Bill C-44 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act

This enactment repeals section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and provides for a statutory review, within five years after the enactment receives royal assent, of the effects of the repeal by any parliamentary committee that may be designated or established for that purpose. It also contains a transitional provision with respect to aboriginal authorities.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

First of all, the result would be an unfair imposition of something that's as significant and as important as Bill C-44. We would be treated unfairly, because we wouldn't have the same time consideration as was provided to the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments with the implementation of the charter. They were given three years, and we're being told that this must be implemented immediately.

Second, there would be an unfair burden placed on first nation governments, because we don't have the resources, we don't have the institutions, we don't have the wherewithal at the moment to be able to deal effectively and fairly with the provisions of Bill C-44, if complaints were to be registered against first nation governments. There has to be sufficient time to enable first nation governments, chiefs and councils, to be ready, to be able to respond fairly and appropriately to these provisions, even though we recognize that most of the complaints, much of the initial attention, maybe over a prolonged period, would be directed toward the federal government—most of the abuses of human rights have been by government—because first nations have been rather limited, if I can put it that way, in their ability to abuse their citizens.

Take, for example, water. The suggestion has been made that it's somehow less than transparent, irresponsible, and non-accountable chiefs and councils who have caused the crisis situation with safe drinking water not being accessible to our communities. Well, we didn't pollute our waters. We didn't cause our river systems, our lakes, and our streams to be polluted, but we're being held accountable for that.

On the inadequate housing situation—let me put it fairly and properly, the housing crisis in our communities—the expectation and the demand, in fact, would be that we make appropriate provisions for the disabled. We're not in a position to be able to deliver the goods on that.

Concerning Bill C-31, at present there are at least 60 cases before the courts because of Bill C-31 and its unfair provisions that deny many of our people the right to citizenship in their nations. There are 60 cases. I think the government knows it will probably lose all 60 cases, as these are charter violations clear and simple.

[Chief Lynda Price]

It's my understanding that the minister has stated that there has been 30 years of consultation on this issue. That's my understanding. But there has been no discussion on the repeal of section 67 specifically.

It's my understanding also that on December 13, 2006, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which provides for the immediate repeal of section 67. Ideally, the federal government ought to have engaged in discussions with first nations prior to that. When I listen to this question, I think about this and I think about the processes that I'm accustomed to, and certainly these aren't proper consultation processes.

At a minimum, the honour of the Crown and the requirement for reconciliation of first nations and crown sovereignty imposes an obligation on the federal government to analyze the potential impacts of the repeal of section 67 on the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations people and potentially significant impacts on first nations communities before proceeding.

I say this as a leader. You just can't carry on business without proper consultation, because it has serious impacts on our communities.

However, when the minister appeared before this committee last week, it was evident that such an analysis was not undertaken. Rather, the federal government chose to defer review of the application of the CHRA five years after its application. Understandably, this raises questions among first nations regarding the depth of the Crown's honour.

It would be irresponsible for the federal government to proceed with the repeal of section 67. Simply put, it's unfortunate in our country for aboriginal people to have to take government to court in order to prove our rights. It is discouraging for me as a leader.

You have to recall that Delgamuukw in 1997 caused a lot of uproar. It caused provincial governments to put in place consultation policies. In 1998, the provincial government where I live put in a consultation policy. Shortly thereafter, the Haida decision in 2004 reinforced the importance of that issue.

Currently in B.C., the First Nations Leadership Council and the province are in a joint review of that consultation framework, because the policy they drafted and put in place is not appropriate. It doesn't work for the government. It doesn't work for first nations. So we're under a process to change that.

What do I see here at the federal level to accommodate those court cases? I guess that's the question I'd have to ask.

[Chief Lynda Price, Chief, Ulkatcho First Nation, Assembly of First Nations]

Dawhoja. My name is Lynda Price. I'm the chief of the Ulkatcho First Nation. Our community is located in the central interior of British Columbia. I also sit on the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council, working with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

I would like to acknowledge the first peoples who were on this territory. I would like to say thank you for allowing us to meet here today as part of our custom.

First and foremost, I would like to say that we support the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is about time.

Thirty years ago when the Canadian Human Rights Act came into effect, we were told by the then Minister of Justice, Ron Basford, that the exemption was only temporary. Well, 30 years seems to me to be beyond temporary. What was clear at the time and is still clear is that section 67 shields many discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act and other government behaviour that hurts and disadvantages us.

I would like you to know that when we are talking about 30 years, I think about the timeframe and my mom, who was only allowed to vote when I was one year old. So for most of her life she was not allowed to vote. That gives you some backdrop as to the timeframe. It was only after I turned one that my mother was allowed to vote. That gives you an idea of what kind of discrimination was going on.

Repealing section 67 and replacing it with appropriate legislation to protect our individual rights and collective rights will be a giant step forward. Getting it right will be the challenge.

There are a number of changes that need to be made to the bill to get it right.

First of all, Bill C-44 must take into account the relationship between the Canadian Human Rights Act and first nations self-government. This is because human rights guarantees will affect the way we govern ourselves. Aboriginal rights are unique. The courts have recognized this and the Canadian Human Rights Act must recognize this.

Second, within first nations communities, human rights must be in harmony with aboriginal and treaty rights while facilitating the preservation and promotion of distinctive first nations culture. As you know, the issue in B.C. has not been settled yet.

To meet these fundamental challenges, a number of critical components must be put in place. First, we must figure out how long it will take to make the transition from status quo to the Canadian Human Rights Act. And make no mistake, there will be a big adjustment. Also, there have been precedents set.

Just as Canada gave itself three years to make the necessary adjustments to comply with section 15 of the charter, so will Canada need sufficient time to undertake a review of their policies, procedures, and laws to identify discriminatory provisions and take the necessary remedial measures before complaints are filed. Similarly, the first nations also will need sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments to comply with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Right now this bill that is being contemplated provides for only a six-month transition period. This is not long enough for the meaningful consultation and adjustment that will be required. A minimum of 36 months will be necessary to ensure that implementation measures are in place and the necessary infrastructure resources obtained, so that those who wish to make use of the act will have a real chance to succeed in obtaining the protection it holds out.

In an effort to ensure proper implementation, we seek an amendment to the bill that would provide for a joint Canada and first nations operational review to commence immediately and no later than 18 months. This is to identify the nature and scope of work that must be done and the amount of additional fiscal resources that will be required by first nations government.

