Bill C-19 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code

Criminal Code

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on an excellent speech. He is absolutely right when he says that Steve Sullivan has criticized the government. After all, Steve Sullivan was the government's choice as the first Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

The wheels are coming off this tough on crime bus that the government is driving because, in the last week Steve Sullivan criticized the government. One of the ministers had to admit that rather than a $90 million cost on the two-for-one sentencing the cost was going to be $2 billion. Now we have information that perhaps the cost for Bill C-19 might be as high as $783 million if we add an extra 15,000 people into the prison population. That is a cost that is going to be borne by the provinces, by the taxpayers in those provinces.

In its budgetary documents, has the government budgeted for these projections? The government knows what the cost item is going to be for bills like this one. Could the member tell us whether the government has any plans for adding these amounts into its budget for next year?

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in the debate on the subamendment put forward by the member for Davenport. I am pleased that he moved it because he took the words right out of my mouth. This issue should be re-debated and a new round of genuine consultations should take place if we are to move forward with the so-called new fiscal relationship with first nations and aboriginal people.

The subamendment to the motion specifically speaks to full consultation with first nations leaders. I disagree with the parliamentary secretary who cited some examples. That consultation has not taken place.

The parliamentary secretary said that drafts of what the government was going to do had been sent out to all kinds of first nations leadership. Consultation, in its strictest definition, does not mean telling people what we are going to do to them. The word consultation in Webster's includes some accommodation of what we have heard. It requires an exchange. It would not meet the legal definition. To simply announce to people that this is what we are going to do to them as of April 1 or as of the new fiscal year and then ask them what they think about it would not meet the test of consultation. To be considered genuine consultation, there has to be accommodation of the other party's concerns.

My hon. colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis cited Sparrow, a recent Supreme Court ruling along those lines, that speaks about what full and reasonable consultation is. He also mentioned Delgamuukw, which was another recent precedent setting authority from the Supreme Court of Canada. I for one was very pleased to see the reference to full consultation in the subamendment from the member for Davenport.

To perhaps clarify what the chronology was in the lead up to the introduction of the bill, there seems to be some misunderstanding and I would go as far as to say some misinformation put out by the parliamentary secretary and those promoting the bill. Let us back up a bit and review the chronology. Then people can judge for themselves whether they really consider that true consultation has taken place.

The concept of enshrining these four fiscal and statistical institutions into federal legislation was first considered at the Assembly of First Nations annual assembly in Halifax in the summer of 2001. I was there as was the then leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Halifax. The draft resolution supporting the concept was voted down at the convention. The idea was floated around and voted down at that assembly. It did not garner 60% of the vote at the time.

The small group of first nations who were in favour of the concept made various procedural threats, and I was there to witness this. They included the removal or the impeachment of the assembly chairperson. They were challenging the chair because they were disappointed that their initiative failed on the floor.

In the interests of good relations, some chiefs generously agreed to let the concept on the institutions carry on, but with a very strict proviso that consent was given subject to the explicit condition that any draft bill had to go back to the Assembly of First Nations assembly for acceptance, rejection or modification.

The idea was voted down. A small group of chiefs felt so strongly about it that other chiefs said that they would take the concept further on the condition that nothing would be put in place and no legislation would be approved until it came before the assembly again and was ratified and approved.

That is an accurate chronology of how it was introduced and how it came about at the Halifax assembly, and I was a personal eye witness to that. Sadly, there has been a marked reluctance to honour that commitment to bring the draft back to the assembly for an up or down vote.

Various procedural moves have been made since the summer of 2002 to prevent first nations from having their say on the bill. The supporters of the bill, who apparently have been financed very well by INAC to promote the bill, have embarked on a cross-country campaign to push the merits of the bill and to make it look like there is broad national support.

I am critical of that. I am critical of the fact that funding has been taken out of the core aid budget of INAC to create these four new financial institutions without the enabling legislation ever being passed. I am further critical of the fact that the employees of those four new fiscal institutions are being paid to travel the country to lobby MPs to support the bill. Talk about the cart in front of the horse in this case.

The enabling legislation was never passed to create these institutions. The Minister of Indian Affairs went ahead and created them anyway. Then he let the new staff of these institutions travel the country promoting the creation of the various institutions. It really is an insult to any kind of due process that one might expect.

Let me talk again about the level of support across the country. We have heard all kinds of statistics and figures about what percentage is in favour and what percentage is opposed. Let us be clear that the hard-core support for this bill is probably in the range of 30 first nations, virtually all from British Columbia.

I was at the Squamish assembly to which the parliamentary secretary made reference. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Bloc Québécois critic for aboriginal affairs, mon frère autochtone, as we call each other, and I went to Squamish and attended the assembly with the express request to the assembly to give us some direction. We told the chiefs assembled there to please give us some direction, yes or no, did they or did they not support Bill C-19, as it was called then, Bill C-23 as it is called now.

It came up for debate on the assembly floor. We sat in the observer section and watched a very passionate and fulsome debate. I wish we had that standard of debate in the House of Commons sometimes because there was a legitimate exchange of strongly held views. In the final analysis, for the third time the Assembly of First Nations voted down Bill C-19, which is now Bill C-23. We had our direction.

In October 2003 the Assembly of First Nations met and dealt specifically with this issue and once again rejected it on the basis as cited by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. I have the resolutions here. They are complex and I would be happy to table them to be entered into the record after the fact.

Basically the “whereas” clauses point out that the proposed bill is flawed and cannot be corrected by mere amendments. It is inconsistent with the previous mandates of the Assembly of First Nations resolutions 596 and 4998. These are making reference to previous years when there were efforts to revisit the fiscal relationship with the federal government. These resolutions were still in full force and effect. The bill does not recognize first nations' inherent right to self-government. If anything, it interferes with the unilateral right to self-government and imposes the will of the state on first nations in contrast, we believe, to the inherent right concept of section 35 of the Constitution. The provisions contained in the bill violate and infringe upon aboriginal and treaty rights and will worsen the status quo, in the opinion of the Assembly of First Nations. The proposed bill violates historic nation to nation, and Crown and first nation treaty relationships. Furthermore, it violates the core essence of this relationship, et cetera.

It is abundantly clear that the parliamentary secretary is either mistaken or misinformed about the level of support for this bill and the actual historical fact about how the bill was introduced, debated and rejected summarily, not once but three times, at legally constituted gatherings of the Assembly of First Nations.

Having said that, I can only speak to the subamendment in the context of this speech. Let me make it abundantly clear that there is such misinformation abounding about this bill that it is incumbent on us to send it back for further review and consultation.

There are very serious implications regarding the constitutionality of the bill. What would be the point in our moving forward with the bill if we thought it was going to be challenged and ultimately struck down on the basis of constitutionality?

One of the aspects of the bill that most offends first nations is the alleged optionality of the bill. My colleague from Churchill moved I believe it was no fewer than 72 amendments to the bill when it was Bill C-19. All but two of them were rejected by the House. There were efforts made to remedy and correct the bill by amendment at the committee stage and at third reading stage until the session ended and the bill had to be reintroduced in the new session.

The federal government, or INAC, the government side, made some amendments. One of them introduced a schedule at the back of the bill saying that those first nations who choose to avail themselves of the aspects of the bill may sign on to the schedule. The government thereby tried to imply that this was optional and it would only apply to those who signed on to the back of the bill.

The alleged optionality of these three institutions is completely misleading. In fact, they are statutory national bodies that will affect the rights and interests of all first nations in Canada whether or not they are added to the schedule. If anything, the schedule model makes things worse. It is important that we have a chance to revisit this because the schedule model perversely guarantees that these important national institutions will be perpetually controlled by the small number of first nations who are strongly in support of Bill C-23 and who sign on. It affects all first nations.

Let us not ignore the budgetary aspect of it. The financing of these institutions will come from the A-base budget of INAC. I believe it is $25 million a year to start with. This would come right from money that could have been spent meeting the basic needs of other first nations that are not signatories. Whether or not they are signatories, it is money that would have otherwise been spent, hopefully, improving the quality of life of first nations on these institutions.

Let us look at the tax commission. This federally appointed body would become the czar of all future on reserve property taxation bylaws or laws. In the future, if this bill is passed, all first nations in Canada that want to develop on reserve property taxation laws and systems will have to seek the approval of the federally appointed commissioner.

How can it be said that they are not affected by it? Even if they are not signatories to this bill, any move they make in terms of property taxation will have to be approved by the federally appointed commission. It is a myth to say that it is optional. Whether they choose to stipulate themselves to this specifically by signing the schedule or not, they are certainly affected by this new institution. All such first nations will have to submit their annual property tax budgets to the commission for approval, et cetera. There is no optionality at all. It affects the rights and interests of all first nations.

I hope we are making that clear. I hope the parliamentary secretary is listening and furthermore, that he understands. There seems to be a wilful blindness on the part of the government members to listen and to hear what they are being told not just by me, and I almost expect them to not listen to me, but they are not listening to what they are being told by the very people whose lives will be affected by this bill.

Earlier I said there are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear. There seems to be a deliberate wilful blindness by those who are so determined to ram this bill through that they will not listen to reason, logic and compelling arguments to the contrary. They will not listen to the most compelling argument of all, that first nations people are vehemently opposed to this bill. The overwhelming majority of them are vehemently opposed to this bill.

I cannot express strongly enough how disappointed I am that in this day and age in the year 2004, the House of Commons of Canada is seized of a bill that seeks to impose our will on sovereign nations, or what we view as sovereign nations, independent nations, first nations. This is not the actions of an enlightened House of Commons in 2004. This smacks more of something of the last century and in fact, the century before that.

The most disturbing strong arm component of the amended Bill C-23 is directly linked to the financial management board. This component is found in clause 8 of the bill. Communities that do not voluntarily join the Bill C-23 schedule are not permitted to pass bylaws or laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration.

Again, how is this optional? This is the analogy we used about a driver's licence. A driver's licence is optional until a person wants to drive a car and then it is not optional any more. This bill is optional unless a community wants to pass bylaws and laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration.

Non-believer communities, those that do not sing hallelujah and sign on to this will be restricted to the narrow list of bylaw topics that are currently under section 81 of the Indian Act, which list does not include financial administration.

If a first nation wants to exercise what we believe is a sovereign right as an independent first nation in matters regarding financial administration, it has to join the club. It has to sign on. It has to put its name on the schedule. Where is the optionality in that?

Local financial administration is a matter of intimate local government. We believe it has to be customized from community to community. Communities should have the right to have that local government authority. Yet the effect of clause 8 of the amended Bill C-23 is clear: only opt in or scheduled first nations can pass financial administration laws. These scheduled first nations then become perpetually subject to the federally appointed opt in institutions. First nations that do not opt in effectively forfeit a key area of local jurisdiction, that is, their financial administration. Again, where is the optionality?

One of the fears that has been brought to our attention is we have all been critical of this new burgeoning industry of third party management where Liberal friendly accounting firms get the contracts to handle the affairs of first nations that overspend by as little as 8%. We heard examples today of the gun registry that overspent by 50,000%. Yet, if a first nation overspends its budget, if it runs into financial difficulties by 8% in the deficit, the federal government can swoop in and put it under trusteeship under what we call third party management.

One of the fears now with the establishment of this management board is that the government will assign the third party management duties to the appointed board. A federal government institution appointed by the minister will now be in control of all of those communities that are under third party management. We might as well go back to the days of the Indian agent because the minister of Indian affairs will be the ultimate Indian agent as more and more communities fall into third party management because they cannot meet the basic needs of their constituents with the paltry budgets they get. They overspend. They rob Peter to pay Paul because they are tired of saying no to everyone who comes to them with a legitimate concern for new housing or to send their children to university.

Some chiefs and council do overspend their budget by 8% and boom, down comes the heavy hammer of the government to put them under third party management. Now that third party management can and may be directed to the newly constituted management board, an instrument of the minister.

How fair is that? It is a catch-22 for first nations who will swallow their pride and join the Bill C-23 schedule in order to obtain from Canada the rare privilege of being able to pass their own financial laws.

It is an extension of the Indian Act. It is an extension of the colonialism that we find so offensive to begin with. The acquired jurisdiction will be very restricted. They will still be limited as to what financial administration laws they will be permitted to institute.

All financial administration laws will be subject to the unappealable veto of the federally appointed management board. There is no appeal process. If the federally appointed management board says that it does not think a certain type of financial administration bylaw should be introduced, there is no avenue of recourse. There would be no appeal. It is fascist.

Some of the most draconian measures of Bill C-23 are designed to prop up the credit worthiness of the authority, apparently at almost any cost.

In closing, from a legal point of view, Bill C-23 has fundamental constitutional flaws. From a policy point of view, the tax and borrow obsession of the bill is unresponsive to the fiscal and program reality of all but a handful of first nations. That is why there are only a small number of first nations who wish to avail themselves of these institutions.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is a reverse argument to say that because there have been no votes since previous resolutions, then the resolutions do not have force any more. It seems to me, if there had been a change, surely the first nations would have passed a resolution to say that they accepted the bill today. Everyone I have spoken to, my information is they are totally opposed.

The member mentioned Chief Roberta Jamieson. We can ask her and she will say that she is as vehemently opposed today as she was then. The many chiefs who I have spoken to tell me exactly the same thing. Their minds have not been changed by the amendments. In fact they suggest that the amendments are purely, in their own words, window dressing.

As I see it, the resolutions still stand. There have been resolutions duly passed. The special chiefs assembly on November 19, 2002, and it concerns the draft legislation on fiscal and statistical institutions, not anything else, said:

1. the proposed Bill is flawed and cannot be corrected by mere amendments; and--

Those were their own words.

1. the proposed Bill is inconsistent with the previous mandates of the Assembly of First Nations, Resolutions 5/96 and 49/98; and does not recognize First Nation Inherent Right to self-government, and the nation-to-nation relationship; and

2. the provisions contained in the Bill violate and infringe upon Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and will worsen the status quo; and

3. the proposed Bill violates the historic Nation-to-Nation; Crown-First Nation Treaty relationship; furthermore, it violates the core essence of this relationship...

This resolution was carried 81 for, 10 opposed and 2 abstentions.

There was a further resolution of the Special Confederacy of Nations, Resolution No. 1/2003 on February 20 and 21, 2003. This one carried 37 for, only 2 opposed and zero abstentions. It said:

FINALLY BE IT RESOLVED that the AFN Special Confederacy of Nations hereby direct the National Chief to make a clear, unequivocal public statement to the media opposing the Fiscal and Statistical Management Act (Bill C-19).

It is very obvious that these resolutions still stand, unless they have been counteracted or withdrawn. They have not been withdrawn.

As I said, I spoke to some of the chiefs who took part in these deliberations, as I am sure my colleagues from Winnipeg Centre, Churchill River and others have done. They say that their minds are still exactly at the same stage as they were when these resolutions were passed.

One of the resolutions clearly said that mere amendments would not fix the problem, that the bill was flawed in its very core and substance. This is how they feel. They are totally and adamantly opposed in their great majority, and we should take this into account. We should renew our negotiations with them. We should speak to them again. We should listen to them more intently. By going ahead regardless, we might have a bill but it will be a bill that will not be accepted by the very people it is designed to impact.

That is totally wrong for us to do as parliamentarians. We do not have the final answers on the rights of people who are not there to speak for themselves. This is why they speak through resolutions and the media. We have to listen to them. I beg my colleagues on all sides of the House to listen and adopt the subamendment presented by my colleague from Davenport.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never suggested that the number was that which the hon. member said. I only suggested that the basis for the argument in the previous speaker's comments was not applicable. The hon. member can always review what I said. He does not have to believe it. He only has to read Hansard , which presumably he will do later.

The hon. member was asking implicitly, why are we advancing with this bill given that some first nations are not supportive of it? The answer is that delays in approving this bill will be at a significant cost for those communities that are anxious to use it to advance the development of their communities. They have prepared for this; they have been working for this. It places quite a burden on them.

Given that it is elective, the hon. member is not, in my view, correct in his failure to support the legislation. But of course, he is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I will recognize that. Additionally, the government is honouring its commitment to first nations, which have worked long and hard to remove the barriers of development in their communities.

In addition, I want to say to the hon. member that it is not an either/or proposition because it does not preclude the government from working cooperatively with different groups of first nations in order to advance other initiatives.

I want to get back to the resolutions of the AFN in respect of the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management act since its introduction. There has only been one resolution in which Bill C-23 has been mentioned since introduction in December 2002, and that is the vote that took place on October 8, 2003--perhaps that is the one the hon. member was referring to--at the Special Chiefs Assembly at the Squamish Nation.

He referred to the fact that it had been held in B.C., so presumably that is what he was referring to. It was an omnibus resolution meant to deal with Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19, now modified as Bill C-23.

The resolution called for the Chiefs and Special Assembly to, first, reject Bill C-6. In other words, they themselves produced a motion to reject Bill C-6, reject Bill C-7, and support Bill C-19. The three elements combined were in the same motion.The results of the vote were: 109 opposed; 65 for; two abstained; and 52 did not vote. But that had to do with rejecting two items and supporting one, in the same motion.

For the hon. member to state that all this is somehow equated with Bill C-19, now Bill C-23, is not totally factual. Neither he nor I can speculate as to the exact quantity of votes that there were for each item that we have here.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying of great wisdom, which might even be from the scriptures: there are none so deaf as those who will not hear and there are none so blind as those who will not see.

That thought came to mind as I listened to the speech of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. It would seem to me that his job today, as sent in by the government, the ruling party, is to ignore the appeal from first nations in regard to their wishes pertaining to the bill and to force through the government's wishes, to once again impose the will of government on first nations who have vehemently and clearly opposed this bill time and time again and found it to be unsatisfactory.

The hon. member misrepresented the amount of opposition there is to this bill when he tried to imply to the House that while there is not 60% support for this initiative among first nations there is at least broad support. Then he asked if 50% plus one should not be enough. It may be argued that it would be enough, but in actual fact there is not 50% plus one support for the bill. There are approximately 30 out of 633 first nations that support this bill. By my mathematics, that is 5% in strong support of the bill.

In fact, at two recent Assembly of First Nations assemblies, the vote was 81 against and 10 in favour. There was a vote in November 2002 about Bill C-19, as it was then called, and then, at a special confederacy called in February 2003, the same motion was put forward, with 37 opposed and 2 in support.

Even when a special assembly was orchestrated in British Columbia, where the base of the support for this bill resides, the government failed to achieve support. I believe it was 30% at that assembly; the 202 first nations from British Columbia did not even come out to support this initiative.

I am not going to take the entire time I had planned to because I know there are other speakers who would also like to confront the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and make the same comments.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to address some of the specific concerns with respect to the bill. To begin, it would appear, in terms of our analysis, that Bill C-23 is hardly different from Bill C-19, around which we had some discussion and considerable input. It was recommended that some drastic changes had to be made to that bill to make it acceptable in terms of the first nations community and what constituted good public policy.

