
Moreover, the lack of serious scrutiny and open public debate about this first of a kind urban treaty, the Tsawwassen settlement, will mean that non-aboriginal people will never be able to ask the serious questions about the value of the trade-offs made to reach this settlement and their long term cost to our way of life and the kind of country we leave our children.
We will not have had the opportunity to consider the disenfranchising of the 500 or more non-Tsawwassen living on the former reserve lands now to be governed by the new Tsawwassen government, a government in which they cannot fully participate. These non-aboriginal residents on reserve lands will no longer have the opportunity to vote for those to whom they pay their municipal taxes. 
We will not have had the opportunity to explore the impact on the rights of the million or so non-Tsawwassen band members living in the area designated by the treaty as Tsawwassen territory. 
We will not have had the opportunity to consider the overlapping claims from other bands to the area that now forms the Tsawwassen territory.
We will not have had the opportunity to consider the impact on the Fraser River fishery, as this and future treaties largely exclude all persons without treaty rights.
We will not have had the opportunity to consider whether the loss of farmland and wildlife feeding areas will be a tipping point, leading to further destruction of farmland and wildlife.
We will not have had the opportunity to consider if the treaty was more about providing an easy way to expand the Vancouver port, with its road and rail corridor, than providing a just and final settlement of aboriginal claims. 
These are some of the fundamental questions that need answers now, questions which our children and grandchildren may answer with some regret generations from now, and they may question where we stood when the mistakes were made.
Some may be surprised to know that as the member of Parliament representing the area most impacted by the treaty, my input was not sought when the treaty was being negotiated, nor has any effort been made to convince me of the worth of the final agreement.
To vote for this treaty would be to do a disservice both to my constituents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, and to the people of my province and my country. I will not do that.
While the treaty allocates 1,772 acres to the Tsawwassen Indian Band, the band's rights under the treaty extend over the whole of their claim territory, defined in the treaty as the Tsawwassen territory. The Tsawwassen territory covers some 1,079 square miles and is home to nearly 2 million people.
 The territory covers all or parts of 16 B.C. municipalities, stretching from, as I said, the Gulf Islands to Langley and Maple Ridge, including South Vancouver and Pitt Lake. In this vast territory, the band may have considerable say on matters thought the exclusive purview of municipal, provincial or federal governments.
The proposed treaty establishes a recipe for deadlock and confrontation throughout the 16 municipalities that form the Tsawwassen territory. Decisions cannot be made or work initiated on a wide range of federal, provincial and municipal matters until the consultation mandated by the treaty is completed. 
There are about 30 different places in the treaty where consultation is necessary.
In the treaty, “consult” means more than merely asking someone's opinion. Its meaning and use in the context of a constitutionally protected Tsawwassen treaty borders on “asking the band's permission” and can conceivably be used as a stick to make demands on other matters long thought settled.
In the memorandum of understanding signed by the Vancouver Port Authority, the band agreed not to raise issues that would derail the environmental assessment of the container port expansion at Roberts Bank. In return, the band got a commitment from the Vancouver Port Authority to fund a container handling facility on agricultural land reserve protected farmland, as well as other concessions.
With the power to require consultation, the band acquires the power to make demands and interfere in matters in which it has no real interest. It is not inconceivable that it might want to block the expansion of a national park or a highway simply as a bargaining chip to get other governments to concede on some matter of importance to the band.
As will be demonstrated, this is a band government that is controlled in part by members living elsewhere who have only a tenuous connection to the reserve residents, a band government that will conceivably be able to block developments in Delta, Richmond, Maple Ridge or even the Gulf Islands.
Who are the beneficiaries of the treaty? Band members live in California, Washington state, Oregon, Manitoba and Ontario, as well as elsewhere in British Columbia. For many, their only connection to the Tsawwassen band is that one of their grandparents may have been a reserve resident. 
No one has satisfactorily explained why Parliament should accord in perpetuity untold millions of dollars in special rights and privileges to persons who are not Canadian citizens and who have no appreciable connection with the Tsawwassen reserve or its long-time residents, and whose children and their children will in future generations have even less connection.
Payments to these new band members will mortgage the future of long-time reserve residents who Canadians assume are the primary beneficiaries of this Tsawwassen treaty. Many long-time residents will actually be in a worse position as a result of the treaty.
 Bertha Williams' family has lived on the Tsawwassen reserve for generations. In a recent speech, Bertha stated:
 A lot of our elders...are new to our community...They lost their status years ago. They went off, got married, they didn't want to be labeled as native...These elders...don't know our history...don't know our culture. 
 I have never surrendered my birthright.... I have never left my homeland.... 
 [But] we are outnumbered...The majority of those who are voting members live off the reserve. 
 These are people that live in Alabama, Los Angeles...across the Prairies...They are band members but they have no intention of ever living on the reserve. Yet they are voting on our business. 
 A lot of them have never even visited the reserve. It is just ludicrous how they have so much to say on our livelihood...I see it as the demise of my people. 
Let me take a moment to explain why Bertha Williams is upset.
 In 1982 the band undertook to develop part of the reserve known as Stahaken on a 99 year lease basis. In 1982 the band had 62 members, 43 living on reserve and 19 off.
In 1985 the band distributed the proceeds from the development to existing band members. They each received some $23,000. There were then 69 members, 50 on reserve and 19 off. In June 1985, Parliament passed Bill C-31. By 1998, membership had swelled, leaving the original band members in a minority.
In 2003 it was decided that 116 new band members were entitled to the same $23,000 payment the original band members had received for the Stahaken project, plus $15,000 in interest. The cost was $3.5 million. The new members, now a majority, had no hesitation in voting themselves the $3.5 million even though it indebted and mortgaged the future of long-time members like Bertha Williams.
From that commitment to pay $3.5 million to the so-called Stahaken claimants came pressure to develop reserve land for commercial purposes, including port related development. The main proponents of the treaty and related port developments have been the Stahaken claimants.
But what about Bertha Williams?
Bertha has recently been advised that the property her family has occupied for generations is likely to be used for port development, apparently to pay off those Stahaken claimants and those band members living in California and elsewhere, whose first concerns are not about how the treaty will maintain Tsawwassen traditions but how much money it will put in their pockets now and in future years.
Prior to the initialling of the treaty in December 2006, the Vancouver Port Authority inked a deal with the band leadership that could only be seen as an enticement to okay the treaty for the new non-reserve resident members of the band.
In exchange for the long term use of the reserve lands for a rail marshalling yard, container storage and warehousing, the band would receive $47 million. The affront to long term residents like Bertha Williams is that at best their homes now would be immediately adjacent to up to 500 acres of a busy, 24/7 international port, a rail marshalling yard and all the disturbance that would entail.
A person in Bertha's place would see the property that she lives on, and which her family has owned since the reserve was created more than a century ago, expropriated for port development.
 So who really gains from the port deal? Not Bertha Williams. Not the farmers who lost the best farmland in the Fraser delta. And not the hundreds of thousands of migratory birds that depend on the land for forage.
The only real winners are the new band members who live in Los Angeles or elsewhere and who may have had a grandparent who was a band member. For them, the cheques will roll in and nothing else matters.
 We are now being asked to bless this environmental and human tragedy.
Canadians have been told repeatedly that after the Tsawwassen treaty is signed Tsawwassen band members will pay taxes to our federal and provincial governments just like they do. According to the Department of Finance and the B.C. Treaty Commission, the answer is no.
 Tsawwassen band members will not start paying taxes to the federal government like the rest of us, nor was it ever intended that they would do so. When the Tsawwassen band members eventually pay income taxes, the money will be paid to the Tsawwassen band government, not to the federal government.
 The B.C. Treaty Commission states:
 --the income tax of any person (First Nation or non-First Nation) who resides on Treaty Settlement Lands will flow to the First Nation government no matter where they earn their income. The First Nation government will also receive 100% of the GST generated and 50% of the PST generated on Treaty Settlement Lands. And all First Nation government-run businesses will be exempt from income tax on profits earned on treaty lands. 
When the 500 or more “non-citizens”, meaning non-band members who reside on the reserve, pay their income taxes, the money will go to the Tsawwassen band government, not to the federal government. 
The Department of Finance, in a closed door briefing to band members, advised them that Canada was not seeking to gain tax revenues as a result of the treaty. Furthermore, according to the Department of Finance, most of the band's tax revenue will not come from band members, but from non-citizens living on the reserve or members of the public who might shop at stores located on the reserve. Finance estimates that the band will collect three to four times more from non-citizens than from its own band members.
Canadians have been misled. The Tsawwassen treaty is not about ensuring band members start paying taxes like other Canadians. The taxation provisions of the treaty are about the band government getting its hand on income tax, on GST and PST revenues, most of it paid by non-band members.
The Tsawwassen file agreement removes the right to vote for the majority of residents on the Tsawwassen Indian reserve. There are approximately 160 registered band members living on the reserve and about 500 persons who are not band members. 
For local government purposes, the non-band members have been considered residents of Delta, and vote and pay their taxes there. These non-Tsawwassen band members, or non-citizens as they are called by the Department of Finance and the federal treaty negotiator, will now pay taxes to the Tsawwassen band, even though they have lost their right to vote and effectively participate in their local government. 
The Department of Indian Affairs, in a briefing document prepared for members of Parliament, states, “The power to tax is a basic feature of governments...[I]t also serves as a means of the government's accountability”.
That is unless one is a non-citizen living on Tsawwassen lands.
There is no democratic accountability for the majority of Tsawwassen residents. How is it that this democratically elected House would even consider ratifying a treaty that would strip the overwhelming majority of residents of their full rights of citizenship?
Under the Tsawwassen treaty, the Tsawwassen band is the recipient of two allocations of sockeye salmon: a trade and barter allocation of roughly 13,000 salmon per year, which is more than double the food allocation in 2006; and a commercial allocation of 0.78% of the total allowable catch on the Fraser River, which averages out to approximately 30,000 fish per year. The combined allocation of 43,000 sockeye per year divided among the 273 band members provides approximately 157 sockeye per person per year.
In 1993 the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Indian Affairs undertook a study for treaty negotiators that assessed the coastline implications of the Nisga'a treaty allocation of 26 sockeye salmon per person. The study concluded that an allocation of 26 salmon per person would utilize about 30% of the available sockeye in B.C. However, the allocation in the Tsawwassen treaty is about 157 sockeye per person, or about 6 times greater than the Nisga'a allocation.
The math is pretty simple. It follows that an allocation of 157 sockeye per person would take about 180% of the available sockeye. Thus, based upon the government's own study, the Tsawwassen treaty, if replicated coast-wide, would mean the entire Fraser salmon fishery would be insufficient to satisfy Indian acclaims. Remember, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sparrow and Van der Peet clearly rejected the trade and barter of food fish in any claim of an aboriginal right to sell salmon.
The treaty gives the Tsawwassen government power to make laws that prevail over federal or provincial law in at least 28 areas, including child protection services for both band and non-band children living on the reserve and kindergarten to grade 12 education, including home schooling for all children.
Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect Tsawwassen residents with regard to the actions of the Tsawwassen government? The answer, quite simply, is no.
There are also 10 outstanding, competing claims to the Tsawwassen territory. Chapter 49 says that if the government enters into another treaty that adversely affects the treaty rights of the Tsawwassen band, the government is required to provide additional or replacement rights and other appropriate remedies.
This is not a final agreement. The final agreement is a two volume document of over 460 pages and there are 7 side agreements. The House should be carefully examining its implications, and it is not.
Let the record show, the real beneficiaries of the treaty are the new band members, many living outside of Canada, and the Vancouver Port Authority, which was able to get port expansion without environmental objections from the band.
The treaty negatively impacts long standing band members and reserve residents like Bertha Williams. It will means the destruction of valuable farmland and loss of habitat for migratory birds. Its legacy will be a more segregated and divided nation.
To vote for this treaty would be to do a disservice to my constituents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, and a disservice to the people of my province and my country. I will not do that.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Delta—Richmond East for demonstrating the courage to stand up for his convictions and to speak out and say things that may be politically incorrect, but that get to the heart and the root of some fundamental issues and values that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people embrace.
He gave a very eloquent speech. It should be required reading for anybody who is interested in this issue. He presented a very well researched assessment and analysis on this. He has done an extraordinary amount of work on it and there is a lot of background information to it. Anybody who is interested in the issue, I am sure could contact his office or look on his website, as we have, and receive that information. 
For those of us in British Columbia, it is a fundamentally important issue. About one-third of the bands in Canada are in the province of British Columbia.
What is needed to change and amend the bill to enable the aboriginal people living on the reserve to really be the masters of their destiny, to have the control and accountability mechanisms that seem to be lacking in the agreement?
The hon. member eloquently spoke about the plight and the concerns of people like Bertha Williams, a band member of the Tsawwassen, that after the treaty is signed, there will be a lack of accountability. 
She has spoken about the fact that many families will be excluded from the benefits of being members and that there is not necessarily an adequate and fair distribution. The checks and balances that occur between the grassroots aboriginal people and their leadership may be wanting.
What is needed to ensure that grassroots aboriginal people on the Tsawwassen reserve will have the checks and balances so their leadership can be accountable to them and they can have a fair share in what will be accrued to the reserve?
Also, there is the issue of the non-aboriginal people living on the reserve. As the hon. member said very eloquently, they pay taxes but they cannot vote. That is a fundamental violation of a person's basic rights. Could the member expand on that issue as well?
[Interjection]
John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind comments from my friend.
On the issue of what goes on the reserve, in any municipality in Canada one must be a resident if one is going to vote for a council which puts in place zoning by-laws. That should prevail on native reserves as well. If we are to establish local government and responsibility for local government, then the responsibility should be local. The only people who should vote on land use plans on any reserve in the country should be people who are actually resident on the reserve.
One of the issues, and it is an issue that needs addressing by Parliament, is the impact of Bill C-31. It is quite clear, when we look at membership lists, and it is very difficult to get hold of those membership lists, and talk to people on the Tsawwassen Reserve, many of them, who have lived on the reserve all their lives and whose families have never left, are offended by the fact that some who left generations ago are now reserve members and will share the benefit.
Birth is instant and with the instance of anyone living on the reserve, they are the people who, since the beginning, have put up with the noise, light and air pollution from the existing Roberts Bank terminal of the Vancouver port. It is right off the shore of the reserve. They are the ones who over the last 50 years have lived with the disturbances caused by that port. Yet the benefits of the arrangement that has been cut with the port will accrue to people with the name of Martinez who live in Los Angeles or people who live in Ottawa or Winnipeg. They are not the ones who are suffering because the port was built. It is the people who live there. Therefore, the very basis for this treaty, in fact, is undermined.
