Bill C-20 (Historical)

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

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

This enactment strengthens first nations’ real property tax regimes and creates a first nation bond financing regime, and creates four institutions to support those regimes, to promote first nations’ economic development and to strengthen first nations’ statistical capacity.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that the Hamilton Tiger Cats are certainly looking forward to next year at the Grey Cup. We actually have a great contingent up here for the Sunday game.

This afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion.

Tomorrow the House will proceed with report stage and, if possible, third reading of Bill C-7 respecting parks. When this is complete, we will consider a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-20, the first nations fiscal legislation. Should there be time left after that, we will return to Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development legislation.

On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we will start with Bill C-7 and Bill C-20, if they are not already complete. We will then proceed to consider reference before second reading of Bill C-21, the not for profit legislation. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-23 respecting human resources, and Bill C-22 respecting social development. We will then return to any bills not yet completed.

On Tuesday evening, as all members know, the committee of the whole will consider the estimates of the Minister of Health.

Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, as hon. members know, we will continue with the opposition day debate.

Tomorrow we will begin with second reading of Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development bill. If that is concluded, we would then return to debate on the motion for reference before second reading of Bill C-16 respecting impaired driving. If there is still time remaining when that is concluded, we would consider a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-18 respecting Telefilm.

As all hon. members know, next week is the Remembrance Week break. When the House returns on November 15, we will call at report stage and if possible third reading of Bill C-4 respecting the international air equipment protocol, and then bring forward Bill C-6 respecting public safety for report stage and third reading.

We would then return to any of the items already listed that have not been completed.

This will be followed by motions to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-19 respecting competition and Bill C-20 respecting first nations fiscal institutions.

We will then be consulting our friends opposite on the appropriate day that week to consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-7 respecting parks, a bill, I am informed, that is about to be reported from committee.

On Tuesday evening, November 16, the House will go into committee of the whole to consider the estimates of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Thursday, November 18 shall be an allotted day.

With respect to the specific question with regard to the motion mentioned by my hon. colleague across the way, it is government orders and it is a very important item. I know that we will bring that forward in the fullness of time.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-20, 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.

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

Criminal Code

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to speak to Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 is a recycled bill. It was Bill C-12 and Bill C-20 in the past. I have spoken to this bill in the past and my colleagues have contributed quite a bit on the issue of the protection of children.

The Liberal government continues to recycle this bill but it has not taken the appropriate action. Much public pressure and public outrage made the Liberals drop the term “public good” as a defence for the possession of child pornography. They have now replaced “public good” with the new defence of “legitimate purpose”. Legitimate purpose is defined to include, among other things, art.

The bill's criteria for evaluating whether a relationship is exploitive is vague and subjective, and by not raising the age of consent from 14 to 16, the Liberals have put Canada's children at risk.

Since 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children, we as lawmakers have the moral responsibility to protect children. Children deserve nothing less than full protection from child pornography.

The legislation that is before us is simply smoke and mirrors. The Liberals ignored the evidence from child advocates and front line police officers who came before us with lots of information to make the legislation effective.

The important mechanism that should be in place to protect children is not there. One is in the definition part, and rather than public good or whatever the legitimate purpose or for the sake of art, that is not good enough.

The second component is the age of consent. Because the Liberals have failed to prohibit all adult-child sex, children will continue to be put at an unacceptable risk. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

As was the case with Bill C-12 and Bill C-20, Bill C-2 fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. In all western democracies the age of consent is at least 16. In Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is 15. In many other countries, including Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom, the age is 16. Despite all the premiers agreeing unanimously that the age of consent should be raised from 14 to 16, the Liberal government failed to provide that protection to our children. The age of consent could have even been raised to 18.

The Liberals have simply ignored the mounds of evidence that came before the committee in the past demanding that children be protected from child predators. The Liberal government has failed to provide our children with that protection. Children are our future and they are vulnerable. They need and deserve nothing less than full protection from child predators. We, as lawmakers, should provide that protection to children, otherwise we are failing in our duty.