I would also point out to the member that, as I far as I understand it, the concept of enshrining the four fiscal and statistical institutions in federal legislation was considered by the AFN at its annual assembly in Halifax in 2001. There was good discussion and debate, but it did not garner the 60% of support required by the AFN charter. We are still a long way from having the first nations community as a whole on-board with the legislation.

I will not have time to go into all the specifics, but let me reference just a few of the major concerns. This is from documents from the chiefs in Ontario, with which I think the member may be familiar. It is indicated that the most disturbing strong-arm component of the amended Bill C-23 is directly linked to the management board. As the member knows, this component is found in clause 8 of the bill.

Communities that do not voluntarily join the Bill C-23 schedule are not permitted to pass bylaws or laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration. Non-believer communities are restricted to the narrow list of bylaw topics under subsection 81(1) of the Indian Act. The list does not include financial administration. That is one point. Another is that some of the most draconian measures in Bill C-23 are designed to prop up the credit worthiness of the authority, apparently at almost any cost.

I will quote from the document that was provided to the chiefs in Ontario where it states, “There is a gross surrender of sovereignty by first nations that get caught up in the scheme. A single missed payment can trigger the takeover of local financial affairs by the management board”.

Those are a couple of the major concerns. The most fundamental constitutional problem with Bill C-23, even as it has been amended by the schedule attachment, is its broadside attack on the inherent right of all first nations to self-government.

I come back to the first point I made which is when we try to correct historical wrongs or address our failures of the past, we must do so with full cooperation and partnership of the first nations community. If there is any sense to the inherent right of self-government being bypassed, if there is any refusal to deal nation to nation with first nations, then we will have failed and only made the situation more difficult than it already is.

I truly hope that the member for Yukon, who is genuine in his pursuit of justice in this regard, listens to those in his house who have made strong appeals, and they are not just dumping all over the bill, to hold off and get it back to committee in the new Parliament. That is the message of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. He has said that we should give it more thoughtful consideration, that we should involve the first nations in a true dialogue and come up with a financial statistical management package that is truly reflective of the needs of everyone in our country today.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the least we can say about the bill is that from its very inception it has been subject to constant controversy as well as a consistent and profound opposition by the majority of first nations. This is why I strongly endorse the substance of the motion proposed by my colleague from Churchill River to refer Bill C-23 back to committee for re-examination and new hearings. I realize that you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the motion as it is framed is not receivable. You have also opened the way for some other procedure to be adopted that would come to the same result, in other words, to refer the bill to committee for new hearings and consultation.

It is clear to me that the systematic opposition that the bill has faced on the part of a large majority of first nations has been compounded by what first nations rightfully contend as inadequate consultation.

I listened to the debate on the bill. I am happy to recognize the broadmindedness of my colleague from the Yukon who backed the bill, naturally as he is the parliamentary secretary. At the same time he expressed a degree of fairness and openness and is ready to listen to arguments on both sides. This is why my colleague from Churchill River and I are speaking from a different viewpoint.

Perhaps we could find it in ourselves to express this feeling of openness and conciliation, that we should listen and hear the voices in opposition that have been expressed on the bill and send it back to the committee for review and re-examination. Nothing would be lost in doing what is proper, right and fair.

The Supreme Court of Canada in such leading cases as Sparrow and Delgamuukw has been clear that the first nations are entitled to full and reasonable consultation when there is a proposed measure likely to affect their rights. Certainly this measure is there to affect their rights. In special cases first nations' consent may be required and if the consultation record is insufficient, the legislative measure may be deemed invalid. This is what the Assembly of First Nations in several resolutions and many first nations acting on their own have contended right from the start.

I am convinced that if the bill is passed into law, it will surely be challenged in the courts. There is a strong likelihood that the statute would be held unconstitutional because of the failure to follow the consultation standard laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in numerous landmark decisions.

Recent initiatives by the Prime Minister and our government have given fresh hope that a new climate of mutual trust and understanding may be pointing itself on the horizon as between government and our first nations.

Sadly, Bill C-23 conflicts with this new spirit of hope and of a true dialogue and understanding with our first nations. It stands out as an important irritant in a context of what was just yesterday and the day before renewed hope by our first nations spirited by the recent, and I would say courageous, statements and initiatives by our Prime Minister.

When the bill was briefly before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources in 2003, the committee heard from Mr. Fred Lazar, an economist with the Schulich School of Business at York University in Toronto. Dr. Lazar said that he was “adamantly opposed to Bill C-19”, which is now Bill C-23. He said:

So we have taxation, devolution, and control, which is the essence of this proposed bill, all wrapped up in the federal government's limited and historically and legally incorrect view of aboriginal self-government.

Dr. Lazar pointed out that if first nations received their fair share of revenues from resources, the situation would greatly improve.

For several years I have been acting as a volunteer, as a friend, and for two years as a special representative of an Algonquin band not far from here. In 1991, 13 years ago, the band signed a trilateral agreement with the federal government and the Quebec government about the integrated management of the resources on the band's land.

The trilateral agreement happened because suddenly, one day, forestry companies, acting on a management mandate from the Quebec government, started to cut trees on a vast scale on the band's land, which its people have occupied for thousands of years. They rebelled. They blocked the roads and forced the advent of the trilateral agreement, expressing the view that under the Brundtland report, sustainable development was endorsed by all our governments.

The trilateral agreement is viewed by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, by the United Nations itself, as a landmark agreement of its kind. It has been 13 years since its inception and we are still arguing whether or not resources should be shared. We are still arguing about where this first nation will find the resources through grants and subsidies to repair its schools, to build adequate housing, which it badly needs, to find revenues with respect, without having to beg from any governments to have what we take for granted in our lives: that every person has a right to a decent living, to quality of life, to education and to proper health care.

Where do they find these resources? If they are on their own territories, they are not allowed a share of these resources, which they own and which treaties recognize as their own. This is really what the bill is about.

Dr. Lazar rightly said:

The first nations view of the verbal commitments made by both sides was that the lands were to be shared so that both groups could live and prosper together.

This implies at a minimum that the first nations should have received at least half of the revenues and wealth generated by the land and the resources on or below the land. They have not even asked for 50%; they have asked for a share. In the case of the people I know well, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, they would be satisfied with any share of the revenues on their land. They would be satisfied with control of some of their resources so that people would not abuse them, both ecologically and in regard to their long term sustainability.

Dr. Lazar asked whether the bill would provide first nations with the access to capital markets that is available to other governments.

The federal government sees securitization of tax and other long term revenues as a means for the first nations to build up their infrastructure on reserves. Undoubtedly, there is a need for significant investments to upgrade the infrastructure on reserves, but the onus remains on the federal government to fully underwrite these costs. What we ask is not for the federal government to give grants forever, but to give to the people a share of their own resources which belong to them by treaty.

The proposed bill highlights the potential for control over almost all financial affairs on reserves. It appears to be the Trojan horse, enabling the eventual takeover of all spending decisions on reserves by the independent institutions to be created by the bill.

I would like to quote one of the chiefs. Chief Stewart Phillip is president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. He told the committee that 60 first nations who belong to that organization are opposed to the bill. He is the chief of the Penticton Indian Band which is a member community of the Okanagan nation.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs is the oldest political organization in B.C. Chief Phillip told the committee that Bill C-23 fails to meet the conditions set out in various AFN resolutions--and which have been successively carried out--saying the bill is flawed. I have a set of these resolutions passed over a whole year, time after time in Ottawa, in B.C., and in various parts of the country, repeating again and again that the bill is flawed, that it has not been subjected to adequate consultation and that it should be re-examined or it should fail.

Indeed, a special AFN assembly was convened in Ottawa in November of 2002, two years ago now, for the chiefs in the assembly to make a decision on the first nations financial and statistical management act. It rejected Bill C-23 in its entirety. I will again quote Chief Phillip, who said:

As for the contents of Bill C-19, it is our submission that legislation, especially national legislation, is not necessary for these four institutions to function.

The Indian Taxation Advisory Board and the other boards are already in existence and operating, as far as we know.

I strongly believe that Chief Phillip and his organization express the views of a substantial majority of first nations and that his recommendation is reflected in the very justified motion of my colleague from Churchill River. I hope that somehow I will find a way to implement the substance of his motion.

Let me now review certain of the modifications of the bills which proponents tout as justifying support for it. The new schedule of the bill conveys the impression that three of the institutions in the bill, all but the statistical institute in part 5, are optional and therefore do not prejudice the first nations that choose not to join.

In addition to the deceptive information that the bill has the support of first nations, the so-called opting in feature is touted as another important measure favouring the bill. The implicit message is that even if most first nations do not like it, they should not interfere with the opportunities of those who choose to opt in.

This is clearly misleading.

First, the so-called opting in provision introduced by the schedule amendment does not apply in the case of the statistical institute under part 5. This part is imposed on all first nations or bands in Canada whether or not they are added to the schedule. This is clearly unfair to the overwhelming majority of first nations who oppose the bill. It should be noted that under clause 105 of the bill the federally appointed institute can indefinitely collect and use the most sensitive data about all bands in Canada without their consent.

What about the other three institutions: the tax commission, the management board, and the financial authority? Again the alleged opting in regarding these three institutions is very misleading. In fact, these statutory national bodies will affect the rights and interests of all first nations in Canada whether or not they are added to the schedule. Indeed, these important national institutions will be controlled for the long term, and in fact forever, by a small number of first nations strongly in support of Bill C-23 and aligned with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The tax commission, which is a federally appointed body, will become the overseer of all future on reserve property taxation bylaws or laws. If the bill is passed, all first nations in Canada that want to develop on reserve property taxation laws and systems will have to seek the approval of this federally appointed commission. All such first nations will have to submit their annual property tax budgets to the commission for approval under clause 9. Surely this affects the rights and interests of all first nations, which belies the argument about the opting in feature.

Clause 13.1, an amendment to Bill C-23 tabled by the minister, may seem to suggest that current property tax provisions in the Indian Act--namely, sections 83 and 84--will continue to be available to communities that do not enlist in the tax commission. However, I question whether, if Bill C-23 is passed into law, two parallel systems will be maintained into the long term.

It is very improbable to think that communities will be permitted to operate for any length of time under the Indian Act regime whilst a new tax commission operates the new, chosen instrument adopted by the federal government.

Perhaps the provision which most significantly disturbs those first nations that oppose Bill C-23 is that of the management board. According to clause 8 of the bill, communities that do not join Bill C-23 are not permitted to pass bylaws or laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration.

Thus, non-opting in communities are restricted to the narrow list of bylaw topics under section 81(1) of the Indian Act, which list does not include financial administration, the very core of local government. In other words, first nations that do not opt in effectively forfeit a key area of local jurisdiction: financial administration.

I referred earlier to the constitutional aspects of the bill which are likely to lead to legal challenges. No doubt the most fundamental problem in this connection is its conflict with the inherent right of first nations to self-government as protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. Surely the powers granted to the tax commission and to the management board under Bill C-23 are a direct interference with an inherent right of self-government protected by the Constitution and cherished by all first nations as a centrepiece of their fundamental rights as our first citizens.

Supporters of the bill will argue that the recent introduction of a non-derogation clause relating to section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 will fully protect all constitutional rights of first nations. However, there still remains the serious risk that the bill might still infringe the fiduciary duty of Canada to appropriately consult under section 35, which the majority of first nations contends has not taken place, as well as the protection against discrimination under section 15 of the charter, and, most important, the inherent right of self-government of all first nations protected under the Constitution.

I consider that the motion by my colleague from Churchill River--or a substitute for it that he is now negotiating with the Table--is fair and makes eminent sense in the circumstances. It seeks to replace controversy and consistent opposition with consultation, fairness and conciliation. I would like to support its substance most convincingly.

In the time that I am allowed I would like to appeal to all sides of the House for fairness and for conciliation. Surely all these first nations that oppose Bill C-23--and there are hundreds of them reflected in those resolutions that I have read, a great majority of them--represent a voice that cannot be ignored. Surely they have a right to express their position, and surely also they must feel in their heart that something is wrong with the bill.

Who are we here to decide for them as to measures that they themselves do not accept or agree with? Who are we here to say that we know best what is good for them when they tell us that it is not good enough for them? Who are we here to dictate and legislate when such a position is there?

I strongly recommend that we support very actively the substance of the motion of my colleague from Churchill River and send this bill back to committee. We must take time to produce a better bill, one that is acceptable to the people most concerned, the first nations of Canada.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation of the treaty nine district of northern Ontario have sent me a question via the magic of e-mail.

They point out that in 2002 when Bill C-19 was first introduced by the then minister of Indian affairs, the member for Kenora--Rainy River, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre asked how the minister could be tabling the legislation when the four institutions were already up and running. They had offices, staff, salaried officers, boards of directors, and CEOs. The enabling legislation had just been introduced and was being debated but the institutions had been up and running for two years, if not longer. Where did the minister get the spending authority to hire those people and create the four institutions without the enabling legislation having been passed?

Does the member believe that this is the reason for the urgency of ramming the bill through even though no one in Indian country wants it?

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in large part, the other reason I recommended that this be considered for consultation was that last year, Bill C-6, Bill C-19 and Bill C-7 were considered as a suite of bills in the standing committee that went through public consultation. However, the focus of that consultation was Bill C-7, the governance bill. Bill C-19, now Bill C-23 moved in the shadow of the consultation of Bill C-7. A lot of the consultation took place in Parliament.

Bill C-19 was not taken to community consultation. In the Bill C-7 hearings, some people wanted to talk about Bill C-23, or Bill C-19 as it was, but were not allowed to because the mandate of the standing committee in the community hearings was limited to Bill C-7 only. If we are so proud of this bill and it stands the test of community consultation and first nations leadership consideration, it is time to take it to the communities. Let us make sure that everybody thoroughly understands that this search of fiscal relationship deals with a domestic market. There is an opportunity for borrowing members, and there is a definition of borrowing members among the first nations band councils.

There are also definitions of taxpayers. I find them very amusing because there are different categories of taxpayers. There are commercial taxpayers, residential taxpayers and utility taxpayers. I do not know of any other act, federally or provincially, where these different definitions and categories of taxpayers exist.

There is also an issue of a different type of first nation, a first nation member. First nations members are the Indians of Canada, as defined in the Indian Act. However, there is this other category of first nation member and that is a member who agrees with taxation of land. A first nation member who agrees with taxation can sit on the tax commission and on the fiscal institution.

It defines different types of first nations as well. If we are going to define different types of first nations and different types of taxpayers, why can we not define the different nations and tribes of Canada and allow these first nations, as orders of government, to be part of the security of a first nation? Lets say a first nation member wants to borrow money, say a Cree community in northern Saskatchewan in my riding. However, because of fiscal relationships, member does not pay taxes and cannot pay the debt. Why can the Cree nation, or the Prairie Cree or the Woodland Cree not come in and help the member, instead of the third party management or the co-management provisions in the bill?

That co-management and third party management is delegated to the different institutions: the financial management board, the tax commission, and the finance authority. These authorities will be created because of the risk management when dealing with market realities of borrowing money. Why can we not recognize the nations, the tribal councils that have been created across the country, in the bill as having a significant role in this new fiscal relationship?

Also, I cannot miss the opportunity to say that this is a bold vision by our Prime Minister, who wants to have a relationship with the first nations of this land. Allow that relationship to exist first before we define these in stone, in legislation. Once a first nation opts in, it will be difficult to opt out of the fiscal institution. It will be hard for first nations to redefine themselves as a non-borrowing member because the consensus of the borrowing members will be required before they do that.

There are many strong measures that need to be carefully looked at. Proper consultation and understanding by the first nations and their leaders needs to take place. The government should recognize true aboriginal governance first as nations and tribes. Then this legislation will provide them with security for the future. It is the wrong sequence of events.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful to back up a bit and look at the chronology of the evolution of this bill. It did begin life as Bill C-19 as part of a suite of legislation that the former minister of Indian affairs pitched as his vision of the first nations governance act, I guess, or the fist nations governance initiative, as he called it, because it was really three acts.

Bill C-19 was one of the most controversial aspects of that. Bill C-7 was shot down almost unanimously across the country. However, when Bill C-19 went before the committee, no amendments were successful. The committee did not tour and embark on any consultation with communities.

However, what we do know is that the Assembly of First Nations passed resolutions opposed to Bill C-19. A small group of bands and chiefs in British Columbia were in favour of Bill C-19 and are still in favour of this bill, but that numbers approximately 30 first nations that stand in support of the bill. There are 633 first nations that are members of the Assembly of First Nations. There are valid current and recent resolutions at the Assembly of First Nations that oppose this bill.

In my view, that is all we really need to know. For us to go ahead and pass a bill that would affect the lives of aboriginal people without their full consent and without even full consultation with them is, in my view, the height of imperial arrogance, a colonial style imposition of our views as to how they should conduct their affairs.

The optionality issue is key and fundamental to this because the government's only answer to the many criticisms about this bill was to try and convince people that it would have no general harm to the inherent recognition of inherited aboriginal and treaty rights because it would apply to only those first nations that sign on and that it is completely optional.

I heard the minister say that first nations could sign on and sign off. I think that is completely incorrect. Our legal opinion suggests that one cannot simply sign on, drop in and drop out willingly. In fact, as I pointed out, as far as the lending authority, the finance authority, once a first nation has signed on, it cannot leave without the unanimous consent of all the other signatories, and that is a rare thing. If there are 30, 40 or 50 first nations that have signed on, they would have to all agree to allow another first nation to opt out and, arguably, weaken their organization. Therefore, the freedom to come and go is severely limited, if not impossible. I argue that this is not an optional bill. This affects all first nations.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to maybe enlighten the House on the parliamentary process that the bill has taken. It is now Bill C-23, but in the previous sitting of Parliament it was Bill C-19.

Bill C-19 was taken into consideration by the Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs. Could he maybe enlighten the House, myself and maybe Canadians and first nations who may be listening, on the extent of that review of clause by clause and on the level of witnesses? Did the standing committee travel extensively to economically diverse communities, some of which may have been economically progressive, or geographically or economically challenged, in the far north geographical regions? I just wanted to know what level of activity took place during the standing committee's study of Bill C-19.

With regard to optionality, the member used the example of a driver's licence. I would refer him to something that is more near and dear to us as members, and that is the option program for us to get into our pension funds. A certain group in a certain party opted out of the MP pension plan.

Maybe the member can explain and enlighten the House a little bit more on why all members here are now part of the pension fund. There was a point in our history when members could consider opting into this pension fund as members of Parliament. I think that is a better example of this opting in program for first nations to buy into Bill C-23.

Maybe the hon. member could enlighten us on the Bill C-19 parliamentary process and on the option program that we have experienced as members of Parliament in this House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-23 and even more pleased to speak to the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from the Bloc, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. To be clear, I understand the debate is on the amendment at this time.

I agree with my colleague. I have long admired his particular sensitivity to this issue. I think perhaps part of that comes from his own background as a sovereignist. He can identify with the right to self-government of aboriginal people perhaps with a sensitivity that others only aspire to.

Bill C-23 is vehemently opposed by the overwhelming majority of more than 600 first nations across Canada. There are over 633 first nations who are affiliated with the Assembly of First Nations. The overwhelming majority are opposed to Bill C-23, just as they were opposed to Bill C-19.

