Bill C-7 (Historical)

Public Safety Act, 2002

An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety

International Transfer of Offenders Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, which, the House will recall, was introduced by the former solicitor general, the current member for Malpeque, on April 28, 2003. The purpose of the bill at that time was to replace the old Transfer of Offenders Act. The Transfer of Offenders Act has been in effect for over 20 years.

I would like to say as I begin that the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill. I shall explain the reasons. We must admit, however, that there are certain elements in the principles of the bill with which we agree. I will talk about them after I have listed the main reasons that we cannot support the bill. In short, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose it.

We know that the bill proposes substantial amendments to the current act; in section 3, it clearly states that the primary purpose of this act is to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling offenders to serve their sentences in Canada or in their country of origin. Later provisions of Bill C-15 set out the conditions and procedures used to achieve this purpose.

The fact that this bill is directed towards facilitating this administrative procedure is totally desirable and the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting the guiding principle.

In brief explanation of what this bill contains, I will say that clauses 4 and 5 list the criteria for eligibility to make a request for transfer.

The consent requirement set out in clause 8 is essential to the smooth operation of this procedure if it is to respect the principles of fundamental justice. It is clearly stipulated that the transfer requires the consent of the foreign entity, Canada and the offender. Clause 9 sets out the rules governing the consent of Quebec and the provinces. It is specifically stated that consent must be given before any transfer for which Quebec and the provinces will be responsible.

Once again the Bloc Quebecois, which regularly reaffirms Quebec's jurisdiction in a number of areas and which condemns federal interference in those jurisdictions, agrees with this section that consent will be required before any transfers to Quebec can take place.

The assessment criteria are set out in clause 10 of Bill C-15. As stated in this clause, it is up to the minister to assess the factors related to the transfer. It is also a matter of whether the offender's return would constitute a threat to the security of Canada. The minister will also take into consideration the offender's intentions of residence, and finally whether family ties are sufficiently strong to warrant granting the request for transfer.

If a foreigner has been found guilty of an offence in Canada, the minister must also take into account the likelihood of the offender's subsequently committing acts of terrorism. In light of the events of September 11, 2001, the whole notion of whether an offender is likely to subsequently commit acts of terrorism becomes important.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this clause address factors relating to assessing requests from young offenders. Clause 11 stipulates that requests must be in writing and refusals must be justified.

Clause 12 of Bill C-15 would make verification of the offender's consent the minister's responsibility.

Clauses 13 to 15 deal with the continued enforcement of offenders' sentences, with the purpose of complying with the criminal law of foreign countries, a principle with which we agree. The rule of law must be upheld.

Clause 16 sets out conditions for probation and the related equivalency.

As for clauses 17 to 20, they deal with the terms and conditions for the transfer of young people.

The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that special attention ought to be paid to these clauses. Expert advice could certainly enlighten us, especially in the context of the opinion of the Court of Appeal of Quebec. That is the position of my party.

I thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for giving me the opportunity to speak to this important bill. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who is a public safety critic, had the opportunity to say—and he will also have the opportunity to repeat—that the Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-15. I will explain why.

We cannot be in favour of this bill since, despite the recent opinion of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in the Government of Quebec's order regarding the reference concerning Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, the federal government decided to go ahead and impose adult sentences on young persons.

In the context of this debate on Bill C-7, I would like to take the opportunity in this House to acknowledge the work the Bloc Quebecois has done on the bill and to remind hon. members of the work of our former colleague and Bloc Quebecois member for Berthier—Montcalm, who literally went crusading to every corner of Quebec, where Quebeckers reaffirmed his opposition to the treatment of young offenders.

The Quebec Appeal Court ruled that the provision in Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts which established that adult sentences could be imposed on young offenders aged 14 and over, rather than 16 and over, for serious crimes, contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that this provision violated section 7 of the Charter, by requiring the young offender to prove he should not be sentenced as an adult.

Hon. members will understand the importance of what is termed in law the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the young person to convince the court why he ought not to be sentenced as an adult. The Quebec appeal court judges found that this presumption constitutes a breach of the rights, freedom and psychological welfare of young offenders and does not conform to the principles of fundamental justice.

Bill C-15 provides that young offenders aged between 14 and 17 transferred to Canada will automatically be deemed to be serving an adult sentence, as defined in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, if their sentence is longer than the maximum youth sentence that could have been imposed in Canada.

This is where we have a problem. We in the Bloc Quebecois feel this clause contravenes the very principles set out by the Quebec appeal court and thus violates section 7 of the Charter.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois will be unable to support Bill C-15, which includes provisions that are in contravention of the Charter and impact negatively on young offenders' rights.

Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I will not go into the alcohol question in detail, because I feel the issue is broader and more basic than that.

The advantage of self-government is that it is a primary right. It is not just an advantage, but the primary right of any people in the world to exercise self-determination, to be able to make its own choices about all the parameters of its present and its future, and to try to eradicate its past, or at least that part of its past that has been less than stellar, as has been the case with the first nations over the past 130 years.

