Bill C-23 (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

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has been made that Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act, does not address the real priorities of first nations in the areas of basic services, health, education, and social services. Indeed, it has been suggested that it is a waste to be investing in strengthening first nations governance and institutional capacity.

First, let me remind the House that Bill C-23 stems from a vision of certain first nations leaders who chose not to delay their opportunities for brighter futures by waiting for the Government of Canada. Instead, they exercised their control and created a pact that would include working to develop this legislation, making certain that it would bring greater certainty to their people in giving back greater control over their futures with better opportunities, especially for their children.

In many respects, Bill C-23 complements the positive action taken by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in line with the first nations' priorities, among them social programs, education and employment opportunities.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is working to ensure that social services reach those in greatest need, with a focus on first nation children on reserve. This focus on children recognizes that positive impacts made in the early years of life have a direct bearing on a child's healthy, long term development and well-being, which is a key to accessing longer term opportunities.

INAC's work emphasizes ongoing collaboration with federal and other partners to deliver important initiatives, such as the aboriginal head start program which helps prepare young first nation children for their school years by meeting their emotional, social, health, nutritional and psychological needs. Other programs and services cater to the needs of lower income families and the immediate community. As well, there have been improvements in the areas of child care, child nutrition, community and cultural enrichment, family violence shelters and prevention programs, all of which are culturally sensitive.

INAC is also working to provide first nations with the tools to improve quality of education from early childhood development to preparation for access to the workforce. A national working group of first nation education, for example, was created in partnership with first nations to look at ways to foster excellence in first nation education and help narrow gaps in economic results.

In consultations with first nations and the Assembly of First Nations, INAC has adopted a case management approach which guides income assistance recipients through a continuum of training and support services, enabling participants to benefit from and remain in federal-provincial welfare to work initiatives.

Aboriginal employment programs and services are also part of INAC's strategic priorities. Improved employment opportunities for first nations people have also come about from programs like the aboriginal workforce participation initiative, which partners governments with business to fill human resource needs with a trained, qualified aboriginal workforce to INAC's own commitment to a 50% aboriginal-external hiring strategy.

First nations people do not want to continue the status quo. They want greater control over their own affairs and an improved quality of life. As well, they seek more opportunities for themselves and for their children. To this end, they want to ensure that their programs are effectively delivered, opportunities for economic growth are created, and they are engaged in the discussion of a new fiscal relationship between first nations and Canada as a way to sustain their programs and services.

Bill C-23 would provide first nations with the tools needed to help meet these three objectives, and therefore should be viewed as an investment in a brighter future for first nations.

With respect to the first objective of ensuring effective program delivery, first nations look to build the tools they need as they assume greater control over their own affairs. They look to strengthen financial management and accounting practices, the facility to demonstrate transparency and accountability, and the capacity to effectively manage scarce resources.

The work of the financial management board would be valuable in this area. The board would provide leadership and support to strengthen the financial operations of participating first nations. The board would coordinate its efforts with those of the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada which is affiliated with the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

Through its work as a centre of excellence, the board would help first nations and their enterprises elevate standards, establish and maintain sound financial management, and ultimately to adopt financial systems based on national standards comparable to other governments.

The second objective that I mentioned was that first nations were seeking to participate more fully in the Canadian economy in order to improve the quality of life for their people. To help meet this objective, a strengthened first nations tax regime, managed by the Tax Commission, would help first nations to build predictable tax revenue streams which the financial authority would apply to secure long term debt financing for major capital projects.

This integrated system is optional in all respects. It would give first nation governments that wish to participate their first access to the bond markets. It would unlock real and significant opportunities for sustained economic growth and, ultimately, a better future for first nations.

It is true that not every first nation is interested in or able to build a tax system. First nations are diverse in nature. However, this does not diminish the importance of the bill to a number of first nations now poised to bring its benefits to their people.

Today, all first nations enter into many different borrowing arrangements with banks and suppliers. This option will remain open with Bill C-23. However, the creation of the first nations finance authority will make it possible for first nation governments to borrow money through the bond market and at lower interest rates than otherwise available.

The use of lower cost capital would increase the construction of in-ground infrastructure that is ready for commercial use, and give prospective private developers a favourable view in their decisions about establishing businesses on reserve lands. In the same way, and without a waste of first nations financial resources, new recreational facilities or community centres could be built at lower costs. I could see communities that would benefit from access roads and upgraded water and sewer lines which support economic ventures, such as a gas bar or a strip mall.

In time and with experience, new financing options may even be developed to increase the construction of houses and help deal with a backlog in housing units in first nation communities. The potential benefits to first nations people would be significant in terms of increased employment, income, self-reliance, control over their own futures and community growth.

Finally, the third objective I mentioned was that first nations could look to build a new fiscal relationship with Canada. They are looking to break the cycle of dependency by realizing legitimate opportunities for themselves and for their children. With that objective in mind, first nation proponents of this legislation have pushed for and have actively engaged in dialogue with the Government of Canada on a broad range of issues.

As a result of their consultations on enhanced statistical capacity, for example, first nations people are now poised to become more self-reliant by using the tools offered by Bill C-23 to engage in the joint policy discussions required to unlock critical social, educational and economic opportunities.

That is why the first nations statistical institute will focus on bringing timely, relevant and credible information to bear on policy development and program management. The institute would assist first nations in developing the systems that chiefs and council would require to meet their leadership responsibilities.

Statistics Canada and first nations statistics would have separate but complementary roles. For example, with proposed cooperative data sharing regimes, first nations statistics would draw data from many reliable sources, including Statistics Canada, giving first nation decision makers the essential access to reliable statistical information which they have lacked. As most Canadians can appreciate, the social benefits of reliable and timely statistics seem well worth the cost.

As well, both the financial management board and first nations statistics will offer professional research and policy development services on behalf of all first nations and thus strengthen their capacity to participate at intergovernmental discussions on building new fiscal relations.

Allow me to summarize the advantages that can be garnered under Bill C-23.

I have mentioned the importance to first nations that their programs are delivered effectively. Under the legislation, the financial management board could assist individual first nations to better manage their program costs, more effectively deliver their programs and thereby improve the results for first nation people.

As well, I have mentioned the importance to first nations of creating opportunities for themselves and their children. Under Bill C-23, the first nations tax commission would help to strengthen first nation real property tax regimes. First nations may use their tax powers and work with private developers to establish the infrastructure needed to trigger sustainable business development and to help build a better future.

I have mentioned the importance to first nations of discussing a new fiscal relationship with the Government of Canada. Under the legislation, the first nations finance authority would offer mechanisms necessary for first nation governments to participate in the complex world of bond markets and capital financing similar to other governments.