Frankly, that is where the debate should properly stop. That should put an end to this debate because that is all we really need to know. This bill has not been developed with the cooperation and input from the 633 first nations of the Assembly of First Nations, the parliament of the first nations community. It was resoundingly rejected.

Let me begin with a bit of history. In Halifax in the summer of 2001, I was at the Assembly of First Nations gathering where the first draft resolution in support of this concept was voted down. The people were upset. A great deal of work took place at that assembly. With a fair amount of generosity, the chiefs at that assembly, even though they voted down the original resolution, agreed to allow it to carry on under the explicit condition that any draft bill had to come back to the Assembly of First Nations to be reviewed, accepted or rejected. That never happened.

In classic, unilateral, arrogant, and colonial fashion, the government, even after having heard from the legitimately elected leadership of first nations across the country, went ahead in complete opposition to the directives given, that the Assembly of First Nations would cooperate in the development of this bill if the draft was brought back to them for their review, input and cooperation. That never happened. We have to begin from that basic premise.

Let me also state another fact which is somewhat at odds with the presentation by the parliamentary secretary. The hard core support for this bill is probably in the range of 30 first nations, mostly from British Columbia. These first nations seem closely aligned both philosophically and otherwise to INAC.

Let me raise another point. It seems that those who are in favour of this bill, those who are promoting these four fiscal institutions, have unlimited money and funding to fly around the country and promote this bill, and the formation of these four institutions. I raise that as a concern right from the beginning because it seems to me, first of all, those four institutions are up and running.

We are debating here the enabling legislation to create those institutions and they exist. They have offices, staff, CEOs, high priced help and seem to have an unlimited amount of money to fly around the country and lobby me to support this bill. Many of us in the House have had personal visits from people who identify themselves through their business cards as the salaried officers of these institutions. I know the money to create them comes from the aid-based budget of INAC, money that could have and should be more properly directed toward meeting the basic needs of aboriginal people, I would think, rather than fly around the country as high priced lobbyists to convince me that I should vote for this bill. I raise that as a concern, but let us be honest about this.

The parliamentary secretary said that about 100 first nations support the bill. There are about 30 first nations that actively support the bill and another 70 first nations that have expressed some interest in availing themselves of the services that the institutions would provide at some later date, for a total of 100 first nations.

It is an exaggeration and, in fact, it is misleading and disingenuous to say that a full 100 first nations support the bill.

Bill C-23 as it stands is national legislation that negatively affects the rights and interests of all first nations across the country. Even though there are only 30-some first nations that vehemently support the bill, it adversely affects all first nations. Let me elaborate and explain somewhat because I think it warrants an explanation.

The bill is being promoted as a first nations driven piece of legislation, which is utterly misleading. If first nations driven is meant to imply that the bill is supported by most first nations across Canada, let me say again that it is vehemently opposed by most first nations across Canada.

The national fiscal and statistical institutions created by Bill C-23 affect the rights of all 600-plus first nations, even though it is supported by only a few. The institutions would be funded on an indefinite basis from the federal envelope that is allowed for all first nations. In other words, even those first nations that do not support these institutions would be inadvertently paying for them by money that would have otherwise been spent in their communities, possibly meeting basic needs. Yet these institutions are actively opposed by the majority.

At this very early point in my remarks let me say that this is not only bad public policy but it is bad law if it is overwhelmingly opposed and those who oppose it are forced to pay for it. How unfair can that be? It offends doubly, in a sense.

It is true that there are a handful of first nations, mostly in B.C., that are driving the legislation forward. However it is also true that the overwhelming majority that are opposed to the bill are opposed in both principle and text.

Quite apart from the disrespect to Parliament that this misinformation serves, the misstatement of the level of first nations support raises a constitutional issue as to the very validity of the bill. Bill C-23 affects the rights and interests of all first nations, not just those that sign on to the optional schedule.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in leading cases such as Sparrow and Delgamuukw, has been clear that first nations are entitled to full and reasonable consultation when there is proposed legislation that is likely to affect their rights. In some special cases the consent of first nations may be mandated.

Therefore, if the consultation record is insufficient, as I argue it has been given the level of opposition and the failure of the government to bring back a draft to the Assembly of First Nations for ratification or approval prior to coming to Parliament, I argue that the consultation obligation has not been met. The most basic, fundamental test put to us by the Supreme Court in terms of legislation that may affect inherent aboriginal and treaty rights has not been met in this case again. This is a pattern that we have seen since I have been here as a member of Parliament, a disturbing pattern, a deliberate pattern, a colonial imperialist pattern.

It is not overstating it to say that because of the government's unwillingness to give meaning and definition to section 35 of the Constitution, it has allowed the courts to interpret time and time again what inherent and treaty rights mean. Time and time again the government loses at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is now telling us that if we are going to introduce any future legislation that may affect inherent and treaty rights, consultation is required. Again, the government has chosen not to consult because consultation means more than just informing people what will be done to them. Consultation requires a meaningful exchange and accommodation of the points put forward by the other party. True consultation means bringing the issue forward, putting it on the table, getting the other person's point of view and accommodating some of the points raised, not imposing one's will on someone else. That is a basic, fundamental principle and the government has ignored it.

If passed into law, Bill C-23 will surely be challenged in the courts. There is a strong likelihood that the statute will be held unconstitutional because of the failure once again of INAC to follow the consultation standard laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in numerous landmark decisions, numerous court rulings that actually took place during this 37th Parliament and during the 36th Parliament.

The duty to properly consult first nations is a key aspect of federal fiduciary obligation. It is protected by section 35 of the Constitution but we would never know that from the government's attitude and approach to it.

I want to raise the issue of optionality again. All the government can think of to try to allay the concerns brought forward by the majority of first nations is to say that it will make it optional; that it will only apply to those people who choose to avail themselves of it. That is a lie, or to put it another way, that is misleading. This new schedule mechanism is a parlour trick.

I made the point earlier and I will say it again. For the government to say that the bill is optional is like saying a driver's licence is optional. It is optional unless one wants to drive a car. As soon as one wants to drive a car, a licence becomes mandatory. Smaller first nations will find themselves in that trap because if they do not sign on and become one of the member nations on the schedule, they will not be allowed to set up any other type of financial bylaws within their own first nations unless they meet the approval of this new institution.

If they are not on the schedule and they want to seek outside financing for some project in their community, instead of the government meeting its fiduciary obligation to that first nation, it will simply say that if the first nation needs the development in its community it should go join the new fiscal institutions and join the pooled effort of financial activity.

Those are some of the fears put in a very simplistic way. This new schedule mechanism is a carnival trick. It is meant to deceive. It conveys the impression that three of the institutions in the bill, all but the statistical institute, are optional and therefore not prejudicial to first nations that choose not to join.

I note in passing that once on the schedule it seems that a first nation becomes subject to those institutions and getting out is in fact more difficult than getting in because once on the schedule the first nation cannot get off the schedule without the approval of all those other first nations that are on the schedule.

That may seem like a fine point but any time we have rules and conditions under which we can join something, at the same time we have to factor in rules and conditions by which we can leave. In other words, it is more difficult to leave than it is to join and we get pulled in.

The pretence of optionality fostered by the schedule amendment is not maintained in the case of the statistical institute. This part is imposed on all first nations and bands in Canada, whether or not they add their names to the schedule. There is nothing optional at all about the statistical institute. In fact, it can gather sensitive, private information on all first nations in the country, no matter whether they want that information gathered or not. There is a serious privacy issue associated with this question. This should be alarming to the overwhelming majority of first nations that are voting against the bill.

I ask all members to take note that under clause 105 the federally appointed institute can indefinitely collect and use the most sensitive data about all bands in Canada without their consent. Where is the optionality there?

The alleged optionality of these three institutions is completely misleading. In fact, they are statutory national bodies that will affect the rights and interests of all first nations in Canada, whether or not they are added to the schedule.

If anything, the schedule model, I would argue, actually makes things worse. This is because the schedule model perversely guarantees that these important national institutions will be perpetually controlled by the small number of first nations that are strongly in support and which have aligned themselves with INAC. If anything, this schedule would have a perversely negative effect on people. I do not think the minister and his INAC officials have thought this through.

The tax commission, which is really the Indian tax advisory board on steroids, is one of the institutions said to be optional. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. The tax commission is a federally appointed body and it will become the czar of all future on reserve property taxation bylaws or laws. This is what I was getting at, and I hope people will listen to this carefully.

If this law is passed, in the future all first nations in Canada that want to develop on reserve property taxation laws and systems will have to seek the approval of this federally appointed commission, whether they signed on to it or not. All such first nations will have to submit their annual property tax budgets to the commission for approval. That is in clause 9. People can check that if they do not believe me. I do not make up this stuff. There is no optionality here. This affects the rights and interests of all first nations therefore, whether they are on the schedule or not.

The unilateral nature of the tax commission is made even more problematic by the many upfront restrictions on first nations property taxations contained in Bill C-23. First nations will not be free to spend their tax revenue as they please. Instead, they will be forced to spend their money on local infrastructure and the like, and therefore lightening the burden on INAC. I get back to one of my basic problems here, which is that the bill is more about the desire of the federal government to offload its fiduciary obligations, its financial obligations.

First nations cannot just use their tax revenue for any purpose they see fit. No matter what the need and demand is in their community, they have to use it for things that the federal government approves.

Unfortunately, I cannot make all the points I would like to make because my time is running out. However, again, the impression of optionality, stoked by the tricky schedule amendment, is misleading. People saw through that right from day one. The first nations that read the bill saw that. Many of us are only just beginning to see that.

The most disturbing, strong armed component to Bill C-23 is directly linked to the management board, clause 8 of the bill. I urge people to refer to that. Communities that do not voluntarily join the bill are not permitted to pass bylaws or laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration. Even if they are not on the schedule, the management board, they are not allowed to pass comparable bylaws and financial bylaws. This is contrary to the inherent right of self-government, plain and simple.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am particularly interested in the intervention by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I know he has demonstrated an exceptional interest in this issue for not just this incarnation of the bill but, in fact, when the bill was called Bill C-19.

For those of us who have been involved in this bill since the very beginning, we see Bill C-23 as a fraud, an illusion, that there is no appreciable difference in tone or in content from the basic flaws that we pointed out in Bill C-19.

My hon. colleague cited a number of problems that he had with this bill and, I think in great detail, tried to share with the House what his reservations were as to what might be really motivating the government in introducing this bill.

One of the key things he pointed out, and what I would ask him to expand on, is the whole issue of optionality.

The federal government seems to mitigate the downside of the bill by saying that people should not worry, that it is only optional and that they do not have to use it if they do not want to. However we have had first nations come to our caucus and tell us that the bill is optional in the same way that a driver's licence is optional. A driver's licence is optional unless we want to drive a car and then we must have one.

Would the member agree that the same logic applies to the bill? People do not have to avail themselves of the details of the bill unless they want to institute some financial bylaws in their community, or build a sewage treatment plant and go outside for financing, or they want to actually implement their right to self-government. If they want to do any of those things, then they have to join. Would he agree with me?

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak once again to Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act, which has been before Parliament for a long time under other monikers. It was previously Bill C-19. This was a bill that was tied very closely to Bill C-7, the first nations governance act. The government tied those two together so tightly that when Bill C-7 was finally buried by the minister, Bill C-19, now C-23, wore a lot of that.

There was a great attempt by the government to try to address concerns that were brought forward in terms of making C-19, now C-23, more palatable. There were a series of amendments tabled and discussed with the opposition critics. The opposition critics, including myself, agreed that tabling could occur.

One of the difficulties that all of the opposition parties are having is that those amendments were amendments that improved the bill. However, for all of us, those amendments did not improve the bill to the point where we are willing to support the bill.

My single biggest complaint with the bill, which I discussed with the previous minister, was the fact that the statistical institute was not decoupled from the fiscal institutes. Everyone agrees that the statistical institute is not essential to the workings of the other three institutes or boards that are enabled by this legislation.

I was expecting those amendments that would decouple the statistical side to be tabled. It did not happen. What we now have is a contradiction in the legislation. I do not see how a statistical institute for first nations can operate on an optional basis. I do not really want it to either because all of this is basically duplicating what Statistics Canada already does.

We already have a report from the Auditor General from December 2002 which clearly states that the amount of paperwork that the federal government demands of first nations at the administrative level far exceeds what is realistic or reasonable. Most of that information is never used by the federal government in any case. Therefore, it seems to me we are piling a problem on top of a problem for no rational purpose.

Even the president of the first nations finance authority agreed with the statement that the statistical institute is not essential to the workings of the other three institutions.

There has never been any attempt on the part of the non-government proponents to say that this is essential or necessary, yet the government, for whatever reason, has made a conscious decision that it is going to keep this in an omnibus fashion within the bill rather than let that other institution stand or fail on its own merits. I fail to understand that. I empathize very much with the criticisms that here is an institution to collect first nations statistics, but if it is not being done on anything more than an optional basis, the statistics are going to be meaningless in any case. This seems like some kind of swamp country that we just as well might avoid. That is my single biggest criticism of the bill.

This has brought a great deal of polarization to the first nations community, and a lot of it is unnecessary. A great deal of it relates to the fact that it was tied so closely to the first nations governance act. We do have about 25% subscription within the province of British Columbia to taxation by the bands in British Columbia and they have endorsed this. However, many of the other groups certainly have not, in a very strong sense of the word.

The parliamentary secretary talked at great length about the endeavours within the House of Commons since the aboriginal summit that was held in Ottawa not too long ago. That hastily prepared $350,000 summit excluded some native leadership. It certainly excluded the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and I am sure it excluded others.

The parliamentary secretary was putting great focus on the amount of aboriginal legislation that has been in the House since that moment. I have quite a different point of view in that really there has been almost no agenda from the government in this place on any subject.

The aboriginal agenda included Westbank, which the government side ended up filibustering, and there is Bill C-23, and not much else has happened in this place. I think one of the reasons even these two bills have progressed along the path to the extent that they have is that the government does not have any other legislation on the agenda that it wishes to pursue.

We can look at this many ways, but the way the government is choosing to look at it is certainly very constructed. It is certainly not the way those of us who have been in this place for many years are viewing the current goings on in the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, some of the difficulties that are inherent in this legislation, and I have given the background, ended up being worn by the proponents of, for example, the Westbank legislation. The Westbank legislation creates the strongest individual property rights on reserve anywhere in Canada, yet it took a lot of heavy criticism. I think a lot of that criticism would have been avoidable had it not been for the baggage that was brought forward as a consequence of the first nations governance act, this bill, and other goings on with the government.

Westbank is a band with significant taxation revenues, revenues that it has been collecting since the early 1990s. It has a strong record on taxation and it has a legitimate ability to use this suite of legislation in a very constructive and productive way.

We know that the bands that are in a good financial situation or have the ability to be there quite readily are very supportive of this legislation. I think it is unfortunate that the government delivered a package that was not much more straightforward and clear right from the beginning. The major criticisms it hastily tried to address after the fact could have been addressed months earlier, but they were not. To this date, all of the criticisms have not been addressed.

I think that covers most of my points. The parliamentary secretary is busy looking through his notes. I will give him the opportunity to ask me questions or to make comments.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad that the members from the NDP and the Bloc know so little about this bill. First, in relation to the Assembly of First Nations, if the member were listening, she would have heard that we took those concerns and placed them in the amendments. Now the bill is totally optional, and the eligible items are still in the Indian Act. I will read a passage from the website of the Assembly of First Nations. It states:

We also raised with the Minister our concerns about Bill C-23 (formerly Bill C-19), the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Institutions Act, which was re-introduced on March 10, 2004. Our preference was that the Bill not be re-introduced until the concerns of First Nations were addressed.

The indications I received were to the effect that the government will introduce amendments to the Bill--

We have done that.

--to clarify that the legislation will be optional. Once the information is received it will be shared with First Nations as soon as it is available. We will keep First Nations informed on this and any and all developments related to Bill C-23. We also recognize that some First Nation communities are interested in participating in one or more of the institutions created under the Act.

If the proposed amendments achieve optionality, in accordance with the principles of the AFN Charter, the AFN should not stand in the way.

In relation to the number of first nations, she suggested 50 or 60. First, even if we were only helping one first nation of people, I would be pushing for this bill, just like I did for Westbank, just like I did for Tlicho. If I talk--

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak in support of Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act. I intend to support this legislation at report stage. This bill was introduced last year as Bill C-19 and its passage has been long awaited by many first nations leaders. The bill is clear proof that the government is serious about fulfilling its commitment to first nations and aboriginal peoples.

The House will recall that in the recent Speech from the Throne the government committed to address the difficult but essential work of renewing its relations with Canada's first nations. The government vowed to undertake a new, collaborative approach in working with aboriginal leaders. The government also pledged to rekindle this relationship based on equality, trust and mutual respect. The government clearly indicated that fostering economic development in first nations communities and narrowing the gap in living standards between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples was a foremost priority and a measure of what we are as a country.

A number of significant steps have been taken to begin removing barriers to economic progress for first nations. Land claims have been negotiated, self-government agreements have been signed, and modern governance regimes have been developed and implemented.

Together, first nations leaders and the federal government have taken much action to encourage first nations entrepreneurs, attract investment, and create jobs in first nations communities. These measures are creating genuine hope and opportunity in first nations communities, thereby enabling first nations families to share in the prosperity that many other Canadians take for granted.

In recent years aboriginal economic development has undergone a truly remarkable transformation. Indeed, aboriginal owned businesses now operate in virtually every sector of the economy. Although factors such as improved transportation links and communications technologies have certainly contributed to the shift, I believe the principal difference has been a significant change in attitude.

I believe that in the past few years a spirit of collaboration has grown among aboriginals and non-aboriginals in both public and private sectors alike. Regrettably, not all aboriginal peoples have fully shared in this country's wealth and good fortune. Despite many positive strides forward, the economic condition of many aboriginal communities are simply unacceptable.

Bill C-23 is a vitally important measure to help bring first nations people into the economic mainstream of this country and to help first nations raise the living standards of their members. This legislation, led by first nations able and eager to wield increasing fiscal and administrative authority, would create four innovative institutions. These institutions are designed to support the sound fiscal management and encourage robust economic development in communities.

First, is the first nations finance authority, which would enable participating first nations to issue bonds and raise long term private capital at preferred rates to construct roads, water treatment plants, sewage systems and other crucial capital infrastructure. The first nations tax commission, which would evolve from the Indian Taxation Advisory Board, for those first nations who choose to participate would streamline the real property tax law approval process and help to reconcile community and ratepayer interests.

The first nations financial management board would provide professional advice and guidance in the development of financial management capacity on reserve, and the independent and professional assessment services required for entry into borrowing pools. Finally, the first nations statistical institute would assist first nations to meet their own statistical needs while encouraging participation in and use of the integrated national system of Statistics Canada.

Together, these four institutions would provide first nations with vital tools to foster economic development. These institutions are an essential means to help first nations access and manage the capital they require to grow and prosper. They are crucial levers for first nations people to raise living standards in their own communities.