I have been here since 1997 and I have listened to the Liberal government dither and be indecisive when it comes to providing full protection for family values, whether it is age of consent or providing protection to children.

As lawmakers, we need to make laws with teeth, and increasing maximum sentences does not help. We need mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offences, such as the possession of child pornography, so we can secure the protection of children. This is the place where we must do our best to provide protection to our children.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-2, the child protection bill. This bill is almost identical to previous legislation, Bill C-12 and Bill C-20. They were primarily intended to address concerns regarding Canada's child pornography laws.

Canadian children deserve nothing less than total protection from child pornography. This legislation, however, is little more than smoke and mirrors. As lawmakers, we have the tough task of weighing the protection of children from sexual exploitation against the protection of free speech and free thought protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On this question, I agree wholeheartedly with Cheryl Tobias, a lawyer from the Department of Justice, who said, when appearing before the Supreme Court during the John Robin Sharpe case that if pedophiles have a constitutional right to free expression, “it is dwarfed by the interests of children in our society...We ought not sacrifice children on the altar of the Charter”.

What we need are laws with teeth. Toothless laws will only hamper police and crown attorneys as they try to catch producers of child pornography.

Children should not be sexually exploited, but it continues to happen thousands of times a day. There does not seem to be the political will to stop it by the weak and arrogant Liberal government.

The Department of Justice proposed Bill C-2 and its predecessors to expand the offence of sexual exploitation and the definition of pornography, and to eliminate the defence of artistic merit in child pornography proceedings.

As well, the bill would increase maximum sentences for people convicted of these crimes. If passed, the bill would create a new offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material.

Bill C-2 is a reaction to the case of John Robin Sharpe, a child pornographer charged with possession of child pornography. Sharpe was initially found guilty of possession of child pornography, but on appeal, two lower courts acquitted Sharpe citing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sharpe had as many as 400 images of boys younger than 14 engaged in sex and a collection of his own stories entitled “Kiddie Kink Classics”. In March 2002 Sharpe's conviction concerning the images was upheld by the Supreme Court; however, he was ultimately acquitted of related charges that had been filed against him in connection with stories he had written, specifically because those writings were deemed to have artistic merit.

This ruling resulted in the current legal status of child pornography in Canada which is too permissive and threatens the safety of children. Earlier forms of Bill C-2 sought to close the loophole that allows people to create child pornography using artistic merit as a defence by establishing a standard of public good.

The Liberals have now been forced by public outrage to drop the term public good as a defence for the possession of child pornography. They have replaced public good with a new defence of legitimate purpose. Legitimate purpose is defined to include, among other things, art.

The Conservative Party wants the elimination of all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography. There is nothing artistic about child pornography. It is wrong and has been shown to lead to the sexual abuse of children.

Police and prosecutors still do not have the tools to deal with child pornography cases effectively or efficiently. In the first three years that members of the Toronto child exploitation unit spent tracking child pornography, they made 27 arrests and seized 84 computers with millions of images, but the police have been frustrated in their attempts to get jail time for these offenders. Most get conditional sentences or house arrest. The police frequently spend more time investigating the cases than offenders will spend in jail. This is the case for other crimes as well.

In my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells marijuana grow operations are a significant concern. The RCMP recently announced that there are 4,500 marijuana grow ops in the City of Surrey. That represents about 6% of the city's households.

There will be 2,000 to 3,000 grow ops raided and shut down this year in the Fraser Valley. Across the border in Whatcom County there will be less than 10. The difference can be explained by the tougher sentences handed out in Washington State. There, operators of a grow op with more than 100 plants face an automatic five years in jail. For the first offence it is three months in jail and seizure of assets. In B.C. a person can be charged seven or eight times and still not be incarcerated.

The judiciary must hand out tougher sentences that better reflect community values. The higher maximum sentences contained in Bill C-2 for child pornography and predation will not be effective unless the courts enforce them.

Increased maximum sentences are meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences, and we know by experience that when maximum sentences are raised, there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed are mandatory sentences, truth in sentencing, and no conditional sentences for child predators.