Discussion of fiscal matters would then take place on a more equal footing. The work of first nations statistics would bring more reliable and timely statistical information to inform discussions between first nations and the federal government.

The proposed first nations-led legislation was developed through the investment of many visionary cooperative efforts over a number of years, which bodes well for its acceptance and implementation. It will help them meet important objectives.

Let us lend our support to their vision by passing this legislation so that first nations people will be able to access real opportunities which will improve their lives.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House at the report stage of Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

It is well known that many first nations support this bill, while there are indeed others who oppose it. While previously passing many resolutions in support for development of the institutions, the Assembly of First Nations voted last fall to withdraw its support. More recently, however, National Chief Phil Fontaine expressed a preference that the bill be optional so that legislation does not prevent other first nations from pursuing alternative approaches to economic development, sole source revenue and resource revenue sharing.

This government remains respectful of the democratic process within the AFN. We value the still considerable support for the bill among a large number of first nations and we remain steadfast in our belief that Bill C-23 is a valuable financial tool for those first nations who choose to benefit from its opportunities. We continue to support Bill C-23 on behalf of those many first nations who have worked long and hard toward its development.

Bill C-23 was led by first nations for interested first nations. Furthermore, Bill C-23, like all federal legislation, is developed in the context of the Constitution. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides substantial protection for aboriginal and treaty rights. Legislation, including Bill C-23, cannot lessen that protection.

We equally support the optional nature of the bill on behalf of those first nations who oppose it. Indeed, even in its opposition to the bill, the Assembly of First Nations does not deny the options under the bill that are open to those first nations that wish to exercise them.

First nations both for and against the bill continue to look toward the negotiation of claims and self-government agreements with Canada and, from these, new fiscal relationships. We must continue to work on those broader issues.

Bill C-23 flows from many years of work that began with Bill C-115, the 1988 amendment to the Indian Act. A first nation led amendment, Bill C-115, set out first nations authority to collect real property taxes on first nation lands. In fact, it corrected a situation whereby property tax revenues were flowing to neighbouring communities and no services were flowing back. Development funds were being lost.

Over the past 15 years, 98 first nations have exercised their property tax powers and more are developing laws to do so. More than $43 million is now generated annually, which is being used to deliver quality local services, support economic growth and improve the quality of life in first nation communities.

Since its creation in 1989, the Indian tax advisory board, a first nations board, has looked toward securing a legislative base by which to better advance first nation interests. Bill C-23 would do exactly that.

It would also address many of the issues first nations have faced in building their property tax systems and in working effectively with taxpayers, potential business partners and also investors.

Bill C-23 would also realize a dream of the First Nations Finance Authority Incorporated, known as FNFA Inc., which was incorporated in 1995. Its all first nation board has led the work to see first nations gain access for the first time to the bond market in order to secure affordable capital through Bill C-23.

Today first nations pay 30% to 50% more to finance capital works because they lack the legal and institutional framework by which to issue securities on the bond markets. The extraordinary transaction costs and time, and the crippling interest rates they must pay, are major barriers to economic, social and cultural development.

To remove these barriers, FNFA Inc. has lobbied the Government of Canada for many years for a legislated basis. Bill C-23 would allow first nations to issue investment grade securities. There is much interest in these securities on the part of the investment community, including the ethical funds.

The bill would provide first nations with modern tools of government already enjoyed by other governments in Canada. While the proposed financing authority would be fully independent from the Government of Canada, the other institutions, the proposed tax commission, financial management board and statistical institute would operate at arm's length.

This structure recognizes the continuing relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada and the need to work cooperatively on complex questions such as building a new fiscal relationship. The institutions would help interested first nations develop a more effective voice in these long term development issues.

The Prime Minister hosted an aboriginal round table on April 19 of this year, looking to speak to aboriginal leaders and discuss their concerns and formulate solutions. Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine, spoke to the press after this round table and laid out the critical elements of successful nation building and economic development, as cited in a study from Harvard University, including:

Capable governing institutions that exercise power effectively, responsibly, and reliably;

and Cultural Match, which means creating institutions that reflect First Nations values.

Leadership and strategic direction underlie all these principles...This means we must work out arrangements for resource-sharing and power-sharing.

Bill C-23 meets these guidelines and in fact epitomizes them.

Over the course of the bill's legislative history, we have heard first nations people speak both for and against the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

Many of those speaking against the bill also acknowledge that first nations are diverse in nature and do not seek to deny access to those first nations who see opportunity in Bill C-23. Some even have noted that their community might have an interest in Bill C-23 at some time in the future, particularly if their economic situation were to change through future negotiations or developmental activity.

First nations do indeed have diverse views. Bill C-23 would honour this diversity. Bill C-23 would allow each first nation to decide if and when it would make a law in order to exercise a power pursuant to the bill or would request a service from an institution. It would give first nations the choice to access a valuable tool, and the choice to realize their unique visions for developing their communities on a level playing field.

I support Bill C-23 and I hope to see my fellow members do the same thing.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise today in support of Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

This important legislation will provide first nation peoples with access to the tools they need to increase their participation in our economy. Under the provisions of Bill C-23, as I think my colleague has mentioned, first nations will gain access to the financial instruments and mechanisms used by municipal governments to raise capital and secure investment. With this capacity, first nations will be able to realize their dreams of self-sufficiency and prosperity.

The impetus for this legislation originates with first nation leaders from across the country. For many years, residents of aboriginal and first nation communities have had difficulty accessing the mainstream economy. First nation communities have struggled to raise capital needed to develop on-reserve infrastructure.

To address these issues, Bill C-23 will establish four distinct yet complementary institutions: a financial authority, a tax commission, a financial management board, and a statistical institute.

Once these institutions are in place, first nations will have many of the practical tools long enjoyed by other governments, such as the ability to borrow money at competitive rates, to develop effective real property tax systems, and to ensure that the interests of taxpayers are adequately represented. First nations that choose to participate in these institutions will also be able to increase financial management capacity and improve long term planning through greater use of accurate and current statistical information, the very things that my municipality and other municipalities have. In short, first nation communities will exercise greater control over their economic and social destinies. Real choices will exist.

Solid infrastructure is fundamental to the health and sustainability of every community in Canada. It is the reason why we have invested so heavily over the past seven years in municipal infrastructure. This government has had successive waves of, in my case, Canada-Ontario infrastructure programs, which have made a real difference in my community and in other communities across the country. Transportation links, water and sewage treatment facilities and other components of modern infrastructure are absolutely essential to economic growth. Local governments across Canada have long funded infrastructure projects through low interest, long term loans. Lenders were keen on these investments because of the legal, political and social stability of such governments.