It is important to note that much of the credit for this legislation lies with visionary first nations leaders. Rather than wait for the government to act, they took it upon themselves to address the absence in their communities of fiscal powers and institutional support, and to respond. These forward thinking men and women devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to develop the principles behind the bill. Many months ago they turned to the government for support in placing this fiscal, administrative and statistical framework on a strong legal foundation of fundamental requirements in seeking to attract investors and cultivate business development.

The result of these efforts is this pioneering piece of legislation. Bill C-23 would help first nations foster a business friendly environment, investor confidence and economic growth. The legislation would enable participating first nations to enter the economic mainstream by giving them the practical tools already used by many other governments. In fact, Bill C-23 would help first nations communities to be on the same level as other local governments. It is this fact that makes this truly a ground breaking piece of legislation.

The institutions created by the bill would provide first nations with access to capital markets already available to other governments. It made me ask, why is this so important? As hon. members may know, community infrastructure is fundamental to the quality of any community's life and economic growth. However, first nations seeking to borrow funds for such infrastructure currently face prohibitive transaction costs, processing times and interest rates. In fact, due to a lack of applicable legislative and institutional framework, a dollar of first nations tax revenue buys 30% to 50% less in capital works than revenue of other governments.

By making it possible for first nations to pool their borrowing requirements, Bill C-23 would enable many first nations, like other local governments, to raise long term private capital at preferred rates and it would provide first nations with institutional support to ensure they operate within their debt carrying capacity.

Bill C-23 is not a panacea for the challenges facing first nations. The legislation however is an important step forward for first nations people. The institutions created by Bill C-23 would lead to practical and long lasting benefits for communities. These institutions would improve the ability of first nations governments to address the social and economic well-being of their communities. The legislation would provide participating first nations with tools that other levels of government take for granted, essential tools needed by first nations to build their economies and to improve the quality of life on reserve communities.

It is important that all members support Bill C-23.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was one week ago today that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and others held an aboriginal summit just down the street from this place. They brought in aboriginal leaders from around the country and told them that from now on the government was going to do things differently, and that there was going to be a whole new fiscal relationship between first nations and the federal government.

Yet, exactly seven days later we are in the House of Commons and the first nations people are faced with the government ramming legislation down people's throats that they have expressly stated they do not want and are not interested in. I wanted to point out this glaring contradiction. This bill of goods has been sold to aboriginal people across the country that things are going to be different. As a cautionary note, we have with us today dramatic evidence that things are no different. Things are exactly the same.

Having said that, let me say that it is the height of Eurocentric arrogance, a European model of paternalism that imposes governance rules and systems of governance on people such as first nations without their full participation and opting into that sort of process. What we have today is the tail end of the first nations governance act suite of legislation that was introduced by the last minister of Indian affairs. This is the rump of that initiative.

We managed to stop Bill C-7 with great effort in the House of Commons and with aboriginal people around the country mobilizing to put the brakes on this ill-conceived first nations governance act. What we have today is an aspect of the FNGA. It is an integral part of that suite of legislation that was so soundly rejected by aboriginal people across the country.

All we really need to know in the House today, as we debate these amendments to a flawed bill, is that the governing councils of first nations in this country, the Assembly of First Nations, have looked at this bill and rejected it. They have done so on a number of occasions.

In November 2002 there was a resolution. The Assembly of First Nations, at a meeting held in Ottawa on November 19 and 20, 2002, looked at the fiscal and statistical management act, and the proposed first nations fiscal institutions bill. I am holding the resolution here. I do not need to read all of the “whereas” and “therefore be it resolved” paragraphs, but members can take my word for it that they overwhelmingly voted down this bill. They reconvened again on February 20 and 21, 2003. In fact, this time it was the AFN's fiscal relations committee. It reconsidered this particular bill and again voted it down.

We either have respect for the legitimately elected leadership of first nations in the form of the Assembly of First Nations or we do not. The Prime Minister cannot on one day, Monday of last week, say that he has respect for the leaders that he brought to the table and then one week later act in a way that clearly shows that he does not have any respect for these particular resolutions, democratically asked at the legislative Assembly of First Nations.

Even more recently, in October 2003, I actually went to the Squamish first nation where it had called a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations to deal with this very bill at that time. The B.C. chiefs, who are actually interested in this bill, felt they had enough interest from the other chiefs to vote in favour of what was in Bill C-19 at the time. When the two day meeting was convened, even the chiefs in B.C., of whom there are over 200, could not carry the day and again it was voted down.

The only thing members of the House of Commons need to know is that the Assembly of First Nations met three times in the last year and half, looked at Bill C-19, now Bill C-23, and categorically rejected it. They were not interested. They go to the basic core of the issue in their objections. They are looking at this from the point of view of section 35 of the Constitution, inherent and aboriginal treaty rights, the inherent right of aboriginal people to govern themselves. This is not in that vein. This misses the boat.

Even if there were elements of the bill that would be helpful and useful, and some first nations may in fact wish to avail themselves of elements of this bill in terms of pooling their borrowing capabilities, even their ability to issue bonds, et cetera, those are things that can be done and are being done even outside of the legislative framework.

What we find here is a growing mobilization across the country to bury the bill altogether. In keeping with the promises and the sentiments of the meeting of last Monday, aboriginal people and first nations across the country are mobilizing to kill Bill C-23.

People from around the country are on their way to Ottawa right now, busloads of people mobilizing to come forward to tell you and to tell members of Parliament through you, Mr. Speaker, that they do not want Bill C-23. Who are we then to dictate to them what they should have and what we think their system of government should look like? We are a bunch of white guys and a couple of white women in suits who are going to once again, in a Eurocentric, colonial style, dictate to them what we think their way of life should look like.

I have a fax here which says “red alert”. Right across the country there is a red alert going out stating that Bill C-23 will be coming up for debate in the House of Commons on Monday and that people should mobilize, come together and defeat the bill. People will be coming to Ottawa and they will tell the Liberal government in no uncertain terms that this is not in keeping with any kind of new fiscal relationship between first nations and the federal government.

The bill is a disappointment. Some hope and optimism was dangled under the noses of aboriginal people just a week ago today. I think it is a cynical gesture on the part of the House leader of the Liberal Party to table this bill today and have us debate the bill at all in the context of those promises made just one week ago. It is not lost on the leadership of aboriginal communities across the country. In fact, people are taking note that we are having this debate today.

The amendments put forward would have members believe that these first nations' fiscal institutions will be optional. Those who are pushing this bill are saying that they do not know what the aboriginal peoples are concerned about because this is an option for which they can avail themselves.

The bill is optional in the same way that a driver's licence is optional. People do not have to go out and get a driver's licence but if they ever want to drive a car they do. That is the same logic that applies to these pieces of legislation.

First nations do not have to avail themselves of the new fiscal institutions and the tax commission but if hey go to the federal government under their formal relationship that they have today, the fiduciary obligation with the federal government, and ask for help for economic development, the federal government will say, “Your options lay over in the first nations fiscal institution. Sign on your community to this new package of four financial institutions and you can borrow money on the open market to build your own sewage treatment plant. Do not come running to me.” That is the fear that small communities have that will happen. This is what the predictable consequences of the bill will be.

Even though the parliamentary secretary has dutifully put forward amendments, we cannot accept them and we cannot accept the bill. We think the bill flies in face and is in direct contrast to the commitments made to aboriginal people last Monday. It is a load of hooey.

[The Speaker]

The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-19 was at the time of prorogation of the second session of the 37th Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, February 10, 2004, the bill is deemed read the second time, referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resourcesand reported.

The bill will therefore stand on the Order Paper at report stage and the notice period will be pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(1).

(Bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee and reported)

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-19 was at the time of prorogation of the previous session.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to join the debate on Bill C-19 put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. These proposals speak to the issues of conditional release and the basic rights of individual Canadians.

Having carefully reviewed the debate thus far, I see no need to enumerate the specific facets of the bill that have been dealt with thoroughly by others. The government, through the vehicle of a parliamentary standing committee, has identified areas of which the federal correctional system may be improved. These areas coincide with those highlighted by Canadians across the country through a thorough process of consultation. The government is rightly acting to update the legislation to reflect the constructive input of many knowledgeable citizens.

Over the past decade, there have been numerous legislative initiatives undertaken by a series of ministers responsible for facets of the criminal justice system. Among the more constructive of these initiatives was the passage of a massive bill in 1992 that was brought forward by the solicitor general of the day to replace the parole act and the penitentiary act with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. On several occasions since, even this well thought out legislation underwent additional useful changes.

All Canadians are aware of examples of senseless crimes and the plight of the victims of these crimes. We are all aware, through our consistency offices, correspondences and media accounts, that some of our citizens live in fear of crime and believe that the government has not risen to the challenge of protecting society in a time of perceived lawlessness.

I would emphasize that this is but a portion of Canadians. I would not for a moment discount the concerns of the individuals and groups who urge us to get tough with criminals. For a time in the 1980s and early 1990s the incidence of crime was a concern to us all. We saw both more and different sorts of crime being reported as victims of crimes involving family violence and sexual assault came to be less stigmatized and could come forward more readily to assist in the prosecution of their assailants.

The public has become more aware of our criminal justice system. It is obvious that an informed public is more likely to perceive flaws in a system with which it has more than a passing knowledge. Those directly responsible for the safety of Canadian communities, the police, prosecutors, judges and ultimately our penal systems, both provincial and federal, are responding to the criticism of this increased awareness and oversight. As legislators, we should do no less.

However, I must emphasize that almost all statistical crime reports in Canada indicate a reduction in the rate of offences and in the incidence of crimes up to and including homicide. This is a trend of many years standing and not a momentary downturn.

There are many factors that affect an individual's exposure to crime that may be gleaned from statistics. Geography, for example, plays a big part as an urban area witnesses more violent crime than does the countryside. Rampant crime does not pervade the land. While I grant that many Canadians have ready options as to where they live and to whom they may encounter in their daily lives, most Canadians may reasonably expect that their lives will not be put asunder by encounters with serious crime.

It is when this reasonable expectation of safety is shattered by direct involuntary involvement with senseless crime that public reaction surfaces in our mail and in our media. We must respond to these concerns and we must do so in an effective manner.

I submit that the government is doing just that by putting forward Bill C-19 to respond to identified issues within the correctional system. In the case of individuals who are victimized, often problems may be dealt with directly by referring them to community and victim support services that are available from the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board regional offices across Canada.

In addition, most police forces assign officers to community service duties. Many courts are monitored by the representatives of victims' services organizations. These direct interventions as well as the information and assistance by our staff members in constituency offices, can provide satisfactory and personalized solutions to Canadians who may be feeling baffled or neglected by the criminal justice system.

Nonetheless, the parliamentary committee that reviewed the legislation governing our correctional system said that the status quo was just not good enough. Some victims felt the need for more direct involvement in the cases of offenders who caused their victimization.

Improvements to the system can be made both through the legislative process and through changes to policies and practices. The government acted swiftly some time ago by accepting most of the committee's recommendations on the policies and programs governing corrections and conditional release. All but a few have been fully implemented.

Today we are dealing with recommendations that require the force of law. Public safety is the guiding priority of the federal system of corrections and conditional release. While considering this principle, we must remain mindful of the balance that must be sought within correctional legislation.

On the one hand, the law must be fashioned to deal with a range of offenders in any given category. Offenders who respond favourably to the treatment, training and educational opportunities available in our system must be able to rejoin the community as upright citizens. Every reasonable opportunity must be provided for those who no longer threaten us to return as expeditiously as safety dictates.

On the other hand, as part of the balance of the system, victims who so desire must be given the opportunity to voice their concerns and ultimately to appropriately affect outcomes of decisions regarding corrections and conditional release.

The bill before us touches both sides of the correctional equation. Victims will be empowered to better participate in the system. The provisions will appropriately limit the conditional release opportunities for a significant number of offenders. In addition to the input from victims who may alert decision makers to the risk of a particular conditional release decision, there are provisions to limit accelerated parole review and to provide additional safeguards in respect to the potential conditional release of offenders who have served two-thirds of their sentences.

Bill C-19 is a coherent package of reforms and is worthy of our serious consideration and swift passage on to committee, whose predecessors set this legislative train in motion. It is to be hoped that through a frank discussion of these issues, the public may gain a greater knowledge about our correctional system and the responsiveness of the government.

It is my further hope that Canadians will be reassured that public safety is paramount, the system is under scrutiny and we will always try to improve it.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Emergency Preparedness)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-19 introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety.

I would remind the House that, when this bill was first introduced in the House on June 4 of last year, it was known as Bill C-40. It died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued on November 12. We now want to reinstate it and refer it to committee before second reading.

As we know, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made a number of recommendations in its report entitled “A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act”. All 53 recommendations contained in this report were approved by the standing committee. The government then accepted 46 of these recommendations, the majority of which were implemented internally by the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.

We now have before the House the responses to some of the recommendations yet to be implemented. These responses were gathered in a bill, because they need to be officially approved before they are implemented.

Before going over some of the proposed measures, let me give you an indication of the efficiency of this legislation and of its impact on public safety.

Since the Corrections and Release Act came into force, the crime rate has dropped to its lowest in 20 years and keeps decreasing. It is important to note that, for the same period, the number of inmates in Canada has practically stopped increasing.

Also, the number of prison sentences is declining while public safety measures are on the rise. For instance, according to Statistics Canada, 8,914 criminal offences were reported to police in 1996, compared to 7,590 in 2002. Therefore, the number of inmates in federal prisons has decreased from 14,100 to 12,600, for a total decrease of 1,500.

I could also point out that the success rate of offenders on conditional release continues to be excellent. During the past year, over 99% of temporary absences, 84% of day paroles, and over 75% of full paroles encountered no problems. That shows that the legislation is working very well overall.

Countries all over the world respect Canada for the integrity and efficiency of its criminal justice system because, while on the one hand, it protects its citizens by ensuring that offenders are kept and supervised in safe and humanitarian conditions, on the other hand, it prepares offenders for their reintegration into society as law-abiding citizens.

The provisions of Bill C-19 will make it possible to increase the effectiveness of this act and respond directly to the concerns expressed by citizens. Bill C-19 is designed to tighten up the provisions relating to the accelerated parole review process, as it is called in the act. The current provisions apply only to offenders who are serving their first federal sentence and who have been convicted of a non-violent crime, and allow them to be released on parole at the earliest date possible, provided it is unlikely they will commit a violent offence after their release.

The bill will tighten up these provisions in a number of ways. First, offenders sentenced for the following criminal acts will be added to the list of those already excluded from the accelerated process: criminal organization offences, child pornography, high treason, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, causing bodily harm with intent in certain cases, and torture.

Second, parole under this process will no longer be statutory. The National Parole Board will use much more stringent tests. Each case will be subject to an individual review and decision by the Board. Moreover, the bill will ensure that, when reviewing the cases of offenders eligible for accelerated parole review, the National Parole Board take into account the likelihood of re-offending in general, versus the likelihood of committing violent re-offending, as is the case under current legislation.

Finally, the APR provisions will increase the ineligibility period for day parole for offenders serving more than six years, if those offenders are serving a first federal term for a non-violent offence.

So these are proposals to be added to what is already in place; they will improve the legislation. The bill will ensure society is better protected through provisions on statutory release.

Offenders serving a sentence for a determinate period, that is anything shorter than a life sentence or a sentence for an indeterminate period, who have not been on day parole or full parole, benefit from statutory release with supervision after they have served two-thirds of their sentence.

However, offenders who, in the opinion of Correctional Services, are likely to commit another offence causing death or serious harm, may be sent before the board for examination with a view to continuing incarceration or imposing special conditions.

The concept of statutory release is based on research which has proven that the best way to protect society is to implement a gradual, structured release program before the end of the sentence, rather than a release without transition at the end of the sentence.

The bill before us today will tighten up the provisions relating to statutory release in a number of ways. First, it will require the service to examine all cases with a view to their eventual referral to the national board.

Second, Bill C-19 will require Correctional Service Canada to refer to the National Parole Board the case of all offenders who have committed a sexual offence involving a child and all those who are likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm, so they can be kept in prison until the end of their sentence.

The tightening of provisions relating to the accelerated review or statutory release of offenders, which I just outlined, will inevitably have an impact on the number of cases the board will have to review.

That is why this bill increases the maximum number of board members from 45 to 60.

Another provision in Bill C-19 concerns victims of crimes. Our opposition colleague from Langley—Abbotsford addressed this subject.

The bill will give victims the legal right to make a statement at parole hearings. Now, we could discuss the amendments proposed earlier by our opposition colleague.

Currently, victims are authorized to make a statement only under a board policy. Now, this will become a legal right. The measures proposed, which I have just briefly touched on, directly respond to many recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice. They follow up on almost all the improvements recommended by this committee.

The protection of society continues to be the guiding principle of the correctional process, as indicated in the bill's first principle. This legislation will continue to be closely scrutinized by the Standing Committee on Justice, the media, Canadians and, of course, the opposition parties.

The government remains open to any suggestions to improve the correctional process and is committed to making the necessary changes in due course.

We have the opportunity to take concrete action, once again, to further improve this system. For this reason, I urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-19 without reservation.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting point we get to in Bill C-19 on the issues in there. One of the particular issues I want to talk about is victims' rights. I find it interesting that we are still dawdling with victims' rights in this country.

One of the rights we find is that we are going to recognize the right of victims to present statements at National Parole Board hearings. It is now the year 2004. I can recall talking about this in the House of Commons in 1994. It took four years before we even got an acknowledgement from the government that there should be victims' rights in this country. That was in 1998, after many victims' groups and police and we ourselves got involved with the movement of victims' rights and tried to get some changes.

I want to refresh the memory of the government as to just what we were looking for in victims' rights from 1994 through 1998. I will ask the particular question: Why is it taking so desperately long to get victims' rights entrenched in the Criminal Code of Canada?

These are the kinds of rights we were looking for and will continue to look for throughout the next year or so, or even less if we can get rid of this government and implement the victims' rights legislation ourselves.

We were looking for a definition of victim, which does not exist, and there is a problem because it does not exist. In many cases, victims are not treated as victims. In particular, when an individual is killed, or murdered, the family is not necessarily considered to be a victim for any compensation or other things. The dead person is considered to be the victim. We went about trying to describe what a victim was, which is yet to be acknowledged by the government.

We said that a victim is anyone who suffers, as a result of an offence, physical or mental injury or economic loss, or any spouse, sibling, child or parent of the individual against whom the offence was perpetrated, or anyone who had an equivalent relationship, not necessarily a blood relative.

Why such a long definition? Because in this country there is no definition of victim. The definition of victim, quite frankly, is at the discretion of those in a courtroom. Heaven forbid we keep allowing that, because nothing is consistent in a courtroom these days. We need to provide some assurance to those who have been wronged through criminal acts that they will be treated as victims.

I wrote this legislation in 1994 and we got some of it in 1998. That was so long ago, almost a decade now, and we are still fighting for victims' rights. It really is quite unbelievable. We still need a definition of what a victim is.