The other question about the non-aboriginals living on the reserve is a special case. This instance happened with the Westbank arrangement a couple of years ago. My view is that these people need to have the same rights as any other citizen, that if a band wants to set up an enclave where non-band members live, then those non-band members need to have the same voting rights on their taxes as other Canadians do. There can be no other way. If that must be somehow physically separated from the rest of the reserve, then so be it.
However, people should not lose their democratic rights in this way because the fallback will always come to Parliament. In the future we will be asked to justify why we allowed that to happen, and it is an explanation that I would not want to have to give.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on a couple of occasions, the member in his presentation referred to the agreement and said that it was not a final agreement, that should the agreement pass, it would not be an end to the issue. If he feels this is the case, would the member explain, in some detail, why that would be the case? 
[Interjection]
John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons why this will not be a final agreement, but let me focus on one, the competing claims.
Eight bands have filed with the B.C. Treaty Commission with claims which overlap Tsawwassen. Two bands have not filed any treaty documents, but they also have claims on that territory. This poses a serious problem. In the treaty document it says that if any concessions are made to these bands, and eventually there will be because these bands will conclude treaties as did Tsawwassen, I am sure, the Tsawwassen will be entitled to compensation. There is no defining what that compensation means There are no limits put on it in the treaty, so it is an open-ended compensation. That in itself is troublesome.
The other implications are that with these overlapping treaties, the bands have this right to consult built into the treaty. We assume other bands will have the same and they can impact on developments in municipalities that municipalities thought were their purview. Now we will have this overlaying number of bands that will be able to ask to be consulted over matters that should be municipal. 
I think the treaty will be very troublesome for local municipalities and it is one that I do not think the municipalities have really come to grips with yet.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-34. I compliment the member for Delta—Richmond East for his fine speech on this complicated issue. Perhaps one of the most important things I can do is reiterate that people ought to go to his website to see the extensive analysis he has done on this bill because it is a landmark bill. It is the first urban treaty in Canada.
I think everyone wants to see an end to the land claims issue. Aboriginal people definitely need these treaties to be negotiated and completed. They have gone on for far too long. Moneys have been drawn to areas where they should not have been and away from the absolute needs of aboriginal people living on and off reserve. Unfortunately, there is an area of the bill where there are some deep concerns. 
I want to reiterate what this bill is about. It deals with about 160 band members and 500 non-resident members on the reserve. The bill would actually give $20 million to the band reserve and would distribute about 334 hectares of land.
In part, this a good thing because it would remove members of the Tsawwassen band away from the shackles of the Indian Act, a 132 year old act that, in my view, is a major obstacle to aboriginal people being masters of their destiny. The Indian Act, as governed and executed by the Department of Indian Affairs, spends about $9.2 billion a year for about 640 bands and those moneys are distributed through a staggering 1,200 organizations. As a result, only a small amount of money trickles down to the grassroots aboriginal people.
Aboriginal people are also encumbered by a structure where they are not the masters of their destiny. Do members know that aboriginal people living on reserve cannot own that land? Do members know that the lack of ownership impedes the ability of individual aboriginal members, band councils and chiefs to go to banks and borrow money. If they could borrow money, they could use it for economic development. It is heartbreaking to see band members, councils and chiefs, who desperately want to develop their land, to be hamstrung by the Indian Act which prevents them from moving forward.
Do members know that a chief on a reserve must go through a shocking six different federal departments to move forward on a plan? Why does an aboriginal chief councillor or band member need to go through six federal departments, through a period four times longer than a non-aboriginal person and are then confronted with a whole raft of rules and regulations if they want to develop? That is fundamentally wrong and it is racist. 
The structure we have right now is appalling because it creates a two tiered situation. It separates aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people, not in a positive way but in a horribly negative way.
We should, in my view, have a place in our country where aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can come together in the sharing of cultures, language, art and history, and can come together in a beautiful way. In sharing those things, it enriches all of us. Unfortunately, however, there are very few opportunities for this.
Some people are trying to do this, such as Arthur Vickers, a very famous aboriginal artist in my province of British Columbia. He is now trying to lead on the pulling people together. He is building a centre where aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can come together and share their histories, their past, their future and come together as one race, and that is the human race. People like Arthur Vickers are trying to do that but it is very difficult.
Another person, Chief Russell Chipps of the Beecher Band Reserve in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, is reaching out to a community that has been devastated by sexual abuse and violence. It is a small community where many of the children have been sexually abused and many of the adults have fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. Out of this swamp of devastation, we have the leadership of Chief Chipps and the men and women on his reserve who are trying to build something. They are building a canoe out of a very large log and are inviting aboriginal and non-aboriginal people to come to their reserve and share in the building of this canoe. What will they do with it? They will get in the canoe this summer and take it out to another part of Vancouver Island.
The beauty of this is not only in the canoe but in the wisdom of Chief Chipps and the people in his community in Beecher Bay who are trying to reach out, in the midst of the devastation, destruction and horrible socio-economic situation, with love and affection. They want to share what they have with all of us, which is the beauty of their history, their culture and their language. 
Those acts of heroism should be applauded, embraced and encouraged.
The bill has some good parts but there are also some other fundamental issues that my colleague, the member for Delta—Richmond East, and people like Bertha Williams, have articulated. I did not know this, but I cannot imagine why $15,000 in bribes were given to band members to vote for this particular agreement. That is not democratic. 
What are the checks and balances to ensure that members of the Tsawwassen band, those who live on the land, work the land, build for the future and build the socio-economic conditions for their people, for themselves, for their children and their grandchildren, are the people empowered to do what they need to do to share in the bounty and benefits of the land and of this country?
 That is not necessarily happening. Bertha Williams and others have deep concerns and those concerns must be responded to factually but those concerns are not being responded to. I have not seen any evidence, quite frankly, that those concerns have been responded to. If they are not responded to, what does this mean for future treaties? What does this mean for aboriginal people living on reserves where these treaties are negotiated but where their rights may be trampled upon, unbeknown to most of us?
This bill is a well-meaning treaty. I know what is intended but I wonder whether our intentions will marry up with the future outcomes?
We have all seen, on too many reserves, where band leaderships have taken it upon themselves to engage in acts of nepotism that leave certain groups within their reserves completely disarticulated from their communities. The level of abuse that takes place is horrific. Could this happen? What are the checks and balances in the bill to prevent this from happening? People like Bertha Williams and the members who did not vote for this treaty, and the people on the reserve who will be confronted by this need answers. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure those questions are responded to.
People like the member for Delta—Richmond East must be at the centre of the consultation, with people like Bertha Williams and members on the reserve who have these questions. We would be abrogating our responsibility as elected people if those people who are at the heart of this did not have their say.
The bill can go forward in a constructive way or it can go forward in a way that conditions could be put in place and the law of unintended consequences could occur so that people who want to live their lives and enjoy in the bounties of their land would not be able do that.
The member mentioned a fundamental violation of rights, which is to pay taxes but not be able to vote. Could anyone imagine that we would pass legislation in this House enabling people to pay taxes but depriving them of their vote? That must be in some way be a violation of the charter and it should be challenged.
Those are the questions that need to be answered.
 The other issue concerns control over housing and jobs. If this bill is passed, what would be there to ensure that band members who live on the reserve will have fair and equal opportunity for housing and job opportunities? Will that be there or will it be subject to a degree of nepotism that could run amok? We have seen that before and we cannot allow that to happen. It is too important for this to occur because of the downstream implications of this.
The other issue concerns people who are not living anywhere near Tsawwassen, or even living in other countries, but are receiving economic benefits because they are members of the band. Is that fair, reasonable and responsible? This gives money to people who have no connection whatsoever with the land in practice and takes money away from those band members who live on the reserve and who need money desperately for economic development, housing, economic opportunities and health care.
My colleague, who spoke eloquently yesterday about the aboriginal peoples, is an aboriginal woman. I am sure most Canadians do not know this but aboriginal people fall between the cracks on health care. The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility in health care but it downloads it to the provinces. The provinces say that it is not their responsibility, that it is the responsibility of the federal government. What happens to an aboriginal person who is a patient is that he or she frequently falls through the cracks. Aboriginal people are in no man's land, limbo. At a time when they are sick and they need surety in where they are going so they can receive the care they need, they fall through the cracks.
When the bill goes to committee I would strongly encourage the government not to fast-track the bill. I would ask committee members to travel to Tsawwassen to meet the people on the reserve and listen to the community, not just the community leadership, but to people like Bertha Williams on the reserve. We need to ensure the process is fair and that the voices of all the people are heard. It is our responsibility to ensure their concerns are addressed. 
I also would strongly encourage the committee members to ensure that the member for Delta—Richmond East is on the committee, that they go to the reserve and that they listen to the people on the reserve who want to be in a situation where they will be the masters of their destiny.
 I have another fundamental question with respect to this. Are treaties the panacea, the magic bullet, that will enable aboriginal people to truly be the masters of their destiny? Is the model of collectivism that this bill entrenches going to enhance the ability of individual aboriginal people to be the masters of their destiny or would it impede the innovation and dynamism that aboriginal people have shown for thousands and thousands of years, which is their historical birthright? 
If treaties were the magic bullet, then where treaties have been negotiated one would assume that the socio-economic conditions for aboriginal people would be markedly improved, correct? If we were to use the Rocky Mountains as a dividing line, which is where those treaties were negotiated, east of the Rockies versus west of the Rockies, one would think that the socio-economic conditions for aboriginal people would be markedly better, correct? The answer is no.
The spine of the Rocky Mountains is quite an intriguing dividing line. If we look at the lives of aboriginal people east of the Rocky Mountains and look at the conditions west of the Rocky Mountains, whether we are dealing with urban or aboriginal people who live on reserve, we find the same horrific conditions that are far too prevalent: the level of sexual abuse, violence, unemployment, lack of housing, the whole incidence of FAS/FAE, the list goes on and on. 
The number of aboriginal men incarcerated is 11 times higher than the number of non-aboriginal men, while the number of aboriginal women versus non-aboriginal women is a staggering 250 times greater. Can members believe that? One does not see a difference on either side of the spine of the Rocky Mountains. Both sides are the same whether there are treaties or not. 
We all want to ensure there is finality to land claims. We all want to work with aboriginal people to ensure that their land issues are dealt with in a fair and secure fashion. We recognize and honour fully the importance of land to aboriginal people. We know what it means for their culture, their history and for their soul. We understand that. 
Who speaks for the men and women living on reserve who cannot get employment or health care? Who speaks for the men and women living in houses that are falling down because whoever built those lousy homes essentially acted in a fraudulent fashion? How are those people going to get out of those situations? Their children have to travel nearly two hours to get to school and then another two hours to get home. Is it any wonder the dropout rate is what it is? The children are fatigued. They are wiped out by the time they get home. They cannot do their studies. They cannot participate in the extracurricular activities that children need for their development.
What do people who cannot get clean water on reserve do? Aboriginal people living on the Pacheedaht reserve in my community do not have a secure water source. The water is poisoned with iron. Six groups have been tasked to do the work on the reserve. Non-aboriginal consultants went to that reserve, did lousy work, took the money and ran. They saddled the reserve with a huge debt. Now the Department of Indian Affairs has said it is not going to give the band any more money to fix the water problem until the band finds out where the other money went. We know where the money went. It was stolen by fraudsters. Can 160 people living on reserve afford to retain a lawyer to get that money back? No. They are stuck in a situation they cannot get out of, and that is fundamentally unfair.
How can we allow this to happen? How can we allow a reserve that is desperately poor but has great economic potential to be saddled with structures that do not enable the people on the reserve to move forward? It is immoral and criminal to allow that to happen. That is not fantasy. That is happening right now. It is not only happening in my community, but it is happening in communities in many other parts of the country. 
In Fort Ware, north of Prince George where I used to fly in to do medical clinics, the chief is begging for help because of the destruction to the forest caused by the pine beetle infestation. Aboriginal people are living in a tinderbox. This summer when the temperature rises they will be living in a significant fire hazard. A 200 metre barrier needs to be plowed out around Fort Ware and other communities now. If that does not happen, those aboriginal communities will be faced with a significant health hazard. They risk being burned to death. 
There is an urgent need for firebreaks in communities in British Columbia. This is not an option. It is urgent because the risk of a fire is going to increase as soon as the temperature starts to rise. A spark alone could cause a fire which could raze the reserves. Where would these people go? Who would evacuate them? How would they be evacuated? Who would save their lives? They do not have any place to go.
I strongly recommend that the Minister of Indian Affairs embrace this issue wholeheartedly. This problem will occur in the coming months. All of us will work with him to ensure that the lives of these people are not put at risk, but the interventions that must occur, must occur now. 
In closing, while this bill has some very good parts, there are some significant concerns. Let us send it to committee. Let us take our time. Let us work with the members of the Tsawwassen, the members who are living on the Tsawwassen reserve. Let us make sure this bill works for the benefit of the aboriginal people on the Tsawwassen reserve in a way that is fair, reasonable and just.
The Speaker: Given the time, I suggest that we defer the questions and comments consequent on the member's speech until following question period. I believe it is time to proceed with statements by members.
I therefore call upon the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.

Statements By Members
Maple Ridge Citizen of the YearMr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and Maple Ridge citizen of the year, Margaret Kury. Margaret received the honour on May 1 at a gala event organized by the Maple Ridge Community Foundation.
Margaret is a very active member of Branch 88 of the Royal Canadian Legion. She is a winner of the legion's Meritorious Service Medal for her tireless dedication to the community through this organization, having served several terms on the board of directors, many of them as president, and all of them as an active fundraiser and supporter of the legion's various charitable activities.
As I can attest, when Margaret is asked to volunteer for a task, everyone knows the job will be done with enthusiasm, efficiency and excellence. And I can state from personal experience that when Margaret comes to anyone's door to raise funds for various charities, people cannot say no.
I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating Margaret Kury, Maple Ridge's 2008 citizen of the year.
Pontian Greek GenocideHon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to remember the deaths of over 350,000 Greeks between 1914 and 1922. I also remember the 500,000 individuals who were made refugees during this time.
This coming Monday, May 19, the international community will mark the 94th anniversary of the Pontian genocide. 
During World War I and in its aftermath, the Pontian Greek population of the Ottoman Empire faced persecution, massacres, expulsions and death marches from the historic region of Pontus, the southeastern Black Sea province of the Ottoman Empire, by the Young Turk administration.
I am a grandchild and a survivor of Pontian refugees. My grandparents were forced to flee from Pontus.
On December 15, 2007, the International Association of Genocide Scholars recognized these events as genocide. I remember all those who were victims of the Pontian genocide.
I remember those who have gone before, and those who suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Long live their memories.
