Debates of Oct. 17th, 2006

Vote on Amendment to Bill C-24

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last night, I think quite inadvertently, a mistake was made during the deferred recorded division on the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24.

I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as you were in the chair at the time, that during the vote process the NDP rose to seek consent to have NDP members who were present for the previous vote recorded in support of the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24. Unfortunately, the reality is that when the NDP House leader rose for a second time to seek consent, that consent was denied by the House at that time.

As it was very evident to me, I rose on a point of order and stated that no points of order were to be entertained by the Chair during the vote process and, second, that I wanted to ensure the public viewing the vote process last night did not blame the clerks for the NDP members missing their opportunity to vote. Likewise, I believe that when a party, or an individual member for that matter, seeks to correct the record of a vote after the vote process is completed, it is normal tradition in the House that consent is granted by the members present in the House.

In conclusion, I believe that one mistake in the House should not be compounded by a second mistake. Therefore, in the interest of non-partisanship, common courtesy, traditional practice and in fairness to the New Democratic Party, in particular my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, I seek the unanimous consent of the House at this time to have the results of the deferred division taken last night on the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24 corrected to indicate that the NDP did intend to support the Liberal amendment.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the House leaders should discuss this among themselves before a decision is made.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the desire to have all the parties involved in this but, as I just explained, it is common practice and common courtesy for the House to grant unanimous consent. It has happened many times to members from all four parties present in the House. From time to time mistakes are made during votes. I have seen the situation where some members during private members' votes because of confusion vote both ways and have it corrected afterward.

Mr. Speaker, I would again ask you to put the motion. I see the official opposition House leader is here. Perhaps he would be willing to consult with his members very quickly and grant permission for them to support this motion to amend the vote results from last night.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the proposition that the whip for the government presents on the floor this morning comes as a bit of a surprise because of the government's position last night, which was exactly the opposite.

The proposition that he is bringing forward appears, from a substantive point of view, to be a reasonable one in view of the fact that there was either confusion or an error in the course of the taking of the vote on the amendment to Bill C-24 that was entirely unintentional and inadvertent on the part of the New Democratic Party. I suspect there is a will in the House to see that it is corrected.

However, I need to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the first time this has occurred. We saw a similar incident in the spring in relation to a vote on a budget bill; I hasten to add, not on the budget itself, but in relation to the vote on the budget bill. At that time the House, specifically on the part of the government and perhaps the Bloc, but I do not want to characterize its position because I do not know for sure, did not have the will to accommodate the simple correction of what was an obvious inadvertent occurrence that, since that time, I must say, the government has been at some pains to exacerbate.

The point is that these incidents do, unfortunately, occur. It is obvious to all members of the House that they are inadvertent and there has, at least up until last spring, been the will in the House to immediately recognize the reality of the situation and to cooperate with each other to correct the error and ensure the record accurately reflects what the will of the House would be.

In this instance I think it is obvious what the NDP intended, even though that was not reflected in the detail of what happened last evening. From the opposition's point of view, we are certainly prepared to see that inadvertent situation put right and the accurate reflection of the NDP's position to show through in the proceedings of the House.

I simply make the point that the same goodwill, the same give and take and the same sense of fair play and accurate reflection should apply in all circumstances.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we end up in a debate over this point of order but I simply cannot allow that to pass without pointing out the obvious, which is the incident that the official opposition House leader refers to, which is in fact not that a mistake was made during a vote. The reality is that due to inattention--

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

It's exactly the same thing.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

It is not exactly the same, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it was quite different.

I have only been here 13 years but I remember when the Liberal Party was in power and quite often it would deny unanimous consent to correct errors that opposition parties made. This is not unique.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Without having a continuation of the debate, let me put the question to the House. Does the proposal that the chief government whip has put forward, that the members of the New Democratic Party who voted on the previous motion be counted as having voted yea on the amendment moved by the Liberal Party to Bill C-24 at second reading last evening?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

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

Canadian Heritage

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved:

That the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Thursday, October 5, 2006, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to ask my hon. colleagues in this House to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This report is essentially comprised of the motion adopted on October 4 by a majority of committee members, which reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommend that the government continue funding the Court Challenges Program at the fiscal 2005-2006 level.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that this recommendation or proposal was not adopted unanimously. It was adopted, however, by a majority of committee members. That is why, having given notice of this proposal, I hasten to put it forward this morning. I do believe that this is a matter of critical importance. So much so that I might suggest a possible connection with the government bill to amend the Criminal Code that was just introduced. This bill introduced by the government this morning could very well be challenged in court some day. It is highly likely that people will need financial assistance to assert their rights then. Initially, that is what the court challenges program was intended for.