It is a fundamental right, but the exercise of that right is what is of most interest. We hear all manner of things about the first nations, and not just since I have been the critic for that issue. For some years now, we have been hearing about their high unemployment rate, supposedly indicating a lack of desire to work, and their problems with multiple addictions, supposedly indicating poor parenting skills. We have heard that they do not have to pay either income tax or other taxes. How many times have we heard all these things, things that are wrong 99% of the time?

Take the tax issue, for example. Most members of the first nations work off the reserve, and they pay the same taxes as everyone else. Not all communities have problems; others are functioning perfectly well, achieving their potential, developing.

And which communities are these? The ones with self-government, the ones exercising that inherent right to self-government. We need just look at the situation in James Bay, at how, since the late 1970s, the James Bay Cree first nation has developed. We have had a number of occasions to meet Ted Moses and his chief advisor, Roméo Saganash. It has developed in an amazing way, with its own businesses, creating jobs and providing its young people with training.

I have also referred to the agreement with Hydro-Québec. Their right to self-government is what has enabled them to negotiate as a government with bodies such as Hydro-Québec or the Quebec government on the required training for their young people, their placement in specialized work sites, and the training of Cree administrators so as to promote and achieve economic and social growth for their community.

That is self-government: it ensures, on the one hand, that people telling all kinds of half-truths about the first nations finally shut their mouths and, on the other hand, that they do not just shut their mouths, but that the first nations demonstrate their ability to develop and create a future for the next generation. Currently, in most aboriginal communities, young people do not exactly have a rosy future: they are born knowing that their future is a dead-end.

In Weymontachie, it is unbelievable! In Winneway, in Barriere Lake, what is there for aboriginal children? A first nation that, often due to the government's inertia, lacks self-government and does not have the chance to control its own future, establish its own laws and its own parameters for economic development, employment, education and so forth is the one that suffers most.

That is why, in 1998, the Erasmus-Dussault commission said, “The process has to be accelerated”. That is why I was not merely disappointed but enraged when I saw, last year, that this darned government had imposed Bill C-7 on governance. We had to debate legislation that nobody wanted and that did nothing to accelerate the self-government process among the first nations. It was an attempt to force legislation that nobody wanted down the throats of all the first nations in Canada, while at the same time, the 80 negotiating tables on self-government lacked resources to accelerate the process. That is what is frustrating.

If there had been a different minister than the one who preceded the current minister, one able to acknowledge that self-government needs to be implemented more quickly because that is the only way the first nations can develop, to ensure harmony and break the cycle of poverty imposed on them for the past 130 years, perhaps two or three other self-government agreements could have been concluded, instead of wasting the time of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources with legislation that nobody wanted.

To get back to self-government, that is the first condition. When I see an agreement like that of Westbank, when this community came to see me, before I even read the agreement, on principle, I was full of enthusiasm for the idea of supporting them. When I read the agreement, I was even happier, because this is a wise and balanced agreement.

It is the same for the Innu in Quebec. That is a balanced agreement which takes nothing away from the territory of Quebec, which makes it possible for the Innu to make their own laws on their own territory and, outside their own territory, for them to share traditional activities, including hunting and fishing, with non-aboriginals. These new rules will be clearer than they are today.

There are some things in these agreements that move us and remind us that we have indeed reached the 21st century, that we have evolved over the decades, and that we have been recognizing this inherent right for a few years now.

We have to stop procrastinating. We must accelerate these self-government agreements. We have made a good start; in Quebec the process has begun for most of the first nations. We must ensure that, within this country, we respect each other, live in dignity on either side, and are able to develop with our own culture, our own institutions and the procedures determined in our own communities. That is self-government. That is sovereignty. That is independence.

That is what we are aiming for. It will happen in Quebec, for the Quebec people. When Quebec becomes sovereign, as will certainly happen in a few years, the first nations within Quebec's territory will have understood that respect for indigenous people in Quebec is a given. They will understand that respect for the dignity of aboriginal peoples—nations dealing with one another as equals—is now a given for the vast majority of the population.

When, at the general council of the Bloc Quebecois last year, I saw the ovation that occurred when respect for first nations and negotiations equal to equal were mentioned, I said to myself that we have come a long way in the last 30 years.

On the committee, I did not find the same feeling, or only some of the time. That is why my enthusiasm may have sometimes overflowed, as did that of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. That is because we wanted to share it with our colleagues. We think we may have succeeded halfway.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have often had the chance to speak about this kind of first nations self-government agreement, particularly that of the Westbank First Nation. In fact, in December, we had an opportunity to proceed quickly to adopt this bill, which will finalize many years of work on negotiations. It has also been a long task for the Westbank First Nation, which has consulted freely. All residents of the territory have been consulted, sometimes more than once on very precise questions. The people of Westbank have participated in a fine democratic exercise.

I take this occasion to acknowledge the large delegation from Westbank behind me in the gallery. They have been here since the beginning of this debate of crucial importance to their future. They have been attending our deliberations since December. Unfortunately, in December we disappointed them because one Conservative member refused to give his consent so that we could proceed quickly with this bill.