Second, an interpretation clause must be included in the legislation to ensure that those bodies interpreting and applying the act in future cases will be guided by an awareness of our unique collective, inherent rights, interests, and values. Without an interpretation clause, our rights will be at risk. It would be ironic indeed if the result of Bill C-44 were to diminish or undermine our rights rather than enhance and protect them.

We've provided you with a draft interpretation provision at schedule B of our written submission. You should have that.

Third, a non-derogation clause must be included in the bill. This is essential if our established and asserted aboriginal treaty rights are to be protected when section 67 is repealed.

It is no answer to say that the non-derogation provision in section 25 of the charter is good enough, because it doesn't apply to the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is not good enough to argue that section 15 of the charter will come up in any human rights complaint and thus trigger the use of the section 25 non-derogation clause as the defence.

The fact of the matter is that there may be cases where section 15 is not argued; therefore, to ensure that aboriginal and treaty rights are protected, the Canadian Human Rights Act must have its own non-derogation clause. We are providing you with a draft clause as a proposed amendment to the bill at schedule A of our written submission.

Fourth, clause 3 of Bill C-44 refers to “aboriginal authority”, in the transitional section. We want to see this term removed and amended to state, for greater certainty: “any first nation government, including a band council, tribal council or governing authority operating or administering programs and services pursuant to the Indian Act”. That's for greater certainty, just to know who this is intended for.

Once these four amendments are made, the next step will be to secure the necessary federal operational commitments, so that the Canadian Human Rights Act can be properly implemented once section 67 is repealed.

First, the repeal of section 67 must be conditional upon Canada's committing the necessary financial resources within 18 months, establishing funding mechanisms to build the capacity required to implement the act at the first nations level.

The repeal of section 67 will create a host of new obligations for first nations governments, including increased administrative capacity to deliver programs and services on an equitable basis, substantive legal resources and capacity to provide legal, policy, and procedural review and reform to comply with section 67, and legal resources to review, defend, and prosecute claims.

Resources must be made available for the development of community-based dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure culturally appropriate resolution processes that will be consistent with our traditional laws and values.

Training resources will be required to ensure that adjudicators and other commissioned personnel have the expertise to balance collective and individual rights in individual complainants' cases.

Secondly, the federal government must also commit, as a condition to repealing section 67, to the establishment of an independent first nations human rights commission, to be operational by the time the 36-month transition period expires. This commission will consider complaints against first nations institutions, governments, and agencies.

Finally, the AFN would like to see the federal government commit to a communications plan to ensure that first nations citizens and government have sufficient information and resources to make use of the potential the commission will offer.

I would like to thank you, Chair Colin Mayes and honourable members. I appreciate the time you've taken today to listen to our submission, and I say cha nal'ya, which is “thank you” in our language.

[Chief Phil Fontaine, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

Greetings to all of the honourable members. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

I would also like to acknowledge Chief Lynda Price from Ulkatcho First Nation, British Columbia, who is with me; and Candice Metallic, who is legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations here in Ottawa. We also have the honour of having Chief Maryanne DayWalker Pelletier here from Okanese First Nation in Saskatchewan; Chief Rose Laboucan from Driftpile First Nation in Alberta; Chief Sarah Gopher from the Saulteaux First Nation in Saskatchewan, not here; and Chief Ann Mary Simon from Bouctouche First Nation in New Brunswick.

They're all here to demonstrate their support for our submission before you this morning. They also will be scheduling time with the committee clerk to hopefully present their unique perspective to this committee sometime in the near future.

Today I'm especially looking forward to explaining AFN's position on Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. I was anxious to be here because I'm concerned that our position has been misrepresented in the press. So we see this as an opportunity to set the record straight.

First of all, there is no group in Canada that is more conscious and aware of the importance of human rights than our people. The reason is that we've had to fight for our rights every step of the way since colonization, and more often than not we have been shortchanged. More specifically, we have had to fight for our collective right to exist in our homelands, resisting numerous attempts by the Canadian government to destroy our culture--or cultures, more appropriately. The best example of that, of course, is the residential school experience. But you can add a whole bunch of other experiences: the Indian agent, the 1960s scoop of our children. The list is lengthy.

Governments have tried to deny us our treaty rights, aboriginal and land rights, and made a very concerted attempt to assimilate us. We've had to fight not only for our collective rights but for our individual rights, the rights to the custody of our children, rights to have access to fair employment opportunities and accommodation without discrimination, the right to vote, the right to be treated fairly in the courts. For example, we were denied the right to retain legal counsel to fight for our land claims until 1952. We have fought for our rights internationally for the past 25 years, only to have all of these efforts be summarily dismissed when the government decided that it would oppose the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The same government that voted against our rights internationally is now denying us our basic human rights to water, because water is a basic human right. We don't have access to quality, safe drinking water; decent housing; health; education; or natural resources within our own traditional territories.

Successive federal policies--and I'm saying successive, but most particularly this most recent budget--ensure that an unacceptable state of poverty within our first nations communities will be perpetuated for the foreseeable future, while government spends billions upon billions on the so-called fiscal imbalance. The true fiscal imbalance in this country is the imbalance between what the first nations receive from the federal government to meet our basic needs compared to what everyone else receives.

Let me explain here, once again. I've done so before, as you know.

Since 1996 the funding for core programs and services has been capped at 2%, but our expenses--the cost of living, the population growth rate--have gone up significantly, by 11.2%, while per capita expenditures for basic services in our communities have declined by 6.4%. We all know that the provincial and territorial governments have received a 6% increase, and that'll be consistent over the years. When it comes to health, the increases are secure, and the governments will review the situation seven years hence. That is not so in our situation.

In real dollar terms, this inequity has cost our communities about $14 billion since the cap was introduced over 10 years ago. The result is that existing federal policies prevent first nation governments from acting in the best interests of their communities, limiting their flexibility to plan and manage effectively and to make decisions for the future well-being of our children.

You see, I'm prepared to discuss this matter of the budget and the $9.2 billion--now $10 billion--and the argument that has been made that we're receiving an awful lot of money. No one makes that argument with all the billions of dollars that have been transferred to provincial governments; when it comes to us, the suggestion is there should be value for dollar. Well, that same proposition is not put to provincial or territorial governments. The transfer is made without question. But when it comes to us, it's an awful lot of money, and there should be value for dollar. That's completely unacceptable.

People should rise up and say that's unfair. Everyone should be treated fairly and justly. We shouldn't be treated the way we're being treated. We are seen as vulnerable and unimportant and as not making a difference when it comes to the electoral process--but darn it, we matter a great deal; we're integral to Canada.

This is our homeland. We were here first. We shouldn't be denied fair treatment. We shouldn't be excluded from being treated justly.