Let us go on further. Victims should have the right to be informed of their rights at every stage of the process, including those rights involving compensation from the offender. They must also be made aware of any victims' services available.

People would not believe how often it is after a crime is perpetrated in this country that immediately somebody reads the rights to the criminal. I have witnessed victims sitting on the street, holding their heads, or trying to keep blood from emanating from their body, who sit there until someone decides to remove them because they are in the way. They never have a right read to them and never have a right explained to them at all.

But the criminals' rights are looked after. They are escorted somewhere. Everything is done for them. They are asked, “Can I get you a lawyer? Can I do this? Can I do that?” The poor victims are left by themselves. We need to give assurances that they have rights too and that they are told their rights at the scene of a crime. What is wrong with that? Why am I, a decade after writing these rights, still asking for them in the House of Commons?

Is there something wrong on the other side that this is such an onerous task, something that is too difficult to implement? I just find it so hard to believe.

The folks who are listening out there have been listening to me talk about this stuff for a decade. I just cannot for the life of me understand why we have to suffer intolerably because of the people on the other side who will not listen to common sense.

Let us talk about the other rights victims should have, which we wrote about. Victims should have the right to be informed of the offender's status throughout the process, including but not restricted to notification of any arrests, upcoming court dates, sentencing dates, plans to release the offender from custody, including notification of what community a parolee is being released to, conditions of release, parole dates, et cetera.

By and large that one has improved. We got that into legislation to some extent in 1998, but still today I deal with victims from all across the nation who are coming to me and saying, “I did not know this person was out. Nobody told me. Nobody told me he was in the community. Nobody told me he changed his name”.

In fact, I have frequently found, particularly among sex offenders, that they change their names while in prison. When they get out, they appear in the same community. With the name change, nobody knows who they are except that the victims ultimately run across them and find out to their surprise that it is the same person with another name. Victims should have the right to know these things at all times. It should not be considered an imposition to individuals who have suffered through crime.

So once again I am in the House after a decade asking for some legitimacy to be given to victims of crime. Victims should have the right to choose between giving oral and written victim impact statements before sentencing, at any parole hearings and at judicial reviews.

This bill is dealing with that. What I am reading from is the victims' bill of rights that we wrote in 1994. Today in 2004 we are dealing with this very one. If we can imagine that, it takes these guys a decade to get around to dealing with it. That is far too slow and it is far too low a priority that is given to victims of crime.

I apologize to all the victims out there. It is a sad state of affairs, but I can assure them that with the stealing that has been going on with the government, and all these other issues we are dealing with today, it looks like it could very well be a change of government. I will give great assurances that these kinds of victims' rights will be put into law within very short order, with no committees, thank you very much.

Victims also should have the right to be informed in a timely fashion of the details of the Crown's intention to offer a plea bargain before it is presented to the defence. This has not yet been tabled by the government in the House of Commons, but it is one of the issues that is a terrible imposition to victims of crime. What happens is that plea bargaining takes place, usually unbeknownst to the victims. The lawyers get behind closed doors and make a deal with the judge. Suddenly the victim is standing there asking why the person got a lesser sentence and is told that a sort of a deal was made.

We can see that today within the gun law. Heaven forbid I even talk about that. In many cases within the gun laws, the crime of possessing a firearm is plea bargained out for a lesser crime. That is why the statistical data says there are not as many gun crimes. In fact there are, except that they are plea bargained out of the system.

The very least we should be giving victims of crime is the knowledge that a particular offence is being bargained for. They are not there to bargain. They are there to see justice. It is wrong and inappropriate to go away from the victims without their knowledge and make a deal on behalf of a sentence. It is absolutely wrong.

I do not have the time to finish the rest of the victims' rights here, which I have read to everybody, but people can get in touch with me or any of us if they like and they can be sure that we are going to continue fighting for victims' rights. I apologize to all the victims that it has taken a decade to even get to this level. Unfortunately, that is far too long.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This is a very important framework for our government and for Canada's parole and corrections system.

While we may think there are some problems that from time to time need to be addressed, Canada is very fortunate to have a system that is the envy of many countries in the world. We have much more safety as a result of our corrections and conditional release system. It is important to keep that in mind as we look at the bill.

The minister introduced the bill following on work done by a subcommittee of the House. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued a release when she introduced the bill.

The CCRA is a legal framework for the federal corrections system. The purpose of the act is to protect the public by providing a balance between the control of and assistance to offenders.

We must remember that in the large majority of cases offenders will be released back into our communities so we need ensure they will be able to contribute to our communities after having paid their debt to society.

We want to reintegrate these individuals as law-abiding citizens. Therefore, the conditions under which they are held and the processes under which they are kept or they go through in terms of determining their release date, are important to all Canadians.

The bill is in response to a number of recommendations that were made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendments would tighten up the accelerated parole review process, which again is important in terms of cost effectiveness at the review process, but, more important, to ensure we are protecting the safety of citizens and that we get the best product possible.

The changes that the minister has introduced with the bill reinforce the greater scrutiny of those eligible for statutory release. We have to remember again that people do come to the end of their term at some point and we want to ensure that they are scrutinized properly.

There is a temporary absence process, which is part of the reintegration, that we need to ensure is sound and streamlined so there is greater public safety.

I think my colleague from Hillsborough identified at the end of his speech the importance of ensuring that the rights of victims in making statements to the National Parole Board hearings are protected in law and in process.

Sadly, there are offenders who are terminally ill and we needed to have some conditions under which we would allow them to spend their dying days perhaps in the best environment possible. For those of us who have visited jails, they are perhaps not the best place for the final weeks of anyone's life. Certainly we must keep in mind that not everyone is in jail for a personal injury crime. There are those who are in jail, and not to diminish the types of crime for which they are in jail, because they are very serious, but we need to ensure that we have the right conditions, that we are compassionate, that we are humanitarian and keeping in mind the reasons for them being there.

As I mentioned earlier, these amendments are in response to an all party committee of the House which reviewed the situation, listened to Canadians who had differing views on the issues and it came up with some solid recommendations to improve the system for everyone.

The committee issued its report in May 2000. Anyone interested in reading the report in its entirety can go to the parliamentary website at www.parl.gc.ca and look under the committees of the House of Commons. People will find various reports that have been published. This would give those who are following the bill and these issues a better foundation for what was being considered, the full list of witnesses and the kind of things that our colleagues on both sides of the House have said about the issue.

The act itself was proclaimed in 1992 and has had a number of updates since that time. It is the legal framework for the correctional system. The act sets out three important principles: the purpose of the corrections system that guides Correctional Service Canada and the measures guiding its operations; the purpose of the conditional release system, which is a part of corrections, and the principles that guide the National Parole Board; and the establishment of a very important office, the office of the correctional investigator, and specific measures governing its operations.

The CCRA contains a review clause requiring a parliamentary review of the act. I believe that takes place approximately every five years.

The subcommittee of the main committee of the House wrote a report entitled “A Work In Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act”. The subcommittee made some 53 recommendations for changes. The minister has taken action on 46 of those recommendations.

It is an important dialogue to have in the House. It is also important to update our laws to respond to the latest information, the latest conditions and individual situations that have arisen over the time that the act has been in place. We cannot always crystal ball everything and know exactly how things are going to work into the future. We try, and certainly people bring to committee their best estimates of how things are going to work, but we have to be practical when we undertake to do things to see if we need to make some amendments.

The amendments would tighten the provisions relating to the accelerated parole review. It excludes offenders convicted of offences, such as criminal organization offences, child pornography offences, high treason--thankfully, we do not see that too frequently--sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, or those causing bodily harm with intent using an air gun or pistol, and torture. I think those are really very important changes. We do not want to see accelerated parole review for those individuals. Those are very serious crimes that affect individuals in the most personal way.

We want to ensure with these amendments that in reviewing the cases of those who are eligible for accelerated parole review that the National Parole Board takes into account the likelihood of someone re-offending in general versus the likelihood of committing violent re-offending, as is the case under the current legislation.

The bill would amend the provisions that give the National Parole Board discretion over the release of offenders on accelerated parole reviews and would increase the ineligibility period for day parole for offenders serving more than six years.

The other issue that I thought I would really focus on here is the victims' rights issues that my colleague from Hillsborough had also identified. These amendments would enshrine into law the right of victims to present a statement at National Parole Board hearings. They would revise the definition of victim to ensure that guardians or caregivers of dependants of victims who are deceased, ill or otherwise incapacitated, can get the information that victims are permitted under law.

From time to time we really have to clarify what we mean by victim. Certainly, any of us who have had crimes, especially violent crimes, in our communities feel victimized by what has taken place, but we need to ensure that we have a very careful definition, one that includes the right number of people and the individuals. I think the change to the definition of victim would ensure that those who want to and need to make representation to parole board hearings to protect our community, to ensure that they are receiving the support they need, that is included.

The amendments to the act are important for the workings of our communities and our criminal justice system. It is important that the House be responsible for updating our laws, after careful review of how they have been working and after listening to Canadians who have divergent views on these, and making reports.

The minister has been incredibly responsible, as part of the parliamentary reform that many are talking about, to make sure she has responded to a committee of the House and its recommendations, and brought forward proposed laws that will make the Corrections and Conditional Release Act much better for our community and for the solid working of Canada.

I am sure the members opposite would want to get on the record with their comments.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today. I have followed this issue closely since being elected three and a half years ago. I have read the legislation. Most important, I have read the report of the standing committee which led to the legislation. I agree with the principles set out in the legislation. I hope that everyone in the House will support the bill.

Going back in the history of this corrections legislation and policy and programs administered by Corrections Canada, it is important to bear in mind that our system has been fundamentally sound. It has been found to be sound by most people who work in the system in Canada, but more important, by people who have studied it from abroad. We do have what I consider to be a sound corrections system. However for some years now people having been crying for improvements to the system.

The committee released its report several years ago. It did an exhaustive study on the whole system. It heard from a lot of witnesses who were involved in the system, including offenders and victims. The committee tabled a very well written report in the House which contained 53 recommendations. Bill C-19 adopts 46 of those recommendations. This piece of legislation started with the people who appeared before committee. The committee made its report and now the bill is before the House. I agree wholeheartedly with the bill and the new approaches that are set out in this legislation.

We have to bear in mind when we talk about temporary release, parole and home arrest, that the paramount concern in the legislation has to be the protection of the public. People in the parole service and people in corrections offices throughout Canada have to be given the tools to keep that concern paramount.

I agree with a number of amendments that have been made to the whole procedure.

I practised law for 25 years in Canada. During my early years I did some criminal law but not a lot. A number of my partners practised a lot of criminal law.

One thing has disturbed me for a long time. Somebody would be convicted of a very serious offence, an offence that was repulsive to everyone in Canada. After the trial or after a plea of guilty, and after the summation and sentence, the offender would receive a penalty imposed by the court. The judge heard the evidence, read the reports, heard from the victim--and hearing from the victim has just happened over the last six or seven years--and heard from the offender's lawyer and the prosecutor. The judge, after all that time, effort and energy had been put into this whole exercise, would give a sentence of 15 years. Then on the steps of the courthouse people would hear the statement that the offender would be out in five years.

That offended people. That was the statutory release provision. I know it was not as simple as that and the offender would have to go on parole, but that was repulsive to everyone in Canada.

The judge would spend anywhere from a week to over three months on the case, whatever it took, and would sentence the offender to 15 years. Then the public would hear in the media the statement that the offender would be out in five years. It was wrong that the statutory provision was there. I am pleased that is being dealt with. I am pleased also that certain offences which the Canadian public finds offensive, such as child pornography, high treason, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, causing bodily harm, torture, those offences would be excluded from that whole provision.

I am also pleased that the parole service will be given more tools to determine whether or not there is a likelihood of a particular offender reoffending. We know some people will reoffend but some will not. A lot of times people go to jail, and unfortunately we see it in some instances involving gambling which sometimes leads to crime, to theft from companies and individuals. There are situations where there is a high probability that the offender will not reoffend. The parole service has to be given the tools to make that determination.

The bill increases the ineligibility period for day parole for offenders serving more than six years. This addresses another issue that did offend the Canadian public, the people I talked to. I go back to my previous example where a person would be sentenced to 15 years and then it would be talked about on the street that after a short period of time, perhaps too short in a lot of instances, the offender would be out on day parole working at a job or visiting his family. These situations do not bring the corrections system into disrepute, but there certainly are reservations. I am glad the bill followed the standing committee's recommendations to deal with this.

The whole area of temporary absence has to be dealt with. The parole service and corrections service have to be given more discretion in dealing with this whole area. The provision relating to work release has been repealed. That is a very good development. For the purposes of both types of temporary absences, a structured program for work has been added, so there are continuing efforts to develop life skills and work programs in that area.

Another area I would like to speak to is victims' rights. Canadian legislation and the programs the courts have used have come a long way in the last 10 or 15 years. Fifteen years ago it would have been unheard of in the Canadian judicial system for a victim to be given any rights in court. We have come a long way in the sentencing process, but this is lacking in the parole process and the bill deals with this.

The legislation also deals with clarifying the definition of a victim. In this legislation the victim is given a lot more rights to appear before the parole board when an offender is up for parole and the hearing is held. It is offensive for a victim, especially if it was a rape or an assault, to find out on the street, and these things are usually heard on the street, that a parole hearing had been held. The offender had been sentenced to 15 years, but after a five year period had been given parole and the victim had absolutely no knowledge that the parole hearing had been held. I think the legislation is a very positive development.

There is more work for the National Parole Board. I am pleased to see the increase in the maximum number of full time parole board members from 45 to 60. Many times when the government enacts legislation and programs it does not increase the needed resources. That is dealt with in the bill. The number of parole board members is increased from 45 to 60.

Finally, I wish to speak about terminally ill offenders who are in Canadian prisons. There is a special provision in the bill that if the circumstances are correct and the offender meets the criteria they are allowed to be released under certain circumstances.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

The interests of Quebec start with the interests of our regions. That is what we are dealing with at present, and I am pleased that we are.

My congratulations to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also responsible for public security and emergency preparedness, and today has introduced an important bill on something that is rather fundamental to our country. I am referring to Bill C-19, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code. This bill provides a framework for federal correctional services and the conditional release system, a system, incidentally, which is recognized in a large number of countries.

This legislation is based on knowledge gleaned from research and on respect for the rule of law and human dignity. It recognizes that the best way to protect the public is to properly prepare offenders for their return to society as law-abiding citizens, and to closely monitor those offenders who pose a risk to the safety of our communities.

A parliamentary subcommittee conducted the mandatory review of this legislation in early 1999. The conclusions of this review are contained in a document entitled, “Towards a just, peaceful and safe society: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act five years later”. The subcommittee concluded that the legislation was of fundamental importance but that there is room for improvement, as with all legislation.

In short, the government, through the Deputy Prime Minister, was realistic. She has always been extremely rational in everything she handles in the House. Her approach is measured and very objective. As a result, the government can stay its course on important bills.

Bill C-19 includes provisions to act on 46 of the 53 recommendations made by the subcommittee and approved by the government. The introduction of this bill is proof of the government's desire to take the necessary steps to enhance public safety.

It is not true that our government will allow itself to be distracted by public reports that have yet to be fully verified. We will continue our program and stay the course. Members should remember what happened regarding HRDC: at first, it was $1 billion, and it ended up being $65,000.

I am eagerly awaiting the results of the procedures we now have in place to deal with the only issue that interests our political opponents and the Bloc Quebecois, namely the sponsorship issue. This issue has created a lot of fallout in all their ridings. They are taking advantage of it to make dramatic speeches, even before the House standing committee has studied the question, before the public inquiry has reported, and before the RCMP has finished its investigation.

I am very eager to see the final results on these questions. That is why, despite the diversion—particularly in Quebec, where it was created by our BQ opponents— we have a duty to stay focused on essential matters, including the environment, as we have this week, and on the question of measures respecting Bill C-19 which the minister has introduced today.

The major modifications and provisions are intended to tighten up the accelerated parole review process, which provides for parole based on an assumption of non-violent offenders serving a first federal sentence, as well as statutory release and enshrines the right of victims to present a statement at National Parole Board hearings.

The CCRA is the legal framework for the federal correctional system. Its purpose is to protect the public by providing a balance between control of, and assistance to, offenders, in order to help them reintegrate successfully in society as law-abiding citizens.

This bill addresses a number of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as my hon. colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, has said. It is an important step toward meeting the Government of Canada's commitment to continually improve the laws governing our correctional system.

I am very pleased to have been able to speak on this measure that will be constructive for all citizens of our country. I am very happy to be a part, along with our government, of maintaining our agenda in important sectors for the future of our country and of each of our regions. There is the whole social economy sector, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne. We have not heard much about that from our hon. friends in the Bloc Quebecois, because they lose interest when we are talking about constructive measures.

Last week I had the opportunity to attend prebudget consultations with my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance. Many people from the beautiful Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area were there to talk about the budget and the social economy. Is there a more important sector in our community than that which affects the social economy? We still have not received a single question from our friends from the Bloc on this. Hundreds of thousands of people work voluntarily on initiatives that are extremely important for our fellow citizens and have even managed to gain financial success in what is considered a fragile sector.

We talked about factors such as research, social economy and partnerships with Canadian municipalities. All the municipalities in my region and in Quebec are very happy about our government's openness toward more direct funding for our municipalities. They have multiple roles to fill in order to make our fellow citizens even happier.

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, in support of the Deputy Prime Minister, who is launching a major offensive in a sector that is far from insignificant. I am very pleased.

I would hope for the cooperation of our opponents in this House to stay the course on implementing our initiatives, which are there to help make our fellow citizens even happier and make Canada one of the best countries in the world.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate you in your new official title and role. It has been some time since a member of an opposition party has had an opportunity to sit in the Chair. Ian McClelland did a very good job and I am sure, Madam Speaker, you are certainly up to the very noble task. It is one that I could envy and perhaps some day down the road I might be able to join you.

The legislation that is before the House, Bill C-19, is extremely important. It comes from several years of concern that had been raised about the efficacy of our sentencing provisions. It would ensure that those who are incarcerated at some point down the road have a better chance at reintegration into society. The bill is extremely important for the reason that it is faithful to the requirements and to the work that was done by the justice and legal affairs subcommittee.

My concern of course is that the legislation itself is a very vaunted and important attempt at bringing together a number of concerns in a streamlined and timely fashion.

I want to thank the hon. member for Yukon, the parliamentary secretary, who spoke at great length about some of the more impressive parts of the legislation and what the amendments would include.

There are a number of things in this bill that interest me a great deal. The effectiveness of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which is the framework legislation for federal correctional services and the conditional release system, has been recognized in many countries. This act is based on knowledge gleaned from research as well as on respect for the rule of law and for human dignity.

We also know that the act recognizes that the best way to ensure public safety is to prepare offenders properly for their return to the community as law-abiding citizens, and to carefully monitor those offenders who present a risk to public safety.

We know of many incidences in the past where people who have done their mandatory time and for which appropriate effective correction had not taken place. This of course defeats the purpose, not only of the individual serving the time required, but at the same time minimizes the risk to individuals to ensure there is a proper reintegration.