I shall not stop repeating that the most beautiful thing that can happen in Quebec or in Canada is that the major recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples—also known as the Erasmus—Dussault commission—should become reality.

One of these recommendations, which is also found in the work of the Westbank community, was to make it possible to create vast reforms over the next 20 years, that is by 2018. These reforms were to have adequate resources so that all first nations in Quebec and Canada could benefit from self-government agreements based on one major principle: the inherent right to self-government.

I have been the critic on this issue for two years now. In committee and here in the House, whenever I hear some of my colleagues say, “Should we concede this or that to them? We must not give them too many powers”, I say, and I repeat, that it is not up to us to concede or give greater or lesser powers. They have these powers because of this principle that is recognized in the Constitution itself—the inherent right to self-government.

Members of the first nations will also tell you it is a right given them by the Creator. That may seem spiritual, but sometimes it is good to have a little spirituality in this Parliament to remind us of fundamental philosophical truths.

The first nations were here long before the first Europeans. They not only had rights, but owned the land. Over the years, the Europeans of the day imposed a different way of life and institutions that were foreign to the first nations. With respect to democracy, they imposed principles that the first nations did not support. Surprisingly enough, when the first Europeans arrived, most of the first nations had democratic systems and institutions and even highly developed electoral colleges, and we borrowed from them in setting up our own parliamentary and democratic system.

We destroyed everything. We said that their way of doing things was not right. We imposed our views. Almost 130 years ago, we also imposed the most despicable legislation I have ever seen in my life aside from apartheid in South Africa, and that is the Indian Act. We forced them to do things a certain way. We told them we would stick them on reserves, on very limited lands, but that they should not worry because we would provide for their basic needs. That is how we have been treating them for 130 years.

We made them subservient. We took away any means they had to develop. We also took away the rights that every person should be entitled to in the 21st century. I am talking about the right to run their own affairs, the right to make a decision, the right to manage and even the right to borrow money from the bank. We took away their ability to develop with their own territories and resources.

How many logging companies in Quebec and Canada have helped Parliament and successive federal governments evict the first nations and move them off the ancestral lands they had occupied for decades? All to allow the logging companies, often under foreign ownership, clear cut their ancestral lands, preventing aboriginals from developing their own resources and practising traditional activities, such as hunting and fishing.

How many injustices have the first nations been subjected to over the past 130 years, particularly since the Indian Act came into force? What were first nations children subjected to, when they were taken literally from their families and placed in schools to give them an education that was inconsistent with their culture, and also preventing them from speaking their own language? How can pride and a desire to build a better future be instilled in such circumstances?

How many oil companies, through pressure and lobbying and, at certain points in Canadian history, by basically buying off the government, managed to evict entire bands from their ancestral lands in order to exploit the resources underground? Mining companies did it too.

No royalties were paid until recently, and I could tell the House about cases in Quebec. The first nations were never given a share of these resources, be they surface or subsurface. The first nations were moved around, parked on reserves and told, “Poverty for you and economic growth for us”.

The first nations had an awakening, particularly within the past two decades. They began to believe that they had rights under the Canadian Constitution, rights too under international law and the authority, as first nations, to ensure that their future development, growth and existence belongs to them. They sought recognition, even internationally.

I am thinking of certain aboriginal leaders from Quebec who went all the way to the UN to assert their rights. At times, they were abrupt, but who would not have been, given all the historical elements that have resulted in their rights being trampled on and them made victims of a kind of code of silence to eliminate them at various periods in the past? Who would not have been abrupt in their condemnation, before the entire world, of Canada's treatment of the first nations?

We would have done the same. In fact, awareness of the situation was so much heightened as a result that international bodies such as the United Nations Organization decided to award the aboriginal peoples of Canada and all over the world rights on the international level. They decided to recognize them as real nations according to the UN definition. They also decided to accompany the world's aboriginal peoples in bringing pressure to bear on governments, particularly those in the industrialized world, to recognize aboriginal rights and ensure the provision of all the tools required for their development.

Sometimes Canada has ignored these appeals from such respected organizations as the UN. Even quite recently, during our debate on Bill C-7 on first nations governance, the former minister of Indian and northern affairs wanted to impose on Canada's aboriginal peoples an agreement on governance that they did not want, one that was contrary to their interests, and was unanimously opposed. Two members, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and your humble servant, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, had to battle to make the Liberal members of the committee and the government see reason and realize that this bill did not suit the first nations.

It took both energy and time to make the government understand some fundamental truths, things as basic as “the reality of the modern world 101”, to make them understand this is not the South Africa of apartheid days. As world bodies have called upon the governments of the industrialized world to do, there had to be openness to the realities of the first nations and they had to be provided with the means to develop their full potential and realize their inherent right to self-government.