To say the status quo is a disgrace is an understatement. We look forward to being able to use the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act to correct these egregious discriminatory wrongs. For example, there is the $10 billion; people ignore the fact that there are 10,000 civil servants working to deliver programs to aboriginal people--10,000. Can you imagine the costs of that? Well, no one includes that in the equation when they're discussing how much money is being delivered for aboriginal people.

In fact, it's not $10 billion that reaches our communities; it's $5.4 billion of the $10 billion that goes to our communities. That is fact. We've analyzed all of the expenditures of the federal government over the last number of years, so there should be no attempt to try to convince Canadians that we receive too much money. The argument should be for more money. Canadians should be convinced that the situation we find ourselves in is completely and absolutely unacceptable in a country as rich as Canada.

We're not asking for handouts, not for a moment. We want to be real contributors to Canada's prosperity. That's what we want to be; that's what we want to do. We don't want to deny someone else their basic human rights--of course not. And any suggestion that we want to deny our people their basic human rights is completely false. It is a complete and absolute misrepresentation of our position and the true situation in our communities.

We recently launched a complaint at the Canadian Human Rights Commission to draw attention to the fact that 27,000 first nations children are in care because the government will not provide the necessary resources for preventive measures to support families and keep them together.

Minister Prentice is right when he says there are 9,000 first nations children in care, but that's with first nations child welfare agencies. There are another 18,000 first nations children in the care of provincial agencies. That's where we come up with the figure of 27,000, and these are only for those territories and provincial governments that keep records. Others don't keep such records.

From the residential school experiment to the white paper, from the takeover of our land to the dishonour of treaty rights, from discrimination on the provision of basic services to discrimination in accessing housing, we have learned that our very existence as people depends on our commitment to the preservation and promotion of our rights. Consequently, human rights, both individual and collective human rights, are the very cornerstone of our beliefs and values.

So you can see when the media and others suggest the Assembly of First Nations is opposed to the repeal of section 67 because we are opposed to women's rights--my gosh, those people are so off the mark. It is so completely untrue. It is a complete misrepresentation, a deliberate misrepresentation of our position.

It is against this backdrop that we speak to you here today. I'm now going to turn to Chief Lynda Price.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I would like to open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on Thursday, March 29, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 21, 2007, today we'll be looking at Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The witnesses before us today are from the Assembly of First Nations. We have National Chief Phil Fontaine and Chief Lynda Price.

Welcome to the witnesses.

The chair is going to run over on our time to make sure we have adequate time. We were only going to go to 12:30 p.m. with the witnesses and then we were going to move on to committee business. Is it the pleasure of the committee that I allow 15 minutes if we need it, because of our late starting? I see we agree to do so.

We will have the presentation from Chief Phil Fontaine. Thank you very much for your attendance.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, section 67 was intended to be a temporary measure when it was introduced 30 years ago. Thirty years is far too long to live without human rights. I am proud that the Minister of Indian Affairs is moving swiftly to rectify the situation through Bill C-44, which would ensure that first nations citizens have equal access to human rights protections.

However, apparently the Liberals feel that 30 years without this protection has not been long enough.

I hope that when the time comes the members opposite support the rights of first nations people and vote in favour of Bill C-44.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, they could. A person could, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, sue the band council because he or she does not have running water. I read the Act and I know it almost by heart. There are also matrimonial rights.

Let me give you an example. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, a woman has the right to deliver her baby under the best conditions possible. An aboriginal woman living on a reserve 300 kilometres away from an urban centre could sue her band council based on the fact she is not given access to a hospital.

Do you understand the issue? I am neither for nor against such an action, but it raises questions. What will happen after the passage of bill C-44? Do you understand, Mr. Minister? It is an important question.

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

Let me begin, Mr. Chair, and I hope you will indulge me.

I think it's important to correct the record that's been presented in the House of Commons. I say this to you, Mr. Minister, and I say it to you with respect: I have never indicated a lack of support for Bill C-44 or for the reform of matrimonial real property. I believe if you check the records, both in this committee and in the House of Commons, I have never indicated a lack of support on my own part or on the part of my party.

We have concerns about the issues of process. We will probably speak to them today, and we will speak to them in the ensuing weeks as we review this bill. But in terms of the intent of this bill and the intent of matrimonial real property reform, I am supportive of it and my party is supportive of it. We believe these are important issues to be addressed. I hope the record is clear on that after today.

Minister, you spoke about several issues, and you anticipated the concerns about the bill. You spoke about the issue of consultation.

I was part of Bill C-7. I sat around the clock for many days, as did my colleague here, in 24-hour and 48-hour sessions. I know the bill and I understand the importance to many groups of the repeal of section 67. But I can say that part of the lack of success of Bill C-7 was the abbreviation of the consultation process.

While you spoke to the fact that we have had 30 years of discussion—and I underline the word “discussion”—I believe there's a difference between discussion and consultation. We have not had consultation prior to the introduction of this bill. We've not had consultation with first nations, native women's associations, and a entire litany of groups as it relates to this bill.

There are a number of concerns. My own belief is that we're going to be doing the consultation after the introduction rather than prior to the introduction, which will in fact delay the progress of this bill. I'd like your comments on why there was not a real consultation on this bill, specific to this bill, in the introduction of the bill.

I'd also like your comments on the abbreviated timeframe of six months, when we know the Human Rights Commission recommended a minimum of an 18-month to 30-month implementation.

I have more questions, but I'll start with that.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

I'll speak first, Mr. Chair, with your permission. Then I'm pleased to answer any questions.

I know that Mr. Lemay is anxious to have a dialogue on this, and I always enjoy that.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-44. I'm pleased that the committee members are undertaking a review of this important projet de loi. It is human rights protection legislation that will repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-44 proposes to end an exemption that was included in the original legislation when it was enacted some time ago, actually in 1977.

As a result of this exemption, individuals, mostly residents of first nation communities, have had limited recourse under the Canadian Human Rights Act should they feel their rights have been violated. This fundamental injustice represents a black mark on Canada's democracy. I would draw to your attention a number of reports to the United Nations that have singled this out and recommended change.

Section 67 clearly permits discrimination against a particular group of citizens, and Bill C-44 proposes to ensure that the laws of the country will apply equally to all Canadian citizens.

This is not the first time that Parliament has tried to repeal section 67. Bill C-108 was introduced nearly 15 years ago, only to die on the Order Paper. More recently, attempts to repeal section 67 through Bills C-7 and S-45 suffered a similar fate. Parliamentarians now have an opportunity to see the job through.