However, and sadly, first nation band councils do not enjoy the same legal status as local governments. As a result, these councils are often charged prohibitively expensive transaction costs and interest rates. Administrative burdens and lengthy approval processes often delay the start of projects, leading to additional costs. The combined effort of these impediments is that few first nations can afford to undertake capital projects, the capital projects that, I will state again, are important to the health and social services of communities.

Several years ago, thanks to the leadership of Westbank First Nation, one of the most progressive and prosperous aboriginal communities in Canada, a new financial instrument was created. The First Nations Finance Authority Incorporated, or FNFA Inc., enabled member communities to pool their resources.

As the number of first nations participating in FNFA Inc. grew, so did the feasibility of issuing debentures to access longer term money at lower interest rates. The concept attracted the support of a key partner, the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia. That authority has 30 years' experience and a triple-A credit rating.

Bill C-23 provides the legal framework for first nations to fully participate in the bond markets. The legislation establishes the First Nations Finance Authority, FNFA. The FNFA will enable first nations to raise private capital at preferred rates to build roads and undertake other capital infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, sewers and water systems. In a process similar to the one used by local governments, a participating first nation can scrutinize a portion of its long term revenues such as those generated by real property taxes.

Analysts estimate that by scrutinizing the real property tax revenues of interested first nations, approximately $125 million in debt financing could be raised within just five years. An investment of this magnitude in this specific time period would have a significant impact on the communities of participating first nations, communities that are ready to go and want to offer important opportunities to their constituent members.

The ability to generate property tax revenue is a crucial part of a community's financial stability. A growing number of first nations have collected these taxes since the Indian Act was amended in the 1980s. Tax revenues have enabled band councils to provide services, build infrastructure and create jobs and businesses.

Bill C-23 will establish the first nations tax commission, or FNTC, to facilitate the establishment of property tax regimes by band councils who choose to do so under this bill.

The FNTC will develop the standards which underlie the first nations property tax system and which are needed to effectively balance community and ratepayer interests. Dispute resolution and law approval processes will be established. The net result of these actions will be a secure and stable fiscal environment, something that all of us need in each of our municipalities, in each of our communities.

As the Prime Minister has said so many times, strong communities develop a strong nation. That is what we are achieving with Bill C-23.

For this environment to thrive over the long term, it is imperative that first nations have adequate financial management standards and procedures in place. Lenders must have a clear and accurate picture of the fiscal health of borrowers. Independent assessments must be readily available.

The first nations financial management board, or FMB, will help to meet these requirements. There are two components of the FMB's mandate. The first focuses on first nations that collect property tax and seek to borrow against these revenues. The FMB will certify financial management systems, practices and standards and monitor the performance of these first nations. The FMB will be able to intervene promptly and decisively when needed.

Under the second part of the mandate, the FMB will provide a range of professional services to first nations. The FMB will assist with research in advocacy, policy and capacity development, along with financial management, reporting and standards. These activities will help first nation communities to make the very most of their financial resources.

As part of building to a better future, first nations need to have accurate and current statistical information as a basis for informed decision making. Unfortunately, to date, the quality, consistency and accuracy of statistical systems in first nation communities are very inconsistent. There is a very great lack of accurate and current statistical information.

The fourth institution included in Bill C-23 will address this specific issue. The first nations statistical institute, or FNSI, will create a common database of information accessible by all first nations. The database will provide first nation leaders with the accurate information they need to make sound decisions; predictability, accountability and transparency.

I believe that the tools available through Bill C-23 will help to close the considerable gaps that exist between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities across this country. By providing institutional support and embedding rigorous standards, the legislation prescribes a balanced approach to long term financial health for first nations. Clearly, all Canadians stand to benefit, particularly our first nation peoples, who are ready to go and are tired of seeing economic opportunities pass them by.

I urge all hon. colleagues to lend their support to this bill. This is a set of four very important tools for first nation communities. These tools will make sure that they can participate fully in our Canadian economy. They will make sure that first nations have the opportunity to be who they want to be in terms of economic progress and opportunity so that kids do have a real future and better economic success.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of Bill C-23, a bill that I believe is good for all first nations and also for Canada.

I particularly wanted to mention Chief Tom Bressette who is in southwestern Ontario, the area of the country in which I live. I know he has worked very hard, as have other distinguished people working on this bill. I think the bill is a tribute to the hard work of these individuals who gave their input so that we could be in this chamber today discussing the bill.

The four institutions that are central to the legislation will provide a means for aboriginal peoples to participate more actively in the Canadian economy and foster business friendly environments while meeting the specific needs of their communities.

Just a few short decades ago the economic prospects for first nations and Inuit communities were extremely limited. Government policies restricted the ability of these communities to exploit natural resources on their ancestral lands. Many communities, already geographically remote, were further isolated by undeveloped communications and transportation links.

Today it is different. Aboriginal businesses operate in every sector of the economy: in primary industries, such as mining; in secondary industries, such as manufacturing; and in tertiary industries, such as telecommunications. More and more aboriginal businesses export their goods and services abroad and aboriginal trade associations help fledgling entrepreneurs grow their businesses.

Despite these improvements, first nations still face many barriers to sustainable growth and economic development. These obstacles include the challenge faced by aboriginal entrepreneurs and communities in acquiring sufficient equity and debt capital to undertake development initiatives.

Many first nations have already demonstrated that once they gain access to capital they can invest wisely. In the western oil patch, for example, the Dene Tha' and the Saddle Lake First Nations have acquired stakes in a total of five oil rigs that operate under contract to petrochemical companies. Squamish First Nation, as another example, is participating in a $17 million hydro-generation project on Furry Creek.

These investments create employment and training opportunities for band members. The projects also generate profits that can be reinvested in the local community: in social services, in health care and in education.

I believe the first nations fiscal and statistical management act, a first nations-led initiative, would offer first nation communities access to tools that will enable greater economic development and growth and improve the quality of life in the communities.

While the benefits of the act would be many, I believe its potential to unlock economic development opportunities for first nations deserves some very special attention.

The legislation, the result of more than a decade of work by first nation leaders and other partners, would establish four institutions that will be operated by and for first nations. These institutions would improve the ability of first nation governments to provide services, build infrastructure and, most important, create employment.

For example, one of the institutions, the first nations finance authority, would enable a band council, just like any other local government, to raise long term private capital at preferred rates. Currently, first nations seeking to borrow funds for community infrastructure face prohibitive transaction costs, processing times and interest rates. Due to the lack of an appropriate legislative and institutional framework, $1 of first nations' tax revenue buys 30% to 50% less in capital works than the revenue of other governments. I think this has to be changed.

Improving first nation access to affordable capital would help pay for much needed economic infrastructure, infrastructure that would not only make a difference to the lives of the people in first nation communities but would also increase first nation participation in the economy, make first nation communities better able to draw investors and enable first nation entrepreneurs to launch successful businesses and attract partners.