Believe it or not, in order to get the government to grasp just those basic principles, principles recognized in the Constitution moreover, took a 55-day filibuster. I say day, but it was often evenings or nights. We had to keep it up for 55 days. I have inquired of the clerks at the table if there was any precedent for such a long filibuster, and they assured me, though they did not look into it in depth, that according to the combined memories of the clerks over the years, this was one of the longest in the history of Parliament.

It was simply to make the government understand these fundamental truths about the inherent right to self-government, which had supposedly been recognized by this Parliament, that is, the right given to the first nations by the Creator. It was to make them understand that now, in 2003, peoples who have been defined and recognized as nations by the United Nations cannot be forced to accept what they do not want.

Moreover, it would be normal, if their future were being discussed, to welcome representatives from the first nations to the committee table, so that they could explain their realities to us, which we do not always understand, and their lifestyle, which we also do not understand, and their history, which escapes us as well, even though we know through history books about the atrocities committed toward aboriginal people in Quebec and in Canada.

It took us 55 days to explain to the government members—supposedly sensitive to the sovereignty of countries and people—the basic principles of the sovereignty of peoples. Of course, we also took the opportunity to speak about the sovereignty of the Quebec people as well. Who better than a Quebec sovereignist Bloc Quebecois member of Parliament to explain the value of a country's sovereignty to the Liberal members who think they know something about it?

It was the perfect occasion to explain to the first nations what the people of Quebec have been going through as a people for decades. We explained to them the attempts we were making to take our destiny in our own hands and not be dependent on another people, the Canadian people, for decisions that concern our future. We explained the policies that meet with widespread approval in Quebec but not here; parental leave for instance, a simple transfer of part of employment insurance as permitted by the Employment Insurance Act.

We also took that opportunity to explain that the fiscal imbalance is crushing the people of Quebec, the same way as the lack of funds transferred to aboriginal peoples to meet incredible challenges in terms of health, economic development and social development. This lack of funding is harmful to the future of aboriginal peoples.

We talked about the situation in Quebec, which has absorbed 51% of the cuts in health, education and social assistance funding that were imposed by the current Prime Minister when he was finance minister. We talked about that, too. We were able to discuss with the first nations, and my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and I became their brothers, when we were honoured with the eagle feather.

Agreements like the Westbank agreement should be fostered. Self-government agreements should not only be fostered, but accelerated in order to give first nations the tools for developing their full potential, and for meeting the many challenges they face. The first nations do not only have problems, but incredible challenges to meet. They have the necessary talent to take up these challenges and win.

Some communities face daily horrors. My colleague from Champlain and I had the opportunity to visit a number of reserves in his riding, Weymontachie in particular. Weymontachie has unbelievable housing problems. Almost all the homes have chronic mould. My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm and I went to Winneway in Abitibi. That is another first nation with problems, but their problems have to do with education. It They would have liked to have a self-government agreement and resources, as well as compensation for the harm caused by the federal government over the past 130 years. These first nations would have liked to have these tools, but they did not have them to meet these challenges.

In Quebec, oddly enough, there is no one better than a sovereignist MP to talk about the fundamental value of sovereignty principles. The first agreement in Canada with the first nations was signed by the greatest sovereignist leader Quebec has ever known: René Lévesque. During his first mandate he signed an agreement with the James Bay Cree. It was an economic development agreement, which also brought about social development. The greatest sovereignist leader extended a hand to the Cree people. All Quebec sovereignists and all Quebeckers in general, with a few exceptions, extend a hand to the aboriginal people.

There were other examples, but the best known is the ratification of what was called the peace of the braves agreement. It complements the agreement reached by Mr. Lévesque's government at the end of the 1970s. The peace of the braves was signed by Bernard Landry, another great sovereignist leader in Quebec. Hydro-Québec also made an addition to this agreement by signing a treaty not so long ago on the development of hydroelectric resources and respect for aboriginal peoples and their prerogatives on their own land.

There was also a process that lasted about fifteen years and led to an agreement in principle with Quebec's Innu communities. Once again, this process started under Lucien Bouchard. Mr. Parizeau tried to do the same thing with the Attikamek-Montagnais communities in 1994, if my memory serves me.

How is it that sovereignist leaders and sovereignist governments in Quebec were the ones to initiate this dialogue, which accelerated negotiations with the first nations on self-government and the provision of development tools to allow their community, whose population is on the rise, to develop? That is just it. Sovereignists fighting for freedom and the emancipation of their people—the Quebec people—are sensitive not just to the importance of such freedom, but also to the importance, for a people, of making its own decisions, the importance of instilling in its children a sense of pride about the future, not a provincial sense of pride but rather a national one.

The National Assembly is called the National Assembly and not the legislative assembly. It is this enthusiasm and this pride which I saw in the first nations that have led me, along with my Bloc colleagues, to invest such enthusiasm and to work tirelessly to accelerate the implementation of self-government agreements, in order to understand what they are experiencing and show what we are experiencing too.

I am convinced that, this way, all the peoples in this land will be able to live in harmony in the future, including the aboriginal peoples, the sovereign people of Quebec and the sovereign people of Canada.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I also am glad to see another woman taking the position in the chair.