Let us look at a bit of history. Hon. members might remember that, in the early 1980s, Canada established the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and patriated the Constitution, opening the way to a marvellous societal adventure. The subsequent decades saw the rights proclaimed at that time, rights enshrined in a charter which is the envy of many, be affirmed in our country. That is indeed what happened.

It has often been said that, on paper, the Russian constitution was probably the best in the world. But we have to go further than that and see to what extent people's rights and freedoms are respected on a daily basis. In that respect, Canada is a leader.

For over two decades now, we have upheld those rights. The Court Challenges Program of Canada has been an important part of asserting our rights and liberties. Our success as a country is due in large part to this program, which has enabled traditionally underprivileged groups and the poor to assert their rights and exercise their citizenship fully. A former Conservative government abolished this program, and the Liberal government reinstated it in 1994. I find it very disturbing that, once again, the Conservative government is targeting the court challenges program and, at the end of September, announced its intention to eliminate it.

I hope that a majority of the Canadian people's representatives in this House will choose to maintain this program because it is a social tool of vital importance. Many have said so. To those who indulge in exaggeration, who allege that this program encourages parties to challenge government actions in court, I would say that we must look to the facts. I know that the Calgary Herald published an editorial on July 16, 2006, stating that over 50,000 suits were brought against the government in court. That may be, but not all of these cases went through the Court Challenges Program of Canada.

As we know, charter law is a rather specialized area and most cases against the government would not even involve constitutional issues. The 50,000-plus cases the Calgary Herald editorial was referring to this past July are cases that individuals may bring against the government on whatever grounds, but in terms of charter cases, let us be clear.

This information can be obtained from the annual report of the court challenges program. Between 1994, when the program was re-established after the Mulroney government cut it, and 2005, the program has funded 375 equality rights court cases and 142 language rights court cases. Of those, 121 of the 375 equality rights cases were to fund interveners, not the original plaintiffs, and 44 of the 142 language rights cases were also to fund interveners.

That is the nature of what we are addressing. The cost of the program was slightly over $2 million, which of course we know is, in the grand scheme of things, a sum of money that the government and the country can afford. We will get to that in a few minutes.

So that people understand the nature of the program, I note that it does not even involve constitutional issues. It involves very specific issues of equality and language rights. It is restricted by contribution agreements between the non-profit organization that was created to manage the program and the Government of Canada. Therefore, it is all spelled out and directed as per the will of the government.

To say that it is a program that benefits only certain groups and certain people is not accurate. On that front, I would like to give an example. I can give this example because the people involved have given their permission to be quoted. Indeed, some of the cases are now before the court system.

There is a group from the linguistics side and also a number from the equality side.

On the official languages side, the Centre d'avancement et de leadership en développement économique communautaire de la Huronie believes that its rights to community economic development have not been respected. This case is before the courts.

In another case, Claudette Chubbs has challenged the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in the court of appeal on the issue of the rights of parents of eligible children in the L'Anse-au-Clair, Forteau and L'Anse-au-Loup regions to have their children educated in French.

For its part, the Fédération Franco-TéNOise is taking a legal challenge to the court of appeal for clarification as to whether the Government of the Northwest Territories—and, by extension, all the territorial governments—is an institution of the Government of Canada for the purposes of section 20 of the charter.

The case of Raymond Robinson and Gerry Deneault is a legal challenge filed by parents of children who attend the Centre Jules-Léger in Ottawa, the only public primary or secondary school in Ontario that provides instruction in French for children with learning disabilities.

Despite court statements that have identified school management and control as important aspects of exercising the rights set out in section 23 of the charter, there are no mechanisms for consultation or cooperation between centre administrators and parents of eligible children. There are other similar cases and cases relating to equality.