Conditional sentences which allowed child sex offenders, murderers, rapists and impaired drivers the opportunity to serve their sentences at home rather than in prison must be eliminated for serious offenders.

In 1999, 66,000 pornography images were found in the home of convicted pedophile Tony Marr. Police spent a year preparing the case against him, but Marr ended up with a conditional sentence and probation. One of the conditions of his probation was that he not use the Internet and computers except for medical purposes or work. Recent surveillance video showed him apparently working around a computer and exchanging CDs. This shows the absurdity of conditional sentences.

It is estimated that there are more than 100,000 child porn Web sites on the World Wide Web. A research group at the University of Cork in Ireland that studies child pornography is seeing an average of three to four new faces of abused children each month. About 40% of the girls and 55% of the boys are between the ages of 9 and 12. The rest are even younger. The group estimates that there are 50,000 new child abuse images being posted to newsgroups every month. Various studies have shown that about 35% to 50% of child porn collectors have a history of abusing children.

In the past three years 44% of the people arrested in Toronto for possessing child pornography have also been charged with or convicted with sexually abusing children.

The landslide child porn bust in the United States provided Canadian authorities with 2,329 Canadian leads, but almost 2,000 have never been looked at by police. That is because most communities simply do not have the will or resources or the officers who are trained to do the job.

Child killer Michael Briere admitted that he had been aroused by watching child porn on his computer just before he kidnapped, sexually molested and killed Holly Jones.

At present, the age of consent for sexual activity is set in the Criminal Code at 14 years of age. There have been recent reports that cross-border pedophiles are luring vulnerable children by way of the Internet. This cross-border pedophile activity into Canada has been enhanced by two factors: first, Canada's age of consent for sex is set at only 14 years, being one of the lowest of all western nations; and, second, Canada is one of the world's most wired countries; there are more than 10 million Internet users in this country.

According to a study by Microsoft, 80% of children in Canada have computers in their homes and 25% of them had already been invited to meet strangers that they had chatted with on-line.

The Internet has become a massive vehicle for criminals to lure and abuse Canadian children and to distribute illegal material. Research shows that pedophiles will often manipulate young children by showing them pictures on the Internet making them believe that sex with adults is acceptable.

Amendments were made to the Criminal Code in 2002 to make the luring of children through the Internet an offence. Although that was an important step to protect children--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to be here up on my feet since the election. There are so many of my colleagues I want to acknowledge, and I want to thank the constituents of Windsor—Tecumseh for re-electing me, I have to say with some pride, with a substantially larger plurality than in the last election.

It is actually not a pleasure standing here today to deal with this bill. It is not a pleasure because the topic around child pornography is just so difficult. As a parent or any adult looking to provide reasonable protection for the children of our society, most of us I think would find having to deal with this issue regrettable.

But it is a reality and it is one that has been with us for a long time. It is one, however, that we have to recognize. In particular, the reason we have to deal with it is that it has become much worse for our society and for the entire globe because of the advent of new technologies and, in particular, the use that pornographers are making of the Internet.

Looking back to 10 or 20 years ago, the production of child pornography was minuscule in comparison to what it is today. It is a reality that it has grown so much and is being produced so much more now, because it can be made available to much larger audiences. Unfortunately, in a number of cases those audiences are young children themselves. Not only are they the victims, but oftentimes it is distributed to them over the Internet. We need to deal with that.

In addition, the new section that has come in with regard to voyeurism is badly behind in terms of the time scope in which we should have dealt with it. Again, because of the advance of technology, the availability and the means by which voyeurism can be pursued, it is much greater than it was a decade or two ago. I applaud the government for bringing in that section.

I have to say that I am glad we are doing this. I think we are using this format only because we do have a minority government. Normally we would be doing this after second reading and the government would be looking for support in principle. The government would not get that from our party at this time.

This is one of the sections that causes me some problems, that in spite of the methodology used, it would be clear intent to gather this material surreptitiously, whether it be by a recording or by any other fashion. I am not quite sure why we are providing an escape here and a defence around the use of the public good. This is something that needs to be explored much more extensively in committee and it needs to be justified by the government. It will be one section that my party will be looking very closely at, either by amending it or in any way improving it so that it does not provide a defence when one should not be available.