Support for the repeal of section 67 comes from a wide variety of groups, including this very committee. In its report on matrimonial real property on reserves, Walking Arm in Armto Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property, members of this committee called for the repeal of section 67.

Your committee's position on this matter was based largely on the testimony of representatives from several key groups, including the Native Women's Association of Canada. In fact, I would point out that Beverley Jacobs said this before your committee at that time, as follows:

—many first nations women have no recourse at all when their rights are being violated in their communities. They have no recourse to challenge their band councils for discriminating against them and for forcing them out of their own communities. We demand basic human rights for our women and children.

As minister, I take that statement to heart. Nothing will change unless action is taken, and that is precisely what we have done with this legislation.

Over the years, calls for the repeal of section 67 have come from a wide variety of sources, including the Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself, and other independent commentators who have filed reports with the UN.

The fundamental injustice engendered by section 67 has also attracted international attention, unfortunately earning Canada censure from the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, it all boils down to a simple issue of human rights. Canada must not perpetuate the discrimination inherent in section 67.

I appreciate that some groups have raised concerns about Bill C-44, despite its noble goal. Most critics focus on three points: a perceived lack of consultation, the absence of an interpretive clause and concerns about the potential impact.

Today, I will address each of these criticisms in turn.

On the perceived lack of consultation, I would contend that in fact there's been a significant amount of discussion and consultation on the repeal of section 67, all of which has informed the bill that is before you today. There have been, really, 30 years of discussions since 1977 about the repeal of section 67.

Perhaps the most comprehensive consultation was launched in 1999 as part of a formal review of the Canada Human Rights Act. As you know, the Canada Human Rights Commission itself has spoken on this issue.

Among the many regional and national aboriginal organizations to participate in the review were the Native Women's Association of Canada, Alberta's Aboriginal Human Rights Commission, and New Brunswick's Aboriginal Peoples Council.

The final report issued by the review panel in 2000 recommended the repeal of section 67, and two years ago consultation with aboriginal groups informed a special report on section 67, completed and filed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself. Again, repeal was the recommended option.

In 2003 section 67 was also discussed as part of the committee's hearings into Bill C-7, the controversial First Nations Governance Act. During these hearings, several aboriginal groups lobbied for the repeal of section 67, a position restated during hearings that were held in 2005 on matrimonial real property on reserve. The Assembly of First Nations has also expressed its views on the public record.

While not every stakeholder and aboriginal person has had the opportunity to participate in consultations, there can be no doubt that a determined effort has been made to gather relevant opinions. And that the consensus was and continues to be clear: section 67 must go. Thirty years is long enough.

A second criticism of Bill C-44 concerns the absence of an interpretive clause. In this regard, an interpretive provision is required in the Canadian Human Rights Act to balance the interests of individuals seeking protection from discrimination with aboriginal community interest. That is the argument put forward.

I share the view that the Canadian Human Rights Act should be applied in a manner that is sensitive to particular circumstances of aboriginal communities, but the truth is that three factors preclude the need for an interpretive clause in the legislation. The first is that laws already exist that provide for a balancing of individual and collective rights. I refer to the constitutional protection already in place for the recognition of collective aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, which remains as the paramount authority in our legal system.

Given these protections, members of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the body that will adjudicate complaints under the statute, are required by the act to be sensitive to human issues as they pertain to aboriginal and treaty rights. They can also be expected to interpret the existing defences in the act, bearing in mind these concerns. With these protections in place to help guide the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the commission, there's no need to add an interpretive clause to Bill C-44. In effect, the Constitution Act provides that overall interpretive umbrella itself.

The second factor has to do with the critical role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself. The commission is charged with the administration of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which means that it not only processes complaints but also engages in educational activities concerning the act. Since it was created nearly 30 years ago, the commission has acquired unsurpassed expertise in interpreting and in resolving cases involving discrimination—that is what they do, and they're good at it. The commission's efforts to prevent discrimination have also been remarkable.

Rather than relying on a specific statutory interpretive clause to safeguard theirs interests, aboriginal groups can discuss the future operation of the Act with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In fact, many aboriginal governments have had experience with complaints under the Act, situations where section 67 has not applied.

The commission has vowed to work directly with aboriginal groups on implementation. In fact, the commission's aboriginal program is already established and a series of regional workshops are planned. The workshops will provide guidance and support to aboriginal groups that need help to exercise and carry out the new responsibilities under the act. Additionally, the Canadian Human Rights Act already grants the commission the power to establish guidelines or regulations on how the act should be applied to a particular class or group of complaints. These guidelines are statutory instruments with the same legal weight as regulations, but they are flexible enough to be adapted as required. I have full confidence that, given its mandate, its track record, and in dialogue with first nations, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is best placed to offer advice on how the act should be applied, and to do so over time. With passage of Bill C-44, this work will begin formally.

Thirdly, we know from experience with the interpretive clause, which was originally proposed in the First Nations Governance Act, Bill C-7, that it is extremely difficult to capture in a single clause fail-proof language that would address all the competing considerations for handling a Canadian Human Rights Act complaint in a first nations context. To attempt to distill the interpretive power of the Human Rights Commission into a single clause, I submit, is quite problematic. Additionally, an interpretive clause, if passed into law, would have to be interpreted by the commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, in any event, in specific cases, and would obtain clarity really only after the litigation of many complaints and conflicts, undoubtedly, with the charter.

In summary, with the protection offered by Canada's legal framework, the support provided by the commission, and the scope that already exists within the Canadian Human Rights Act and the powers of the commission, I'm personally convinced that the full application of the Canadian Human Rights Act can be implemented in a manner that is sensitive to aboriginal communities. I have confidence that the Human Rights Commission is best able to provide that oversight and that interpretive responsibility.

Other aspects of the legislation are helpful to consider. The mandatory review included in Bill C-44, for example, offers additional protection for those who are concerned about its impact. The legislation proposes that a parliamentary committee undertake a comprehensive review of the effects of the repeal of section 67, within five years. I think this is a useful fail-safe.

On this point, I would like to draw to the committee's attention that it is within Parliament's authority to undertake such a review earlier. I would respectfully caution against so doing, but this remains the prerogative of Parliament.

I acknowledge that the repeal of section 67 will have a significant impact on many groups, including First Nations and federal departments. To ensure that First Nations have time to prepare for these impacts, Bill C-44 proposes a delayed application to First Nations' governments six months after royal assent is granted.

With the support of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has already begun to engage and to raise awareness of human rights legislation with representatives of national and regional aboriginal organizations, I believe this period provides the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, proceeding with repeal in a timely fashion while on the other hand allowing first nations to take measures to prepare for full implementation.