On equality rights, we have a number of cases being funded by the court challenges program. I have to list a few so that Canadians have a sense of the scope and the importance of the court challenges program.

There is one case by the name of Amparo Torres Victoria v. Canada, in this case the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety. It is the case of a lady who was a trade union and human rights and political activist in Colombia and is now accused of terrorism. She is defending herself against the charges. In doing so, she is challenging sections 33, 34, 78 and 86 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, essentially because she is being charged in secret. We have just had a very famous case dealt with in this country in that regard and we ought to be very careful about this. This kind of case would indeed probe the legality and the constitutionality of certain sections of that law.

There is the case of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. Via Rail Canada Inc. This application was on the agenda for the panel's November 2006 meeting but cannot be heard. The appeal concerns the purchase by Via Rail of passenger railcars that are inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs.

We also have the case of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons v. Canada. The applicant is an organization representing elderly persons who wish to challenge paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a provision that allows for mandatory retirement. This is of rather significant importance.

There is also Le Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec v. CRTC.

In this case, the applicant is challenging section 5(1)(b) of the broadcasting regulations as violating section 15 of the charter based on under-inclusiveness.

The Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic is involved in challenging provisions of federal immigration law that require sponsors to meet minimum levels of income or deny social assistance recipients' right to sponsor, something of significance to a number of Canadians.

I can go on. A number of cases are of great importance to the social fabric of our community. Some involve aboriginal Canadians, for instance the Fort Providence Metis Council, and some involve the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria.

This is a program rooted in our communities. I take great exception to the Prime Minister's response when asked why his government did this to the court challenges program. He said two things, one of which was that he did not like funding “Liberal lawyers”. That is a great mis-characterization and is disingenuous at best, because this program funds our communities, our associations, our non-profit organizations and our individuals, rooted in Canada and their communities, who are fighting to make sure their rights are respected. They choose their lawyers. For the Prime Minister and some of his ministers to respond the way they did is not worthy of the offices they hold. I take great exception to that.

However, the second response given by the Prime Minister in his reasoning why the court challenges program was cancelled is frightening. The Prime Minister said something to the effect that his government intends to behave in a constitutional manner. I hope so. All governments and all executives should be expected to behave in a constitutional manner. It goes without saying. For the Prime Minister to think that he has to say his government intends to behave in a constitutional manner is rather outlandish.

Then the Prime Minister said in this House, “We do not intend to adopt unconstitutional legislation”. I have serious problems with that statement. First, not only does the court challenges program address proposed legislation, but it addresses existing legislation as well, legislation that has been on the books since the start of this country, legislation both here in the Parliament of Canada and in the provinces and territories. That is what is involved in the court challenges program. We have seen a number of cases in which we have had to reach back and where, because of laws passed before the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some sections of laws were struck down. That is the first difficulty I have with the Prime Minister's response.

Another difficulty I have is that his statement implied that it only applies here for legislation passed by this Parliament and sanctioned by the Queen. That is not so. Some of the rights protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms affect provincial legislation as well. Education is a case in point. A number of the linguistic rights cases that have been funded by the court challenges program fall under that category. For the Prime Minister to say we do not need this because the government will only adopt constitutional laws is disingenuous again, because it applies to the entire universe of laws that this Parliament has put in existence plus what is out there in the provinces.

There is another point about the Prime Minister saying that his government does not intend to adopt unconstitutional legislation. Two provinces have said that some of the bills introduced by the government are unconstitutional. There is a slight problem here. The Government of Quebec and I believe the Government of Ontario have said that in terms of legislation dealing with the other place.

So which is it? Does the government not intend to adopt unconstitutional legislation? That brings me to the fourth and most important difficulty, a scary consequence of what the Prime Minister said.

There are three branches of our government: the executive branch, which is the Prime Minister and his cabinet; the legislative branch, which is us in this House; and there is the judiciary. By the Prime Minister saying that we, the executive, do not intend to adopt unconstitutional legislation, he is actually substituting the executive for both the legislative and the judiciary branches in this country. That is very scary.