Environmental OrganizationMrs. Carole Freeman (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Héritage Saint-Bernard, an environmental organization in Châteauguay, won the Conscientia award presented by the Montérégie regional environmental council. This organization has already won 12 awards for its environmental achievements. 
The award is in recognition of the successful school recycling program Écolvert, a green initiative the organization introduced to promote awareness among young people of future environmental problems and to encourage a civic-minded approach to nature and sustainable development. This initiative alone has helped schools reduce waste by nearly a third and triple their recycling capacity. Using innovative and original methods, Héritage Saint-Bernard wants to find more ways to reduce the waste produced by schools, while saving the environment.
I congratulate Héritage Saint-Bernard on its Conscientia award and its success in helping to make the Montérégie a sustainable development region.
Canada Post CorporationMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, nobody from Canada Post bothered to tell the senior citizens of Timmins that the local post office is no longer in the business of serving them. 
Parcel post pickups have been moved out to drugstores along the highway, so senior citizens without cars can no longer go down to the post office that served them for years and get their mail.
It is not the fault of the local post office staff. They have had their hands tied. Serving the public is what they do and they do well. But under Canada Post's decision to start privatizing rural post offices, there are senior citizens in Timmins who are losing access. The Sturgeon Falls post office has closed. The Iroquois Falls post office has closed. Many other post offices are being moved and shipped off to little boxes in local corner stores.
In whose interest is this? Good local jobs are being traded off. Public service is being impacted. The vital links of a national post office system that was second to none in the world are being carved up and traded off.
It is the short-sighted rip-off of rural Canadians by that ideological driven group of buzzards known as the Conservative Party.
MuseumsMr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, May 18 is International Museum Day. The theme for this year's celebration is “Museums as agents of social change and development”.
This year's theme is fitting because on March 13, the bill that established the Canadian Museum for Human Rights received royal assent. It is the first national museum outside the nation's capital.
In budget 2008 our government announced an additional $9 million over two years to assist the operating and infrastructure needs for the National Gallery of Canada, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canada Science and Technology Museum and the Canadian Museum of Nature.
International Museum Day gives us the opportunity to show our pride and celebrate Canada's heritage. This rich and multifaceted heritage is preserved in our museums and galleries across our country.
I encourage everyone to see an exhibit, take a guided tour and experience the wonders that our museums have to offer.
Gideon QitsualikMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I must inform the House that Gideon Qitsualik of Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, passed away on April 24, 2008, at the age of 83.
Mr. Qitsualik helped launch the negotiation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and went on to serve for many years with the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. Gideon Qitsualik was very active in politics and was a council member of the Gjoa Haven Council when he passed away.
The loss of Gideon is a great loss for Nunavummiut, as he was a well respected source and strong defender of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, which is Inuit traditional knowledge. His great contribution to Nunavut's educational curriculum will be his legacy, along with his conviction that Inuit knowledge is fundamental to good governance.
I would ask the House to join me in expressing condolences to his wife, his children and grandchildren. Our thoughts are with them at this sad time.
Law Enforcement OfficersMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week marks the occasion of National Police Week. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank all of the men and women in policing for their outstanding professionalism and dedication to their work.
As a former police officer and along with my four colleagues on this side of the House, who were also police officers, I am proud to belong to a party that believes tackling crime and strengthening the security of Canadians is one of its paramount responsibilities. The days of being soft on crime are over.
We have taken action to demonstrate commitment by working with the provinces and territories to provide police officers with the tools and resources necessary to do their job. As part of this commitment, a $400 million police officers recruitment fund was established to hire an additional 2,500 police officers across the country.
Policing is an extremely challenging and often dangerous occupation. Every day police officers across the country put their lives on the line for our safety. I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the continuing excellence of our entire law enforcement community.
Quebec Booksellers AwardsMrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Rawi Hage, an author of Lebanese descent, won the Quebec Booksellers Award in the “Quebec novel” category for his book Parfum de poussière.
Philippe Claudel won in the “novel from outside Quebec” category for Le rapport de Brodeck. 
These awards, presented by the Quebec Booksellers Association, pay tribute to exceptional literary works as well as promoting literature and culture.
Each year for the past 15 years, the Quebec Booksellers Association has presented awards in two categories, “Quebec novel” and “novel from outside Quebec”, to authors whose works have impressed booksellers with their originality and literary qualities. 
More than 200 booksellers participate in this competition, organized in part to uncover new talent.
My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I wish to offer our sincere congratulations to the winners, Rawi Hage and Philippe Claudel.
The EconomyMr. Rob Clarke (Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, why do Liberal members opposite believe that higher taxes are a good idea?
I personally believe that my constituents can spend their own money better than any government can, so why is it, when the economy is at the front of many people's minds, that the Liberals want to increase the GST?
Some of my constituents are paying $2.27 per litre for gas. Why is it that when gas prices are at record highs, that the Liberal leader wants to charge even more with a new tax? A massive Liberal gas tax would force Canadians to choose between filling their fridges, heating their homes or filling their gas tanks.
Under the Conservative government, inflation and interest rates remain low and stable. Disposable income has been rising steadily. The national unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since 1975. The Prime Minister committed to reducing the GST and he kept his promise. 
The choice between the Prime Minister and the Liberal leader is clear. The Prime Minister and the Conservative government are delivering real leadership and real results for Canadians.
Commonwealth Scholarship ProgramMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, I and my constituents were disappointed to learn that the British government was discontinuing its Commonwealth scholarship program for students from Canada.
The Commonwealth scholarship plan was created in 1960 to enable promising students to study in Commonwealth countries other than their own, so that they might better contribute to their own countries while fostering mutual understanding within the Commonwealth.
Past Canadian recipients who have studied in the U.K. include several presidents of universities, the governor of the Bank of Canada and countless other distinguished Canadians. In justifying its decision, the U.K. government said it wanted to focus scholarships on countries that are more aligned to its foreign policy goals, such as India and China.
Given the tremendously important and longstanding political and social links between our two countries, I find that statement particularly disappointing. It is my sincere hope that the Canadian government will lodge its objections to this move with the U.K. administration and will ask it to restore funding to this important program.
Portrait GalleryMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since the announcement of the portrait gallery in November, many cities have expressed publicly their interest and excitement at the opportunity in seeing this magnificent institution in their city.
Yet, the Liberals have not been listening to Canadians, and in the other place a bill has been introduced that would put into law the location of the portrait gallery before the request for proposals process is even over.
However, a municipal councillor in Winnipeg spoke out against the idea that the only city able to host the museum was Ottawa. Also, a municipal councillor in Quebec City said:
 —I completely agree with your position and that of your government concerning the selection process for the Canadian city to host the Canadian portrait gallery... I disagree with Bill S-233, which would automatically designate the federal national capital as the host region. 
Are the Liberals trying to tell these cities that they just are not good enough?
Great Glebe Garage SaleMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 24, people in Ottawa will gather for one of the most exciting days in our community, the great Glebe garage sale.
Since its inception in 1986, every year people in the Glebe have come together to put on a massive garage sale whose reputation goes beyond the borders of this country. They raise money for the Ottawa Food Bank. They encourage reusing to help the environment and they nourish the spirit of volunteerism in our youth.
I know that people from other communities actually spend the night before the great Glebe garage sale with their friends in the Glebe so that in the morning they are the first to hit the streets. This is the spirit of the Glebe. This is the spirit of the people of my riding of Ottawa Centre.
I congratulate the board members of the Glebe Community Association, the largest community association in Canada, for their 12 years of organizing the great Glebe garage sale.
International AidKeith Martin: Mr. Speaker, Myanmar is in a race against time. Lives hang in the balance. Millions of people could die as a result of infectious diseases and malnutrition unless food and medication get to them as soon as possible.
In the first 11 days, our government gave a pathetic $2 million to this disaster. In the first 12 days of the tsunami in 2004, the Liberal government gave $425 million. In Zimbabwe, torture and murder are rampant. People are crying for help, and what does the government do? It wrings its hands.
Now we are seeing that Canada is one of just six countries in the world on the UN Human Rights Council that is withholding support for an emergency right to food meeting amid the global food crisis. Lastly, the government is refusing to even give Canada the opportunity to sit on the Security Council, where we could have real influence.
Is this the Prime Minister's version of his new ability to have Canada playing a greater part on the world stage? 
National Patriots DayMr. Raymond Gravel (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, next Monday, Quebeckers will celebrate National Patriots Day, a day that commemorates the dedication and sacrifice of the patriots of 1837-38. The Rassemblement pour un pays souverain, a Quebec sovereignty coalition, organizes the annual Gala des patriotes, which will be held on May 16 in Montreal and on May 19 in Quebec City. Prizes awarded during the gala highlight the contributions of individuals who have helped advance the sovereignty movement.
The Montreal gala will honour activist Umberto Di Genova and singer Paul Piché. The Quebec City event will honour Lise Payette, who will be receiving the Marie Victoire Félix Dumouchel prize, and the former premier of Quebec, René Lévesque, who will be awarded the Louis Joseph Papineau prize posthumously.
My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I wish to congratulate the honourees, and we want them all to know that we are here for Quebec.
Conservative MembersHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we head into a long weekend, we are all preparing to return to our ridings and answer to our constituents. I would recommend to my Conservative colleagues that they prepare some credible answers to certain embarrassing questions, as opposed to what they answered here in the House.
They will have to explain what the Prime Minister meant when he talked about “financial considerations” offered to Chuck Cadman to try to buy his vote. They will have to explain why the Minister of Finance absolutely had to hire his little buddy, paying him over $300,000 and ignoring Treasury Board rules. They will have to explain why the Prime Minister is about to commit nearly $100 billion in new defence spending. 
Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I were one of their constituents, I would be extremely interested in these questions.
Elections CanadaMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when financing their leadership campaigns, the Liberal leader and his opponents received millions of dollars from wealthy and powerful individuals.
The Canada Elections Act clearly stated that loans taken out during the leadership race must be paid back within 18 months or they become illegal donations over the donation limit. The June 3 deadline is fast approaching. Some have speculated Elections Canada may extend the period to repay the loans. 
According to Duff Conacher, "Elections Canada will be acting unethically and undemocratically if it lets any of the Liberal leadership candidates extend their loans past the 18-month deadline”.
Will the Liberal leadership contestants skirt contribution limits, thus breaking the law, through massive personal loans from wealthy, powerful individuals by not repaying their loans on time? Will Elections Canada give special treatment to the Liberal Party by extending the deadline?

Oral Questions
National SecurityHon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is Friday so I get to ask a question, and I would like to ask the minister a simple question. I have been asking for some time now, in I think a very civil way, whether the government would not think it wise to conduct a security review with respect to the conduct of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, advise the House that such a review has taken place and assure the House that there are no concerns about national security.
The minister will be aware of additional facts that have now come to light with respect to the minister's partner. I wonder if the minister or the government would reconsider the decision--
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that after anxiously awaiting his first opportunity to ask the first question, the member has instead chosen to ask about people's private and personal lives. 
[Interjection]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Stop insulting people.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: The hon. member opposite says I should stop insulting people, but that is the line of questioning we are receiving from the Liberal Party right now, which is not just insulting people but inquiring into their private and personal lives.
 We have made it clear that this government would not put national security at risk. 
However, wrapping questions around some false pretense of that nature does not justify the kind of gossip mongering we get from across the way.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, many national security experts do not share the minister's views, since the partner of the Minister of Foreign Affairs played not only a private role, but a public role as well. That must be recognized.
I am frankly astounded that the minister and the government are continuing to defend the position that this has nothing to do with the public interest. Do they still believe that?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, what I continue to think is what most Canadians think, which is that private lives should be private lives. 
There was a fellow who once said that the definition of a Liberal is clearly someone who does not even know how to blush because he has lost the capacity to be embarrassed. I know the member for Toronto Centre has been working hard to try to appear like a Liberal, but that is something he actually said in a debate once.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely devastated. I am wounded. 
Now that we are talking about blushing, I wonder about the minister's travel bill to Laos. He he spent over $22,000 on a return trip from that country to Canada when everyone else was paying far less than that and when a staff member was paying one-tenth of that cost to travel. I wonder if that makes the government House leader blush, just for once.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member's party is the same party that has been saying for the last week or so that it is concerned and wants to see Canada stand tall on the world stage, and now it is being critical of the concept of the foreign affairs minister actually representing Canada at international forums such as the Francophonie conference in question.
We have every intention of continuing to stand up for Canada on the world stage, being there at the important meetings and being there at the Francophonie conference, which we consider to be important to Canada.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the continuing saga of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we learned this morning that, contrary to what the government would have us believe, Ms. Couillard had links with the underworld not a decade ago, but until just recently, in 2005. This confirms what security experts say: people who get into organized crime do not get out.
My question is simple: if investigative reporters were able to uncover Ms. Couillard's shady past, how are we supposed to believe that the offices of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety did not?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we happen to believe that the private lives of people are their private lives. 
However, the hon. member belongs to a party where for one of its lead organizers in Quebec we know we saw some organized crime when it was engaging in the sponsorship scandal, ripping off taxpayers and lining its pockets. People have been charged by the RCMP. The Liberal Party had to give back money. He says that once people are involved in crime, they cannot get out of it. I guess he is speaking for himself.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, when someone's private life threatens to undermine the security of Canadians, it is not a personal question, but a matter of public concern. 
Is it not true that the main reason the government refused to allow Ms. Couillard to attend certain confidential meetings and certain interviews given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs was that the Conservatives knew about Ms. Couillard's past?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, this member may be fond of gossiping, but the fact is that this is not a national security issue.
National DefenceMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, security is the Conservatives' excuse for everything. Security is a catch-all concept to justify their blatant lack of transparency. The strategy is simple: give as little information as possible and control any information released to the public. We had a very fine example of that this week when the government announced first $30 billion, then $50 billion and finally $96 billion for military spending. This is one of the more recent examples of the Conservatives' manipulation.
Do the Conservatives not realize that in a democracy the government has to be transparent and accountable for its actions?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously referring to the action plan on national defence the government presented quite openly this week to the general public. As hon. members know, this is an extremely important initiative.
In other matters, I would point out to the hon. member that Ms. Marois has just presented an action plan on sovereignty. I have not read it yet, but I am quite certain I will not agree with it. At least some thought was put into it. The leader of the Bloc and the Bloc Québécois prefer to just gossip.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, no plan has ever been tabled setting out the Conservatives' military strategy, so they can quit trying to sell us that one.
Manipulation of public opinion has gone so far that the Conservatives are even paying think tanks that are in favour of a military mission in Afghanistan and requiring them to publish op-ed articles and analyses in the media. Alain Pellerin, president of the Conference of Defence Associations, who is paid through Conservative funding, federal funding, acknowledges that the publication quotas that are part of the contract conditions do not make sense.