The question of resources has been raised, but until the bill is passed, these costs remain hypothetical. Yes, it will be important to assess what resources might be needed, and I invite your advice on that topic.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee—and we have a knowledgeable group of parliamentarians at this table today—the time has come to ensure that all Canadians are treated equally before the law of this country. Bill C-44 proposes a fair, realistic approach to ending 30 years of sanctioned discrimination in this country. This committee, in a non-partisan way, can seize the opportunity before it and ensure access to full human rights protection as provided to all. Now is the time for us to act to end the injustice that was created as a so-called temporary measure against first nations citizens 30 years ago. This is an historic opportunity for this Parliament, for all the parties in this House of Commons at this time, to accomplish something very significant. I urge you, as committee members, to review Bill C-44 and to support it.

Thank you. I will do my best to answer the questions from Mr. Lemay and others.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I am not mixing anything.

The hon. member stands opposed to matrimonial property rights for first nations women. She stands opposed to Bill C-44 to provide first nations women with human rights protection for the first time in Canadian history. She does not support the $300 million on reserve private housing initiative. She does not support what is in the budget for specific claims.

It is just more Liberal rhetoric and empty promises. She does not stand in favour of aboriginal people in this country at all.

Kelowna Accord Implementation Act

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-292, the Kelowna accord implementation act.

The so-called Kelowna accord is the product of a meeting held more than a year ago of the former prime minister, the provincial and territorial premiers and several national aboriginal leaders.

The actual document that is represented as the accord, what the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard purports to be a binding commitment of the Government of Canada, is in fact a news release presented by the government of the day at the close of the meeting. The release lists several proposed investments that total more than $5 billion over a period of five years.

Although the former government says that it meant this to be a statement of the amount of money it wished to spend, there was no consensus among participants regarding how the money was to be disbursed. There was no detailed plan on how the government would allocate this new funding and how it would ensure that these resources would be spent wisely and produce measurable results.

Indeed, the provincial and territorial premiers and national aboriginal leaders who attended the Kelowna meeting clearly indicated in subsequent statements that considerably more work was needed to develop specific policies, programs and implementation plans.

The challenges that face aboriginal peoples in our country are simply too daunting to be overcome through unfocused, unaccountable spending. A more considered approach is required if we hope to improve socio-economic conditions and to ensure that aboriginal peoples have a standard of living comparable to that of other Canadians.

Canada's new government has developed and begun to implement precisely this type of approach. It is based on practical solutions, targeted expenditures, clear roles and responsibilities, measurable results and accountability, all fundamental elements of prudent, effective administration.

In the short time this government has been in office, our pragmatic, results based approach has generated tangible results for aboriginal peoples. In fact, the number of achievements is too vast for me to recount in the time that is available to me this evening.

Instead, to illustrate the success of our approach, let me use the last time that the House debated Bill C-292, on October 18, 2006, as a reference point. Let me share with the House just a few examples since that date of how this government has taken concrete steps to begin to improve the quality of life of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

On October 20, Bearspaw First Nation in Alberta opened a state of the art water treatment plant. This achievement stems directly from the plan of action to ensure safe water supplies for first nation communities announced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development last March.

As the House is no doubt aware, soon after this government came into office we learned that more than 200 first nations communities had drinking water systems that were classified as high risk or worse. To address this crisis, Canada's new government devoted some $450 million to address issues affecting quality of life, including safe drinking water.

In addition to this vital budgetary measure, the minister and the Assembly of First Nations appointed a three member expert panel to provide legislative options for safe drinking water in first nations communities.

On December 7, the minister tabled in the House the expert panel's findings and recommendations, along with a report that outlined progress made on all aspects of the government's plan of action. This includes the removal of several drinking water advisories, improvements to a number of water treatment plants, and increased assistance and training for plant operators. The minister is now considering the panel's recommendations and I expect we will be hearing more on the government's initiative.

Along with helping first nations communities to overcome such crises, this government is working to ensure a brighter long term future for these communities. Indeed, when it comes to land claim settlements, we are living through an extraordinary period of Canadian history, particularly in British Columbia.

In recent months, negotiating teams have achieved a series of unprecedented agreements.

On October 29, federal, provincial and first nations negotiators initialled the Lheidli T'enneh final agreement, the first settlement reached through the British Columbia treaty process.

On December 8, the minister was in Delta, B.C. to attend the initialling of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement, the first final agreement for a B.C. first nation whose traditional lands are situated in an urban area.

On December 9, the minister witnessed the initialling of the Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement, the first final agreement in British Columbia that involves more than one first nation community.

I am happy to report that the successful resolution of land claims is not restricted to British Columbia. On December 1, the government signed a land claims agreement with the Inuit of Nunavik resolving a claim over offshore areas in northern Quebec and Labrador that had dragged on for more than 13 years.

Canada's new government has also partnered with first nation groups in Quebec to improve school performance among students from first nations communities in the province.

A landmark memorandum of understanding signed on October 26 will lead to incentives for first nation schools to create stimulating learning environments, enhance teaching quality and improve accountability to parents and students.

Education is also the focus of a historic bill that received royal assent on December 12 of last year. The First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act will enable first nations communities in B.C. to assume increasingly greater control over on reserve education. It is an important step in ensuring first nation students receive a high quality education that respects their languages, cultures and traditions.

On December 13, our new government introduced in the House another significant piece of legislation: Bill C-44. By repealing section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill would ensure that all members of first nations communities will have the legal authority to defend their human rights, a power that all Canadians should be entitled to enjoy.

Despite these and other significant achievements, I readily concede that much work remains to be done to ensure that aboriginal peoples have living standards comparable to those of other Canadians. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recognize this fact but action to help aboriginal peoples achieve this objective does not come from legislation based on a news release presented at the close of a meeting.

Genuine progress is difficult. It requires clear thinking, diligent effort, patience and collaboration. Canada's new government will continue to work in concert with our aboriginal, provincial and territorial partners to achieve this progress. Together, we will create practical solutions. We will allocate appropriate funds. We will establish clear roles and responsibilities. We will set goals and we will achieve them.

Accordingly, I will be voting against Bill C-292 and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member could not be more wrong. In fact, her government had the opportunity to act on behalf of first nations for 13 years.

When we look at Bill C-44, it will actually bring human rights to first nations people on reserve who are unable to take advantage of the human rights laws in Canada today. That is something the government of the hon. member had the opportunity to do. It chose not to do so. It is something we will do.