The other issue that has probably caused the greatest amount of difficulty in Bill C-20, the legislation prior to this bill, is around the whole issue of some defence regarding artistic merit. It is interesting to listen to the Conservatives in this regard, because the defence of artistic merit was put into the Criminal Code back in 1993 under one of the former Conservative administrations, just shortly before they were turfed out of office. It is interesting to listen to the current Conservative Party attack it with such vigour when this defence originally came from that party.

The reality is that because of the Sharpe case, the use of artistic merit as it is in the Criminal Code now is clearly not acceptable. The position that we take as a party, as I hear the Bloc has as well, is this. We recognize that because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in fact the courts are going to intervene when a person from the arts and cultural community comes forward and says, “This is not a crime. I have a right under my freedom of expression to pursue this”. So a balance has to be found.

Again, the Conservative Party can take the position that it is going to close all the loopholes, but it is living in fantasyland if it thinks the courts are going to ignore the fact that we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Therefore, as responsible members of the House, we have to recognize that fact. We have to build in a structure within the legislation that will provide absolute maximum protection to our children but will survive any challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the goal all members of the House should be striving for.

To simply stick our heads in the sand and say we are going to close all the loopholes and we are going to absolutely ban child pornography is too simple. We have a responsibility to take on a greater role and find the necessary wording that will protect our children absolutely as far as possible, and at the same time we must give direction to our courts, so that when the artist comes forward and shows it is appropriate for the material being produced, it does not offend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it still protects our children.

We know we have to do that. I think even the Conservatives agree with this. In the area of publication of material around legal productions, legal textbooks, case reports within the medical field and the education field, psychologists, sociologists, social workers and psychiatrists all are going to have access to material and be producing material that would be child pornography if it were being produced for any intent other than an educational one. We recognize that.

However, we also recognize that we are going to be faced with that in the arts field as well. We have to find the proper framework within which the courts can guide themselves and be guided by us as the elected members of our society who are responsible for this area.

I do not believe we have accomplished that with this legislation. I do not believe the double-barrelled test of legitimate purpose and seeing that there is no risk of harm to the children is going to meet that. It simply does not go far enough in providing direction to the courts.

I practised criminal law for an extended period of time early in my professional career. I must admit that when I looked at this section I said, “This is ideal for the defence criminal bar”. I practised in that area for seven or eight years.

We can do better than this. I believe that. We are going to have to do better than the legitimate purpose test that has been established here. If we do not, we are going to have litigation for the next five to ten years in front of our criminal courts, probably all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada again. We may not, and I believe will not, achieve the result of providing that maximum protection to our children and at the same time balancing off constitutional rights under the charter.

I want to move off that point to several others. It was interesting that The Globe and Mail this morning raised another issue. I believe there are several others like that which question the amount of discretion we are giving to the courts. Again, I believe it is our responsibility as the legislators responsible for this bill to get more into the bill, to give the judges in the country more direction and more guidelines. They would welcome that. It is our responsibility.

I will conclude by saying that there is a balance that has to be struck, where we are looking to protect our children as much as possible, but recognizing that in this country we do operate under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have to balance it off in that regard.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

First, I want to be very clear that there are some aspects of this bill that are worthwhile. I applaud those measures. For example, Canada is in need of legislation to deal with voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material. As a matter of fact, there is a lady from my home province of New Brunswick, Julia Buote, who has helped to lead the fight for tougher laws on voyeurism. I commend her on that effort. We also need legislation that helps to facilitate the testimony of child victims and witnesses and this bill provides a step in that direction.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in the House before, these worthwhile measures are thrown in with a bill that still falls far short of what Canadian children require from this government. In short, this legislation allows for the continuation of a dangerous loophole that will allow for child pornographers to continue to possess what should be illegal material.