While this money is openly being used to sell the Conservatives' military vision of the mission in Afghanistan, does the government recognize that it is trying to manipulate the opinion—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the question is about the Conference of Defence Associations of Canada. I want to quote Alain Pellerin, executive director of CDA, who said:
 --his organization has received money from National Defence for decades and the media quotas have been part of the agreement with the military since 2002, when a consulting firm told the department it should draw up more performance-based grant contracts. 
That is something that took place under the Liberal government.
Minister of Foreign AffairsMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the government attempts to minimize the Minister of Foreign Affairs' negligence, it has come to light that his former girlfriend had ties with criminal elements until 2005 at least. In addition to her having been the girlfriend of two people with business connections to the Hells Angels, her father was sentenced in 2001 for growing marijuana for bikers and a third boyfriend was jailed for possession of stolen goods and had ties to organized crime.
How could the Minister of Foreign Affairs disregard his former girlfriend's shady past when the country's security could have been at risk?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, once again, we have stated in this House that the government is not compromising national security. It is not at risk. I will only say that the true and the greatest threat to Canada's security is the separation proposed by the Bloc Québécois.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, we have also learned that Ms. Couillard and her former partner, Robert Pépin, approached a federal organization in 2004 to offer security screening services. 
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs recognize that these troubling revelations demonstrate that his links to such people constitute a significant security risk for the nation and that he is acting irresponsibly?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, in the past, we would read the daily Le Jour to find out about the sovereignist ideology. Under this leader of the Bloc Québécois, we can now read Allô Police and other supermarket tabloids.
Forestry IndustryMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada has a forestry industry in crisis and a Conservative government that does not respond. The mill closure in Mackenzie, B.C. is just the latest example.
 The government is allowing countless companies and communities to flounder and fail without planning for future market cycles. Without targeted help, forestry jobs will disappear, never to return.
Why is the Conservative government handing billions of dollars to oil companies while letting these forest families struggle with an impact that is devastating in local communities?
Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely wrong. It is our government that has ended the tax subsidy for the oil sands projects in future. We are phasing that out.
In fact, we are providing billions of dollars to help those affected workers. Our Prime Minister announced a billion dollars in the community development trust, which was handed over to the provinces to deliver help to these communities directly. We are working with the industry on innovation, new market opportunities and opportunities for technology. The industry is very pleased with our efforts.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the minister to go to Mackenzie, B.C. and just see what the impact is on families and that community as a result of all of the jobs that are being lost there. 
It is the same with the pine beetle. Climate change has allowed the mountain pine beetle to ravage the forests of B.C. The result of the red tide of destruction across B.C.'s interior is being felt in many communities and homes. This season will yet again see major fire risk because of the deadwood and climate conditions. 
I would like to know what steps the Conservative government is taking to address the safety and security of communities at risk. Or will it be just another story of too little, too late?
Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the nerve of the NDP members who stand up and raise the pine beetle issue in the House.
 When the infestation broke out, it was an NDP government in British Columbia that refused to act. It refused to control this. In fact, there are members of the NDP caucus who were sitting at the cabinet table. Everyone knows that this broke out in the mid-1990s when there was an NDP government that refused to deal with it because it was in a provincial park. 
Our government has taken responsible action. We committed a billion dollars over 10 years. We are delivering. We are making a difference. The NDP members should be ashamed of themselves for not acting when they had a chance.
National DefenceHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Prime Minister's spinners were saying that their new defence strategy, all 755 words of it, would cost $30 billion, but yesterday the Prime Minister also said there would be another $50 billion for new equipment.
Whether it is $50 billion or $30 billion or $30 billion plus $50 billion, there is still one glaring fact: none of those numbers are mentioned in the Conservative budget that was published just two and a half months ago. Where is the provision in the budget for $30 billion in new defence operations plus $50 billion in new equipment?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said yesterday very clearly, this is a long term plan, and the long term plan calls for 20 years and to spend $30 billion by 2028, which is the operating budget. It will be annually by that time.
The other $45 billion to $50 billion is for capital expenditures. That is the plan, as the Prime Minister said, and that is the long term plan for the armed forces over that period of time.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just totally contradicted himself from yesterday. One shows respect for Canada's armed forces first and foremost by telling the truth. According to the government's own projections, there is absolutely no fiscal room to pay for this new defence plan. 
Even calling it a plan is a stretch. According to the defence department, this $30 billion or $50 billion or $80 billion or $90 billion plan exists only in two speeches. At 755 words, the Prime Minister's speech was totally vacuous and, strangely, the defence minister's speech, the one that was supposed to have the details, has disappeared. How does the government explain such a farce?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister and I made it very clear what these expenditures are and what was said about this plan.
What Canadians would like to know is what the Liberals' plan is on the carbon tax that they are going to be charging Canadians. Their leader has been saying that they are going to be charging Canadians a carbon tax. We want to know what is in their plan.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government presented a defence plan that no one is allowed to read. It announced costs that no one can agree upon. It has cut the department off from any kind of communication.
When will the minister give this House specifics on his so-called Canada first defence strategy? When will he tell us how much it will cost Canadians?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the 20 year plan that the government has announced includes replacing six core fleets, including the destroyers, land combat vehicles and fixed-wing research and rescue aircraft. For the forces, it includes ensuring the continuity of defence infrastructure and ensuring that the Canadian Forces are ready to deploy where and when they are needed. The time for the decade of darkness is over. We ordered that, and that is in the plan.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of National Defence and the parliamentary secretary are not able to answer the simplest of questions. How can we trust them with something as serious as a 20-year plan for our army?
The minister said that his plan would cost $30 billion, DND is talking about $50 billion, and industry stakeholders estimate nearly $100 billion.
My question is simple. Who is telling the truth?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, there is an operating budget and there is a capital budget. We have indicated what will be the operating budget and what will the capital budget. It is as simple as that. Now if the members do not understand the plan, that is fine.
 However, Canadians would like to know about the carbon tax that the Liberals will charge them. That is an issue in which Canadians are interested.
 As far as we are concerned, the Canada first strategy is where the armed forces are going in the future.
Air TransportationMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question about the Mont-Tremblant International Airport, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety told us that he could not reveal anything about the nature of the discussions taking place. But the airport president, Serge Larivière, is saying that he would like to meet with the ministers concerned as quickly as possible. That is proof enough that there are no discussions taking place and that the parliamentary secretary is making things up.
Instead of saying whatever comes to mind, will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities finally take his files seriously?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member will listen closely. I said that the CBSA provided service at Rivière-Rouge/Mont-Tremblant Airport based on an agreement with the airport. The CBSA is willing to work closely with the airport on this important issue and hopes to find a resolution upon which they both can agree.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is staying seated, just like a Liberal. We are being told that this is a private matter between the Canada Border Services Agency and the airport. It is not a private matter, it is a matter that concerns the 60,000 people from the region who are tired of the inaction of the Conservative government, a government that wants to deprive them of their economic engine. The entire tourism industry is affected.
The question is simple: will the government pay the cost of customs services and accord this airport the same status as all of the other similar airports? 
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, although we cannot disclose the information about private discussions taking place between the CBSA and the airport, discussions are ongoing pursuant to conditions in the agreement signed by CBSA and the airport. CBSA hopes to find a resolution upon which they both can agree.
The EnvironmentMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, I asked the Minister of the Environment about the precarious financial position of the upper St. Lawrence and southern estuary priority intervention zone committees. Their previous contribution agreements with Environment Canada expired on March 31, and they are still waiting for the department to sign new ones.
Will the minister make a promise today to put an end to this unacceptable suspense and sign the contribution agreement immediately?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the government is committed to a cleaner environment. After a decade of denial, a decade of neglect from the Liberals, it is this government that is protecting species at risk. This government is cleaning up the environmental mess left by the Liberals. It is this government that is actually doing something on the environment.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, apparently the parliamentary secretary does not know what a priority intervention zone committee is. They are also known as ZIPs. The upper St. Lawrence ZIP will exhaust its line of credit on May 30. After that, the employees will be dismissed.
Will the minister take this situation seriously and make sure that these employees, who are dedicated to protecting the St. Lawrence River, are not fired?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the member also knows the commitment of the government to clean up waterways.
We are the first government that is stopping the dumping of raw sewage, another legacy of the Liberal government. It was Liberal policy that it was an acceptable practice to dump raw sewage. It is not with this government. We are cleaning up the environment.
Atomic Energy of Canada LimitedMr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the government announced that it is shutting down the MAPLE reactor project at AECL. This technology was being developed to replace the aging NRU reactor at Chalk River, which produces medical isotopes.
Considering the isotope shortage crisis that the government created earlier this year, how can it tell us that this decision will not have a negative impact on the secure and long term supply of the medical isotopes?
Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, our government has accepted the decision of AECL to terminate the MAPLE project to allow it to focus on its core business responsibilities.
I am surprised the Liberals are getting on their feet and asking this question. The project began 12 years ago under their leadership. They were warned that it was a high-risk project. It has been plagued since its inception with problems. It has cost hundreds of millions of dollars and has technological challenges. The MAPLE project has never produced one isotope. 
This will not impact isotope production in Canada, period.
One thing we do know is this government is taking leadership and acting, something the Liberal government could not do the entire time it was in office.
Omar Alghabra: Mr. Speaker, I will tell members what I am surprised about. I am surprised that the minister is here answering questions. I hope he does not disappear like he did last time.
The minister told us at the natural resources committee that the National Bank review of AECL was completed. We know the government is secretly considering the privatization of AECL. This decision appears to be nothing but the government using taxpayer money for this writeoff.
Will the minister simply admit that this decision will make the privatization of AECL easier?
Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, this is a good business decision. This is the right decision for the Canadian taxpayer. It is the right decision for AECL. It is the right decision for the medical community.
We all know, under the leadership of the former Liberal government, the Liberals spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this project. It is eight years behind schedule. It has been plagued with problems from its inception. 
The Auditor General said, “I would certainly hope that somebody is going to take a good look at this particular project, assess very closely what is the likelihood of success”. That is exactly what we have done. We are providing the leadership. It is high time that somebody did.
Foreign AffairsMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, twice now the foreign affairs minister has ducked my question about whether his government supports an international ban on all cluster bombs. Both times he has simply read identical evasive lines; that is, they want to “reduce the harmful effects of certain types of cluster bombs”.
Will the minister put away his script today and admit that his government actually opposes an international ban on all cluster bombs?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada shares the goal of reducing the negative humanitarian impact of certain types of cluster munitions. Canada has never used cluster munitions. We are destroying whatever cluster munitions we have. 
We have agreed to participate in the Oslo process. We are actively participating in meetings in Oslo, Lima and Vienna.
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, the minister's actions reveal his true intentions. 
Next week, in Dublin, the international community meets to seek a ban on all cluster bombs, a ban that follows in the proud footsteps of Canada's efforts a decade ago to ban landmines. However, the minister is not even attending. He is sending a junior note-taker in his place.
Why is the government so indifferent to the horrendous effects of all cluster bombs, particularly, on innocent civilians?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada has never used cluster munitions. We are actively participating in meetings in Oslo, Lima and Vienna. Also, I am proud to say that we have signed on to the Wellington declaration. Again, we will be active participants in all the meetings
Perhaps the Liberals should talk more about their carbon tax, which Canadians are more interested in because it will destroy the economy.
Atomic Energy of Canada LimitedMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government is providing responsible leadership over our economy and the building of a stronger Canada. 
On nuclear energy, the Minister of Natural Resources has been restoring the prudent management this important file deserves, after years of neglect by the previous government. The minister has been acting to address the issues our government inherited by funding legacy liabilities, launching a review of AECL, managing spent fuel and modernizing legislation.
As has been previously raised, the government has accepted the termination of the MAPLE project. Could the minister clarify again for the members the reasons behind this decision?
Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, as I previously stated, this project was plagued from its very inception, with hundreds of millions of dollars being spent and technological problems.
 More important, this will allow AECL to focus on what it does very well, and that is build power reactors. It has built projects around the world, on time and under budget. 
I want to reassure the House that the MAPLE project will have no impact at all on the production of isotopes. It has never produced an isotope, ever.
Foreign AffairsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, when I first asked about the conditions of the Canadian citizen, Mr. Abdelrazik, the foreign affairs minister said “we have provided Mr. Abdelrazik with temporary shelter at the embassy in Khartoum”. We have confirmation today that Mr. Abdelrazik is spending his nights sleeping on the floor in the bathroom of the embassy.
Is this the government's version of a shelter, of a safe haven? Does anyone over there believe this is acceptable for any Canadian citizen?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of this case, but as the matter is currently now before the courts, it would be inappropriate for us to comment right now.
National DefencePaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, on another note, when it came to advocacy groups, the government was happy to cut funding for child care groups and women's groups. It was no problem because they were doing advocacy. However, when it comes to selling the war, it lets the taxpayer dollars flow. It turns on the taps. 
The government should know that it is not acceptable. We have now learned that we have a contract with the CDA that is pegged to a performance contract. This is the same kind of philosophy the Bush administration had, and it failed miserably.
Will the government stop funding these propaganda machines and stop trying to sell a war—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. government House leader.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I think I already told the House of the comments of Alain Pellerin, the executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations. He said that his organization received money from national defence for decades and that the media quotas, of which the hon. member expresses concern, were introduced into its contract in 2002 by the Liberal government.
I know there are people in the country, and the NDP are among them, who do not like to see our military front and centre. Most of all, they do not like to see good news stories about the military.
We are very happy to see there are people doing serious work, pointing out the great successes and accomplishments of our armed forced and why we are so proud of them on the world stage.
The EnvironmentMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that June 2 is the deadline for bids for oil and gas leases in the Beaufort Sea. It is rushing to sell five leases worth over $2 billion to the highest bidder in key polar bear, beluga and bowhead whale habitat.
DFO has no integrated management plan and, meanwhile, even U.S. Republicans have moved to recognize the scientific evidence, listing the polar bear as an endangered species.
Industry is calling for an environmental impact assessment. The Mackenzie Valley pipeline is not operational.
 Whose interests are the government looking after as they rush these leases out the door?
Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, that is all nonsense. However, let me tell the member one plan we do not have. We do not have a plan to raise the price of gasoline to $2.25 a litre. Under Bill C-288, the Liberal plan would drive the price of gasoline north.
We now have heard from the leader of the Liberal Party who wants to run across the country during the summer and sell his carbon tax plan. This is ill-fated. It is wrong. It is the wrong approach to start introducing these carbon taxes.
 That is not something this government will do and that is something of which the member should maybe take note.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, it gets much worse. A recent U.S. mineral management service study says that there is a 40% chance of a massive oil spill from existing exploration activities off the coast of Alaska.