Aboriginal entrepreneurship represents a tremendous opportunity for all Canadians. Indeed, I am convinced that fostering aboriginal entrepreneurship is vital to Canada's long term prosperity.

Let us consider for a moment Canada's changing population. We are currently experiencing an aboriginal baby boom, particularly in the western provinces and in the northern territories. The aboriginal population, already significantly younger than the rest of the Canadian population, is also growing much more quickly.

Furthermore, aboriginal young people are twice as likely as other Canadian youth to start businesses. I think that is an important statistic. I believe these trends represent significant opportunities for economic growth.

To make the most of these opportunities though, aboriginal communities must be able to participate more readily in the economy. To do this they must have clear access to their resources and to affordable capital for economic development. Entrepreneurs require business partners.

With the practical fiscal management tools that are at the heart of the legislation, first nations would be able to better manage their land and could more easily acquire the funds that they need to engage in community building projects.

Bill C-23 would also lead to greater and more immediate decision making powers, enabling the first nations themselves to capitalize on existing business relationships and build new ones.

As first nation economic development expands, the range of work experience available to first nation peoples will continue to broaden. It is precisely that breadth of experience that will foster ongoing innovations and stimulate Canada's economy.

A new generation of aboriginal entrepreneurs, bursting with ideas, energy and confidence, is keen to make a mark on the business world. Canada, the major exporter in an increasingly competitive business world, cannot afford to waste any of that talent nor that energy.

A second of the four institutions that would be created by the act is the first nations management board. The board would certify financial management systems, practices and standards of first nations that choose to participate and would also ensure financial performance remains constant. Certifying the credit worthiness of first nation communities will strengthen their ability to gain access to low cost capital.

As well, the institution would promote financial management capacity development and encourage adherence to sound financial management practices. This is being done already in a lot of the communities and I encourage this practice.

I believe the first nation communities and businesses that are built on solid financial management foundations will attract more investors and a greater number of business partners from private sector and public sector alike.

As the House will recall, the government made a pledge in the Speech from the Throne to see real economic opportunities for aboriginal individuals and communities.

Over the last 10 or 11 years I have had the pleasure of chairing the aboriginal committee and the finance committee. In my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I now get to travel the width and the breadth of this nation. I have met with many of the aboriginal people and leadership across the country and I see that we can be moving forward. Sometimes it will be in partnership and sometimes it will be the entrepreneurs but the talent and the expertise is there.

We are getting the education in place for the younger people. I think we have to be facilitative, encouraging and be champions for the things that can better the lives of our aboriginal Canadians. The bill goes in that direction.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the public is perhaps wondering what we are talking about here. Bill C-23 is designed to strengthen first nations real property tax regimes, create a first nations bond financing arrangement and in the process would create four institutions: the first nations tax commission, which would replace the Indian Taxation Advisory Board; a first nations financial management board; a first nations finance authority; and a first nations statistical institute.

There were 18 amendments tabled by the minister. We are speaking to one grouping of the two groupings that were created by the Speaker.

They accomplished several things. One thing they did not accomplish was that they did not separate the statistical institute from the rest of the bill. That was a significant request that had been made by a broad range of interests, including the Conservative Party. I find that somewhat unfortunate.

We will be supporting Group No. 1 amendments because there was widespread concern and desire to have this act ascertained as an optional exercise for the band level governments and this clearly specifies that. We are in pretty good shape that way.

I have been speaking about private property and have been looking at quite a bit of literature in relation to private property on reserves in Canada. There has been some very good literature produced recently. I will specifically make reference to a publication called Masters In Our Own House , published by the Skeena Native Development Society in May of last year.

The book talks about three cornerstones that are required in the way of bringing success and prosperity to first nations. We are making great progress on this front from the standpoint that there is some real leadership that is starting to be exhibited. Sometimes this cannot be one gigantic step but a series of smaller steps.

It is worth referencing that we have had taxation power available to bands across the country for about a dozen years or so. Today, 25% of the bands in British Columbia are exercising the authority and about 10% nationally. When we include the fact that British Columbia has almost a third of the bands in Canada, we can see that very few of those bands that are taxing are outside British Columbia. It is something that has led us to things like the bill we are discussing today.

The authority has been delegated to the bands under section 83 of the Indian Act and it would allow them to carry out this taxation scheme.

There are three cornerstones of successful governance; first, the market system must be allowed to function, it must be enabled; second, there must be an ability for the people to control the use and development of their lands to enable capital formation; and third, entrepreneurial thinking needs to be enabled for effective entrepreneurship to flourish.

I found this publication, produced by the Skeena Native Development Society, to be pragmatic and practical in terms of pursuing those three cornerstones within the context of the Indian Act and the other sort of albatrosses that have pre-empted that from occurring. The Indian bands are trying to go somewhere important, and I think we went somewhere important last week when we talked about Bill C-11 in the House, the Westbank first nation self-government agreement. This publication talks quite a bit about that and I want to shed a little light to that whole subject at this time.

When this group looked at the problems inherent in developing the first nations, they actually talked about going from a command economy to a market-based economy. The Indian Act has created a command economy where the Government of Canada, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has been the one that was entrusted with all of the decision-making in almost every way. One can view that, as they did, through the lens of communist China. I will quote right from the document which states:

They were struck by the parallels between the economic development problems experienced during theChinese transition to a market-based economy, and those presently confronting native communities.

This brought them to some not startling but pretty important conclusions because they were coming to those conclusions themselves. They were not conclusions that some academic or someone else in some other community was imposing upon them. These were conclusions they arrived at themselves and it was leading to major progress that would have major economic consequences downstream. They went so far as to quote from Hernando de Soto that:

The single most important source of funds for new businesses in the United States is a mortgage on the entrepreneur's house.

They went on to say:

Without this fundamental capability, will the financial institutions continue to avoid providing mortgage funds to First Nation entrepreneurs? In many ways, the ability to mortgage is the litmus test of property rights.

The irony is that in Canada we now have many native individuals with the earning power to afford to carry a mortgage and build a home off reserve, but they cannot get the banks to lend them funds because they cannot collateralize the loan on the reserve because of the lack of simple title. There is a clear recognition about the concern about clear and enforceable property rights, which is compromising transactions both on and off reserve.

I would like to conclude by saying that this concern has been addressed partially by the first nations land management act, more wholly by the Sechelt agreement in British Columbia, more wholly again by one small part of the land allocation to the Nisga'a, and almost completely by the Westbank agreement, Bill C-11, before the House.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Conservative Party for his generosity.

As I was saying before we ran into a procedural problem, I am coming back to my first love. I had the honour of being the Indian affairs critic for seven years and, I must admit, it warms my heart to talk about aboriginal matters again. It is an area where there are always marvellous new developments.