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

Mr. Speaker, in three separate cases the Supreme Court of Canada was clear that the federal government had a duty to consult with first nations. Despite these rulings, the government has refused to conduct meaningful consultations. It imposes arbitrary deadlines that prevent real discussions from taking place: Bill C-2; Bill C-44; Bill C-45; nationhood; and now only seven days for consensus building on matrimonial real property.

Why does the government insist on taking such a father knows best attitude?

Canada Transportation Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11. I hope that this bill will be passed.

Earlier, I asked my Liberal colleague some questions. Things are not easy in this Parliament, particularly because of the very different approaches to development or to problems the public may be having. Too often, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have great plans, but neither of them solves people's real problems. Bill C-11 will try to offer a little salve for the wounds of people who are suffering all sorts of upsets because of railway company operations.

The railway industry is expanding rapidly and has undergone major technological changes. Although it provides a useful and increasingly profitable service, it imposes constraints on the neighbouring communities. This has gone on for years, as I said earlier.

The problems associated with the noise, vibration and odours generated by railway operations as a whole have existed for a long time and are becoming more serious with the development of new technologies.

The people listening to us—Quebeckers and Canadians—will understand that for reasons having to do with economies of scale, the way things are done in the railway industry has changed. For one thing, in the mid-1990s, coupling of locomotives and cars was done by human beings. Starting in the mid-1990s or early years of this century, human beings were replaced by remote coupling, which is done electronically or electrically.

Once this way of doing things was changed, once they wanted to achieve economies of scale by reducing the number of employees in switching yards, the problems associated with noise, vibration and odours became worse. This is done following Transport Canada's standards. As yet, there is no technology that would allow this to be done while making the least noise possible. Since the mid-1990s, many groups of people who live alongside switching yards have got together and formed associations to try to control the noise and odour pollution generated by the railway industry.

Wanting to limit problems for neighbouring communities does not mean being opposed to rail transportation. On the contrary, we want the rail industry to expand. Railway companies, like Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, make profits. While they had some problems during the 1980s and 1990s, I think that since that time they have paid their shareholders a very handsome return. In fact, it rises every quarter.

Phenomenal profits are being made. Profits like these had never before been made in the railway industry.

Pressure is being taken off the roads, and that can help combat greenhouse gases. We are aware of this. Rail transportation can limit greenhouse gases, because it reduces the number of trucks on the roads. It also imposes constraints, however.

Since 2000, that is, since the 37th Parliament, this House has been trying to solve the noise problem. The Liberals introduced Bill C-26. It was virtually an omnibus bill which addressed a number of problems in the railway, airline and other industries, and which made VIA Rail an independent corporation, a corporation with share capital. This could have helped it to expand. From the outset, the Conservatives were against expansion by VIA Rail, which could have engineered its own expansion and could have created VIAFast. Members will recall that debate. The Liberals were divided: there was the Chrétien clan and the clan led by the member for LaSalle—Émard. The result was division on Bills C-26 and C-44. Bill C-26, which was introduced in the 37th Parliament, never saw the light of day because of that division. In the 38th Parliament, Bill C-44 also failed to get passed.

Once again, the people who live near marshalling yards and suffer from the noise pollution and other by-products of the railway industry have not seen any improvement. This problem was buried in omnibus bills. One of the methods used by the Conservative Party in this 39th Parliament was to divide the previous Bill C-44, which was debated in the 38th Parliament, into three.

The Conservatives say now that they broke it up in order to speed things along, but they are concealing the real reason, which is that they wanted to remove everything that had to do with VIA Rail from Bill C-44.

The Conservatives have never wanted the railways to really develop. They did not want the railway companies to compete with airlines for passengers. That was their choice. They wanted to protect WestJet rather than help rail develop sufficiently, the kind of development that the Bloc Québécois has always supported.

It is very important for the transportation sector to become more competitive. Rail is healthy competition for the airlines. There is talk of a fast train, although not a high speed train, between Quebec and Montreal and Montreal and Windsor. The Bloc Québécois has always supported this vision. The Conservatives, though, divided up Bill C-44 because they did not want VIA Rail to become an independent corporation ensuring its own development or the famous VIAFast project to see the light of day, that is to say, a fast Quebec City-Montreal, Montreal-Windsor train. That is the real reason.

All the same, we would have supported an omnibus bill that included all of Bill C-44. We supported Bills C-44 and C-26 at the time, and now we support Bill C-11, which will deal once and for all with the noise pollution problem.

It is never simple. I use this example because, at the same time, the people listening to us will understand how Parliament works. It is never simple. Insofar as the noise issue is concerned, the Conservatives took it upon themselves to bring a bill forward that touches on this problem. However, there is not just noise pollution but also vibration pollution and fumes. There are all kinds of sources of environmental pollution.

During our discussions with the government about Bill C-44, we touched on these issues but were not successful because of the entire VIA Rail question, even though we were working on fixing the pollution problems. If we are going to fix them, let us really do it. But with government things are never as straightforward as that. We have to understand. The Conservatives have never had any vision of the future; it is always short-term. So they decided today to include noise pollution in Bill C-11. Like us, all my colleagues and all the citizens out there say that if they are going to fix the railway pollution problem, why not take advantage of this opportunity to include fumes in the bill and the issue of locomotives turning night and day and producing fumes and environmental problems.

Sometimes you walk along the rails and you see pollution. Because the rails have been changed, stacks of wood are piled up along the tracks, and so on. The Bloc Québécois wanted to solve all the environmental problems related to railways, but the government decided that the noise was the problem. The Bloc Québécois tried in committee to put forward its own proposals. We wanted to solve the problems of noise, vibrations and fumes. We had clearly understood that, by including only noise, Conservatives did not want to solve all the environmental problems. So we went with vibrations and we asked ourselves whether we could perhaps solve at the same time the problems of vibrations and fumes from locomotives.

This is where we attack the law clerk of the House. The government knows quite well that, when it introduces a bill, we cannot move the amendments that we want, even though we have a lot of goodwill, even though all my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are experiencing major problems, since, for example, some of their fellow citizens live close to the Moreau railroad yard, in Hochelaga, or the Joffre railroad yard, in Lévis. Even though this committee is now represented by a Conservative, we will ensure that all this will change in the next election. However, the fact remains that the people of Lévis complained to us and we never stopped defending their interests. There is the same problem close to the Farnham railroad yard, in Brome—Missisquoi, and to the Pointe-Saint-Charles railroad yard, in Jeanne-Le Ber, east of Montreal. All these people wanted us to solve all these problems, including fumes. Thus, we introduced an amendment, but the whole part concerning fumes was taken out. The law clerk of the House told us that it was out of order.