There are three motions on Bill C-12. I will briefly speak to the two government motions. Government Motion No. 1 is a grammatical correction amendment to clause 6. This is a technical motion that proposes to correct a grammatical mistake in the French version of an amendment made in committee. Clause 6 was amended in committee to add the offence of “advertising” a recording made through the commission of an offence of voyeurism to the listing of other prohibited acts regarding such voyeuristic recordings. The words added in the French version require an indirect object, but they are placed in a sentence where all of the other verbs require a direct object.

The amendment would replace the expression “faire de la publicité” with the verb “annoncer”, a verb which is of a similar nature to the other verbs or prohibitions used in the clause and which is also the same French verb used elsewhere in the Criminal Code for the English equivalent of “advertising”. This would make the French and the English versions consistent.

I will move now to government Motion No. 3, which is a coordinating amendment on clause 27. Again this is a technical motion to amend clause 27 of Bill C-12. It replaces Bill C-12's reference to the public safety bill that died on the Order Paper with the current reference to that same bill as reinstated on February 11.

Clause 10 of Bill C-12 proposes to amend section 183 of the Criminal Code to add the new voyeurism offences to the list of offences for which criminal investigations can intercept private communications and use video surveillance. Bill C-7, the Public Safety Act, 2002, formerly Bill C-17, also amends section 183 of the Criminal Code to add other offences to the list.

Clause 27 of Bill C-12 is a coordinating clause. It is needed to ensure that the amendments to section 183 proposed by both Bill C-12 and Bill C-7 can come into effect regardless of the order of enactment of these bills.

Accordingly this motion seeks to amend clause 27 of Bill C-12 so that it now refers to the new bill number for the Public Safety Act, Bill C-7, to thereby coordinate both bills' amendments to section 183 of the Criminal Code.

Now to the more substantive matter which the hon. member for Vancouver East has proposed in her motion. I rise today to oppose the motion of the member opposite. I do acknowledge the hard work that has been done by all on this committee.

In effect, this motion seeks to maintain the status quo on child pornography and this is something which neither Canadians nor this government accept. The government believes that the existing child pornography provisions do not go far enough to protect our children against this form of sexual exploitation.

They do not go far enough because they restrict the definition of written child pornography to only those materials that “advocate or counsel” unlawful sexual activity with children. The existing child pornography provisions do not go far enough because they provide two defences for all child pornography offences, including a defence for material that has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose without any harms-based test.

Bill C-12 says no to the status quo while this motion says yes to it. Clause 7 of Bill C-12 proposes two reforms to the existing child pornography provisions. First, it proposes to broaden the existing definition of written child pornography to include written material that describes prohibited sexual activity with children where that description is the dominant characteristic of the material and it is done for a sexual purpose.

Second, Bill C-12 proposes to narrow the two existing defences into one defence of “public good”, a term that is now specifically defined in the bill. Under the new law, no defence would be available where the material or act in question does not serve the public good or where it exceeds or goes beyond what serves the public good. More simply stated, if the risk of harm that it poses outweighs the benefit that it offers to Canadian society, then no defence would be available.

Today's motion goes in the opposite direction of Bill C-12. It says that written materials that consist primarily of descriptions of unlawful sexual activity with children, which descriptions are done for a sexual purpose, are okay. It says that these materials are not child pornography and that they should not fall within the reach of the criminal law.

The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted “for a sexual purpose” in the Sharpe case, 2001, as that which can be reasonably perceived as intended to cause sexual stimulation.

With this interpretation in mind, I find it virtually impossible to comprehend the basis for any argument that seeks to support and protect materials that mostly describe the sexual abuse of children and where these descriptions can be reasonably perceived as intending to cause the reader to be sexually stimulated.

These materials are not okay, as this motion would have us believe. The Criminal Code provides a comprehensive set of prohibitions against the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. The type of written materials that Bill C-12 wants to include in these protections, but which this motion seeks to exclude and to protect, are those that portray or purport to portray children as a class as objects for sexual exploitation. The government recognizes the very real risk of harm that such portrayal and objectification of children pose to our children and to society at large. That is why Bill C-12 proposes to include these types of materials within our definition of child pornography.

The second thing that this motion seeks to do is to maintain the current test for when child pornographic materials should be protected by the defence of artistic merit. Under the current test for artistic merit, the defence is automatically available for material that, objectively viewed, demonstrates some artistic merit, no matter how small and no matter what the risk of harm it may pose.

For example, if the material in question is a written story, the test for the current defence is, objectively viewed, does the story reflect some accepted or recognized literary techniques or styles? If so, the defence is available, irrespective of whether the risk of harm that story poses to children in society outweighs any benefit that it offers.

The government does not agree with this and does not support the existing test for artistic merit and neither do Canadians. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights amended Bill C-12 to define the public good as including acts or materials that are necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, medicine, education or art.