The cleanup technology has not been developed and the oil spill risk is further compounded because of long winters, extreme cold, ice, high wind and low visibility. In fact, BP could not deal with its spill in the U.S. Beaufort in 2000 because its mechanical recovering system was overwhelmed and it collapsed.
Is this just another case of the government putting ideology ahead of environmental conservation?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the member does not understand how the Species at Risk Act works. He needs to go back and read the act.
Independent Canadian scientists were consulted and they made the recommendation. This government has consulted scientists. We have consulted the Inuit first nation.
Why is that member attacking first nations? Why is he attacking Canadian scientists? Shame on him.
Portrait GalleryMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the new national portrait gallery is supposed to be a national institution, it only makes sense to build it in the national capital region. However, this government, which has never cared about promoting Canadian heritage, seems to prefer to leave the construction of the museum in the hands of the company that makes the lowest bid.
Why does this government refuse to build the national portrait gallery in the national capital region?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the government believes very deeply that it is extremely important to be able to promote Canadian culture in all regions of the country.
That is why we invited all cities interested in becoming home to this new initiative to submit proposals. Today is the deadline for doing so. We believe it is important that Canadian heritage be accessible to all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, all around the world national portrait galleries are displayed in national capitals, but in Canada, our government considers cultural merchandise to be like any other good that is devoid of any national meaning.
Will the government stop neglecting our culture, send a clear message and build a new portrait gallery in the national capital region?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Canadian Heritage has received numerous amounts of correspondence supporting our government's position. 
Let me quote what Jeff Browaty, a Winnipeg city councillor, said:
 Why should Canadian citizens contribute to so many national institutions that many have no access to? I applaud the [Prime Minister's] government for declaring the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg as the first national cultural institution located outside the capital. 
He went on to say, “I truly believe it will be a magnet for people around the world to learn about human rights”. 
Labour Market TrainingMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in budget 2007, the government promised to transfer the $500 million in funds allocated for young people, people with disabilities and older workers. Yet this government is still trying to impose its priorities on Quebec, thereby encroaching on its areas of jurisdiction and showing a lack of respect for the Quebec nation.
Can the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development confirm that he will transfer the funds for labour market training to Quebec, with no strings attached? 
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has programs for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, throughout ten provinces and three territories. We believe in education and training. We have put more money into child care than any other government, $5.6 billion in early learning and child care. We have invested in training and skills. That investment is more than any other government has done in history.
Interparliamentary AffairsFrance Bonsant: Mr. Speaker, the executive of the Canadian section of the Inter-Parliamentary Union has adopted a Bloc Québécois motion calling for the offer to hold the Inter-Parliamentary Union general assembly in Quebec City in 2010 to be maintained. In addition, the secretary general of the Inter-Parliamentary Union has offered to come to Canada “in the hope that Canada will soon welcome an IPU assembly”.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs show some openness so that Quebec City can host this major conference in 2010?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, we fully support holding this event here in Canada, in Quebec City. My colleague, the minister, has said as much on numerous occasions. Obviously, we have to work with the decision-makers to move things forward.
However, some people on the opposition side, especially on the Liberal benches, like to stir up trouble, particularly certain senators from the Quebec City area who say that this will never happen. 
Post-Secondary EducationMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I asked about the decision of the U.K. government to cancel the Commonwealth scholarships for Canadian students.
We know that the government spends a lot of time trying to shape and distort the news, but there must be somebody over there who reads it now and then, yet the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for higher education told the House last week she had never even heard of the scholarships. Last night the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation admitted his government was not even consulted and now it is scrambling madly to make up for this snub.
The government needs to stand up strongly for Canadian students. When is it going to start?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member yesterday in my answer during the late show that Canada was concerned about this decision and that we would be asking the government of the U.K. to revisit the decision.
Canada has approached the government of the U.K. to talk about revisiting the issue, as I said yesterday.
International AidLeon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, buildings have been destroyed, cars flipped over, thousands of people killed and children buried in rubble. Canadians have watched this unfold on television on a daily basis and are left with a feeling of despair. 
The Chinese authorities, to their credit, have mounted a major rescue effort with over 100,000 troops in one of the fastest reactions to a natural disaster that the world has ever seen.
However, Canadians want to know what their government is doing to help. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation tell us what this government is doing for the people in China?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, we are all saddened by the chaos in the aftermath of the earthquake in China and this government stands ready to answer the call.
I am pleased to tell the House today that Canada has responded to the Red Cross appeal for international assistance and we will be sending them $1 million. 
I want to emphasize what the minister said yesterday, that our government has committed to match dollar for dollar the donations made by individual Canadians.
I want to let the people of China know that we will do everything in our power to help them in their time of need.
SportMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is no place in amateur sports for violence, bullying, exploitation or abuse. A safe and healthy sports experience starts with competent trained coaches to create an atmosphere of fair play and respect.
In light of recent incidences of violence in amateur sport that horrified many Canadians, why is our Secretary of State for Sport not using her office to ensure that Canada's 300,000 coaches are promoting fair play and fun and preventing this culture of bullying and violence that so disturbs many Canadians?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I noted the press conference my colleague had this morning on this issue. I think all members of the House from all parties agree with the sentiment of what he has just said. We just happen to disagree with the solution that he has proposed. 
I think local amateur sporting organizations can take care of some of these things. I think local solutions to some of these local problems are how these problems are best handled. We saw that in fact with the Quebec junior hockey league when there was that violent incident that we all remember seeing on television.
We agree with the sentiment of what the member has proposed, but I think solutions are best found locally.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, successive federal governments copping out has led to the expansion and escalation of the problem.
In my home province of Manitoba we have trained all 10,000 of our amateur coaches using a program designed by former NHLer, Sheldon Kennedy. The program is accessible, affordable and effective.
Why would our Secretary of State for Sport not promote and implement a national program to elevate the standard of coaching right across the country? Instead of opting for doing nothing at all and abdicating her responsibility, she has a golden opportunity to use her office for something positive, yet she does absolutely nothing that we can determine.
James Moore: Again, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sentiment of what my colleague is saying, but I do not think it is fair in any Parliament to say, “Either it is my solution or there is no other solution”. There are other solutions. We believe in supporting, as I said, local sports organizations. Also, we support young kids getting involved in amateur sports. That is why we have the $500 per child amateur sport tax credit, so that kids can get more involved in amateur sport.
We believe in reaching out and supporting local organizations, the volunteer organizations at the grassroots in communities across the country that are helping young kids get involved in amateur sport, to participate in ways that are sportsmanlike and build camaraderie, to become young athletes with the kind of character that we know makes Canada very strong.
TasersMr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has been shamefully absent from the B.C. taser inquiry. Earlier this week, the only federal politician to go before the inquiry was the Liberal public safety critic who rightfully put the onus on Taser International to prove that tasers are safe. Even the chairman of the company admitted to the inquiry that tasers are not risk free.
It has been months since the RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner recommended that tasers be reclassified as impact weapons. When will the minister take action on this file?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there are a number of investigations going on, including inquiries in British Columbia.
We have received the report from the Public Complaints Commissioner. As more information becomes available, we will deal with the issue.
Government ProcurementMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government demonstrated our commitment to accountability by introducing the Federal Accountability Act as the first piece of legislation tabled in the House.
This legislation includes provisions, like the creation of the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman, to bring more accountability and transparency to the procurement process.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services  give the House an update on the status of the Procurement Ombudsman and how this office will give small and medium business continued confidence in the federal procurement process?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, yes, it is true that yesterday the Minister of Public Works and the President of the Treasury Board announced the official appointment of Mr. Shahid Minto as the government's first Procurement Ombudsman and that the office is now up and running.
The announcement is a final step in the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act which our government brought forward after the last election campaign to strengthen accountability, fairness and transparency in all areas of parliamentary and public service and to improve opportunities for small and medium size businesses and enterprises when it comes to government procurement.
The Procurement Ombudsman will examine departmental practices in acquiring materials and services as well as make any appropriate recommendations to the relevant department for the improvement of these practices.
This is what we promised to do and we have gotten it done.
Regional Economic DevelopmentRaymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, unable to justify his decision to cut funding to Montreal International, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec declared in this place that the list of all organizations attracted to Montreal by Montreal International was confidential. This list is so confidential that it appears in black and white in the annual report available on Montreal International's website.
Would the minister like me to table the annual report in this House?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. CED continues to support economic organizations by funding one-time projects that are time-limited and time-defined and generate concrete and measurable results.
HealthMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, experts have said that the silicone in silicone gel breast implants contains toxic substances from the cyclohexasiloxane family, wich are among the 200 chemical substances considered harmful to humans.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages plan on protecting women's health and urging her colleague, the Minister of Health, to put silicone gel breast implants on the list of products banned by Health Canada?
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary for Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the member that this government takes the issue of safety of breast implants and any other special medical devices very seriously. We have a very stringent mechanism to review these products. We have the government's chemical management plan, which is a world leader in the area of chemical management.
Canadians will be safe. Our government will make sure that occurs.

Routine Proceedings
Nuclear EnergyDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, under Section 32(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, one treaty entitled “Exchange of notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Russian Federation constituting an additional agreement to the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, done on November 20, 1989”. 
An explanatory memorandum is enclosed with the treaty.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wascana is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary is on his feet, I wonder if he would take this opportunity also to table the defence strategy that the government says it has, but has not produced a shred of evidence to indicate what it is.
The Speaker: I am not sure that the member for Wascana has raised a point of order. Government members can table documents, as he knows, when they want. Ministers can always table documents in the House. It sounded like a question he might have asked during question period.
The hon. government House leader is rising on tabling of documents?
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to respond that a document outlining the issues in question and details of our plans for Canada's forces was tabled yesterday in response to his very request.
The Speaker: Splendid, that deals with that matter then.
Committees of the HouseMichael Savage: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
This report is related to the committee's study on access to justice.
PetitionsMr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note today that the energy income trusts have finally recovered to their level of two years ago, so it is appropriate that I would introduce yet again another income trust broken promise petition.
This is from residents in my community of Mississauga South. They remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts, but he broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.
The petitioners therefore call upon the government, first of all, to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions, as shown in the finance committee; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.
John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by many members of my community of Delta. They are petitioning the government to prohibit the construction of above ground power lines through the community of Tsawwassen.
They point out that in that community there are more wintering concentrations of marine birds than anywhere else in Canada, and that when it comes to migrant and wintering marine birds in Canada, there are something like 326 species from 20 countries in over three continents that actually funnel through Delta. They would like the Minister of the Environment to remember that Canada is a signatory to the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and prohibit the construction of these above ground power lines.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling two petitions signed by residents of the greater Montreal area who are concerned about the shortage of health care professionals in our region.
They therefore call upon the Government of Canada to: first, provide Canadians with the health care professionals they need, where they need them; second, to establish a fund to educate, retain and enhance the lives of health care providers; and third, to invest in innovation and technology to make our health care system more responsive and efficient.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present this petition. The petitioners note that under current federal criminal law an unborn child is not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crime. They note that a vast majority of the public supports laws to protect unborn children from acts of violence against their mothers that also injure or kill the child in their womb. 
They call on Parliament to enact legislation which would recognize unborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against their mothers, allowing two charges to be laid instead of one. Of course, if Bill C-484 were passed, it would do exactly that.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from many students from St. Mary's Secondary School in Cobourg and other interested citizens of Northumberland—Quinte West asking the government to consider the plight of Omar Khadr, who is in prison in Cuba.
Questions on the Order PaperLynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 235 and 243.
Marlene Jennings: With regards to the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries Advisory Group Report of March 29, 2007: (a) which of the 27 recommendations have been implemented by the government; (b) which of the 27 recommendations have been partially implemented or planned; (c) what directives, if any, have been given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to his Department regarding the study of or implementation of each of the 27 recommendations; (d) what directives, if any, have been given since the March 2007 Report, by the Department of Foreign Affairs to its embassies and missions abroad concerning government policy towards Canadian extractive industries operating abroad; (e) what follow-up consultations between the government and extractive industry representatives, civil society representatives and the academic community have been carried out since June 2007; and (f) what future consultations, if any, have been planned by the government to address the recommendations delineated in the Advisory Group Report?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in reponse to a) Two of the recommendations have already been implemented: 1) Canada's support for the extractive industries transparency initiative, including a contribution of $1,150,000 to the EITI trust fund over multiple years; and 2) enhanced public reporting by the Canada investment fund for Africa. The government continues to review the recommendations developed by the national round tables.
In response to b) The government is carefully reviewing the recommendations developed by the national round tables advisory group and will make public its proposed course of action once finalized.
 In response to c) As the lead on the corporate social responsibility file for the Government of Canada, the Minister of International Trade has instructed officials to analyze the advisory group's recommendations and to develop efficient policy responses. 
In response to d) Advocating honesty and integrity in Canadian business dealings abroad has long been the practice of our diplomatic missions overseas. The Government of Canada encourages and expects Canadian companies investing abroad to respect all applicable laws and international standards, and to conduct their activities in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This has been, and will continue to be, an essential aspect of the Government of Canada's support for Canadian investment and trade interests in any region. The government is also enhancing the corporate social responsibility knowledge and capacity of its officers at home and abroad to best counsel and advise extractive sector companies operating overseas. 
In response to e) In the last year, the Minister of International Trade has met with mining and oil and gas industry representatives, as well as representatives of the NGO community, in a variety of fora to discuss a number of issues, including corporate social responsibility. 
In response to f) Building on the valuable experience of the national round tables process, the government continues to consult with key stakeholders as we move forward in addressing these complex issues. 
Mr. Peter Stoffer: With regard to the debts, obligations and claims written off and forgiven by the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario, what are: (a) the types of approval for write-offs or forgiveness under the Financial Administration Act; (b) the number of cases approved by the Minister in 2006-2007 for write-offs or forgiveness under the Financial Administration Act; (c) the amounts approved by the Minister in 2006-2007 for write-offs or forgiveness under the Financial Administration Act; (d) the types of approval for write-offs or forgiveness under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act; (e) the number of cases approved by the Minister in 2006-2007 for write-offs or forgiveness under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act; and (f) the amounts approved by the Minister in 2006-2007 for write-offs or forgiveness under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the debts, obligations and claims written off and forgiven by the federal economic development initiative in Northern Ontario, in response to a) the type/levels of approvals required for write-offs or forgiveness are as follows:
In response to b) There were six proponents with a total of nine projects written off in 2006-2007.
 In response to c) The total amount approved for write-offs in 2006-2007 was $2,286,790.01. 
In response to d) The levels of approval are the same for all write-offs or forgiveness. 
In response to e) There were three proponents that were written off due to bankruptcy. 