The mandatory revision of the legislation was undertaken in early 1999, I believe, by a parliamentary subcommittee. I would like to point out that the findings of this study are contained in the document called, “Towards a Just, Peaceful and Safe Society: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act Five Years Later”. The subcommittee found that the legislation was fundamentally valid, but that there was room for improvement.

We can always see that there is room for improvement.

Bill C-19 includes provisions based on 46 out of 53 of the subcommittee's recommendations. It is interesting to see that so many recommendations were taken to heart. These recommendations accepted by the government are a true indication of the change in perception. I am pleased to say that the government and the minister have taken this seriously.

The introduction of this bill shows the government's desire to take the necessary measures for increasing public safety.

In sum, the changes include provisions to tighter up the process for accelerated parole review—which grants the release of offenders based on the presumption that they are non-violent and serving their first federal sentence—and statutory release.

We also feel that there should be a request for support from this House. This cannot go on without the necessary resources. At some point, the House should take a stand on the big issues of the day.

I think CCRA amendments would provide the foundation, as my hon. colleague suggested a little earlier, the cornerstone for Canada's correctional system. It would aim to protect public safety by both controlling offenders and assisting them to successfully reintegrate into society.

The proposed amendments respond to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, following a statutory and mandatory review under the act.

One of the principle features of the bill would tighten the provisions for the accelerated parole review process and under the proposed terms fewer first time federal offenders would be eligible for release under the APR. That is an important point to understand.

The government has recognized what the committee has tried to do and that is to provide a balanced approach that would bring into account both the security needs of the public, which is in its right to demand, as well as ensuring that people who have done their time have an opportunity to integrate and reintegrate successfully.

The bill would legislate the requirement for Correctional Service of Canada to review all offenders who are entitled to statutory release for possible referral for detention or imposition of special conditions.

We have seen this from time to time, where a post-sentencing decision has been made by a judge, the person is given a particular recommendation for a sentence and that recommendation somehow in the transfer of the prisoner gets lost. It is best that we have a coordinated approach that is faithful to the requirements of our justices as they propose a sentence for an individual, particularly when it deals with the kind of crimes as enumerated quite ably by the hon. member for Yukon.

Temporary absences are an important and significant part of the gradual release process. The legislation clarifies the decision-making authority and adds the purposes for which temporary absences may be granted in order to assist with the socialization of offenders.

The legislation would enshrine the rights of victims to present a statement to the National Parole Board hearings. This is absolutely and fundamentally critical to the bill and it is long time overdue that it be recognized.

In line with humanitarian values, terminally ill offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences may be granted parole for the parole eligibility dates. In addition to these legislative proposals we have made significant progress in implementing the standing committee's recommendations through a number of policy program measures.

I have some familiarity with Canadians who are in prisons in other parts of the world and of course there are treaties between these various countries as to how to transfer these individuals. It is clear that around the world we have an understanding that if an individual is terminally ill, how the public perceives this is extremely important in extenuating circumstances.

Those kinds of considerations must be brought into consideration and latitude must be given to the Parole Board in order for it to make a decision under purely and strictly humanitarian grounds. This does not detract or diminish from the severity of the crime these individuals have perpetrated, particularly when it comes to child exploitation, a matter which many members in the House know that this member has led in a number of areas.

I believe the bill begins in a very important way to recognize what the public expects of our judicial and correctional system. Canadians want outcomes that will promote better, healthier, and safer neighbourhoods and communities at the end of the day.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of Bill C-19 based on the fact that the subcommittee held hearings across the country to hear from Canadians, from interested parties and experts, and came up with this proposed act.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act is the framework for federal corrections and the parole system and is highly regarded abroad. The CCRA is founded on evidence based knowledge and respect for the rule of law and human dignity.

The CCRA recognizes that public safety is best achieved by preparing offenders for their eventual return to society as law-abiding citizens and by controlling offenders who pose a risk to the safety of communities.

It is very important--and we have had this debate in society recently--to ensure that public safety is maintained against dangerous offenders, but at the same time we want to protect the public in the future. To protect the public in the future, we have to ensure that there are good rehabilitation programs so that there will be no reoffenders.

The statutory requirements to review CCRA were commenced early in 1999 by a parliamentary subcommittee. The findings were published in its report, “Towards a Just, Peaceful and Safe Society: The CCRA Five Years Later”. The conclusion was that the CCRA was fundamentally sound but there were opportunities for improvement.

Bill C-19 introduces legislation to respond to 46 of the 53 subcommittee recommendations accepted by the government. Introduction of Bill C-19 is evidence of this government's action to strengthen public safety.

A summary of the amendments includes provisions to tighten the accelerated parole review, which provides for the presumptive release of first time, non-violent federal offenders, and statutory release. As well, the victim's right to present statements at the parole board is enshrined in law.

As result of the cross-country hearings conducted by the subcommittee, there are some major amendments that the bill covers. First, it would tighten up the accelerated parole review process. We want to make sure that people are indeed safe in this process, but we also want to make sure it is effective.

Second, it would reinforce greater scrutiny of those eligible for statutory release. There have been cases of and fears about not enough review of those who become eligible for statutory release. To preserve the safety of Canadians, as has been brought up by a number of members of Parliament, we want to ensure greater scrutiny in that area.

Third, it would streamline the temporary absence process. There is no use having inefficient processes, and we wish to streamline this one.

Fourth, it would enshrine the right of victims to present a statement at National Parole Board hearings. This is only natural justice. Victims of course were involved in the whole situation and should at least be able to give their views at the National Parole Board hearings. They would feel that justice has been done. Various considerations that may have had an effect on the victims are brought forward in those statements and the whole system is transparent, open and accountable.

Fifth, the bill would permit the conditional release of terminally ill offenders on humanitarian grounds. If someone is terminally ill, temporary releases and conditional releases would make obvious sense so that they could live out their last days with their loved ones, at which time they would not be a threat to society.

These amendments of course will respond to the May 2000 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled, “A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act”.

This act was originally proclaimed in 1992. For those watching who do not understand the background, it provides the legal framework for the correctional system. It sets out:

the purpose of the correctional system and principles that guide the Correctional Service of Canada and specific measures governing its operations...;

the purpose of the conditional release system and principles that guide the National Parole Board and specific measures governing its operations; and,

the establishment of the Office of the Correctional Investigator and specific measures governing its operation--

It is very important that we release people at the correct times into the correct environments so that they are not released too early without proper scrutiny for the safety of Canadians, but at the same time it is important that we do not keep them in physical incarceration long after it has any benefit for society and long after it provides any protection to society. In fact, that reduces their ability to become contributing members of society.

The CCRA contains a review clause regarding the parliamentary review of provisions and operations of the act. Accordingly, the committee went across the country and did its review in February 1999. It provided 53 recommendations. The government's action will deal with 46 of those recommendations. Some of the changes have been accomplished through policy and program issues within current resources, but fully meeting the commitments requires a number of legislative amendments, which led to the introduction of this bill.

I would like to go into detail now on the five amendments that I listed earlier as to the technical description of how those amendments would work, but because I do not have time to put them all in, maybe I will just pick one of the technical areas from each of the five provisions that we are proposing to amend.

On the first one, the tightening of provisions relating to accelerated parole review, APR, we are going to exclude from it offenders convicted of offences such as criminal organization offences, child pornography, high treason, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, causing bodily harm with intent using an air gun or pistol, and torture. There are three more, which I hope subsequent speakers will cover.

Under streamlining of temporary absences, we are going to give the Correctional Service of Canada sole authority to grant escorted temporary absences to offenders serving a life sentence. There are three more points under that area as well.

Under the reviewing of all statutory release cases and adding to the grounds for detention, we are going to legislate the requirement that the Correctional Service of Canada review all statutory release cases to determine whether to refer the case to the National Parole Board for detention review and whether to recommend to the board the imposition of special conditions.

Under expanding victims' rights with respect to National Parole Board hearings, we are going to enshrine in law the right of victims to present a statement at National Parole Board hearings. There is another point under this amendment.

Finally, there are a few other amendments. We are going to increase the maximum number of full time parole board members from 45 to 60. We propose to ensure that the annual and special reports of the correctional investigator would include full responses of the Correctional Service of Canada. We are going to propose that Correctional Service allow for terminally ill offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences to be released on parole on humanitarian grounds before their regular parole updates. As well, we are going to resolve a number of other technical issues.

Madam Speaker, you are doing an excellent job in your role, might I say, as well as in your role as Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole.

I think the bill will be welcomed by all Canadians. It would provide greater scrutiny, but also allow the release of prisoners in a time slot that would make them positive contributors to society as soon as possible.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this important bill now before the House, which pertains to amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

As Conservatives, we have long held that there was need for reform in this area. The legal community, the justice community, members of the victims advocacy groups, police officers and Canadians generally have for years been expressing great concern, in particular, about the early release of offenders, the conditions which apply to those offenders who have been released into the community and the speed in many cases to which statutory release is granted.

The key word here is the word “statutory”. That is to say that individuals often convicted of violent offences, offences involving sexual assault, home invasion, brutal beatings are put back on the street regardless of their behaviour while incarcerated, and essentially have the judge's initial decision at trial abrogated. That is to say the sentence received at trial is cast aside and in many cases an arbitrary decision is based on time served, and the person is then released into the community.

The bill is one which in my view goes some distance toward addressing some of the concerns around early release. It touches upon such things as expanding the category of offenders who are ineligible for accelerated parole review and therefore increasing the period of ineligibility for accelerated day parole. In other words, the system is prevented from fast-tracking or speeding up the release of offenders.

It also requires the review of cases of every offender entitled to statutory release for the purposes of determining whether to impose additional conditions. This is important, and it touches upon another area of law where I believe there is need for reform; that is the conditions which can currently be put in place by a presiding judge or subsequent to that, a parole officer or individuals within the corrections service department.

In particular I am talking about protecting youth and children from sexual predators. I have put forward a private member's bill which would allow for a judge to bar the presence of a sexual offender, a convicted individual, from being in a dwelling house with a child when not accompanied by another adult.

The current provisions as they stand in the Criminal Code allow for the prohibition of an individual, a sexual offender, from attending a school yard, or a playground, or a place where children frequent. Sadly, it is a well known and well documented fact that the place in which sexual offences most frequently occur is in a dwelling house. Very often, equally tragic, the perpetrator is a person known to the child.

The amendment that I have put forward would allow for the judge to impose a prohibition on being in a dwelling house with a child unless there was another adult present. The inspiration came from a constituent of mine in Nova Scotia who brought this shortcoming, this anomaly in the Criminal Code to my attention some years ago.

Finally, Bill C-19 in its current form would also provide for the automatic suspension of the parole or statutory release of offenders who had received a custodial sentence with a requirement that the National Parole Board then review the case within a prescribed period of time.

In essence, the bill increases the scrutiny and the ability of our parole system to intervene at the appropriate time to review all the cases on their merit and on the facts. I believe there are still some shortcomings that I will touch upon in my remarks as they pertain to victims. I must commend individuals like Steve Sullivan, who works with the victims resource centre, for his diligence in monitoring and bringing forward information and amendments to bills such a Bill C-19.

This legislation is a response to another document, a long overdue response I would add, known as a work in progress, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. That report from the subcommittee in May 2000 was the product of a great deal of work and effort by members of the subcommittee and others.

Similarly, I have to point out that there were 53 recommendations for enhancing public safety, assisting victims of crime and improving and reducing the administrative complexities of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

In October of 2000 the Solicitor General at that time issued a report calling the subcommittee's report:

A welcome addition to the information, research and knowledge currently available regarding corrections and conditional release in Canada.

The Solicitor General recognized that that report:

--echoes the submissions and testimony of offenders, victims of crime, members of the bar, offender assisting agencies, police, Crown attorneys, academics and countless others...

Needless to say, the report was something that encompassed a broad, sweeping consultation of those on the ground working in the system. I would suggest again that this is the most subjective type of information that could be received from those with the working knowledge.

It took almost three years to get to the point where significant pressures brought to bear by members of the official opposition and others calling upon the Solicitor General's department, now defunct and rolled into the Public Security and Emergency Preparedness department, to meet the commitment and recommendations put forward in that earlier report.

In May 2002 the official opposition introduced a motion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights requesting the appearance of the Solicitor General, Commissioner of Corrections Service, the Correctional Investigator and National Parole representatives to provide a status report on what if anything had been done in response. It called upon them to give an accounting as to where they were regarding these recommendations.

The information appeared to go into the nether land and we never really heard back, except to say that there was a letter which one week before the scheduled meeting of the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general seemed to indicate that they were prepared to respond. I would suggest that because of those pressures we now have legislation before the House.

The Conservative Party and members of the opposition have, for a long time, been calling upon the government to bring about sentencing reform. In particular another shortcoming deals specifically with the use of conditional sentences. Conditional sentences, just for a point of reference, allow for the judge to mete out a punishment that does not require incarceration, but is given in lieu of incarceration, and very often involves stringent requirements obviously aimed at curtailing the mobility of an individual. It is tantamount to home arrest. It is subject to recall and putting a person in jail if they were to breach those conditions, such as things as non-association, abstinence from drugs and alcohol and reporting conditions.

However, the difficulty is the liberal use of these conditional sentences, in particular with sex offenders and those with a propensity toward violence. My suggestion is that there should be an enumerated list in the Criminal Code that prevents a sentencing judge from meting out or using conditional sentences for crimes of violence. That would do away with some of the public confidence that has been lost over the misuse of conditional sentences, the occasional atrocities that occur when individuals with often numerous convictions are granted conditional sentences and the inappropriate use of conditional sentences, which we have seen from time to time.

In particular there was one case in Montreal which involved a multiple rape of a young woman by offenders, two at least, where the judge imposed a conditional sentence. These sentences are intended, obviously, as a last, last resort, but are not appropriate for certain crimes that are enumerated in the Criminal Code.

There are also other issues pertaining to the rights of prisoners versus the rights of victims. It has always troubled me deeply that we have a correctional investigator in the country, with a budget, who is there, rightly, to ensure that prisoners do receive basic amenities, rights and information that should be made available to them. Yet there is not a similar office for victims. There is not a victim's ombudsman's office, for example, with a commensurate budget that would represent parity in the system in terms of the rights of victims versus those of the individual.

We have taken enormous strides toward helping victims in the last number of years and I would be the first to acknowledge that, but I would suggest there is a severe anomaly when we have an investigator's office for the purposes of aiding prisoners and no such similar office for victims.

I would suggest that Bill C-19 is certainly a step in the right direction. It did come about as a result of intense pressure from the opposition and from those stakeholder groups that are most interested and affected by these changes.

The legislation has moved through Parliament over an extended period of time because of the prorogation and early election calls by the Liberal government, but it is a compilation of many submissions and testimonies of those who are best enabled and best able to assess the current justice system.

The former solicitor general did praise those involved in the production of both the report and the legislation. Similarly, I would add my voice in praise of those efforts and also the efforts of those who work at the committee at the staffing level. They are tremendously helpful in compiling the information, the often very complex and overlapping legislation and information submissions, in bringing the legislation forward.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words to Bill C-19 which is before the House this morning.

We have to take a look at the corrections system and the whole judicial system in Canada to ensure we have tough enough legislation to protect the country, its citizens and victims, yet have a fair balance that would justly punish those who deserve punishment and try to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated.

Our party believes that we have to do whatever we can to have safe communities. We believe the safety of communities must be the focus of a criminal justice system. A New Democratic Party government would support safe communities through the following things.

We believe in proportionate sentences. We believe in safe and humane custody for both offenders and correctional workers. We believe in addressing the needs of the victims of crime and in the effective restoration of offenders to the community as productive citizens.

New Democrats reject the approach of the American justice system which has often created a costly gulag that promotes punishment over rehabilitation, often to the disadvantage of the poorest segments of society.

We believe that the sentences pronounced by our courts must reflect Canadians' intolerance for crime, especially violent or hate-based crime, while providing offenders with a fair opportunity to redeem themselves and to contribute to our society.

We value the important role of the correctional system in protecting our communities from dangerous criminals. Some people are simply so violent that they must be isolated from society until such a time as they can be safely reintegrated. We believe that when offenders are released on parole, the public should be assured that they will not reoffend in a violent fashion.

We support the right of correctional workers to safe and healthy working conditions in an often stressful and dangerous working environment. We believe that the correction system should target inmates who abuse the system by terrorizing other inmates and staff and by profiting from the introduction of drugs into our institutions.

We believe that the victims of crime will only achieve healing if they are fairly compensated for the harm they have suffered, if they can overcome the trauma and the fear that they experienced, and can effectively participate in a criminal justice process related to the offenders who have hurt them.

We believe that our correctional system can and should address the real needs of most offenders so when they will return to our community, as the vast majority do, they can live lawful and productive lives.

We believe that the level of infectious diseases in prison is a growing danger to offenders, to staff and to the community. This must be addressed in an urgent and common sense fashion.

We believe that federal prisons should not serve as warehouses for people with mental health problems. Rather, there should be a proactive effort, both in institutions and in the community, to treat pathologies that lead to crime.

We believe that the serious disadvantages suffered by aboriginal offenders, especially aboriginal women, who are under a federal sentence must, at long last, be addressed by more than just pious pronouncements.

We believe, as has been determined by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, that women offenders require specific measures to meet their specific needs, and that Correctional Service Canada should be made accountable for this.

We believe that measures to improve the vocational skills of inmates and to strengthen their family relationships have often proven effective and that these approaches should be encouraged.

We believe that more effective oversight mechanisms are necessary to ensure that our correctional system complies with the rule of law as has been recommended by a host of outside experts in recent years.

We also believe that the ultimate goal of a criminal justice system is to bring all the participants together in order to restore the relationship between offenders and communities.

New Democrats would support safe communities by adopting some of the following measures.

We would provide about $50 million in new funding for initiatives geared to the communities so that they may provide occupational and other community support to released offenders. Communities have the special knowledge and the skills necessary to plan and implement effective community reintegration.

We would commission a judicial inquiry to examine systemic racism in the correctional service and address the obstacles suffered by aboriginal offenders.

We would create a deputy commissioner position for aboriginal offenders within the correctional service. This official would be directly accountable to the commissioner of corrections for all matters related to the custody and reintegration of aboriginal offenders.

We would ensure that the deputy commissioner for women of Correctional Service Canada would possess the authority to ensure that the specific needs of women offenders would be met at an early date.

After a broad but timely consultation, we would legislate a federal victims charter of rights to address the needs and prerogatives of victims.

We would establish rules for the fair compensation of victims of crime that would figure prominently in our negotiations with the provinces on transfer payments and the criminal justice field.

We would provide adequate funding to ensure that victims would be able to attend, observe and make statements at all release hearings for offenders, even where the offenders had been transferred to other regions of the country.

We would create a parliamentary commissioner for victims who would fulfill an ombudsman function for victims and report annually to Parliament.

We would ensure that staffing levels and security systems in institutions were at a level that would ensure safety and security.

We would implement severe consequences for inmates who abused the system by endangering the safety of others and by bringing drugs into institutions.