As a legislator I am very concerned that the Prime Minister would have the attitude that he knows best, that his government, his executive, can decide what laws are to be adopted. First of all, that is the prerogative of the legislature. The Prime Minister should know that especially in a minority situation. Then, that the judiciary would not have a say, as a legislator I am concerned. As a citizen I am scared.

If that is the attitude that is coming from this government, then I understand why it cut, eliminated, and slashed the court challenges program. I think the will of this House should be listened to by this government. Where the country is going now is not very good.

In effect, we are starting to see here a bit of an advocacy chill. We are seeing a government that is trying to shut down systematically those who would speak in ways that do not please the government. The court challenges program is very much a case in point. It is not the only one.

We have seen what this government has decided in terms of funding for women's groups in this country. The government has actually taken advocacy off from what the groups could do in order to receive money. The groups can no longer advocate. If they do, they are not eligible for subsidies. If that is not an advocacy chill, I do not know what it is.

The Minister of Agriculture is getting into the game. He has put out a directive that the Wheat Board cannot use its resources to promote itself. If that is not an advocacy chill, what is it?

Canadians are starting to see a pattern here. This government is not even prepared to listen to another point of view. It is still a minority government. I guess that is the reason why polls are indicating that Canadians have no appetite to give this government a majority. Canadians are starting to be very concerned about the consequences of that.

If my colleagues think that I am the only one here, there are a number of people in our society that have made comments. I would like to take a few minutes and read a couple of quotes from people who have been following this issue. The national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Paul Moist, said:

When we look at just 2 of these program cuts $5 million from the Status of Women and $5.6 million from the Court Challenges program, a clear message is being sent. The government is essentially saying that any voice given to addressing gender inequality in this country will be further silenced--furthermore any voices wanting to challenge the current status of the laws of this land will be muzzled.

Marcus Tabachnick, president of the Quebec English School Boards Association, had this to say in a letter sent to the Minister of Justice:

The pertinence of the Court Challenges Program of Canada has been recognized by the Canadian Bar Association. Important decisions on minority-language schooling, access to services and key issues regarding freedom of expression have been rendered after interventions funded by the Court Challenges Program. Many of those interventions would have been impossible to initiate without the program's support.

Jean-Guy Rioux, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, says:

These program cuts announced by the government [of the Prime Minister] go against the commitments made by the Government of Canada and represent an attack on the francophone and Acadian communities...Accountability demands that the government consult us, which it did not do. We have therefore filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Audrey Johnson, executive director of the Women's League Education and Action Fund said in a media release:

This is a devastating loss to Canada's most vulnerable groups. Without the CCP it means that “ordinary citizens” will be less able to protect or restore their rights when they are infringed by laws or actions of the state.

The last quote comes from Jean-Robert Sansfaçon in his editorial in Le Devoir on September 27:

On the whole, these Conservative cuts are in no way intended to reduce waste. Their purpose is simply to eliminate programs that clash with the convictions of some Conservative ministers or even to throw obstacles in the way of volunteer organizations or activist groups that could hurt the Conservatives. What a lack of generosity, what small-mindedness!

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I kind of chuckle to myself when I hear some of the comments from my colleague across the floor. The member mentions the Wheat Board. What do you have against western farmers--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member should know by now that he should address his comments through the Chair and not directly to the member opposite.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

My apology, Mr. Speaker. You are absolutely right, I should have known better.

During the speech of my colleague across the floor he mentioned the Wheat Board. I would like to know what he has against western wheat producers on that issue alone and why they should not have a choice. Many farmers in the riding I represent have a choice. That is all the government is trying to do.

My hon. colleague criticized cuts. The cuts only involve basically what has been a matter of overtaxation. Cutting out administration and seeing that money actually goes to Canadian taxpayers is all the government is doing.

I ask the hon. member across the way, what does he have against Canadian taxpayers getting a good bang for their buck and why he supports overtaxation?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the member opposite that when we formed the government back in 1993, we inherited from the previous Conservatives a $42 billion annual deficit.

It was the Liberal government, under the leadership of the right hon. Jean Chrétien and the member for LaSalle—Émard, who undertook to redress the public finances of this country. Within three or four years, we had eliminated the deficit and we started paying off debt. We have nothing against prudent fiscal management, au contraire. We did what the previous Conservative government would not do.