This definition is modelled on the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of the public good in Sharpe. This will help to ensure that the subsequent interpretation of Bill C-12 is guided by the Supreme Court's decision in this case.

The justice committee's amendment of Bill C-12 to include a definition of the public good directly responds to concerns expressed by the arts community and other witnesses who appeared before the committee. They wanted greater clarity in the bill as to what constituted the public good. The justice committee amendment to define the public good responds to this concern.

However, as to the balance of the concerns raised by the arts community witnesses, a number of observations should be made. In a child pornography case, the first question to be considered and answered is whether the work in question meets the Criminal Code's definition of child pornography.

Examples of written works that were described by these witnesses to the justice committee would not meet the existing definition of written child pornography, that is, they could not be said to advocate or counsel unlawful sexual activity with children. Neither would they meet Bill C-12's proposed new definition. That is, they could not be said to be works that, one, were comprised primarily of descriptions of unlawful sexual activity with children and, two, that such descriptions were written for a sexual purpose.

If the material in question meets the definition of child pornography, then the second question to be considered--and it is a question that falls to the courts to determine--is this: Is this material protected by a defence? Under Bill C-12 there would be only one defence and the test for the single defence would be the same for all material. It would be a two-step inquiry that indicates and includes a harms-based test and it would be possible for art to meet such two-step inquiry.

The motion to delete clause 7 of Bill C-12 is not consistent with the objectives of the bill as set out in the preamble, which states:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns regarding the vulnerability of children to all forms of exploitation, including child pornography, sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect--

It is for these reasons that I urge all hon. members to support Canada's children and support Bill C-12 as passed by the justice committee and not to support this motion from the hon. member of the opposition.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada]

moved:

That Bill C-12, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 20 on page 24 with the following:

“27. If Bill C-7, introduced in the 3rd Session of the 37th Parliament and entitled the Public Safety Act, 2002 (the “other Act”), receives royal assent and section 10 of this Act comes into force before the coming into force of any provision of the definition “offence” in section 183 of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 108 of the other Act, then, on the later of that assent and the coming into force of that section 10, paragraph (a) of the definition “offence” in section 183 of the Criminal Code, as enacted by that section 108, is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (xxvii):

(xxvii.1) section 162 (voyeurism),”

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made earlier, I wish to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-17 at the time of prorogation.

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

Reinstatement of Government Bills

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight on one of the bills that was mentioned, Bill C-7.

First, I would like to ask the member, has any member of cabinet said it would be brought back? Second, the member said that the first nations people said they were 100% opposed to it. I am not defending the bill, but when thousands of people are consulted across the country and there were some people during those consultations who were in favour, I do not think the member would want to be on the record saying falsely that 100% are opposed to something when it is not the fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That clearly is just being disregarded in this case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the motion be amended by adding:

“excluding the following bills:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction;

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

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

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

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer some remarks in response to the Speech from the Throne presented yesterday by Her Excellency the Governor General.

Before getting to the substance of my remarks I would like to take a moment, if I may, to make reference to the new political configuration in the House. The past year has been a tumultuous one for Conservatives everywhere in Canada. The bottom line, after all the tumult, is present here before us all today: a united Conservative Party of Canada.

This past year has been a very busy one for Conservatives across the country. The final result is before us today: the new, united Conservative Party of Canada.

I think I can say without fear of reproach that as parliamentarians, as politicians and as people interested in the welfare of our fellow citizens, we all owe a serious debt of gratitude to the member for Calgary Southwest and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. These two men found a way to get over past battles and to focus on the future. They reunited the Conservative family in this country and, as I said a moment ago, I believe we are all the better for it. Parliamentary democracy functions best when there is competition, accountability and respect for the rules of fair play and political courtesy.

I am confident that now that the uncertainty is behind us, Canadians will witness a much more dynamic exchange of ideas here in Ottawa. Our friends who form the government will have to start taking more interest in what is going on here.

This will be good for Parliament and it will be beneficial to our democracy and our country.

As I listened to Her Excellency's remarks yesterday I must say I was more than a little disappointed. This was in fact the Prime Minister's first opportunity to address the nation. It was his day to put a road map on the table telling Canadians where he wants to go, what he wants to achieve and how he intends to achieve it.

Unfortunately, instead of a map we were shown a rather blurry set of directions that gave little indication where anyone was going. There were pages and pages full of carefully crafted claims that did little to tackle the challenges we face as a country, and , in the best tradition of the member for LaSalle—Émard, it made ambiguity appear to be a national virtue.

Her Excellency's speech yesterday spent a lot of time touching on issues dear to the hearts of Liberals everywhere. Unfortunately it had little of substance to say about the more prosaic, more important business of governing the nation and paying for the promises.

The pundits tell us we are going to have an election in the spring. Canadians might well wonder why. Why another election? After all it has only been three and a half years since the last one. We are told that our new Prime Minister needs a mandate from the people. He wants members and friends of the Liberal Party to vindicate him; to put their stamp of approval on his long and ultimately successful campaign to evict his predecessor.