Much of the controversy over Canada's child pornography laws dates back to the court case of John Sharpe. In the Sharpe decision, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the Criminal Code defence of “artistic merit” should be interpreted as broadly as possible. This helped shape the decision that allowed Sharpe to be acquitted on two counts of “possession of child pornography with the intent to distribute”. The material in question contained violent writings targeting vulnerable children; however, the judge ultimately found that this material had artistic merit.

All across Canada, child pornography cases were put on hold while the Liberal government did nothing as the Sharpe case wound its way through the courts. For two years Canadian children effectively went without legal protection against child pornographers as police were compelled to put investigations on hold pending the appeals.

The Supreme Court held in Sharpe that artistic merit should be interpreted as including “any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art” and that “any objectively established artistic value, however small”, would support the defence.

When the Liberal government finally reacted to public outrage over the Sharpe decision, the response was woefully inadequate. Three times now, first with Bill C-20, then Bill C-12, and finally Bill C-2, which is before us today, the government has attempted to appear tough on child protection, but in reality is not closing loopholes that threaten Canadian children.

Actually, the government has now come full circle and is still including a type of artistic merit defence for the possession of child pornography.

Under Bill C-12 from the 37th Parliament, the existing Criminal Code defences for child pornography, which included artistic merit or educational, scientific or medical purpose, were reduced to a single defence of “public good”.

Despite the Liberals' attempt to sell the bill on the basis that the artistic merit defence had been eliminated, the former justice minister admitted in the justice committee that it was still included under the broader category of public good. He stated, “Artistic merit still exists in the sense that a piece of art will have to essentially go through the new defence of public good...”.

Interestingly, in the Sharpe decision the Supreme Court also briefly considered the defence of public good. The court found that public good has been interpreted as “necessary or advantageous to...the pursuit of, among other things...art or other objects of general interest”. Again, when Canadians discovered this loophole they were rightly outraged.

The Liberals are now proposing, in Bill C-2, another brand new loophole. This time it is called “legitimate purpose”. The new legislation replaces the term public good with legitimate purpose. The defence would be available if the act in question has a legitimate purpose related to, among other things, art, and if the act does not pose an undue risk of harm to children. The loophole for artistic merit has therefore not been closed and what constitutes “undue risk of harm to children” remains open to interpretation by judges.

In its 2001 Sharpe decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that artistic merit should be given as broad an interpretation as possible, a strong signal of how the courts view these defences.

I feel the question that Canadians are asking is why the government is contorting itself to leave open loopholes for the possession of child pornography. I believe the problem is that the government's focus is not on doing all it can to protect children but on what the courts might say if we passed effective legislation.

In my opinion, establishing a test of undue risk is an insult to Canadians. Any risk to the safety of children should be met with the strongest response possible.

I ask the government to listen to the people who work on the front lines of child protection. Listen to police offices who have to deal with the tragedy of child abuse. I will quote from Scott Newark, vice chair and special counsel for the Office for Victims of Crime. He said:

Almost invariably, as in the Sharpe case, it gets down to a section 1 interpretation by the courts; and frankly, rather than having the courts determine Parliament's intent, in every single piece of legislation, in my experience, you should be expressing it, particularly where what's involved is choices between priorities.

Again, the Sharpe case is an example of that. There was an absolute recognition in the Sharpe case that child pornography in all forms represents a risk of harm to children.

Sergeant Paul Gillespie of the Toronto Police Service said:

We've seen what happens when police are left to define what is or isn't artistic merit. We'll be fighting about this one for years.

Now police will be left to determine whether something serves a legitimate purpose or poses an undue risk before proceeding further.

I also want to talk about some other changes in the bill, one being maximum sentences. Again there is an appearance to the Canadian public that the Liberal government is being tough on people who commit offences against children. However increasing maximum sentences is meaningless if the courts do not impose these increased sentences. We know by experience that when maximum sentences are raised there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed are mandatory minimum sentences, truth in sentencing, eliminating statutory release and no conditional sentences for child predators.