In response to f) The amount written off due to bankruptcy of the three proponents was $1,750,955.10. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsLynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 201 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Glen Pearson:  With regard to the Tomorrow Starts Today program in the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) what has been the total spending under the progam since 2001; (b) how much of this total has been spent in each of the provinces in each of the years 2001 to 2007, inclusive; and (c) what is the per capita amount of spending of this program per province in each of the years 2001 to 2007, inclusive?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): When we were last discussing Bill C-34, there were 10 minutes left under questions and comments for the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East has a question.
John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his very astute and acute observations on this particular topic.
My friend opposite mentioned it but I want to note that in her opening address to the treaty negotiations, Chief Baird noted the low levels of education, the high unemployment and the high number of people who were on welfare in her community. My friend asked a very pertinent question: Are treaties the magic bullet to fix that problem? He made a clear case that it was not so. I would agree with him and say that those kinds of problems are the problems of families, not the problems of governance.
He also noted that in Tsawwassen there are only 160 members living on the reserve out of the 350 and asked the question: How does one ensure that nepotism is not the order of the day? That is a very real question. How does one ensure that democratic principles are followed?
I want to point out that in the last election, Bertha Williams ran for chief and yet she was denied the membership list of the band which she wanted in order to run an effective campaign. Again, I believe that is a violation of charter rights, something that would not be tolerated at the federal level but certainly was at that level. With this treaty, charter rights will not be recognized.
Another question I have for the member is this. The industrialization of the reserve that will flow from the agreement with the Vancouver Port Authority will result in the expropriation of Bertha Williams' property so that band members living in Los Angeles and Alabama, not to mention Winnipeg, can cash in on the money that will flow. Does the member opposite think that this is a worthy result of a treaty?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend who has been a leader on this issue. He really hits a point that the committee has to grapple with. It is extremely troubling when people who are living afar have the ability to make decisions on the reserve for people on the reserve, when they have no physical connection or economic interest in the reserve and they are able to make decisions.
The second issue is the question of process, that Ms. Williams can actually have her land taken away from her. The question that would come to my mind is what recourse does she have, what recompense does she have, and what abilities does she have to plead her case if that is not of her will. We know that the Government of Canada can take away land from people under certain circumstances. What kinds of rules and regulations are there to protect the individual member of the Tsawwassen Band if their land is going to be appropriated. 
I also want to say something about a study that has been done in Vancouver. I know members of the House will be very interested. It is called the CEDAR study. The CEDAR study looked at 500 aboriginal people living on the street who are IV drug abusers. The study found that half of those aboriginal people living on the street had been sexually abused and the median age of sexual abuse was six.
That has to rip at one's heart. Can we imagine that level of sexual abuse, the volume of sexual abuse, the age at which this is occurring, and the impact that it has on people? It makes one want to cry. That is the situation.
As an aside, I would like to mention that the Insite supervised injection site is up for renewal at the end of June. I would plead the case to the government that in light of the findings that we are seeing of what is behind some of the people who are living on the street and who are IV drug abusers, let Insite continue for as long as there is a demand and let other cities that want supervised injection sites have them. It is a matter of life and death. It is absolutely essential to save lives and save the lives of some of the most beaten up, impoverished and destitute people that we have in our society.
Charlie Angus:  Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's discussion on this treaty. He had talked about the problems with the Indian Act. I certainly think that what we have seen in our region is a problem with Indian affairs and the inability of communities to get the most basic levels of support, basic levels of health care, and basic levels of infrastructure.
In our region, in the isolated James Bay coast lands 100 years ago we had the Hudson's Bay factor, then we had the Indian agent, and now we have the DIAND bureaucrat. I am not really sure if at any point it is a different person or not because of the continual heavy hand of interference on the most basic of things.
The member mentioned health care. In some of my communities, Kashechewan and Attawapiskat, we have 20% to 25% of the people who simply do not have health cards. The provincial Government of Ontario does not bother to go up the James Bay coast. It will not go up there and provide health cards. The problem is when people have to be medevaced out, the cost on the regional health units is considered a debt because many of these families are not covered provincially. They turn to the federally run health unit. Health Canada says that the James Bay authority is not doing proper medical service because it is running up a debt. The debt is actually servicing the people. 
These people are falling through the cracks. When we meet with Health Canada officials, they say to talk to the province. When we meet with the provincial officials, they say talk to Health Canada. We see third world conditions in these communities time after time.
I would like to hear the hon. member's suggestion. What do we need to do? Do we need to eradicate Indian affairs and replace it with a simpler structure? What do we need to do to ensure that these communities are actually getting the same level of service or even a bare minimum of service which they are being denied?
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, we should ask the aboriginal people what they want and need. We must work with them to ensure their needs are met.
Grassroots aboriginal people living on and off reserve have told me that we should scrap the Indian Act. Why on earth should they be encumbered by a 132-year-old act that puts all manner of obstacles in front of them? That is immoral. 
I cannot believe that in the 21st century we have an Indian Act that treats people entirely different, wraps an anchor around their ankles and tells them to move forward, engage in development, have health care, social programs, education and economic development but they cannot do that. If we were to have a non-aboriginal act parallel to the Indian Act, we would be destitute. We would have the same problems that aboriginal people are facing because we would be labouring under the same conditions. 
We need to remove those shackles and liberate aboriginal people by working with them.
John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments on these social issues that are addressed by the treaty. 
The minister says that the treaty is to provide certainty and economic opportunity, including the development of the Vancouver Port.
I would like to know from the member where in the treaty there is an initiative to build and strengthen families, which are the basis for a strong society and a society where these social issues are addressed. Where in the treaty does he see any indication that this is a concern of the government?
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, Chief Baird has spoken eloquently about the unemployment levels on her reserve and the plight that her people face. We all want to ensure these issues are addressed but the current structure does not enable that to happen.
We need to ensure that the structure being built will enable the grassroots aboriginal people to have the checks and balances and accountability to be participants. We must ensure their rights are protected and they receive the benefits. The benefits should not go to people living in another country who have nothing to do with the reserve other than being a member.
Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-34, the enactment of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement.
I listened with great interest to some of the debate on this legislation. I stand rather reluctantly, I guess, because this is like déjà vu for me. I am hearing the same statements and arguments being made that were made for the Nisga'a treaty. We have people asking why people should still be bound by a 132-year-old Indian Act and yet we are trying to give an opportunity for bands to get out from the Indian Act, move forward and create a more positive future for their people. Each time a Parliament has tried to get Indian bands out of the rules of the Indian Act, we see resistance everywhere, even from some of the people who are affected by the land claims agreements.
I know we will never have one land claims agreement that every member will agree with. It saddens me greatly that people are looking for only negative consequences of these agreements. 
Again I go back to the days when we were trying to get the Nisga'a treaty passed in this House. We heard many arguments from the same members who are speaking against this one in the House of Commons and yet, democratically, this agreement was passed by its members. If a bill is passed or an agreement is ratified by its members democratically and the majority approve it, then people argue that it was not done fairly, that it was not done in a way that passed the scrutiny of fairness. It is difficult to convince naysayers because they will never agree that this can benefit people. 
I have been to some of those communities where they have absolutely no hope of getting out from the oppression of poverty. We have heard sad stories from across this country about what is happening on reserves that we would not tolerate anywhere else in the world. 
We have people fighting in Afghanistan to create opportunities for the people there to receive good education and for women and children to participate in education, opportunities that we in our own country would never consider denying anyone. People in our Canadian Forces are dying fighting for the rights of the people of Afghanistan and yet here in Canada we continue to hold people under the thumb of the Indian Act and allow them to live in poverty, with no hope for the future. They live in conditions that we would not tolerate anywhere else and yet we find ourselves in the House of Commons today debating the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement that would give opportunity for a band to move forward, to take advantage of economic opportunities and create hope for their children.
Some people have asked what we see in this agreement that would lead to the social improvement of the people. I have said this before and I will say it again. We cannot bottle the hope that we give people. We cannot put a dollar figure on the improvement in people's well-being when it is in their heart. We cannot say that it will cost x number of dollars to see someone finish high school and become a contributor to their society instead of landing in jail and becoming a statistic or becoming a statistic in suicide.
We can count all the negatives that happen to people. We can do statistics on how much money we are spending on welfare. We can see numbers for the amount of money spent for children in care among our aboriginal people and yet we cannot put a dollar figure to the positive lives that we have been able to see from the different land claims that have been achieved in this country.
As a beneficiary to our Nunavut land claims agreement, I can tell the House what that means for me, for my parents and other people I encounter in our communities. However, I cannot give the dollar figure and the statistics of what that means for people in that they are finally able to be part of the decision making process that governs our lives.
As Chief Kim Baird said, ”every land claims agreement is a compromise”, but it must be if we are going to get all parties at the table agreeing to a settlement or an agreement. At the end of the day, we all need to be able to walk away from that table feeling that we have made some contribution and that everyone worked together to come up with the best agreement that people can ratify, support and move on with their lives.
Many people do not realize just how much the Indian Act controls people's lives, which we would never be allowed to happen anywhere else. Just because it has been around for so long and people have started to accept it as a normal way of life, does not excuse the governments of the day for not improving how we deal with aboriginal lives on reserve. We are dealing with different pieces of legislation. We have Bill C-21 , which tries to remove section 67 of the Human Rights Act. We have the legislation that is before us now. We already spoke to Bill C-30. Those are all the different pieces of legislation that try to make improvements to an Indian Act that has controlled the lives of a group of people who were one of the first peoples of this country.
I have a story here about this agreement that was written in the Canadian Geographic. One of the stories talks about how, when the provincial government broke ground for its ferry terminal in 1958, the first anyone knew about it was when a foreman knocked at the chief's door at six in the morning asking where his crew should park their trucks. This was a statement by Kim Baird, the current chief of the Tsawwassen. Because there was a long house in its path, the government contractors unceremoniously tore it down. 
This might not seem that significant to people, but I ask members to visualize someone coming through our communities and tearing down a longhouse or a very important part of a community and the uproar that would happen today if any of us saw that happen in one of our communities. It is very difficult to speak of.
I have stories from my own history of people coming in and deciding that they knew better than we did how to run our lives. They just took control and took action that we would never tolerate today. Those different standards for many situations are not tolerable today but were acceptable in the past.
 However, to completely break down people and expect them to rise above all of that without any assistance is asking too much of people.
We see natural disasters happening all over the world, where everything in a community is destroyed. The generosity of people in helping rebuild those communities is something that we can all strive to help with. The human part of us always wants to help those whose lives have been devastated by circumstances beyond their control.
Why we would not apply that same generosity to people who live among us in this country is beyond me. If only most of us really knew what conditions people live in. Then we would not just hear about it, have it fly over our heads and say that we have heard about this for so many years that the story is getting old. We would not be saying that we should move on to something else.
It is very sad and troubling that we have to keep advocating on behalf of people who want to control their own lives. It is very sad that we have to see obstacles all the time when people want to accept responsibility for their communities, move on, make their own decisions and create a future for their people.
The history of this country is built on people overcoming great adversity. The history of our country is that people have had to overcome great challenges to build this country up to where it is today. We aboriginal people are no different. We want to overcome our history and become contributors to society and to this country and its economic development.
 We want our children to finish high school, go on to post-secondary education, provide for their own families and live in healthy, safe communities. This is no different from any person born in this country or who comes to this country as an immigrant. 
If we do not provide the basic and I feel fundamental assistance to people who want to rise above the poverty and the social challenges in their communities, I do not know what more to say to convince people. We have to support people who want to move on.
 I know there are many details that I am sure my colleague across the way will ask me about in trying to convince me why we should not support the legislation. However, at the end of the day it is about people who democratically voted to support an agreement that they know will create some uncertainty for their members and may give them uncertain times in the future, but it does provide certainty in the realm in which they can work.
The Indian bands that are operating under the Indian Act cannot even go to a bank, ask for loans and carry on with economic development opportunities in their communities. They cannot participate in any of the benefits that are happening on the very lands to which they have an attachment, because there is no obligation for many of these private companies--or even provincial governments--to come to an impact and benefit agreement with them.
It is very sad that the people who most need the economic development opportunities and who most need the jobs and the training do not benefit from the prosperous activities happening on the very lands that are in question. 
That is why we went ahead with Bill C-30. That will take care of some of the specific claims, which will help bands come to some economic opportunity, or it will settle claims where they feel they have been wrongly treated, although I am having difficulty with the words for this. However, I know that in the specific claims process people will be able, hopefully, to settle the very issues that are hindering them from moving forward.
I am in support of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement because I see it as one way of settling some of these long outstanding issues that have plagued many first nation bands across this country. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 11 years. I have seen great strides in bringing to a close some of the longstanding issues. I have seen many land claims agreements signed and put into place in the time that I have been a member.
I am very proud that all Inuit in Canada have now settled their land claims. Of course, this is not the be-all and end-all or the only solution for improving the lives of aboriginal people in this country, but it is a fair step that we can move forward from.
 I am not saying that since we have signed our Nunavut land claims agreement every problem has been solved, but it certainly has given hope and an opportunity to people who feel that they now have a role to play in helping make decisions that concern their lives.
 Yes, it was a compromise, as is this very agreement that we are talking about for the people of Tsawwassen. No, it is not going to solve every problem for them, but it gives them a framework that they can work in and they will know that they have the legal opportunity to help make decisions in their area that affect the lives of their people.
I urge people to support this bill so it can be sent to committee. I look forward to hearing from witnesses there. Hopefully we will move this file forward to the Senate and see a conclusion for the long hours of work that people have done on this agreement.
John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of the member opposite, who mentioned that there is resistance, as she termed it, each time the government tries to get people out of the Indian Act. She said it saddened her that people are only looking at negatives.
With all respect, I would remind my friend that the job of this House is to scrutinize bills that are put before it. That should be the case with this bill, as it is with others. This treaty was negotiated by some bureaucrats. I have been the member of Parliament in that area since before these negotiations began. Never once during the whole process was I asked by either government for my comment or what I thought the people in my constituency might be thinking.
The folks who did participate in the process were sworn to secrecy, the councillors and whatnot from the municipalities, such that they could not even report back to their own councils. These folks walked away from the table. 
It was not an open process and the issue was sidestepped in the provincial legislature, so the fact of the matter is that this is the last place this treaty will go before it is brought into effect. Our job here has to be to scrutinize this bill.
Bertha Williams was in town the other day. I had hoped that she would be able to meet with the member opposite and express her concerns to the member, because Bertha has been there all along. Her grandfather was a chief. Her father was a chief. Her brother was a chief of that reserve. Also, Bertha served on the council, yet she is the one who is going to pay the bill because the land that her family has owned since the reserve was created is going to be expropriated and industrialized.