That may well be true but I cannot help thinking that a hasty spring election will also be about rushing to re-election before some nasty truths emerge about steamship contracts, campaign dirty tricks and problems with drug laundering. This is probably the most important point. It will be about denying Canadians the opportunity to express their opinions about a host of contentious issues, from the definition of marriage to the actions of our security forces in the Arar case.

One has to wonder just what the Prime Minister and his colleagues think they are going to talk about during this election campaign. What will they have accomplished during the month or two of this government that would be worth taking to the people? A bunch of promises.

The answer to what he will talk about certainly will not be found in the legislative agenda before the House. It is nothing but legacy leftovers and puffy promises. In fact, it is the stuff of Cottonelle ads.

The government would like Canadians to believe this throne speech is a document that lays out a vision for what the Liberal government intends to do for Canadians. This document is nothing of the sort. This document is no more and no less than an election pamphlet for the Liberal Party of Canada. Given this, it deserves a response worthy of an election pamphlet.

Yesterday's speech was a great pile of platitudes and promises that, if the past is any guide, the government has no intention of keeping.

Canadians remember well another election document, the so-called red book that was written by, guess who, the current Prime Minister. They remember his promises to scrap the GST, to renegotiate NAFTA, to create an independent ethics counsellor, to name but three. I am not quite sure whether they are expecting these current promises to be kept. Liberal election documents, it seems, have a very short shelf life, and with good reason.

The second thing about the government's speech that we need to keep in mind is that it has nothing to do with an agenda for Canada and everything to do with an agenda for the Liberal Party of Canada.

The promises and vision so clearly stated yesterday by Her Excellency on behalf of the government, are not intended to improve life for average Canadians, but are meant to improve the chances for Liberal MPs. This is nothing new.

Yesterday's speech spent quite a bit of time talking about social issues, as well it should. The Prime Minister has let it be known that health care will be a top priority for the government.

As a medical practitioner, who could disagree? I certainly cannot. However as someone who has heard the promises for a decade now, I am not going to hold my breath.

I believe we can all see that these promises to improve the health care system are nothing but platitudes and that, as with so many other promises, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have no intention of keeping them.

Last week the government promised to give the provinces an additional $2 billion to help fund their health care system; a laudable promise, but should we have faith? One week the government says that it will pay that amount and the next it claims it has no money. It is like a political yo-yo.

Speaking of yo-yos, the Prime Minister says that public servants play an important role in government and in the formation of public policy. I agree, they do, so why has the Prime Minister been playing games, playing games in fact with their lives?

Since coming to office he has ordered a hiring freeze, frozen salaries, except for his government's senior political staff, and has sent mixed messages to thousands of employees about their jobs and their futures in the public service. The public service needs stability to function properly. Long term planning means just that. It cannot be done properly if the Prime Minister muses publicly, as he has been doing, that he just might or might not make major changes to the public service.

In any event, let me finish my thoughts about the Prime Minister's promise to give the provinces another $2 billion in health care funding. The real story here is the $25 billion the Prime Minister cut as finance minister, not the $2 billion he is grudgingly giving back, strings attached and all. I admit that $2 billion is nothing to sneeze at, but when we are trying to fill a $25 billion crater it is not really that much. It is a little like trying to fill a bomb crater with a bucket full of sand.

The government also says that it intends to work with the provinces to develop co-ordinated approaches for disease control and to help reduce waiting times in hospitals and health clinics. The Prime Minister and his colleagues had 10 years to do these important things and for 10 years they have done little but cut funding and, frankly, play shell games where ministers promised: funding but not now; new equipment but only later; and more personnel but only after negotiations and endless collaboration. In the meantime, the hospital lists get longer, the number of Canadians seeking diagnostic equipment grows larger and the ability of our health care system to respond adequately to a rapidly aging population is diminished.

At the Orleans Clinic, where I am currently retraining to return to medical practice, I met a young woman the other day who told me how the Liberal approach to health care translates into the real world. Her doctor moved to an inconvenient location for her and she was not able to visit him any longer. When she saw this new face in the clinic she said “You haven't been here before. Are you coming here to practice, doctor?” I had to say that I was simply retraining and would be going back to Alberta. She literally begged me to stay so she could have a family physician. Here in this big metropolitan city of Ottawa this woman cannot find a GP who will take her on his roster.

Health care a la Liberal Party of Canada; that is an embarrassment and a shame.

The throne speech has made significant mention of a new approach to providing modern AIDS drugs for underdeveloped countries. As a compassionate nation I support those initiatives, but let me contrast that with a domestic issue. It does remind me of a domestic issue that was handled so poorly by the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. I cannot understand why individuals infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood were turned down for help from this government. They begged for help and the government cried that it could not hear them. I would like an explanation from this Prime Minister for that approach.

By the way, we did find $100 million. What was that $100 million for? It was for executive jets, Challenger jets. They can fly on Challenger jets while the hepatitis C victims, sorry, can do without.