All across the country child pornographers are given conditional sentences for their crimes. These people are serving no jail time. Canadians may not be aware of that. How then is raising the maximum sentence going to help when the courts are not even approaching sentencing beyond the minimum sentences? Higher maximum sentences for child pornography will not be effective unless the courts enforce them.

The bill also fails to prohibit conditional sentences and child predators should serve their sentences in prison and not in the community.

I want to touch on the age of consent. The bill ignores the pleas of police groups, child advocacy groups and the provinces by failing to increase the age of consent. The age of consent for adult-child sex must be raised from 14 to 16. On this issue, 80% of Canadians polled have said that they want to increase the age of consent to at least 16 years.

In 2001, provincial ministers unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to increase the age of consent to at least 16.

Like Bill C-12 before it, Bill C-2 fails to raise the age of consent. Instead, the bill creates the category of exploitive relationships. It was already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority or with whom a young person was in a relationship of dependency to be sexually involved. It is unclear then now how adding people who are in a relationship with a young person that is exploitive in nature will add legal protection for young people.

I believe all Canadians care very deeply about our children. I believe that all members of this House sincerely want to protect children. However the Liberal approach to protecting children consistently fails to put the needs of children ahead of the rights of criminals. This needs to change.

We must act in the best interest for Canada's children and close all loopholes that allow for the possession of child pornography.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary--Nose Hill.

I want to take a moment to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker. I must admit I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams that you would look so good in a robe. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker. You look very good up there. We are proud of your achievements as Deputy Speaker.

I would like to start out by saying that both of the amendments we are debating are possible additions to the throne speech. As I watch the debate unfold with our leader the other day to the Bloc leader and now to the debate that is happening in the House, it seems like many of the members across the way are starting to get some common sense.

They are looking at these proposals that have been put forward and are starting to realize that by having a minority Parliament it might be in the best interests of all Canadians that we work together, give and take a little bit, because that is what this Parliament is going to be all about. I am excited to feel the warmth in this place as we lead up to the vote this evening. Hopefully we will start to see that cooperation kick in.

Both the Bloc's subamendment and the amendment put forward by the official opposition are in the best interests of Canadians and do speak to the values that many of us heard about from Canadians during the course of the recent election. It would be fair to note that Canadians do not want to see an election happen sooner rather than later. I encourage all members to take an interest in what is being debated here and see that it is in the best interests of all Canadians.

I hate to be partisan and I do try my best not to be, but I must address some of the glaring problems in this Speech from the Throne. As we have heard from a number of speakers throughout the day, much of it is recycled promises. There is not much new. There is not much to give Canadians hope and that is why we put this amendment forward to help improve what is already there.

I would like to focus in on some of the promises in the Speech from the Throne that are recycled. At least 43 promises are repeated from Mr. Chrétien's throne speech of 2002. The promise of a national child care program dates back to the 1993 red book. After 11 years of inaction Canadians are still waiting.

The throne speech also promises a new citizenship act. This project was attempted previously by the Chrétien government and died on the Order Paper as we all know. I am speaking of Bill C-18. The promised legislation to crack down on child pornography, Bill C-20, dates back again to the Chrétien era. It died on the Order Paper twice.

This is the Prime Minister's second throne speech in five months with still no plan to implement any of these recycled promises. He simply does not want to govern. He wants to have a government and that is a theme we have been hearing over the course of the debate.

Millions of Canadians expected action on things like the gun registry, democratic reform and agriculture. Many of my colleagues have talked about the crisis with BSE. They wanted to see some movement on tax relief, a modernized and effective military and criminal justice reform. These priorities unfortunately have just been ignored by the government. We hope that within this minority Parliament we can start to move some of these issues forward as they are important to a lot of Canadians.

There is hope. I am happy to announce that the Leader of the Official Opposition has had the confidence to appoint me as the critic for infrastructure and communities. I plan to hold the government accountable, especially on this file and especially the new minister who will be handling this file. I plan to ensure that the government lives up to some of its commitments made in the recent election even though it has not gone into great detail on some of the commitments moving forward in this Parliament.