 I would like to know from the member if she thinks that is appropriate. Is it appropriate that the members who are living on that reserve are to have their property expropriated so that folks who are living elsewhere, as I say, in Los Angeles, Alabama, Winnipeg and elsewhere on the North American continent, can benefit? I would like to know if she thinks that is okay.
[Interjection]
Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, as I previously said, there is no agreement of any kind that will satisfy every member. Whether we are talking about a union agreement or a collective agreement by a group of people or a municipality, we are never going to get 100% agreement. If there is one like that, I would be glad to see it.
That is what this country is built on: democracy. We say that if the majority of the people support it, then that is what goes ahead. If we were not a democratic country, I probably would not be sitting on this side. I would just decide by myself that I wanted to sit on that side even though I was democratically outvoted and it was declared that I could not be in the government. I would take an individual position and just say that I did not like the way that was done, so I would just sit on that side and decide for myself that this was the way I was going to do it. That is not the way we do things in this country.
As for talking about people living outside of the country making decisions, there was a court decision saying that it did not matter if people were not living on the reserve. They could still vote in their band elections and on issues happening on their reserves. That is a court case.
Are we going to respect the judicial system of this country? It was not the people who said they were going to vote whether they lived there or not. This was a court case, already settled, which allowed people to have the right to vote on their band elections and issues affecting their band. It was not that the people of Tsawwassen unilaterally decided that they would allow everyone with connections to their band to vote.
It is up to the band to make the agreement work for everyone, because as much as we might not agree with certain issues in any agreement, when 70% of the band members accept an agreement it says that the people have decided to take the risks that come with that agreement. Hopefully people can work out the local matters in a way that will work for everyone.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague because she has seen the conditions in these communities. 
I find the discussion in the House sometimes absurd when I hear people ask how we can make innovation happen on first nations reserves and how will they be able to start buying property.
Two first nation communities in my area do not even have schools. Not only are there no schools, but there is no plan for any schools. They are just not considered a priority. Attawapiskat has no school. Kashechewan has no school. Neighbouring Fort Severn has no school. Communities negotiate and meet with the government and fill out reports and do studies and do further studies when requested by Indian affairs bureaucrats. They go through all these hoops just so their kids can be in a safe environment. At the end of the day at the absolute arbitrary whim of the Indian affairs minister, a plan for a school could be cancelled. How can this be done in a country like Canada? 
There is no standard for education in our first nations communities, not even an obligation to meet basic standards. Provincial jurisdictions have standards for education. They have to meet certain basic obligations in terms of special education, funding and class size. One minister can support a plan for a school and the next minister can come along and decide there is no need to build schools for young native kids and spend the money on something else. That is appalling.
What is more appalling is that the communities have absolutely no voice. They are not asked. They are not part of any consultation about how moneys should be spent. They do everything they can to play by the rules laid out by the government of the day and by the Indian Act, and yet at the whim of a particular  Indian affairs minister the kids will be helped, or the money will be sent back to Treasury Board, or something completely different will be done. 
There is a sense of hopelessness in the communities. They just want to get to first base. They actually want to get out of fourth world conditions and into third world conditions and some day get into second world conditions. This is the debate we need to be having in Parliament as opposed to discussions on how we can start moving toward an innovation agenda within these communities.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Nunavut, equal time.
[Interjection]
Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand where the member is coming from because sometimes we seem to be talking apples and oranges. When we hear things being discussed in the chamber, we tend to think of how it would actually relate to our communities and we see a total disconnect.
In previous speeches I have given in the House, I have gone on about the basic needs in our communities. We just want a place to live in. We just want our kids to be able to go to safe schools, and as the member said, to have a school. I live in a community without a hospital and without a doctor. We just want to be able to access health care. At the end of the day, these are very simple requests. 
For a country that prides itself on democracy, we forget that some of these communities have great difficulty participating on that very basis in our country.
I sometimes see notices in my mailbox about someone who wants to make improvements on his or her land down the street. As someone who lives on that street I have the opportunity to say that I do not think the person should be improving his or her house in that way. I get a--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but I had warned her about equal time.
Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen:  
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 26, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. 
Canadian Human Rights Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): There are two motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-21. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House. 
Lawrence Cannon: moved:
 Motion No. 1 
 That Bill C-21, in Clause 1.1, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 20 on page 1 with the following: 
 “1.1 For greater certainty, the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.” 
 Motion No. 2 
 That Bill C-21, in Clause 1.2, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 2 with the following: 
 “ests against collective rights and interests, to the extent that they are consistent with the principle of gender equality.” 

Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the government's motion to amend clause 1.1 of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, standing in the name of the member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians. 
As hon. members will know, Bill C-21 proposes to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and in the process, eliminate a source of injustice that has existed for more than three decades.
The repeal of section 67 has been a cornerstone of this government's aboriginal agenda throughout its mandate. Our government first committed to the repeal of section 67 as part of our electoral platform. In December 2006, Bill C-44, the precursor to Bill C-21, was introduced. Although Bill C-44 died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in September 14, 2007, our government committed to its reintroduction in the Speech from the Throne delivered on October 16, 2007.
In November 2007, Bill C-21, identical to former Bill C-44, was reinstated. There is ample evidence of strong support among key stakeholders for the repeal of section 67. In the 17 committee hearings devoted to Bill C-44 of the previous session, testimony came from dozens of witnesses, chiefs, members of band councils, representatives of national and regional aboriginal groups, legal specialists and public servants. Although these men and women came from remarkably diverse backgrounds and represented a broad variety of interests, the support for the repeal of section 67 was virtually unanimous. 
While this government took a clear and unambiguous approach to the repeal of section 67, on February 4, 2008 the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development reported Bill C-21 to the House of Commons with several amendments. They included the addition of a broad non-derogation clause, clause 1.1, and an interpretive clause, clause 1.2.
Other proposed amendments included: a new requirement for the Government of Canada to undertake with organizations representing first nations a study to address the fiscal capacity and resource requirements of first nations associated with the repeal of section 67; a change to the review of the effects of the repeal within five years so it could be conducted by the Government of Canada working with organizations representing first nations rather than a parliamentary committee; and finally, an extension of the transition period for the application of the repeal to first nations to 36 months, rather than the 6 months originally proposed by government. These amendments do not affect the immediate application of the repeal of section 67 to the federal government upon royal assent.
This government's preference remains a clear approach to the repeal of section 67. However, in light of committee testimony in which most, if not all, groups expressed concern about how the repeal will be implemented and called and for a further extension of the transition period, the government will support all of the committee's amendments, with the exception of clauses 1.1 and 1.2, the subject matter of today's debate.
Clause 1.1 is a very broad non-derogation clause. As hon. members will know, a non-derogation clause is a statutory provision that indicates the statute is not to derogate or abrogate from the aboriginal and treaty rights as protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In our view, such a clause is unnecessary given that the Constitution takes precedence over all other federal laws. Previous governments have supported the inclusion of a non-derogation clause which clauses are currently found in several federal statutes. Clause 1.1, however, is much broader than any of those existing clauses. 
Given the broad and unprecedented nature of clause 1.1, our view is that it has the potential to reintroduce some of the sheltering of discrimination provided by section 67. 
In fact, in its most recent report entitled “Still a Matter of Rights”, in which the Canadian Human Rights Commission reiterated its call for the repeal of section 67, the commission indicated concern that clause 1.1 could “have the unintended consequence of shielding first nations, in whole or in part, from legitimate equality claims, thus reinstituting section 67 in another form”.
It would be illogical for the opposition, who, on principle, favour repeal of section 67, to intentionally support the inclusion of a provision that would have the unintended effect of sheltering discrimination. As a result, we cannot support clause 1.1, as adopted by the standing committee.
Therefore, notwithstanding our concern for non-derogation clauses, generally, we propose to replace clause 1.1 with the non-derogation language most recently used in existing statutes, namely, the same that was added to the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act.
Regarding Motion No. 2, clause 1.2, our government shares the view that the Canadian Human Rights Act should be applied in a manner that is sensitive to particular circumstances of first nations communities. However, the fact is that it is difficult to find fail-proof language that would address all of the competing considerations for handling a Canadian Human Rights Act complaint in such a context.
 This was the basis for our decision not to include an interpretive provision in Bill C-21. We have always maintained that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is the expert in administrating the Canadian Human Rights Act, is best placed to develop an interpretive provision jointly with first nations outside of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This could be done by way of guidelines, a directive, or regulations, which would be binding on the commission.
In spite of these concerns, the committee chose to insert an interpretive clause in the bill. We recognize that many witnesses called for such a clause, so we are willing to accept this provision.
However, as with clause 1.1., we have concerns with the broad language of the interpretive clause adopted by the committee and the potential for discrimination to be sheltered. We are particularly concerned that women might inadvertently be discriminated against as a result of this clause. 
Therefore, we are proposing to include a provision to ensure the principle of gender equality applies to this clause. Such an amendment would be in keeping with the 2000 Canadian Human Rights Act review panel report, which noted, specifically, that an interpretive provision should not justify discrimination on the basis of sex or condone other forms of discrimination.
As well, the previous government's last attempt to repeal section 67 included an interpretive clause with a similar provision related to gender equality.
The government is committed to improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians and to the repeal of section 67. We are committed to creating, for the first time since the Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted 30 years ago, a right of complaint for first nations in relation to the Indian Act. 
Therefore, I urge members to vote in favour of these necessary motions.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is about the difference between the non-derogation clause that is recommended by his government and the one put forward by the standing committee. It must have contemplated other boilerplate versions of non-derogation clauses that exist in many pieces of legislation pertaining to first nations. I did not understand, in his speech, the difference between the language put forward by the committee and the language that his government would prefer to see. Perhaps he could explain it in a little more detail. 
If a non-derogation clause is to ensure that nothing in the bill abrogates from or derogates from aboriginal treaty rights under section 35, why is this additional nuance important to the government he represents?
[Interjection]
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, first, it is important to recognize that at the heart of the bill is a desire to see the lives of aboriginal Canadians improved.
As I pointed out in my statement, section 67 has been with us for over 30 years. It was introduced, at that time, to be a temporary measure so it would not conflict with the Indian Act. Over the course of this government's time in government, we have taken a number of steps to improve that. 
The basic answer to the question is the way it currently exists in clause 1.1, it is a very broad description of the kinds of things that could lead to dispute. For example, in clause 1.1, as it is currently written, before the amendment, it talks about other rights and freedoms, including any rights or freedoms recognized under customary laws or traditions of first nations people of Canada. Right now, parliamentarians, courts, the Human Rights Tribunal itself would be unable speculate as to what those other rights might be. Therefore, it is important that we tighten that up to define what those other rights are.
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his support of extending human rights legislation to our first nations, ensuring we have equality across the country.
It is really a sad comment on our country that we have delayed so long in extending human rights legislation to the first nations of our country. 
I am glad he raised the issue of the non-derogation clause. The one included in the amendment is much broader, as he has already mentioned, than the “standard” non-derogation clause normally used in legislation of this kind.
Would he expand a little on that? Could he also explain how, in some practical ways, the legislation would enhance human rights on our first nations reserves?
[Interjection]
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, it has been clear, through my time in Parliament and my time serving on the committee for aboriginal affairs and northern development, that all members of our committee share the same commitment to improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians.
We may differ, as my hon. colleague commented in her former speech regarding the Tsawwassen claims. We may differ in our approaches as to how to achieve that, but there is no question in my mind that all members on all sides of the House are committed to bringing this improvement to the lives of aboriginal people.
It is important that we, as the government, take leadership of this so people are not discriminated against unfairly, for example, if a person is discriminated against on the basis of gender, or race or any of the other 10 or 12 things that are included as the basis for complaint against human rights enactment. It is important we have the tools in place so people in first nations communities have the same rights that other Canadians have enjoyed ever since the act was implemented.
Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-21. This has been very contentious legislation, as short as it is. 
We have said many times that the Liberal Party supports the repeal of section 67. It is how the bill was drafted, how it was put forward without including the amendments that were proposed by the many witnesses who came before our committee. We have a great deal of trouble with that.
We have made many attempts in the years that I have been here to try to repeal section 67 of the Human Rights Act. Maybe part of the difficulty was that it was put in with other items, for example, in Bill C-6, with which the communities had great trouble. I want it to be on record that we were never against the repeal of section 67, as some of the press coverage has made us out to be. 
The two pieces of legislation we are dealing with in the House today brings to light again the very statements of many aboriginal members. We tend to forget there are basic rights that we take for granted in our country, to which people in aboriginal communities do not have access. However, our party will support the two motions that have been put forth.
The point I want to make is there should have been a non-derogation clause in the legislation in the first place. If the Conservative government had put forth this legislation in the same way it did with the specific claims, with cooperation from the Assembly of First Nations, the bill would have been passed in the House by now and would have been put into practice already.
When the minister introduced Bill C-30, he talked about the great cooperation between the Assembly of First Nations and the government to put forth that bill. Again, if the Conservatives had that same kind of consultation and reaching out, the bill probably would have been in better form. As I said, our party will support both Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 2.
Judging by the questions I heard in our committee from some of the government members, they seemed to have great difficulty with understanding collective rights versus individual rights. We asked opposition members that there be some consideration of collective rights. Some people have interpreted that to mean we are giving the bands and, in some cases, the chiefs an out from what repealing section 67 would do. 
I beg to differ. As I said in committee and in an earlier speech today, we are quick at looking at the negative of these initiatives, instead of looking at the positives. There could be different considerations that would actually be more beneficial and more appropriate to the people whom this legislation will serve.
One example I used was how we treated our elders. Because I come from a different community, I am not first nations but one of the Inuit from the first peoples of our country, we have very stated understandings in our culture. We respect the elders and we do certain things that cater to elders, which might not be considered in other cultures.
I remember giving one example at committee. When we check in at the airport we see all these different aisles for business class, for people with no baggage and for the regular lineup. I could see in one of our communities that we would have a lineup specifically for elders so they do not have to wait for 20 people ahead of them when they are trying to check in at the airport.
I give that example to show that when we look at different cultures and different ways of doing things it does not always have to be in a negative light. We do have some practices that I think would bring about better communities across this country if they were practised.
We have not survived as a people in some of the harshest climates in this country by not working together. We do many things that are good for the whole community. I know that is a very different understanding from that of a municipality divided into lots where everyone individually owns the lot their house is on. That is not always the case in our communities.
We have to understand that in many ways we think of ourselves as one group of people, not as individuals. Of course, we have come to appreciate the individual rights that we are learning along the way, but again I am stressing that when we look at situations that concern individual rights versus collective rights, all we are asking for is a certain understanding.
 We are not saying that we should always rule in favour of collective rights. What we are trying to point out is that there should be some consideration when people come before the tribunal such that the tribunal tries to fully understand the makeup of the community, the customs of the people and the way things have been done traditionally.