I have made a lot of aboriginal friends across Canada. I recall the debate about the Nisga'a, the debates about land claims and self-government. This is an area that I greatly enjoyed. Since my colleagues were unable to attend today's debate on the bill before us, I was delighted to stand in for them.

There was something else I noticed when I was the critic for this area. Whenever a series of bills about aboriginal peoples was introduced in the House, it was often because there was nothing left on the legislative agenda. I always deplored this. When talking about aboriginal peoples, if we recognize that they are nations, I believe they must be accorded a little more importance, rather than simply using them to fill in the gaps when the government has no bills left.

That is what is going on right now. We are about to debate a bill concerning the financial administration of the first nations because the government has nothing left to introduce. This is what happened in 1993, the year I was first elected, and I see that it is much the same thing today.

I must also admit that a bill on financial administration, if these people are recognized as nations and peoples, should ordinarily be between equals. We in Quebec are rather sensitive to this issue because we are in somewhat the same situation as the first nations. We recognize ourselves as a people; we recognize ourselves as a nation.

When the federal government shows its intentions to control the first nations with a bill such as we have before us today, we are quickly inclined to take the side of those who are to be controlled.

We must show them some respect. My vast experience in this field tells me that these people are perfectly able to govern themselves. Of course, government money is involved and such money should be monitored, but not to the extent suggested in Bill C-23; we think that is going too far. That is why we have objected to this bill from the beginning.

Thus, we can empathize with a nation that the central government is trying to control. I am not saying that it does not have the right to control it, because the Indian Act is quite clear. The aboriginal peoples have very little to say about the way they are governed. We see it otherwise. Until they attain self-government and until the land claims are settled, it will be difficult for them to catch up. They are reliant on the Indian Act and the sums of money given to them each year.

To this end, I think that the balance has not been attained between the respect we should have for the fact that they are self-governed and the fact that they are also accountable to Parliament, which determines the funds they receive.

These bills are not new. Piecemeal legislation is constantly being introduced. However, important commissions considered this issue, such as the Penner commission, which examined the new relationship and how it could be changed since there was still a relationship of dependency. People wanted to change all that. Now, what we are seeing is the same old pattern along the lines of the philosophy in the Indian Act, which has been condemned by many people.

The Erasmus-Dussault commission did a great deal on work on this. I can only remind the House of its efforts. It cost taxpayers $70 million and today, the report is collecting dust on a shelf somewhere in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. However, the report made several extremely important points. At the time, there was a desire to totally change the relationship and ensure greater respect for aboriginals.

In fact, much effort was made and a great deal of emphasis was placed on self-government and land claims. There can be no self-government without sufficient resources and an adequate land base.

I think that the Erasmus-Dussault commission did an excellent job on this. It is too bad that its work is not reflected in the legislation now before Parliament.

This bill is along the lines of the philosophy behind the Indian Act. The Bloc Quebecois considers that keeping aboriginals dependent is taking a step in the wrong direction. This bill is, in our opinion, also a step in the wrong direction.

Consultation with the aboriginal nations is highly debatable, because the Assembly of First Nations spoke out about this. Yes, consultations were held, but the vast majority of those consulted voiced their objections.

Why is the federal government stubbornly introducing legislation on the first nations nonetheless? If we want to respect these nations and give them some measure of autonomy, we should not tell them that the Canadian Parliament will make all their decisions, as the Indian Act has done for over 100 years now, nor should we tell that we will now enforce legislation on financial administration that they must respect.

First nations have objected, and now we are talking about methods they will have to use without taking into account their self-governance and land claims, ignoring the treaties signed at the time, and imposing something new, somewhat as we did when we imposed the Indian Act. In my opinion, the federal government is headed in the wrong direction with this.

The government should have taken this consultation into account. Aboriginals have said that the bill is so terrible that even amending it would do no good. Today 18 amendments are being put forward. To us that is not enough because the fundamental philosophy underlying this bill is flawed.

We must recognize the autonomy of the aboriginal peoples and talk with them equal to equal. We should be able to tell such a nation how we could administer with them the money they are sent and how it would be acceptable to them. Unfortunately, this was not done, and that is why we are saying that this discussion between equals does not exist and has not existed. The concept of nation to nation does not exist either.

As I was saying, and I will conclude with this, as Quebeckers we consider ourselves to be a people and we would not want the same thing done to us, which is why we resist every time the federal government tries. Accordingly, we understand perfectly why the first nations are again resisting intrusion and a lack of respect toward them. Discussions are not being held equal to equal or nation to nation. They are having a bill imposed on them that they do not want. The Bloc Quebecois is on the side of aboriginals. We will vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the first group of amendments to Bill C-23 at report stage. Although I will be talking just about technicalities in my speech, I know there will be a number of more passionate speeches given later on with regard to the benefits of the bill.

In the previous stages of the bill, a couple of concerns were raised either by committee members or by people not involved in the committee. These amendments basically remove the most strenuous of those concerns. The amendments make the bill optional and they make it quite clear that it is optional. For first nations and aboriginal people who want to buy into the bill, who want to use the institutions, it is totally optional. The bill does not place an onus on first nations that have no desire to collect property taxes to do so. It does not force any first nation to go into debt.

No first nation has to use the institutions created by the bill, but these institutions have been developed over the years by first nations people themselves to help them in the financial area after their experience with section 83 of the Indian Act relating to property tax and their difficulties in getting large loans to build infrastructure at reasonable rates. They were also developed to provide first nations with a financial institution to provide them with financial consulting, and there was as well a lack of sufficient statistics to help them in their work.

Certain first nations have been working for years to develop these institutions that would perform these functions. They would be managed by first nations people. Once again, let me say that they are totally optional. No one has to use them or buy into them or be involved with them in any way. In fact, sections 83 and 84 of the Indian Act are being left in because a number of first nations are now quite successfully collecting property tax through these sections. They are welcome to keep using them as opposed to this new, more transparent method.

I will now talk about the technical points of the amendments.

Motion No. 1 relating to clause 2 is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested that the governor in council include the name of their band on the schedule attached to the bill.

This amendment does two things. First, it limits the application of the term first nation in all parts of the bill, except part 5, to just those first nations who appear on the schedule attached to the bill.

Part 5 of the bill outlines the scope of the work of the statistical institute in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data relating to first nations and other aboriginal groups. Had the term first nation as applied to this part been limited to only those first nations on the schedule, the statistical institute would have been prevented from working with data pertaining to any first nation not on the schedule. This would have seriously limited the effectiveness of the institute.