So, it is not like we did not try. We wanted to show our goodwill and our good faith in this issue. We tabled everything that we could think of. We even wanted to include public health, because there are now international standards on noise pollution. We really wanted to comply with public health standards. One of our amendments asked that public health not be unreasonably affected, given these essential operational needs. We wanted to include the issue of public health in the bill.

However, because the bill introduced by the Conservative Party was totally silent on public health, the law clerk of the House told us that this amendment, even though quite interesting, was out of order, because it would change the meaning of the legislation.

Those citizens who are listening to us must understand that a government is something that is complex. And when it is a Conservative government, it is twice as complex. That is how things work. That is the reality. The government uses every possible trick to prevent us from succeeding and achieving our objectives. In this case, we were able to reach an agreement on noise.

So, as we are speaking, clause 95.1 of the bill reads as follows:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company, must cause as little noise and or vibration as possible,...

This is what we have before us now. The original bill introduced by the Conservative Party talked about not making unreasonable noise.

We managed to get an amendment in that goes further. That was done with the support of the Conservatives, who finally realized that we wanted at least to settle once and for all the issue of noise and vibration, so that we would no longer talk about it, and so that citizens would be able to win their cases.

So, we managed to agree to include the expression “as little noise and or vibration as possible”.

One day, this bill will come into force, but not today. It is at third reading stage, then it has to go to the Senate and come back here. Canadian federalism is complicated. There is another chamber, the upper chamber, called the Senate. It has to study the same bills. The Bloc Québécois has been wanting to get rid of the Senate for a long time. The Conservatives have decided that senators will be elected by universal suffrage. We are far from getting rid of it. The federation will become even more complicated. However, one day, we will no longer be here—we hope. One day, Quebeckers will decide to have their own country and they will not have a Senate. That will be best. There will just be a parliament and it will be far less complicated.

However, in the current situation, the bill as amended by the Bloc Québécois, among others, reads as follows at clause 95.1:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company, must cause as little noise and or vibration as possible, taking into account

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;

This has to do with operations.

(b) its operational requirements;

[...]

(d) the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

We managed to get that included. The following clause—and this is the crux of the bill—gives powers to the Transportation Agency, which is new. During its operations, it will have to take into account the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway. From now on, it will have to take into account those who live close by when there are problems with noise and vibration. That is how it will be for their operations.

Clause 95.2 states:

The Agency shall issue and publish, in any manner that it considers appropriate, guidelines with respect to:

This requires the Transportation Agency to establish and publish guidelines that the railway companies will have to follow. Just to get this part into the bill required many hours of discussion. Finally, the agency can be forced to establish and publish guidelines. It is all well and good to say there will be as little noise and vibration as possible, but there still need to be guidelines. This bill will force the agency to establish and publish guidelines.

Once the guidelines have been established and the railways are operational, we proceed to clause 95.3.

On receipt of a complaint made by any person that a railway company is not complying with section 95.1, the Agency may order the railway company to undertake any changes in its railway construction or operation that the Agency considers reasonable to cause as little noise or vibration as possible, taking into account factors referred to in that section.

Before this bill, the Canadian Transportation Agency had no power. Its only role was that of intermediary. Judicial power was tested in that respect in an Ontario court.

One might have thought that after getting involved in a file and participating in negotiations, Transport Canada could have made recommendations and ordered the company to take certain measures if no agreement could be reached in the end. In a decision concerning an Ontario community, the Ontario court ruled that the Canadian Transportation Agency had no power, that it was simply a mediator, not even an arbitrator. It could participate in discussions, but it had no power.

The real purpose of this bill is to give the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to order measures to be taken. That is, once it receives a complaint, it will analyze it and order the railway company to take measures.

Recently, I met with the Railway Association of Canada, which turned up practically in tears to tell us that it made no sense to force railway companies to produce as little noise and vibration as possible.

I might ask all railway employees, who work very hard, why we have this bill before us today. I might also ask the shareholders and the companies that are making healthy profits and doing good business why we are debating this bill. We are debating it because they have been so remiss in past years that we have no choice.

Personally, I took part in a meeting with citizens who live around the Moreau marshalling yard in Hochelaga; the railway company was also present. I will not say its name because they are all the same, regardless of which one it is, and I do not want to discriminate. So I participated in the discussions. It was easy to see that the employees taking part were there under duress. The member for Hochelaga was present to listen to the citizens. I was there as the transportation critic for the Bloc Québécois. My colleague from Hochelaga and the community, who had been following the Ontario decision, were very well informed and proposed some mitigation solutions to the representatives of the railway company. These people seemed interested but in the end nothing ever came about. That is how it is.

It was the same thing when I met with citizens’ groups in the Joffre marshalling yard in Charny. I had a chance to meet the Mayor of Charny, who is now a councillor for the City of Lévis and who really took an interest in this file. It was and still is the same thing. The companies listen, but in the end, when they have to spend some money, it does not go anywhere, not to the next level up anymore than to the board of directors.

Since I am being told I have two minutes left, I am going to use them wisely.

This is how we have ended up where we are today. The Bloc Québécois does not want to be one of those who would prevent the railway from developing. On the contrary, we know that it is developing just fine, that business is good and that it is probably time to put things in order and do something about the pollution that railways can cause. There is noise pollution and other kinds of nuisances.

We will not fix all that today, as I said. And it is not because the colleagues of the Bloc Québécois would not have liked this bill to solve all the nuisances caused by railways. Given that the industry is doing well, maybe it is time for it to make some investments.

At least today the noise and vibration problems should be solved. For any citizens who live along railways or near railway yards this bill should solve any noise and vibration problems they experience. From now on complaints can be filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency, which can intervene and, in accordance with the provision contained in paragraph 93(3), order the railways to take action. The Agency will be able to order railway companies to take remedial action.

Obviously this does not solve the other problems. In committee, communities came to tell us that the trains are increasingly long. In some places, they are even afraid that emergency services cannot get through. That obviously includes ambulances, firefighters, and all sorts of services. Actually the trains are so long that they block entry into entire neighbourhoods. This problem is not dealt with in the bill. I hope that the government one day will listen and table new bills that will deal with all these issues.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the opposition side, now dressed as government, is waiting to hear this speech with bated breath, most of it after much libation has passed through the lips.