I have stated before, and I will state it again, that just because we extend certain rights to people it does not mean they will all exercise them. There needs to be a transition phase that is respectful. In this case, I am very pleased that we were able to see the 36 months. The transition phase needs to educate people on what this means for them.
I live in a community where we can put cases before the tribunal, but we do not always see people taking advantage of that because we have not fully educated the people to let them know what their rights are. That is an ongoing process.
 I am very supportive of people being given that opportunity in the first nations communities, just as we are trying to do with other pieces of legislation we are putting forth in the House to improve lives on reserves and in other aboriginal communities to get them to a level playing field.
In the other debate that I was talking in, I could not stress enough that in most cases we are looking for basic needs. We are looking for very basic things that other people take for granted. We want to make sure that first nations are able to participate in those same democratic processes that we have in this country. 
I would very much like to see this legislation pass. I know that our party will be supporting it.
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that I have the honour of working with this member on the aboriginal affairs committee. I applaud her efforts to improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians. I know that she herself has a very incredible story of perseverance and of dedication, not only to her people but to the country of Canada. 
I want to thank her as well for clarifying her understanding of the tension between collective rights and individual rights. I think we probably will never totally and completely have exactly the same basis of understanding. I appreciate her attempts to clarify that.
I am wondering if she could expand a little on her support for the clause 1.2 amendment, which adds the words “to the extent that they are consistent with the principle of gender equality”. I think this possibly gets to the heart of some of our concerns in terms of collective versus individual rights.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): If the hon. member for Nunavut takes the same amount of time, then we will have time for other questions. She has the floor.
[Interjection]
Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty with the amendment that has been added to clause 1.2. I believe the line was “with the principle of gender equality”. Of all people, I will not have any difficulty with gender equality. I think this may alleviate some of the difficulties that some people were having with the amendment that we put forth in our committee.
As I said, we will be supporting these motions. I look forward to seeing how this plays out in the communities.
 Unfortunately, I probably will not be in this House to see how that actually is implemented in the communities, but I will certainly be keeping an eye on it. I think that once we pass legislation in the House we should always take a look at some of the agreements that we have done and the legislation that we have passed. We should take the time to take a snapshot picture or see how it has affected the lives of the people in the communities affected by the legislation and policies that we pass.
Pat Martin: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I can illustrate the problem between the non-derogation clause put forward by the committee and the non-derogation clause contemplated by the government and put forward here today.
In regard to when any reference to customary laws and traditions is eliminated, I will give one example. I was part of the 1992 Charlottetown accord aboriginal rounds. We met with some aboriginal elder women. They did not want us to support the Charlottetown accord. One elder gave us an example. She said, “In my community, the women are not even allowed to run as chief”. We all shook our heads and said that sounded terrible. Then she said, “But the men aren't allowed to vote”.
I am trying to illustrate the Eurocentricity of some of what we do here. In their way, they had found a way to make sure there was gender balance. Yes, the women could not be chief, but the men were not allowed to vote. That would not pass the human rights commission today.
If we go for strict gender equality we are ignoring the customs and traditions of at least that first nation and maybe others. There are going to be these inherent conflicts between our Eurocentric view of human rights and equality and the culture, tradition, heritage and traditional customs of many first nations. That is the problem with the non-derogation clause being proposed here today as opposed to the one that was carefully crafted in a very sensitive way by the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Nunavut has one minute to respond.
[Interjection]
Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this will ever cease to be a topic of discussion. One of the difficulties people might have is with the definition of customary laws or traditions. When we make laws in this country, they apply to everyone in the country. What we understand in one area might be different in other parts. For the sake of getting this legislation through the House, I think we are going to have to agree with the new non-derogation clause that has been put forth.
As I tell students when I speak with them, sometimes we have to pick and choose what fights we want to fight and what we want to die on. I have to say that we will agree with this new non-derogation clause for the sake of getting the legislation through.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-21, which seeks to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
First, I would like to thank my colleagues who sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who have worked very hard and provided some background on all the various stages Bill C-21 has gone through before reaching this House today.
After first reading in this House, Bill C-21 was referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on November 13, 2007. It is identical to Bill C-44, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued on September 14, 2007.
Bill C-44 was referred to the committee after second reading in February 2007. From March to June 2007, the committee met 16 times to review Bill C-44 and hear witnesses. My colleagues from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou worked very hard on this.
The witnesses the committee heard almost unanimously supported the repeal of section 67, but nearly all the witnesses except those from the government, including national, regional and local first nations organizations and communities, the provincial bar associations and other legal experts, also expressed various reservations about one or more aspects of the implementation process and the substance of the bill.
The main sources of concern were the shortcomings in the consultation process preceding the drafting of the bill, the lack of an interpretative clause, the short transition period preceding implementation of the bill and uncertainty over the resources that would be assigned to implementing the bill.
On June 19, 2007, the committee adopted a Bloc Québécois motion proposed by the members I mentioned earlier, recommending that the debate on repealing section 67 be suspended for up to 10 months to allow the government to hold extensive consultations on the matter and that the debate then resume, but that first nations representatives be allowed to testify on the results of the consultations.
On July 26, a majority of the members attending the special midsummer meeting for a clause by clause study of the bill voted to have the committee suspend the study until the government held the consultations called for in the June 19 motion.
The motion was overridden by the committee's November 20 decision to begin a clause by clause study of the new Bill C-21 on December 4, 2007.
Despite the concerns expressed by the witnesses during the study of Bill C-44, the government reintroduced the very same bill, which is now known as Bill C-21. In December 2007 and January 2008, the committee completed its clause by clause study of Bill C-21 and the opposition made five significant amendments to it in response to first nations' demands.
Once again, aboriginals can be proud of the work of Bloc Québécois and other opposition members because the government had reintroduced the bill despite the generalized protest, criticism and scathing comments of witnesses appearing before the committee.
The government insisted on reintroducing the same bill with no amendments. Opposition members worked hard. My colleagues from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou worked very hard, along with other opposition members, to propose five significant amendments.
The Bloc Québécois supports each of the amendments agreed to in committee because they are in line with specific demands of the first nations and of most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee.
In principle, repealing section 67 would give aboriginal people access to all of the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, merely repealing the section could result in the loss of first nations' traditional rights and could be onerous for the Canadian Human Rights Commission because of the anticipated high volume of complaints against band councils and the federal government, which have not previously been allowed.
That would be a good thing when it comes to access to clean drinking water, for example. That is very hard to understand. I hope that all members of this House realize that, as we speak, some aboriginals still do not have access to potable water. That is astonishing.
We hope that once all these amendments have been adopted, these citizens protected by the charter of rights will have access to safe drinking water and will be able to ensure their quality of life.
To guarantee this, the committee suggested other amendments to Bill C-21. That was the Bloc's objective. With the help of the other opposition parties, we managed to introduce amendments that, once the bill is passed, will ensure that aboriginal men and women and people who live on aboriginal territories have direct access to safe drinking water.
It is important to note that the government proposed two amendments, which are now before the House. Many representatives from first nations and other groups who appeared before the House committee said that, despite the two amendments, Bill C-21 needed to be changed to take into account the real situation of first nations.
The Bloc Québécois, along with the other opposition parties, helped improve Bill C-21. The amendments proposed by the government today will also receive the support of the Bloc Québécois. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that we must pass a comprehensive bill, including the amendments adopted in committee, proposed by the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties, to ensure that aboriginal men and women will be entitled to the same protection as provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
We specifically suggested adding an interpretive clause that would balance individual and collective rights and interests in cases where a complaint was filed against a government or first nations authority under the Canadian Human Rights Act. A number of witnesses also wanted to add a non-derogation clause to Bill C-21, so that the repeal of section 67 would not end up abrogating and violating the ancestral and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples protected under the Constitution.
Consequently, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the following amendments. The first is:
 1.1 The repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the First Nations peoples of Canada, including 
 (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; 
 (b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired; and 
 (c) any rights or freedoms recognized under the customary laws or traditions of the First Nations peoples of Canada. 
The second amendment we are supporting is:
 1.1 In relation to a complaint made under the Canadian Human Rights Act against a First Nation government, including a band council, tribal council or governing authority operating or administering programs and services under the Indian Act, this act shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that gives due regard to First Nations legal traditions and customary laws, particularly the balancing of individual rights and interests against collective rights and interests. 
As everyone knows, Bill C-21, introduced by the government, is identical to Bill C-44, parts of which were criticized by the aboriginal peoples themselves. That bill, whose text was very limited, was eventually improved, specifically by the two paragraphs I just quoted.
The work done by the Bloc Québécois, with the help of the other opposition parties, definitely added some scope to this bill. The bill seeks to protect aboriginal rights, while guaranteeing all aboriginal men and women individual protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act, in order to improve their lives.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper.
When we return to the study of Bill C-21, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have one minute left to conclude his presentation and five minutes for questions and comments.
The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.
Business of the HousePeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the Address of the President of Ukraine, to be delivered in the chamber of the House of Commons at 11 a.m. on Monday, May 26, 2008 before Members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates for that day and form part of the records of this House; 
 that the media recording and transmission of such address, introductory and related remarks be authorized, pursuant to established guidelines for such occasions; and 
 on Monday, May 26, 2008, the House shall meet at 2 p.m. when members may make statements, pursuant to Standing Order 31; not later than 2:15 p.m. oral questions shall be taken up; at 3:00 p.m. the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, followed by government orders; at 6:30 p.m. the House shall proceed to any deferred recorded divisions, followed by private members' business; at the conclusion of private members' business the House shall stand adjourned to the next sitting day. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): (Motion agreed to)

Private Members' Business
Youth Criminal Justice Act[Stage Direction]
 The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-423, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act (treatment for substance abuse), as reported without amendment from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. 
Mr. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, CPC):  moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Mike Lake:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my colleagues from all parties who have supported my private member's bill up to this point. Because of prorogation and some things around scheduling, we have actually had two opportunities to talk about this. I have had about 15 minutes twice to discuss this and we have heard from members of all parties on this important bill. 
In a few minutes, my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo will move a motion to send this bill back to committee and I support that motion. 
The bill was sent back to the House from the committee without being reviewed by the justice committee for reasons that we all understand. However, I will not get into a debate on those reasons right now. I know the minister would like this bill to get a proper review before committee. I personally would like to see my bill scrutinized before committee so I could have the opportunity to answer any questions from members of other parties or my own party regarding the bill and hear what experts have to say about it.
When a private member's bill comes before committee, I am consistently asking questions about the amount of research that has gone into it. I want to ensure we are dealing with well thought out and well researched legislation. I want to ensure my own bill follows those same rules. I want people to understand what it is I am trying to accomplish and I want them to have confidence that I researched it properly and nothing was missed. For me, the idea of the justice committee having the opportunity to review this bill is important and I look forward to the opportunity to do that.
I have had discussions with members from the other parties and I understand that there is general support for going in this direction. I thank the members who I have talked to for that. I look forward to the opportunity to be before the committee and thank all members for their support for this important bill.
Carole Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-423 to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I must say that we are strongly in favour of the private member's bill from the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. The Bloc Québécois sees this bill as a spark of light or a ray of sunshine.
It puts forward the idea of rehabilitation. It suggests some ways of reaching out to youth who commit offences, giving them a chance, and also giving them the opportunity to obtain treatment. In this sense, the bill mirrors the philosophy and the ideology of the Bloc Québécois. In our opinion, this way of dealing with young offenders has been seen to be successful.
As we know, Quebec is the province with the lowest crime rate because we make a huge investment in rehabilitation and in eradicating problems at the root. We help people, we work with them and provide support so that they turn their backs on crime. Therefore, I support this bill along with the Bloc Québécois.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled on the Youth Criminal Justice Act and stated that the onus would no longer be on young offenders between the ages of 14 and 18 to prove that they should not be sentenced as adults.
I must say that we are very pleased with the Supreme Court's decision and once again, I congratulate the hon., member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont on his bill.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his bill. I am a big fan of private members' business. This is a good bill about the youth criminal justice system, particularly the aspect of substance abuse remediation.
This is an important bill but, unfortunately, we find ourselves in a situation where the appropriate standing committee was unable to deal with it due to reasons beyond the member's control. I understand there is a motion coming forward to have this matter referred back to committee, since it has been deemed to have been reported without amendment. 
This is clearly an issue that should have some hearings by members and by expert witnesses to make absolutely sure that, as we ask in our daily prayer, we make good laws and wise decisions. 
I will be supporting the motion.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont for standing in the House today and signifying that a motion will be coming forward to have the bill sent back to committee. He recognizes, and I certainly concur, that when it comes to a private member's bill it is important that we go through the process. I think it is important for it to go back to committee where we can have an opportunity to study it and make revisions if necessary.
We have spoken in favour of the bill in principle, but we do have some concerns about it in terms of youth treatment and how the judicial system is involved in that. 
We look forward to the opportunity of seeing the bill at committee. We will be supporting the motion today for the bill to go back to committee.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-423 is consistent with the national anti-drug strategy unveiled by the government on October 4, 2007. The strategy responds to serious drug problems faced by Canada and recognizes the importance of focusing efforts on the growing number of our youth becoming involved with drugs.
Many of the communities across Canada have indicated that youth drug use is a priority concern. For several communities, the lure of highly addictive drugs, like crystal meth, presents a real challenge for their youth.
The government has listened to concerns and with our national anti-drug strategy, we are working actively to respond to them. 
Budget 2007 signalled the government's investment in the strategy, which establishes a focused approach to address illicit drug issues based on three concrete action plans: first, preventing illicit drug use; second, treating illicit drug dependency; and third combatting illicit drug production and distribution. While the strategy has only been up and running since last October, we have made tremendous progress in rolling out a number of our priorities.
 Bill C-423 recognizes the role that police can play in linking youth, drug and addiction problems to those who can help on the treatment front. It provides a valuable and additional tool to help youth overcome their problems and make our communities safer.
The government is mindful that this combined effort of many will bring success to addressing our drug priorities. We are working with all those concerned about Canada's youth, both from the private and public sectors and across different disciplines like health, education and the justice system.
It is for this reason that I read into the record an amendment to the motion. I move:
 That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: 
 Bill C-423, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act (treatment for substance abuse), be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of considering clause 1 with a view to making sure that the effects of these amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are in the best interests of the youth who may be affected by these amendments and are considered beneficial to the people of Canada. 

[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order. I want to clarify that when the motion says, “for the purpose of considering clause 1”, this, in effect, is the whole private member's bill, not just one element of it. Could that be clarified?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Vancouver East has the proper understanding of what this was intended to do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): We will now proceed with the debate.
There being no further debate, is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): (Amendment agreed to)
 Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
It being 1:48 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 26, at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 1:48 p.m.)