We would provide special legislation to address the special safety and health needs of corrections staff and to provide timely redress for complaints regarding hazardous institutional situations.

We would legislate an independent inquiry with authority to recommend solutions to Parliament for every case where an offender on parole or other form of release commits a crime involving serious bodily harm or death.

We would provide $50 million for new mental health initiatives in institutions and in the community.

We would provide $20 million for community restorative justice programs in order to permit the reconciliation of offenders and the people with whom they would be living.

We would address infectious diseases and the substance abuse conditions that would lead to these both as a security and health problem, and we would take the harm reduction measures that have been shown to work, for example, increased access to education, peer counselling, relapse programs, safe tattooing and needle exchanges.

We would also make the prisoners' ombudsman, the correctional investigator, an officer of Parliament in the same way the chief electoral officer is an officer of Parliament today and has been for a number of years. As an officer of Parliament, that would enable the correctional investigator to take significant cases in dispute before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which would be provided specific legislation to deal with these disputes.

Finally, we would institute a remedy for circumstances where correctional authorities were determined to have “intentionally interfered with the integrity of a sentence”, as recommended by the inquiry into the events at the prison for women, which of course is the Arbour inquiry.

Those are some of the things we would do and we recommend them to the government of the day.

Bill C-19 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code. It comes out of a subcommittee on justice. It was tabled in the House of Commons in May of 2000. It has taken the government almost four years to respond to the committee on justice.

We have a bill today which really has five objectives. The government wants to tighten up the accelerated parole review process. It wants to streamline the temporary absence process. It wants to review all statutory release cases. It wants to give victims the right to make a statement at a parole board hearing. Finally, it wants to permit the conditional release of all terminally ill offenders on humanitarian grounds before their scheduled parole dates.

As suggested by the justice committee report, the CCRA is in need of reform. Increasing victim participation in the parole process is good because victims are all too often shut out of the criminal justice process entirely. Adding a structured program to temporary absences is excellent as it furthers the goal of rehabilitation through our correctional aims.

In conclusion, my main concern is that this does not begin to address the real problems in our corrections system, the problems that I mentioned earlier, such as infectious diseases, drugs, the abuse, the lack of resources and the facilities that are aimed at not only women but at aboriginal people as well.

We must also be careful not to be overzealous. We must keep in mind that our goal is to build a safer society by rehabilitating offenders and not just locking them up forever and throwing away the key.

That is what I believe the bill falls short on. I recommend to the House the points that I made earlier in my comments.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

My colleague says we will bring it in.

We will include all of the 53 recommendations, not the 46 that the government decided to act upon in Bill C-19. We will include all the recommendations that were made, and we will get it passed before we unnecessarily call another election or prorogue Parliament.

When we look at the past decade of inaction of the Liberal government, the decade that I have been here as a member of Parliament, from the fall of 1993 to the spring of 2004, bills of this nature that Canadians have been crying out for have died. We have seen, time and time again, that they are sadly disappointed because we get a couple of years into a Parliament and the government prorogues Parliament. Everything dies. The government has to start all over again and reconstitute committees and get everything up to speed again. The next thing that happens is the government calls an unnecessary early election.

If an election is called in April, it will be the fourth time in the last 11 years that the country has gone to the polls early. It was not even three and a half years, in 1997, that Jean Chrétien called an early election. In 2000 the same thing happened. Now it will be the same thing again.

I think Canadians have lost their patience with the government. Canadians want to see legislation, such as Bill C-19, come about. The reality is I am not convinced we will get Bill C-19 through Parliament, the Senate and receive royal assent before the next election.

I would like to believe that it would happen. I know people who work with the prison system would like to see Bill C-19 become law, and they would like to see some of these changes in the prison system. I am not convinced the bill will become law if our so-called new Prime Minister is intent upon calling an unnecessary early election.

The major thrust of Bill C-19 is to tighten up some of the conditions that surround the conditional release of those who are incarcerated for crimes in Canada. The bill certainly falls partly into step with the Conservative Party of Canada's thinking on the issue. My party has been advocating for many years that parole should be harder to earn and easier to lose. We believe there should be no such thing as automatic parole in Canada.

If people are sentenced to a certain terms of incarceration, unless there are clear indications that the they have taken steps to improve themselves, that they truly repent for the crimes committed and that strong evidence shows the criminal ways have been corrected, there should be no parole. People should have to serve their total time of incarceration. We have been saying that parole should be harder to earn. There should be definite measures for people to come to the bar.

The doors should not be opened because too many people are in prison and it is costing the country too much money. Convicts are let out to prey on innocent Canadians again. We have seen time and time again where repeat offenders are out there preying on the most defenceless in our society, women and children and sadly, in some cases, very young children who are subject to horrendous crimes by those who were supposedly sentenced before and locked up. Then they were released by the Liberal government's lax laws.

Are we going to face this for another year, or two or three before the bill finally is passed into law and we can slowly start to see the changes happen in our criminal system?

When I speak on these types of matters, I always hesitate to call it a justice system. When I am back in Prince George—Peace River in my riding in northeastern British Columbia, I hear every day from someone who says we do not have a justice system in the country any more. People say we have a legal system that leans more toward the guilty and the criminals than it does to protecting the innocent in our society.

We support increased input from the community, including victims of crime. I am pleased to see that there is at least some mention of that in the bill and that we will move somewhat in that direction.

It is sad that it took the combined action of the official opposition over a period of months, sadly years, to get the government to even move this far. However, this agenda of change, as slight as it is, has been allowed to be thrown off by the agenda and the ambition of only one man, and that is the person who occupies the Prime Minister's chair.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning and add a few comments on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.

I could basically sum up my approach to this bill by saying that it is about time. It is about time that the Liberal government has seen fit to finally act some four years after the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights put together a list of recommendations on how to improve the whole business of corrections, conditional release, and parole in our prison system in Canada.

Here we are, almost four years later, and the government is finally bringing forward this bill again.

Canadians have the right to ask why it has taken four years to act upon the recommendations of this subcommittee. One of the reasons, and I hope it is becoming increasingly evident to Canadians, is the fact that the government has been embroiled for the past number of years, certainly the last four years since this subcommittee reported, in a clandestine leadership race that was prompted by the now Prime Minister. Because he was wheeling and dealing and operating behind the scenes to overthrow Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, these types of things fell off the table.

It is not only this, of course. The nation at the moment is seized by the scandalous misspending of some quarter of a billion dollars through the sponsorship program in Quebec. This happened as well on the Prime Minister's watch when he was finance minister, and he cannot distance himself from that.

Increasingly, Canadians are coming to realize that a lot of this important business of the nation was not put forward, was not passed, was not debated, was not amended, and was not ultimately passed into law to improve the system. In this case, it is Bill C-19. It was Bill C-40 in the last session, before the Liberals prorogued Parliament unnecessarily and all the legislation died. Now we have to start all over again.

Now it is rumoured that there will be an unnecessary early election called as soon as early April, a little more than a month from now. What will happen to this legislation then? It will die again, so then we will be four and a half or five years down the road. Maybe next fall it will be brought back. It will have a different number, but it will be the same legislation as Bill C-40.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved:

That Bill C-19, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Mr. Speaker, the success of our system depends on collaboration, on dialogue and on research based knowledge. It is founded on Canadian values, on the rule of law and on respect for human dignity. It is a system that reflects these values.

Respect for human rights as reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the international covenants that Canadians have supported over the years, such as the universal declaration of human rights, and in our adherence to United Nations norms and standards for the treatment of prisoners, represent the fundamental building blocks of our corrections system.

In fact, these principles and values have been enshrined in Canada's Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The CCRA remains a significant milestone in correctional reform in Canada. It strikes a balance that respects the rights of all Canadians, both victims and offenders. It reflects the fundamental belief in the dignity of the individual. And it reflects the belief that, given the appropriate interventions and supports, the great majority of offenders can change their behaviour so that they may in time successfully re-enter society as law-abiding citizens.

At the same time, the CCRA provides the tools to control those who clearly pose a risk to the safety of our communities. Our system recognizes that the gradual and controlled release of offenders to the community, when safe to do so and with proper supervision and support, is the best approach to ensuring public safety.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act was proclaimed in 1992. Part I sets out the purposes of the correctional system. It details specific measures governing daily operations of the Correctional Service of Canada in the administration of court imposed sentences of more than two years.

Part II similarly states the purposes of the conditional release system and the principles that guide the National Parole Board.

Finally, Part III establishes and describes in law the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

As many will know, there is a statutory review of the legislation specified in the CCRA. Accordingly, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights began its review of the act in February 1999.

The subcommittee travelled throughout the country and visited numerous penitentiaries and correctional institutions. It heard from witnesses involved in every aspect of the corrections system and tabled its report entitled, “A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act”, in May 2000.

The subcommittee's report concluded that while the CCRA is fundamentally sound, opportunities for improvements exist. It made 53 recommendations for changes to the act and to the practices of the Correctional Service, the Parole Board and the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

The previous government agreed to take action on 46 of the 53 recommendations, and considerable progress has been made through policy and program adjustments. However, a number of legislative amendments are needed in order to fulfill the recommendations that were accepted. By moving forward with Bill C-19, the government is signalling its commitment to the protection of public safety.

The proposed legislative amendments are designed to: tighten up the provisions relating to the accelerated parole review process by adding several new crimes to the schedule of offences which excludes them from the APR; eliminating the presumptive nature of APR release; requiring offenders sentenced to six years or more to serve a longer period before becoming eligible for early release on day parole; and requiring the National Parole Board to apply a more stringent test for reoffending than is presently the case.

We also want to streamline temporary absences to better meet the purposes of the program and expand and formalize victims' rights with respect to National Parole Board hearings.

Other measures include: the review of all statutory release cases before their actual release; the creation of additional grounds for detention of high-risk offenders in custody; and the provision of humanitarian parole for terminally ill offenders. There are also a number of housekeeping measures to amend language and clarify rules.

Let me highlight a few details about the proposed amendments. The proposals would make provisions for the accelerated parole review process, or APR, more restrictive. In addition to offences that currently exclude offenders from consideration, the legislation would exclude those convicted of criminal organization offences, child pornography, high treason, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability causing bodily harm with intent in specific cases and torture.

Further, the amendments would require that the National Parole Board's review of APR cases takes into account an offender's risk to reoffend generally. Currently, the legislation requires that the board consider only the risk to commit an offence involving violence. This would toughen the conditions for release under the APR. Release under the APR would no longer be presumptive but rather, would result from a deliberate decision of the parole board.

Offenders serving sentences of more than six years would face an increased period of day parole ineligibility. This will prevent situations where offenders serving long sentences spend years on day parole as a result of their eligibility for APR. This measure would also emphasize that the purpose of day parole is to prepare the offender for a full parole release, as is the case with all other offenders.

The existing temporary absence program is highly successful in terms of the positive effects on rehabilitation and the very high level of offender compliance with the conditions of this restricted form of release.

Measures proposed under Bill C-19 would give the correctional service sole authority to grant escorted temporary absences. The correctional service would also assume authority over granting unescorted temporary absences to all offenders, except for those serving a life or indeterminate sentence over which the parole board would retain authority.

Moreover, the provisions relating to work release would be moved under the umbrella of the temporary absences program. Release purposes within this program would be expanded to include structured programs for work, educational, occupational and life skills.

I will now briefly address the matter of statutory release. As recommended by the subcommittee, the bill before us would tighten this form of conditional release for offenders who may present undue risk. It would ensure that the correctional service reviews all statutory release cases prior to release to determine whether to refer the case to the parole board for detention review and whether to recommend that the board impose special release conditions.

Referral to the parole board for detention review would be mandatory in the case of all offenders convicted of a sexual offence against a child and who are likely to commit an offence causing death or serious injury. The grounds for possible referral to the board for detention review would be expanded to include child pornography, high treason, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability causing bodily harm with intent and torture.

With respect to victims of crime, the National Parole Board has supported the active participation of victims in hearings for many years as a matter of policy. The present proposals would codify the rights of victims to present a victim impact statement at National Parole Board hearings. To date, approximately 347 such presentations have been made and victims have expressed their satisfaction with their new role in conditional release decisions.

We conclude our proposals with reference to other miscellaneous amendments. In response to the subcommittee's recommendation regarding a parole board structure, the maximum number of full time board members would increase from 45 to 60. The law would also ensure that the annual and special reports of the correctional investigator would include the full responses of Correctional Service Canada.

Finally, other amendments are proposed to correct some minor technical flaws and anomalies in the existing legislation.

This then is a summary of the proposed legislation. I do trust that with the support of the House we will move forward to ensure the changes necessary to keep our correctional legislation up to date and effective.

International Transfer of Offenders Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-19. On the Order: Government Orders

February 13, 2004--the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-19, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Reinstatement of Government Bills

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion seeks to reinstate bills that died on the Order Paper when the previous session of Parliament ended.

As all of us know, the goal of the motion is a simple one: to spare members the burden of having to repeat work on bills that got as far as the committee stage in the last session.

This is especially commendable given the numerous pressures MPs are under and the limited resources available to us.

What features are contained in the motion? Simply put, under the motion a minister would be able to request during 30 sitting days after the motion's adoption the reinstatement of a bill that had reached at least the committee stage when the last session ended. Should the Speaker be satisfied that the bill is the same as in the previous session, the bill would be reinstated at the same stage as before.

Thus during this session we can skip all the stages of debate that have been completed so far. The work of the committees that are considering the bills would consequently be preserved. In short, this is a very appealing option.

Parliament relies heavily upon precedents which means we are constantly looking over our shoulder to ensure new measures are consistent with past practices. Is this motion in keeping with the longstanding practices of the House? It is in fact a practice we have had for over three decades.

On a number of occasions reinstatement motions have been adopted by consent and without debate. It is clear that today's motion is well within the bounds of accepted parliamentary practice. This is supported by Marleau and Montpetit's authoritative guide to parliamentary procedure which discusses this issue in some detail. While they recognize that as a general principle prorogation of a session means that all bills that have not yet received royal assent die on the Order Paper and must be reintroduced in the new session, they also recognize that “bills have been reinstated by motion at the start of a new session at the same stage they had reached at the end of the previous session; committee work has similarly been revived”.

One point that needs clarification is that this motion allows the government the flexibility to reintroduce certain bills. It does not require the government to reintroduce all bills that were on the Order Paper at a certain stage when Parliament prorogued. Let me give an example of some bills which the government would have the flexibility to reinstate if it so chose.

One is Bill C-7 on the administration and accountability of Indian bands. The new government has indicated it would like to revisit that whole question of governance but nonetheless, this motion would give the government the flexibility to reintroduce that bill should it so choose.

Another one is Bill C-10B on cruelty to animals which has received a lot of attention in my riding. Bill C-13, assisted human reproduction, as an example had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate and a great deal of the work that had been done here in the House of Commons would have to be redone. Bill C-17 on public safety was another bill that had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate.

Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, is another bill that the government if this motion passes will be able to reintroduce if it so chooses. Bill C-19, first nations fiscal management, was at report stage. Bill C-20, protection of children, was at report stage. Bill C-22, the Divorce Act, was in committee. Bill C-23, registration of information relating to sex offenders, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-26, the Railway Safety Act, was in committee. Bill C-27 on airport authorities was at second reading when the House prorogued.

Bill C-32, Criminal Code amendments, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-33, international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, was at report stage when we prorogued. Bill C-34, ethics, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate where it had been amended.

These are bills that have gone through a lengthy debate and process within the House of Commons and some already within the Senate.

Bill C-35, remuneration of military judges, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-36, Archives of Canada, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-38, the marijuana bill, was at report stage and second reading. Bill C-40, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, was at first reading when the House prorogued. Bill C-43, the fisheries act, was at first reading when the House prorogued.

Bill C-46, the capital markets fraud bill, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. This is a bill that will help the government deal with the kind of corporate fraud that we have seen with Enron and many other examples. We want to make sure that our government has the ability to deal with these types of issues so that investors are protected from the fraudulent activities of the management of various companies and their directors.

Bill C-49, the electoral boundaries act had passed third reading and was in the Senate.

Bill C-51, the Canada Elections Act, and Bill C-52, the Radiocommunication Act, were at second reading when the House prorogued. Bill C-53, the riding name changes, had passed third reading and was sent to the Senate. Bill C-54, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act was in committee as was Bill C-56, the Food and Drugs Act, when the House prorogued. Bill C-57, the westbank first nation self-government act was also in committee.

There was a lot of work involved in getting these bills to this stage. The government is not necessarily committing to reintroducing all these bills, but we want the flexibility to reintroduce those bills which we support and not have to reinvent the wheel.

The amendment put forward by the member for Yorkton--Melville indicates that there are a number of bills that, given the government's flexibility, he would not like to have reinstated. That includes Bill C-7, the bill dealing with the administration and accountability of Indian bands. Our government may want to revisit that bill.

The member for Yorkton--Melville has said that Bill C-13, the assisted human reproduction bill, should be left alone as well. He names a number of other bills such as Bill C-19, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-26, Bill C-34, Bill C-35, Bill C-36, Bill C-38.

I should point out that a number of these bills, Bill C-13 for example, passed third reading and was in the Senate.The member for Yorkton--Melville wants us to start all over with that bill.

He said that Bill C-34, the ethics legislation, should not be reinstated, yet that bill had passed third reading and was sent to the Senate where it had been amended. We all know about that bill.

He said that we should start all over again with regard to Bill C-35, remuneration for military judges legislation. That bill had passed third reading and was in the Senate,.

I do not know what is so contentious with regard to Bill C-36, the archives of Canada legislation, but the member for Yorkton--Melville wants us to start all over again with that bill. Bill C-38, the marijuana bill, was at report stage.

A lot of work has already been done in this chamber and in the other place on bills that, without the passage of this motion, would have to be started all over again. There is a long list of precedents for reinstating government bills and reviving committee work.

For example, in 1970, 1972, 1974 and 1986, the members of this House gave their unanimous consent to a motion to reinstate bills from a previous session.

In 1977 and 1982 members amended the Standing Orders to allow Parliament to carry over legislation to the next session. All of which testifies to the longstanding practice of the House of allowing the reinstatement of bills at the same stage as was the case in the previous session, which is precisely what the motion calls for.

It is interesting to note, and I have some personal interaction with this particular idea, that the procedure proposed in the motion is similar, in fact it is identical, to that which exists in the Standing Orders for private members' bills which the House adopted in 1998.

I have a private member's bill, Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees, that unanimously passed all stages in the House, was in the Senate, had passed first reading in the Senate and had been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance. Then we prorogued. Without this particular feature, I would have had to start all over again in the House of Commons after two to three years of work and a bill that had passed unanimously at all stages in the House of Commons.

With this particular Standing Order, the bill is already on the floor of the Senate. We did not have to reinvent the wheel here in the House of Commons. I am hopeful that it will be passed to the Standing Committee on National Finance shortly and then onwards from there.

We say that those rules are good for private member's bills, in fact they have the support of the House because they are now part of the Standing Orders. We say, on the one hand for private members' business, it is all right to reinstate these bills, but for the government's business it is not, this is a whole new thing.