Second, the amendment provides authority for the governor in council, upon the request of a council or first nation, to add the name of the first nation to the schedule, to delete its name from the schedule, or to change the name as it appears on the schedule. Any first nation can buy in at any time or can leave at any time. It is through an order in council that they would be added to the list, so it would be transparent for everyone to see.

Motion No. 2 in relation to clause 13.1 is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils request the governor in council to include the name of their band on the schedule attached to the bill. It is also proposed that the provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act, which deal with real property taxation, be retained in order to provide first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under Bill C-23 or under the Indian Act. This amendment is required to clarify that should a first nation opt to tax under the bill, the property tax provisions of sections 83 and 84 of the Indian Act would not apply to that particular first nation.

Motion No. 11 amending clause 141 is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with property taxation be retained to provide first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under the bill or under the Indian Act.

This amendment modifies the current wording of clause 141 so that the property tax bylaws of a first nation made under section 83 of the Indian Act would be deemed to be laws made under clause 4 of this bill on the day the name of the first nation is added to the schedule of the bill. This supports the smooth transition of first nation property tax bylaws from one act to another.

The next amendment is Motion No. 12 on clause 148. This is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of the band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide first nations with the choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

The current wording of clause 148 of the bill removes the reference to section 84 of the Indian Act from section 4.1 of that act. This amendment deletes clause 148 of the bill, thereby ensuring that the reference to section 84 is retained.

Next is Motion No. 13 on clause 149. This again is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide the first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

This amendment would delete clause 149, which would otherwise have repealed the authority for the governor in council to make regulations for empowering and authorizing the council or the band to borrow money for band projects under paragraph 73(1)(m) of the Indian Act.

Next is Motion No. 14 on clause 150. It is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include their name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide the first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

This amendment would delete clause 150, which otherwise would have repealed those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act concerning the making of first nations property tax bylaws.

Motion No. 15 relates to clause 150.1. It also is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide the first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

This amendment would delete clause 150.1, which would otherwise have repealed section 84 of the Indian Act, which deals with the recovery of property taxes pursuant to a bylaw under section 83.

Motion No. 16, the second last one in the group, is on clause 151. This is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide the first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

This motion would amend clause 151 to clarify that provisions of section 87 of the Indian Act dealing with tax exemptions would not apply both in the case of laws made under clause 4 of the bill and in the case of bylaws made under section 83 of the Indian Act.

The last amendment, Motion No. 18, is about the schedule. This is the last of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill. This motion would add the schedule to the bill.

In summary, we have ensured that the Indian Act provisions related to property tax in sections 83 and 84 can carry on, but if people want this new system to help them obtain loan financing at lower rates, to have management, and to have a transparent property tax system, they can utilize this bill.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-23, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 3 with the following:

““first nation” means

(a) in any provision of Part 5, a band; and

(b) in any other provision, a band named in the schedule.”

(b) by adding after line 4 on page 4 the following:

“(3) At the request of the council of a band, the Governor in Council may, by order, amend the schedule by adding, deleting or changing the name of the band.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 34 on page 11 the following new clause:

“13.1 Paragraphs 83(1)(a) and (d) to (g) and section 84 of the Indian Act and any regulations made under paragraph 73(1)(m) of that Act do not apply to a first nation.”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-23, in Clause 141, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 60 with the following:

“141. (1) By-laws made by a first nation under paragraph 83(1)(a), or any of paragraphs 83(1)(d) to (g), of the Indian Act that are in force on the day on which the name of the first nation is added to the schedule are”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 150.1.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-23, in Clause 151, be amended

(a) by replacing line 35 on page 62 with the following:

“the Indian Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by”

(b) by replacing line 39 on page 62 with the following:

“province, but subject to section 83 and”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-23, in Schedule, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 70 the following:

“SCHEDULE

(Subsections 2(1) and (3))”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Here are the rulings, by groups.

There are 18 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-23. The Chair has been asked to use its discretionary power to select all the motions in amendment under the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I am informed that there has been an understanding between the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development and opposition critics concerning the selection of these amendments. Notwithstanding any reservation the Chair may have, I agree that the motions in the name of the minister should be all selected. The motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 11 to 16 and 18; and Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 3 to 10 and 17.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 11 to 16, and 18 in Group No. 1 to the House.

International Transfer of Offenders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had one opposition member and nine government members speak to a bill at third reading that has no amendments. I have been expecting, for over three hours now, to speak to Bill C-23, which I hope is coming up very soon. I can go back to last week where the government was filibustering bills also. This is going back to more than Friday. I can go back to last Thursday.

I would like to get on with the government agenda, which last week was that aboriginal bills would be upcoming, and that was what it wanted to serve up, and Bill C-23 is an aboriginal bill.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[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)

Criminal Code

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Social Economy)]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to take part in the debate on private member's Bill C-471 introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot. As has been previously mentioned, the purpose of this bill is to protect children from repeat sex offenders. This protection is to be enhanced by amending the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code.

Obviously, our government is just as concerned as the Canadian public about protecting our children from sexual predators. But as for the arguments that the courts of this country are too soft on these offenders, that their current sentences are not severe enough, that sex offenders ought to have their basic rights withdrawn, that these predators get released without any concerns about children's safety, I have been hearing them for years from the other side of this House. They may get great press coverage, but they do nothing for public safety, as I have already said.

The Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is “to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society”. The objectives of sentencing in the Criminal Code include denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring those who would commit offences and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders in acknowledging the harm they have done to victims and to the community. The most vulnerable victims in our society are our children, as has already been said.

Canada is totally opposed to the use of draconian measures like the death penalty or the various forms of “three strikes and you're out” legislation, which would call for life sentences with no chance for parole. Our legal system has always respected the discretionary power of judges to adapt their sentences to the severity of the offence, the offender's behaviour, and the risk that offender poses to society.

A judge who has taken into consideration all the facts and all the testimony on the circumstances of the offence and the situation of the offender is in a better position than the members of the opposition to bring down a sentence that is appropriate to each case.

The recent Speech from the Throne confirmed that the protection of children continues to be a key priority for the Government of Canada. As a part of this renewed commitment to protect children from sexual predators, the government has reinstated the former Bill C-20, now Bill C-12, regarding the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

This legislation proposes criminal law reforms that would provide increased protection to be given to children against abuse, neglect and sexual exploitation. It would strengthen the child pornography provisions by broadening the definition of written child pornography and narrowing the existing defences to one defence of public good.

Bill C-12 would also create a new prohibited category of sexual exploitation of young persons resulting from the existence of such factors as the age of the young person, the difference in age and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person.

Bill C-12 would increase the maximum penalties for offences against children and would make the commission of an offence against any child an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. It would also facilitate testimony by a child and other vulnerable victims and witnesses.