Infrastructure is an issue that is not only important to the people of Edmonton--Strathcona but to all Canadians right across the country as they drive around in their cities or rural communities. They have seen the challenges that many of our areas face when it comes to infrastructure.

Some people have asked me what infrastructure means exactly. It seems like it is so vast. They have asked how it can be categorized. I will take a moment to outline some of the areas that have already been outlined by a number of speakers addressing infrastructure about where it applies and how it can be broken down to get a greater understanding.

First of all there is structural infrastructure which is made up of roads, sewers, street lamps, et cetera, that we find in our communities. There is also the cultural aspect of infrastructure such as hockey rinks, museums, libraries, theatres, et cetera, all the different things that we enjoy that improve the quality of our life in our communities.

We also have recreational infrastructure that includes parks, recreation centres, pools, beaches, et cetera. Those sorts of things also help to improve our quality of life. Security infrastructure such as police, fire, and ambulance are important and vital aspects of our cities and communities. Physical infrastructure such as municipal offices and convention centres are the sorts of things that fall under that category. Social infrastructure includes subsidized housing, substance abuse centres, and we can think of a number of others that would fall under that category. Economic infrastructure such as airports, sea ports and a number of other areas would fall under that particular category. Finally, the special infrastructure category would include the Olympics, expositions, and waterfronts. They are the sorts of things that also help the quality of life but also help economic engines and help certain activities happen in and around our communities.

As we all know the Ministry of State for Infrastructure and Communities was created by the government in June. The underlining reason for the Liberals to make this a cabinet level position was to promise the new deal for cities that was often referred to as the cities agenda.

I would like to take a moment to turn back the clock, especially when I start talking about the fuel tax. I believe you remember, Mr. Speaker, that about a year and a half ago there was an opposition motion that dealt with making the commitment to communities by giving them a portion of the fuel tax. I believe that all members of the House voted for that motion.

I am happy to say that the action for that issue was led by the opposition, which is why I remember. We kept hounding the government to at least consider giving communities a portion of that tax given the increase in the cost of fuel. The amount of excise tax that is collected on fuel should be a dedicated tax that should go to them. The reason why it was initially levied was that it would go into highways and roads, and a portion of that could be spent by the municipalities. The provinces could use the money for long term programs of infrastructure management so that they would not have the problems that they have now and where in some parts of the country they are in a major crisis.

It is unfortunate that the government has managed that extra tax in the general revenues and it seems to disappear.

I do not have to remind the House, but I mention the issue of the gun registry, sponsorship scandal and a host of other areas where we know the government has failed Canadians when money was collected specifically to go into things like infrastructure, like roads and highways. That is why we have problems today.

As we know, the big city mayors were meeting here recently. They still raise concerns that this particular plan that the government has does not go far enough. It does not kick in fast enough. It does not provide enough resources to attack some of these huge problems of infrastructure.

I can understand their frustration because they have been waiting for something like this for years and years. As I said, because of the fact that we have been pushing that issue, we are finally getting movement by the government.

In the short time that I have left I want to say that we are still waiting. As much as I will applaud the government for going down this road and adopting an issue which was an opposition thrust to have this fuel tax returned to the communities, there is still no indication of how this is going to work. There are no details of how this is going to go into the communities.

This is something that we need to start discussing now. We need to figure out how that is going to work because it is going to take the coordination of three levels of government. It is going to take a long term plan in order to ensure that many of our structural challenges and problems are going to be taken into account in a way that all levels are working together. We need to see more detail as it comes forward from the government.

In my discussions with the minister on this particular file, we still do not know whether the money is going to go directly into the municipalities, whether it is going to be coordinated under existing programs, or if it is going to be delivered directly to the municipalities.

In certain areas we know that there is an advancement of those levels of government working together. For instance, in Edmonton there is the Greater Edmonton Authority within the capital region that works together on many projects. It looks at the long term plans for infrastructure and how it will tackle them with all the municipalities together.

Those are the things we are going to be pushing forward as this debate continues. We wish we could have seen the action of the fuel tax going to communities sooner because we have had this debate for some time.