The member opposite said that if we have a new government then why do we not have new ideas. I can assure the member that if he read the throne speech, and if he looked at the new democratic deficit paper, this is just the start. He will see that the government will be operated very differently.

However, having said that, there is no problem in my judgment to reintroduce those bills that make sense. There has been a lot of work done already. With this motion, the government would have the flexibility to deal with these bills that have been passed, where there is consent of the House, and send them to the Senate.

It is interesting to note that in 1977, a private member's bill was reinstated after Parliament was dissolved.

All of which inevitably leads us to the conclusion, as I said earlier, that if it is reasonable to reinstate private members' bills at the same stage, surely we have the common sense in this chamber to say that it is reasonable to follow the same procedure with respect to government bills.

What would be different about government bills? If we have adopted the procedure in the House for private members' business, why would we want different rules for government business, unless we are out to score political points or be partisan in our debate?

I should point out that this practice of reinstating bills is also practised in other mature democracies that have ruled in favour of bringing legislation forward from one session to another.

I think of the parliament in the United Kingdom from which many of our own parliamentary practices originally came. It has reinstatement motions to allow government bills to carry over from one session to the next.

The official opposition has told the media that it would oppose the motion for the sole purpose of delaying bills from the last session. This is patently unfair and contrary to House practices. The attitude shows it has little regard for the work of the House and for Canadian taxpayers. Opposition members will ask members of the House, at great cost to the public treasury, to come back and re-debate bills that have already passed this chamber and are in the Senate in many cases.

The bills that will be reinstated would include the legislation to accelerate the coming into force of the new electoral boundaries which was passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate.

We talk about dealing with western alienation. This particular legislation would allow more seats for British Columbia and Alberta. This is the way to proceed. Why would we want to delay that bill? Why would we want to have the debate all over again on something that is patently obvious.

We take the census and figure it all out, and draw the boundaries. This is not rocket science. This is done by Elections Canada. It redefines the boundaries. It recognizes that Canada is a growing country, that different areas are growing more quickly than others, and it redefines the boundaries.

If we have that bill when the next election is called, Alberta and British Columbia will have a bigger voice. I think Ontario would receive more seats as well. I am sure that there could be an amendment that could be put forward to deal with Nova Scotia perhaps.

There is the legislation to create an independent ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer, something that the members opposite have argued for vociferously for months, perhaps years. This bill could be reinstated very simply by agreeing and adopting this motion. We could have an independent ethics commissioner for the House and a Senate ethics officer.

The motion should have the support of the House. It is the practice in most mature democratic countries.

In conclusion, we need to be clear that adoption of the motion does not mean that all the bills that were on the Order Paper when we prorogued would automatically come back. It means that the government would have the flexibility to pick those bills that, in its wisdom and judgment, it sees fit to bring back. That would allow us not to have to reinvent the wheel and re-debate those bills that have the support of the chamber. Many of them also have the support of the Senate, at least at first reading stage.

The motion before us today does not represent a break with our parliamentary traditions. In fact, it is very much a part of our parliamentary traditions and it is entirely consistent with the practice of the House dating back to 1970.

Moreover, the measures described in the motion would greatly contribute to freeing up the members so that they can focus on the important task of developing new initiatives for promoting the well-being of Canadians.

With this in mind, I certainly intend to support this motion. I would urge other members to support it so we can get on with the business of the House, the important business and legislation that can be brought forward and reinstated and not have to be re-debated.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

The difficulty we have, Mr. Speaker, is that we cannot get a commitment from the government, specifically from the government House leader, to indicate that Bills C-7 and C-19, which are the two bills that are outstanding, would not be brought back. The government is not prepared to say that in spite of what the Prime Minister has said across the country.

With regard to the percentage of support, I have not run across anyone from the first nations who is prepared to support Bill C-7. Bill C-19 is different. There is a split on that one within the community, although last November or thereabouts there was another vote taken specifically on Bill C-19 by the national association and it was opposed by a substantial majority, at least two-thirds were against it.

Bill C-7, the governance bill, is so offensive. I would be surprised if the member could bring me anyone who is in support of Bill C-7.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to pick up on the points that were made by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the former House leader. It begs the question, why are we faced with the government motion and the amendments from the opposition? The reason is simply because the government, under the former prime minister, and I have to say in full cooperation of the current Prime Minister, prorogued the House when it had a great deal of work that needed to be done, and the country's interest demanded government attention.

The Liberals were more interested in carrying on the internal battle between the then sitting prime minister and the about to be prime minister. That was much more important for the government and for that political party than the overall interests of this country. That is why we are here today and why we started this debate on Friday, and we will continue it at least through the day tomorrow. The Liberals put their interests, as a political party, and to some degree the personal political interests of the two men ahead of the interests of this country.

To suggest, as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell just did, that this is a normal procedure is debatable in the extreme. The reality is the legislation as it has come back has not been changed at all. This is not a signal by the new government under the new Prime Minister that we will have major changes. This is simply a continuation of bills that were before the House at various stages in November when the Liberals decided to prorogue the House. We are not seeing any new bills or any changes in the bills. They are coming back holus-bolus just as they were before the legislature was stopped.

The abuse of the process that this represents is compounded by the financial impact of all the extra work that has to be done now, extra work by individual members and their staff on private members' bills and extra work by staff of the House of Commons. The prorogation, which occurred in November, has cost the country substantial amounts of extra dollars, extra staff time and extra effort, all of which was unnecessary if the government had simply taken its responsibility to the country seriously.

The position of the NDP, with regard to the government motion for reinstatement of the legislation, is we are not prepared to give it a blank cheque. Had the motion listed specific bills that the government would be bringing back, certainly some of them we would have been agreed to out of respect for the country. However, others should not be brought back, and I will go on to that in a few moments.

The difficulty we have is simply telling the government to go ahead, do whatever it wants with regard to these bills in terms of bringing them back and we will be prepared to stand back. That is a complete abdication of our responsibility as opposition members. When we hear the former House leader talk about democracy and democratic deficit and that somehow we are contributing to that, he is just dead wrong.

The opposition's role is to speak out when there is abuse, and that motion is abusive when we look at the history and how it came to be in front of the House at this time.

However, there are some points I want to make with regard, in particular, to the subamendment by the opposition to its amendment to the main motion. I am not sure if anybody understood that, but it is the subamendment that deals with Bill C-49 that would allow the Prime Minister to call an election as of April 1, if the Liberals can get this bill through the House of Commons and the Senate.

To some significant degree, I am going to be accusatory of members of the official opposition about the amendment and subamendment. They are trying to prevent the government from being in a position to call an election this spring because they know full well that they are not going to be in a position to fight that election very effectively. Given that their leadership convention is in the latter part of March, they will not be in a position to have its platform in any kind of shape. They probably will not have a lot of their candidates prepared to run in an election that everyone thinks will be called in April and held in the early part of May. That is really what this is about.

I think it is accentuated by the fact that when the bill was originally before the House the former Alliance, now part of the Conservative Party, in fact supported what I think was Bill C-52 at that time, and now in the form of Bill C-49. That position was unequivocal on its part. I can remember some of the speeches its members gave in the House at that time saying that we had to recognize the need for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta to get those additional seats and that they should definitely be in place and ready to be part of the electoral process in the next election.

Events have overtaken the members of the official opposition and they now appear to be opposed to the bill going through. I can tell everyone on behalf of my party, although we think that the election should be held some further in the future, we are ready for the election at any time.

The other point I want to go back to is the process that has also brought us to this point, and that is the role the Senate has played on the bill, as well as Bill C-34, the ethics commissioner's bill. I think the country generally knows, and we are certainly aware of it as members of Parliament, that both pieces of legislation, the bill to change the date for the boundaries to come into effect and the bill dealing with the implementation in a broader way of the use of the ethics commissioner for both the House and the Senate, were before the Senate the first week of November when the House adjourned. Rather than staying, working on those bills and passing them, the bill that dealt with the boundary issue was ignored and the other one was sent back.

There are a couple of points that need to be made about this. We did some checking on this and in all of the sessions we have had since the start of Parliament in 1867, this Parliament has seen the most bills either sent back or not dealt with by the Senate. We have set a record in that respect. Interestingly, the previous record was in the very first session in 1867, and I have to assume it was because they were still learning the ropes.

We have not even come particularly close. There were a couple of sessions in the 1920s when there were about 11 or 12 bills sent back or not dealt with by the Senate. There were 15 in the first session. So far we have had 18 bills not dealt with or turned back by the Senate.

Being a bit of a student of history of the country and of the role the Senate has played and should play, it begs the question, how many more does it have to turn down, send back or ignore before we are in a constitutional crisis? We have had a large number bills this time, and those two bills were part of that. The Senators simply went home. They were upset with the prime minister over the ethics commissioner's bill and a couple of other bills and they said, “To heck with it, we are going home”, and they did. As a result, the legislation that would have allowed the redistribution of the ridings to take place at an earlier date has been forced to be brought back once again.

We are in a situation where the government wants to do something. The House of Commons has passed the bill and the Senate has thwarted it. The question will be, once it does come before this House, and it will one way or the other in the next week or two, and then goes back to the Senate, will the Senate again try to thwart the will of the elected representatives in the country?

It begs the question regarding the role the NDP has played for a long time in advocating the abolition of the Senate. Are we getting closer to the rest of the parties, realizing we can no longer tolerate that type of interference with the democratic process. We cannot ignore the costs of having the Senate around, which runs at about $60 million a year, doing work that is generally undemocratic and useless.

The other point I would like to make is with regard to the position that we hear from the government. This again comes back to the democratic deficit. We are now faced with the notice that closure will be invoked sometime later today or early tomorrow and this debate will be closed down. Again, we are faced with the reality that the new government, as it keeps wanting to call itself, is following exactly the same pattern as the old government.

We had in the prior sessions more motions for closure from the government than we had at any time in our history, and we will compound that tomorrow when it invokes closure.

With regard to the legislation itself, I want to be somewhat critical of the comments from the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the former House leader. He said that the government was bringing back the same bills on which members had voted. He said that we were interfering with the democratic process in which we had already participated.

Of these bills, I want to mention some bills that jump to the fore in my mind because I had some involvement with them along with our member for Winnipeg Centre. These are the bills that deal with the aboriginal governance legislation, Bill C-7 and Bill C-19, but Bill C-7 in particular. The member suggested nothing really had changed, that the democratic process worked. The reality is the current sitting Prime Minister undermined that legislation, undermined his own party and undermined the ministers of natural resources and aboriginal affairs on that legislation.

It is very clear that the first nations were dramatically opposed to the legislation, and we know that. We had issues brought back to the House on how controversial the hearings were in committee after second reading. This Prime Minister, sitting as a member of Parliament, sent out a very clear message to his supporters within the Liberal Party, who are members of this House, to the first nations and to the country generally that he did not support the legislation. Now we hear that at the very least it is possible the government will bring it back unchanged.

There was a democratic process that went on in that period of time. The first nations said that it was 100% opposed, adamantly opposed, to the legislation, Bill C-7 in particular, because it perpetuated the patriarchal attitude that underlies the current Indian Act.

The now sitting Prime Minister took advantage of that and said that he agreed the legislation was not very good and that all of it would have to reviewed. Now we hear that the government wants to bring it back at the same stage, as originally passed by the House. It has gone through second reading, been approved in principle, been through exhaustive hearings in committee, then back to this House. I believe its been through report stage and is just awaiting debate at third reading.

In spite of what the Prime Minister told first nations, that he was opposed to the legislation and that if he were prime minister it would not go through as is, the legislation could be back in front of the House in the next week or two at third reading. There would be minimal debate at that point and it could be passed.

Things have changed in the country since that legislation went through. I use that as an example of why the NDP is not prepared to give the government a blank cheque. We are not prepared to let all the legislation come back simply by having the ministers stand up in the House and say that they want legislation back at the same stage it was at when the House was prorogued back in November. We are not prepared to do that, and we are adamantly opposed to the motion.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by taking one of the points that was just made at the end of House leader's remarks in introducing this.

He said that this motion serves the interests of the House. There are bills that the government is bringing back that serve the interests of only the Liberal Party.

One of the bills he talked about had to do with the amendments to the Canada Elections Act and he said how important it was for Alberta, B.C. and Ontario to get these extra seats. However that bill contains a very undemocratic provision that does not serve the interests of Canadians, nor does it serve the interests of many members in the House of Commons. The provision is to have all the amendments apply on an earlier date. Rather than comply with the law of Canada and have these amendments take place on August 18, they are trying to bring it back and have the amendment apply on April 1. They want to ram this bill through the House and through the Senate in order to call an early election.

The primary purpose of that bill is to undermine and try to derail any ability to organize properly for a federal election; for our political party to get its policy convention and all of its statements in place. That is why they are trying to do what they are doing today. That is a very undemocratic measure and we in this place should strongly object to what the government is doing.

The Prime Minister claims to have formed a new government, yet with this motion he is claiming the privileges of being the former government of Jean Chrétien. He is bringing in everything that the former prime minister failed to get through here. Procedurally speaking, the Prime Minister wants to be seen, as most Canadians see his government, as the old Chrétien government, and that is exactly what he is doing by his actions today.

While we in opposition would agree with that definition, that they are an old government, we will argue that they should come up with their own legislation and portray themselves as new and show Canadians clearly what they stand for. This will not happen before April 1 because we will be debating old legislation. We will not be debating new ideas that the Prime Minister brings in. That should be abundantly obvious by what is happening here today.

I accept that there is a well-established practice for government to re-introduce a reinstatement motion in a new session, however it has not been established that a so-called new government in a new session can reinstate bills from the previous government. If this government claims to be new, what it is doing would definitely disprove that.

I have examined all the precedents and I could not find one example of a new government reinstating bills from a previous session. From Journals of October 21, 1970, at page 46, it was recorded that the House adopted a reinstatement motion. The prime minister was Pierre Trudeau and the motion reinstated bills of Mr. Trudeau's government from the previous session.

On May 9, 1972, at page 281 of Journals , we have another motion adopted and, once again, Pierre Trudeau being the prime minister in that session and the previous session.

On March 8, 1974, pages 25 and 26, there was a reinstatement motion that was adopted. It was the same circumstances as May 9, 1972.

On October 3, 1986, at pages 47 and 48, Mr. Mulroney's government introduced a reinstatement motion reinstating bills of the Mulroney government from the previous session. However it was the same government.

On March 4, 1996, at pages 34 and 35, and 39 to 41 of the Journals , Jean Chrétien's government reinstated government bills of the Chrétien government from the previous session.

Then we had November 12, 2003 and the government of Jean Chrétien once again successfully reinstating bills from a previous session, although he ran into a bit of a problem with his attempt to reinstate other business resulting in a Speaker's ruling that divided the motion into three parts.

Many arguments have been made against the practice whereby a prime minister reinstates his government bills from a previous session. It goes against the practice, consequences and reasons for a government to prorogue. It contradicts the notion of beginning a session with fresh ideas and a new direction. It contradicts the idea that a new government should have new legislation and bring in new ideas that we can debate.

Does the Prime Minister not do what a new government should do because he does not want Canadians to know what he stands for? Does he want to keep us guessing, making one statement one day and a different statement another day, backtracking on all kinds of things, and not introducing some meaningful legislation for us to debate that would indicate the direction his government is going to go? Is that the reason we do not have new legislation introduced?

What we are talking about here today is far worse than what I have been saying, I would argue procedurally unacceptable. The current Prime Minister is attempting to reinstate bills of another prime minister from a previous session and has the audacity to call this a new government.

When the Prime Minister promised democratic reform and made a commitment to do things differently, we thought he meant to improve how Parliament functions. So far the Prime Minister has behaved less democratically than his predecessors, something most of us thought would be impossible but it is happening before our eyes.

You know very well, Mr. Speaker, that I have been dealing with the Firearms Act for nigh on 10 years. Back in 1994 I began tracking a piece of legislation that I thought would long since be gone. However, now this Prime Minister is using a tactic that the previous prime minister used in keeping that legislation in place. He has stated quite clearly that this is not going to be a free vote in Parliament. He has stated quite clearly that this vote on the gun registry funding will be a vote on confidence in his government.

How can a new Prime Minister, who says that all his legislation and all his programs will pass seven tests before they will be continued, reintroduce a whole bunch of bills? How can he continue with a Firearms Act that breaks all seven of those tests that he has put forward? They are good tests. Do not get me wrong. I agree with him. I believe all legislation should be put that way. However, why bring in the tests if at the first opportunity they have to test them and put something before them, say “except for the Firearms Act”, but it will apply to all other legislation and programs before the House? Obviously democracy is not operating the way we have been given the impression it should operate.

On May 12 and May 16, 2003, a former government House leader raised the issue of parliamentary privilege, exempting members from being called as witnesses in any court. I raised this earlier with you, Mr. Speaker. The issue raised in that case was whether the prime minister could claim parliamentary privilege to provide legal protection, and I went through a whole bunch of arguments. Let me read at this point the ruling from the Canadian Court of Appeal. It stated:

--the parliamentary privilege of a Member of Parliament not to attend as a witness in a civil action applies throughout a session of Parliament, and extends 40 days after the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament and 40 days before the commencement of a new session.

That clearly is just being disregarded in this case.

I would just like to go through some of the bills that we would like to exclude from this reinstatement, for example, Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands and to make related amendments to other acts. We would like to see that bill not included.

As well, we would like to see Bill C-19, an act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands and to make related amendments to other acts, excluded.

We would like to see Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, excluded from this list.

Bill C-22, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcements Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Judges Act and to amend other acts in consequence, we do not want included.

Then we have Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. We would like that excluded.

Bill C-38, an act to amend the contraventions Act and the controlled drugs and substances act, should be excluded.

Then we have in the Senate Bill C-13, the human reproductive technologies act. Canadians have huge concerns with that. That is something that should not be reinstated clearly.

Bill C-34 is an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act. That provides for an ethics commissioner, a Senate ethics officer and other acts in consequence. This Prime Minister has made a lot of to-do about that bill. He talks about the need for an ethics commissioner and then the previous government brings forth legislation that applies to only backbench MPs and does not apply to the cabinet. The problems that we have observed here in Ottawa do not pertain to backbench MPs. They pertain to those who have the responsibility in the cabinet.

We have Bill C-35, an act to amend the National Defence Act (remuneration of military judges). It should not be brought back.

Bill C-36 is an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence. We have huge concerns with all of these.

With regard to these, I would like to propose an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding:

“excluding the following bills:

I have listed them, but I will read them again for the purposes of this amendment:

C-7, An Act respecting the leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I made an error in my first listing and I will correct that now.

C-19, An Act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Financial Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other Acts;

C-20, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act;

C-22, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcements Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Judges Act and to amend other Acts in consequence;

C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts;

C-38, An Act to amend the contraventions act and the controlled drugs and substances act;

Again for that one, Canadians have a lot of concerns.

C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction;

C-34, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence;

C-35, an act to amend the National Defence Act (remuneration of military judges);

C-36, An Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence.”