These changes would build upon amendments that have been in force since July 2002 for protecting children from sexual exploitation through the use of new technologies. These amendments addressed the communication of child pornography through the Internet and created a new offence of luring that made it illegal to communicate with a child on the Internet for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child. The changes also simplified the procedure to prosecute Canadians who sexually exploit children in other countries.

Another example of our focus on the protection of Canadians from sexual predators is the reinstatement in the House of Commons of former Bill C-23, now Bill C-16, the sexual offender information registration act, as was mentioned by my hon. colleague who first presented it in the House. That proposal seeks to establish a national sex offender registry requiring sexual predators to report to police agencies on an annual basis, which will allow rapid police investigation through an address searchable database. Under the proposal, failure to register would be a Criminal Code offence with serious penal consequences.

The February 2 Speech from the Throne also indicated a new commitment by the government to do more to ensure the safety of children through a strategy to counter sexual exploitation of children on the Internet. Under the lead of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we are working with our federal, provincial and territorial, private sector and international partners in the development of a strategy to coordinate and enhance our efforts to counter child sexual exploitation on the Internet.

Certainly I would be remiss if I did not point out that in 1997, when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code were amended to toughen up the provisions against the most violent sexual predators.

The private member's bill before us today seeks to amend these provisions to go after repeat sexual offenders against children. Really, that is exactly what the 1997 amendments did. Individuals who are declared dangerous offenders by the courts are now subject to a mandatory indeterminate sentence. The 1997 amendments also included a provision that permits judges to impose a long term offender designation resulting in up to 10 years of community supervision after serving a penitentiary term.

Moreover, in 1997, we also toughened up the conditions for recognizance under section 810, particularly by adding section 810.2, a new category dealing with serious personal injury offences. Section 810 has been very useful to the police in protecting vulnerable persons—even when there was no conviction, or even charges against a potential sexual predator likely to attack children.

I would also like to say a word about the 1993 Criminal Code amendments that created a potentially life-long order of prohibition, prohibiting convicted sexual offenders from frequenting daycare centres, schoolyards, playgrounds, public parks and swimming places where children are likely to be seen.

The order also prohibits these offenders from seeking or continuing any employment, whether remunerated or volunteer, in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority. Another provision was added to permit an individual to obtain a peace bond—a protective order lasting up to a year—if he or she fears that another person will commit a sexual offence against a child.

In closing, I want to insist that all efforts have been made in order to protect Canada's children.

While recognizing the validity of the concerns of the hon. member for Crowfoot with respect to sexual predators on children, I simply do not believe that his proposal would improve the existing provisions.

Moreover, the latest reforms now before Parliament will translate into changes in our laws to give our children even better protection.

We also are doing everything we can for the safety of Canada's children. It is for the sake of our children that we have to stop scaring them with the worst, most heinous crimes cited in the House. In fact, sexual predators are not the majority of criminals but the minority, and thank God that is the case.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will understand why it is difficult for me to resist the temptation to take part in this afternoon's debate. We have just heard a version of the truth that strikes me as very odd. It does not match at all what I understand to be the question at issue.

First, let us consider whether a precedent is being set today. In my opinion, that would be a good place to start. In fact, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker—you must know this, because you are so objective and non-partisan—the House has been adopting similar motions for 30 years. It has been 30 years; that is a long time. I know, because I have been here a long time as well.

In 1970, 1972 and 1986, not only did we have similar motions but they were unanimously passed by the House of Commons. Unanimously.

I am sure that my hon. colleagues opposite who have spoken against the motion had not considered what I have just said, and that, in the light of these facts, they might want to change their minds and vote in favour of the motion proposed by the hon. government House leader.

Moreover, in 1991, 1996 and 1999, and even as recently as 2002, the House adopted motions absolutely identical to the one proposed today. I know something about those, because in 1996, 1999 and 2002, I was the government House leader, and so I remember it well. We already know it is not without precedent.

I should add, because some hon. members spoke about what they see as a democratic deficit, that in fact the democratic deficit is on the other side of the House, and we see what has happened.

The hon. members opposite wanted a motion that would reinstate private members' bills—not government bills but private members' bills. The House, in its wisdom, passed the motion. That means that now, an hon. member—more often than not someone from the opposition—can rise in the House and revive a private member's bill, at the stage already completed. At the same time, they say, “No, this rule is good for us, but it is not good for you, over on the government side”.

There is a democratic deficit on the other side of the House. I will come back to that later. The hon. government House leader has moved a motion, and we have just established that it is exactly identical to, the same as, those in past sessions, many of which passed unanimously.

Yet, what does the opposition do? The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, who was an excellent parliamentary secretary and is a known expert on the matter, told us earlier, and rightfully so, that in fact the motion does not reinstate any bill. It simply authorizes the government to bring back a bill from the previous session at the stage already debated and approved by this House. That is all it does.

Then we are left to ask the question, if the House has already voted on a piece of legislation, the hon. member across who has said there is a democratic deficit, why is he against our accepting the fact that the House has already voted on it? Is it not the basic concept of respecting the democratic principles to accept the fact that we have already voted regardless of whether we voted in favour or against?

Surely the House has voted and that should be respected. However, the hon. member said that it does not count. He wants a second kick at the can.

Mr. Speaker, in the unlikely event that I have not convinced you, let me tell you what other scheme the opposition is up to.

The government moved a motion, the one introduced by the hon. leader of the government in the House of Commons. The opposition introduced an amendment. Some would say fair game; any motion can be amended. However the opposition does not want the House to vote on its amendment. Why do I say that? It is simple. I know a few procedural tricks myself.

The opposition introduced a subamendment. For the benefit of all colleagues and perhaps anyone who is listening to this debate, when we are dealing with a motion as opposed to a bill, an amendment can be introduced and then a subamendment can be introduced. When the subamendment is dealt with, a new subamendment can be introduced so that we never get back to the original motion so that the government cannot move the previous question. If the government cannot move the previous question, that means the debate will go on forever and the motion will never be voted on. That is exactly what it means and I challenge any member across the way to tell me it means anything else. It means that the first motion cannot be voted on.

The opposition has created a situation where the only way to resolve the impasse is for the hon. minister to invoke closure. There is no other way, otherwise the democratic principle of voting on the motion can never be achieved. It can only be achieved by putting a motion that the debate end at some time because otherwise it will not end. If the hon. member says that is not true, then let him remove the subamendment and let him remove the amendment and let us debate the main motion.

Obviously the opposition does not intend to do that because it has created the two scenarios to force the government to move closure and then the opposition members stand here and sanctimoniously claim that the government is otherwise undemocratic because it has moved closure. They are the ones who provoked it. Did they not think we would see through that? Did they think that Canadians would not understand what I have just said? It is crystal clear. I am sure all Canadians understand how Parliament works. I am sure they understand that what the opposition is doing here is not democracy but the denial of it. That is what we have before us today.