Without casting too many aspersions on this, one has to be in control of one's senses when one listens to some of the rhetoric of the government side. I wondered why those members would not take just a moment to say that they have a responsibility as parliamentarians to come forward with legislation that is good for all Canadians. It was there and we are going to try to implement it, they could say, even though for partisan reasons they said no in the past. They said they were not going to support Bill C-44.

But in a stroke of blinding light, of genius, let us divide it up, those members said. They came to this side and asked for our support. We said why not, it is in our collective interest to ensure that legislation that helps Canadians is put forward.

I am not going to reread into the record that which the parliamentary secretary has thought useful for his party's business to talk about what is in the bill. I gave an indication earlier on that there are several things that are important about this bill and that attracted a positive reaction from us.

One of them, of course, is in regard to railway lines that are no longer used, that are declared underused by the railway companies, in that commuter agencies in the various centres through which they pass would have access to them for the purposes of developing appropriate commuter traffic. This would allow us as governments, whether it is this Parliament or the provincial legislatures or the municipalities, to develop a transportation policy for commuters in order to address the environmental, economic, transportation and consumer issues that are evident for everyone.

To do that, we have to put an infrastructure in place that would allow the minister to play a proactive role. That is what Bill C-44 intended to do. The government opposite fought that with every breath it could muster. Today the Conservatives want to put themselves in the clothes of shining bright knights who would accomplish the solutions that would satisfy all Canadians' aspirations and needs.

The truth is the opposite. The government has been asking for and receiving the support of the opposition parties. I see my colleague from the Bloc way down at the end to my left--I can say he is here, I do not have to say he is not here, as that would be for those people--and he has been patient. He has offered the same kind of support that we have offered, because in this instance, at least, he too is thinking about the commonweal.

While we have been doing this, we have watched as the Minister of Transport has ignored the larger implications that were resident in Bill C-44. The underlying principles are as follows: do what is good for the economy of the country, do what is important for the infrastructure and transportation policies of this country, and take into consideration the economic impacts of transportation policies, especially, in this instance, on rail traffic.

What did the government do? We found the minister preferred to do nothing with the cooperation the opposition parties have been offering. So what happened? With Canadian National Railway, he allowed a work stoppage, a strike, to go on for ever so long. I am sure my colleague down at the other end has received the same kinds of submissions that I have from all interested parties and communities across Canada. Whether they were in the lumber industry, the mining industry, the wheat, grain and oilseeds industries, the commercial products industries or even, as we now know, the petrochemical and gasoline industries, we had no movement of goods.

There was no movement of goods while the minister's parliamentary secretary and his government stood and said, “Oh my. Aren't we wonderful? We're just like Jack Horner sitting in a corner. We're just marvellous people”.

Meanwhile, there are communities everywhere around the country, especially those one-industry towns, those in northern Ontario, northern Quebec and northern British Columbia, to name just three places, that are completely, totally and undeniably dependent on rail traffic to get their goods to market, to keep the mills open and to keep the mines going. All them were crying for some intervention while two unions, local and international, with CN, played with the economic life of all Canadians and the minister sat there and did nothing.

That government did nothing and then turned around and told us that it was doing all kinds of great things. Look at us, said the Conservatives, we have been here for 13 months and look at all that we have accomplished.

We have asked for the cooperation of the opposition parties, they said, and look at what we in the opposition did: we gave it. We split up a bill, Bill C-44. One aspect of that has been passed. A second one is here before us today. There is a third one down the road. We have been trying to move this along really quickly.

The debate on this should have finished last week, but no, we had the minister for hot air insulting one of my colleagues, the member for Mississauga South, I think, who was here a moment ago. He is moving around the table now. Instead of carrying on with discussions of substance, that minister for hot air wanted to engage in discussions of disruption, and so the bill goes on a little while longer. Instead of capitalizing on the opportunities to build on the cooperative spirit that was here in the House, on this side of the House, with respect to transportation, particularly with this bill and particularly with movement of traffic around the country, while communities everywhere were crying for our help, he did nothing. The Conservatives did nothing. Not only did they dither, but they did nothing.

Let us look at the ports, for example. The ports in the lower mainland in British Columbia were crying for some sort of intervention. No, I am sorry, that would have been too much to ask for. They were looking for some kind of attention and interest on the part of the Minister of Transport to get some things moving. They had to lay off all the personnel, or portions thereof, at the ports. They had boats sitting out in the harbour; others still more. Trains were backed up. Wheat, lumber and minerals were being held up out in the west. Markets out in the Orient and in the States were looking for some kind of product and some kind of interest on the part of the Government of Canada to get that product going. There was nothing.

The Minister of Transport said:

My name is Pontius. I wash my hands.

It was a labour issue, he said.

The Minister of Labour came before our colleagues and asked us if would we help him out and support back to work legislation if it became a real labour issue. We said of course we would do that, but we asked why the government did not get the infrastructure in place. We asked why the government did not do the minimum that is required of all of us, which is to show interest. It is not a question of partisanship.

So now what we have in southern Ontario, for example, in parts of Quebec, and in fact almost everywhere in the country but particularly in southern Ontario, is a huge shortage of gasoline, because some of it has not been able to get to the market. Yes, there have been other interests as well, and there have been other incidents, but the product could not get to market, and there has been an increase in the price, diminishing our ability to be productive and competitive and obviously bringing all things to a standstill.

I am sure that the minister for hot air on the other side will immediately say let me see now, has there been a diminution in the emissions of greenhouse gases? Yes, that must be so in part, because there is a voluntary participation by all of those drivers who could not get their gasoline and so walked to work in the middle of winter. Great.

I guess I am reduced to a little bit of sarcasm because I sat there, watched, waited and in fact offered all the cooperation that this side of the House could offer the government to say, “Get this done”. But those members were of course interested in heckling, as they are not out of the opposition mentality. They were chuckling, laughing and being as disruptive as they could.

Could we imagine that on this side? No, it would not happen.

I know you will be shocked at this, Mr. Speaker, but there is a member of the transportation committee who comes from the riding of Essex, which is a focal point for all of the manufacturing trade in southern Ontario. The trade goes through that riding into Detroit and on to the other side of the border. Of about $2 billion worth of trade, about two-thirds of it goes through that area. What happens? Instead of being able to deal with his own party in government to get the trains back on track, he has to be fighting his own party.

Competition in parties is a fact of life that we deal with. One always has to worry about whether the enemy is on that side of the House or on this side of the House, but there we had a ridiculous situation. I am looking at a CanWest news story dated February 22 about how the member had to worry about “murder threats” from his own riding executive. There are all kinds of soap operas going on within that party. No wonder those members cannot address the issues of the country. They are too busy trying to take each other out.