Aboriginal people face some of the most pressing social problems of any group in our society. What does the government say about that? There will be a new cabinet committee on aboriginal affairs and a new aboriginal secretariat in the Privy Council Office.

We also heard that the government does not intend to reintroduce Bill C-7, the first nations governance act. We did not hear anything original, and that is the problem. There were lots of platitudes and process but no real substance.

Members opposite like to boast that the federal government spends billions of dollars every year on aboriginal issues, but money does not solve all problems, although I am sure we would never be able to convince our friends across the aisle of that fact.

At the risk of being castigated, what I think our aboriginal people need is hope. They need hope that the issues that are important to them will actually be addressed, not just talked about.

Let me tell the House about Skipper Potts, a young native educator from Pincher Creek. This is a man who gives hope to the students in his school. He determined that the kids were not graduating from grade 12 so he set about, with no funding, no big programs and no big help from anyone, to speak with the parents and talk about the school programs, the sports programs and the importance of education in their lives. In a few short years he took the one native graduate in that school to a dozen graduates this year. Skipper Potts gives hope to the kids.

Aboriginal people need improved health care. They need more opportunities for education and employment close to where they live. Like everyone else, they need affordable housing and support for their young people and local communities. They need, indeed they deserve greater recognition for the unique role they have played in Canadian history but, above all, they need hope and commitment. They need hope and a commitment from the federal government to actually do something. They need more Skipper Potts.

Yesterday's speech also referred to education, quality of life and allowing Canadians to develop the necessary skills that will permit them to lead productive and fulfilling lives.

Apart from the fact that education is not the domain of the federal government, I find all this talk from the other side about the plight of our university students most interesting. I wonder where the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues believe the problems arose from if not from their very own policies as a government over the past number of years.

Today our sons and daughters are graduating from institutes of higher learning with large and, in some cases, crippling debt load. Students in medicine, business and other such courses that demand years of extra training are particularly hard hit. They are coming out of school with thousands of dollars in accumulated debt.

Each year, more and more young people are finding that they do not have the financial resources they need for post-secondary education. Those who choose to go to college or university and take on the resulting debt load face an inflexible and outdated loan system.

It is not that there is no money available; there are a number of bursary and loan programs. The problem stems from accessibility, eligibility and flexibility in the repayment structures. The fact is that the whole student loan system should be reviewed, because education is of the utmost importance.

Education is the gateway to knowledge, career success and a rich, vibrant and successful culture. Young people thirst for knowledge. They are banging at the doors of universities and colleges everywhere. Surely we owe it to them to see that they can fulfill their dreams.

The Prime Minister has been making much ado about his so-called new deal for the cities. My question is: Why should we limit ourselves to Canada's large metropolitan areas? Yes, they are the home to a large portion of our population. Yes, their municipal infrastructure is in a desperate state of disrepair. Yes, they are engines that drive our economy.

However, if our cities are economic engines, then it is the farmers, the fishermen and the forest workers who provide the fuel. We on this side believe there must be a new deal for Truro, not just Toronto; for Vulcan, Alberta, not just Vancouver; and Mont-Joli, not just Montreal.

It is true that after years of federal neglect, the sidewalks in our urban areas are falling apart and traffic is clogged, sometimes becoming intolerable.

According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Canada's infrastructure deficit has now reached $57 billion—an alarming level.

The Prime Minister promised the cities he would help fix the problems facing these large cities by cutting them in on a portion of the excess federal gas tax back in September of last year. He was pretty clear on that promise. Everything he could do he would do to make that happen. Now just last month he did a small U-turn or a big U-turn, I am not sure. He has said his commitment remains to be determined. It now depends on negotiations with the provinces and the cities.

That is another flip-flop, and a big one this time. It was a solid commitment to the cities, repeated month after month as the Prime Minister sought the leadership of his party. It has now been downgraded to a long term plan, and not only that, a plan dependent upon negotiations with others. Now we know why the Prime Minister owns all those boats. He is an expert fisherman. He likes to dangle political bait and just see who might take a bite. Clearly the Prime Minister is in no hurry to fulfill this promise, and why should he be? Might I remind him, when he was finance minister he was totally opposed to that plan.

Speaking of the cities, I note that the government is promising to eliminate the GST from municipalities, and is doing so with a straight face. Need I remind the House that these are the same people who brought us “I will axe the tax?” These are the same people, including the Prime Minister himself, who were forced to apologize to the Canadian public for blatantly misleading it during the 1993 election issue. As the old saying goes, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Over the last seven years the government has increased spending by over 30%. At the same time it has failed to cut taxes, as the finance minister, now Prime Minister, promised Canadians he would. The member for LaSalle—Émard promised Canadians a $100 billion tax cut. What did he deliver? The great tax cut in fact was a great sleight of hand. It included such things as increased child benefits and promises to cancel future tax hikes, both of which the then finance minister called tax cuts. When we add it all up, less than half of the promised tax cuts will ever see the light of day.

At the same time the government continues to rake in huge amounts of people's money through a rise in Canada pension premiums, new taxes like the airport security tax and on and on.