I look forward to the exchange with the hon. member in questions and comments later when he explains to us how he was pretending with crocodile tears that there was some sort of democratic deficit, as he referred to it, because the hon. minister moved closure.

The hon. minister proposed a motion which we recognize has already been voted on democratically by the House of Commons, a debatable motion, a votable motion. Not only did members across not want to vote to accept that which the House had already voted on, which they should, they did not want to accept the principle that the motion in question be debated because they introduced an amendment and then a subamendment to stop us from getting back to the main motion. That is crystal clear. It would take only a few minutes for anyone who understands anything about how this place works to determine that is the case.

Why is the hon. member across afraid of voting on the motion? Is it, as the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River astutely pointed to earlier today, that the opposition does not know whether it is in favour of the reinstatement motion or against it ? Does the opposition simply want to amend it and subamend it so that it can be debated for eternity and thereby force the government to use closure so that in fact we vote on the closure motion?

In the end this will be quite interesting. I do not know when the closure vote will take place but presumably it will be very soon. After we vote on the subamendment and the amendment, I will be curious to see how the hon. member votes on the main motion. If he votes against the main motion, that means he fails to respect the fact that members have already voted on that issue. If he votes for the main motion, then I am forced to ask the question, why did he bother to put the amendment and the subamendment if he was in favour of the original proposition unamended?

Canadians will have to ask themselves these questions about the behaviour of the hon. member across and all of his colleagues who have proposed the amendment and the subamendment.

I would be very curious to know where the Conservatives opposite get their facts. May I also remind this House, since the member has now declared himself a Conservative—I must say, better him than me, and he can be sure I will never try to take his Conservative title away from him—that the Conservative Party had moved similar motions in 1986 and 1991. Perhaps he could tell us if he is against these reinstatement motions.

Could it be that the Conservatives were wrong when they moved these motions in the past? If he is in favour of reinstatement motions, why did his party put forward an amendment and an amendment to the amendment to prevent us from voting on the main motion?

That is what is before us today. In conclusion, allow me to point out what bills we are talking about.

A number of these pieces of legislation are very important.

Bill C-57, the Westbank First Nation self-government bill is an important bill. Why does the hon. member and his colleagues not want us to pick up where we left off on it? What about the Food and Drugs Act amendments, Bill C-56, of the last session? What about Bill C-54, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to transfer money to the provinces? Why is he against us recognizing the work that Parliament has done on these bills? Why is he against the Radiocommunication Act?

There was also the acceleration of the redistribution, Bill C-51. That is an interesting bill. We now hear that the so-called new Conservative Party, if that is not an oxymoron, is now against Bill C-51. It was the House leader of the then Alliance Party who asked for the bill in the first place in order to accelerate the redistribution. Now that party is against reinstating that bill and has threatened to amend the bill once it comes forward.

With regard to capital market fraud, the so-called Enron bill, why is the opposition against us wanting to increase transparency in the finance sector? What about Bill C-43, the Fisheries Act? What about Bill C-40, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act? It is interesting to note that this bill deals with tightening up security and the safety for Canadians, police work, et cetera. That party always alleges it is in favour of such measures, but it is not showing it.

What about Bill C-36, the Archives of Canada act. I remember a then Alliance member who worked very actively with me to amend that bill to make it go forward. I am looking at him right now, the critic for Canadian heritage of the then Alliance party. Why is he against us moving ahead with that bill when he worked so hard to get it improved and passed in the House? I do not understand.

What about the remuneration of military judges? What about Bill C-34, the ethics bill?

Not every one of these bills will be introduced by the government, but a large number of them will be. This is an enabling motion permitting the government to reintroduce every single one of them. Why is the opposition against that?

Let me go a little further by mentioning the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, Bill C-33. The opposition again, allegedly on the side of public safety, is against us moving ahead to bring that bill back at the stage it was at.

Criminal Code amendments should strike a chord with the folks across, but no they do not. I think principles have been overtaken on the opposition side. The hon. member across invoked so-called principles, but hon. members across saw an opportunity to, in their view, embarrass the government for moving closure very early when it came back.

As we have already established, once we have the amendment and the subamendment, we create the condition which can only be solved by having closure. One could argue very successfully, if it was looked at totally objectively, that it is the opposition that is forcing this closure upon the House, not the government.

Let me mention some more legislation. We have Bill C-27, the airport authority bill. Bill C-26, the Railway Safety Act, was in committee. Bill C-23, the registration of information relating to sex offenders, was passed at third reading and sent to the Senate. The opposition does not want us to reinstate that bill. It wants us to go back to the beginning presumably. What does the opposition have against us trying to improve the safety of Canadians by proceeding with the legislation in a more expeditious way, recognizing the work already done by hon. members of the House?

There are more bills. There is Bill C-7, the accountability of aboriginal communities bill. Surely hon. members would be in favour of that because they keep invoking it in speeches in the House of Commons. Assisted human reproduction, Bill C-13, was a bill that stayed for years in the House at various stages. There were white papers, preliminary bills, final bills, witnesses all over the place, and finally we received a conclusion to it and it was sent to the other place where it was not quite concluded there.

Why should we have to restart work that has already been done? Why can we not respect the democratic will of members who have seen fit to vote on that issue in the past and send it to the Senate. Surely that is respecting the democratic institutions, not the other way around.

Why does the hon. member not withdraw the subamendment and amendment? Of course we know that will not to happen because the opposition members are up to using procedural tricks to stop the government from proceeding with this. That is what they are doing. They are being excessively partisan again. The way they are behaving now it is a small wonder Canadians do not trust the opposition to form a government.

In conclusion, why do we not just carry the motion right now and reinstate those bills right where they were or allow the ministers in each case to reinstate the bills? It is not to skip steps in bills. It is merely to recognize the work already done by us, members of the House. What could be more democratic than that? That is what should happen right now, and surely that is the correct approach.

The hon. member's party itself gave unanimous consent for that exact motion before. I know because I put the motion to the House at the time. It passed without even debate in the House in the past. The hon. member knows that is correct.

Why does the member not remove the amendment and subamendment and carry the motion right now? Why does the member not stop this unnecessary foolishness of trying to force the government to do this in order to pretend that the government is moving closure whereas it would not have otherwise.

We know the truth. We all know what it is like. We want to recognize the work done by members on all sides of the House on all those pieces of legislation and recognize the value of their work.

I ask the hon. member again to allow this vote to take place right away. Then we can get to business, complete this legislation and proceed with other legislation, all for the betterment of Canadians. That is what we are for on this side of the House. Let us see if the hon. member across is in favour of his partisanship or is in favour of helping Canadians.