The present government has benefited from that because in this first year of its administration, which I hope will not be lasting much longer, it has put away $13 billion. However, 10 of the 12 months under which that $13 billion was accumulated happened to be under the previous Liberal administration.

The biggest single tax cut to Canadian taxpayers came under the previous administration as well. We have nothing against sound fiscal management and prudence, but we believe in a fair society.

Two and a half million dollars for the court challenges program to be eliminated the way the Conservatives did demonstrates meanspiritedness, and a belief that Canadians should not be able to access public support to have their rights respected. Canadians are not very fond of that attitude.

As far as the Wheat Board is concerned, I have no problems with it. The opposite is true. That party would like to destroy the Wheat Board and in so doing, it has even ordered the Wheat Board to not promote itself.

That is part of the bigger picture of advocacy chill that we are starting to see emerge from the government. The Conservatives do not like it when others do not agree with them. Thank goodness we have in the House the ability and the right to make those points of view heard.

I cannot guess the outcome of the vote on the debate, but I suspect the Conservatives may find out that indeed, the majority of the members of the House do not agree with their meanspiritedness.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the member opposite on his intervention this morning.

The court challenges program is government funding special interest groups to challenge the government on laws that have been prepared. The reason the previous government across the way supported it is because some of the laws it put in place needed a second look by the courts.

Would the member not agree that if the proper discussion, debate and oversight is done upfront when the laws are presented in the House, when they are debated in the House, debated in committee, and go through the whole process that legislation goes through before it becomes law, that is the time for any changes and improvements to the law so it better reflects what Canadians want?

Does he not feel that is where the effort and the time should be spent to create the law right in the first place instead of having a court challenges program, funded by government, that does not release how much money is being spent by which groups? It does all that without reporting to the Canadian people. Is that not a more acceptable path to follow than what is presently being done?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I failed to convey the information that I was hoping was relevant and I will try again.

On the strict question of whether we should focus on making better laws, of course, the role of this House and of that other place is to make good laws. However, we have three branches of government in this country: the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. The legislative role is, as my colleague says, to make the best laws possible. The judiciary also has a role in interpreting those laws and determining sometimes whether or not we have made mistakes and that has happened.

That is for laws that are before us now. The difficulty with the member's premise is that the court challenges program in effect deals with much more than that. It deals with laws that existed prior to the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It deals with provincial legislation, and it deals with provincial and federal inaction. I will give him an example.

In Summerside, P.E.I., the francophone community figured it had a right to a school. The provincial government did not accept that. The francophone community went to court, had some support from the court challenges program, and the Supreme Court of Canada determined indeed that it was right and now it has a school. There were no laws in this case. It was a provincial inaction. The court challenges program has that broad a scope, it does not just deal with current legislation that is before us.

In terms of current legislation, I tend to agree. Yet, there has to be an authority beyond us that will make a determination and that is why we have three branches in the government. For the rest, it just does not only deal with that. It deals with everything that came before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provincial legislation through actions and inactions. The court challenges program is indeed a necessary ingredient which is recognized internationally, by the way, as something that this country should be proud of. We should continue that program.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague discuss agriculture. He totally overlooked the fact that, between 1993 and 2005, more than 75,000 Canadian farms disappeared. He also forgot to mention that, under the previous government, from 1993 to 2005, the total liability of Canadian farmers grew from $25 billion to $48.9 billion. There is no denying that the previous government completely abandoned agriculture.

We now have measures to create greater cash flow. We would like to work towards ensuring that the Canadian Wheat Board can give more money to producers.

Why is my colleague against measures that could help farmers solve their money problems.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is pure foolishness. I did not say anything about agriculture. I spoke about the court challenges program and a government that insists on silencing anyone who is unhappy with them or who criticizes them. What they are doing is stifling criticism in our democracy. This is what I addressed.

The member rises and says that I talked about agriculture. This is pure foolishness and warrants no further response. This is ridiculous.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour I rise today as a Canadian citizen and a member of Parliament.

It is a privilege to speak to the House, a House that has long been a symbol of fairness and equality. It is in the House that the laws which protect us have been crafted and the bills that defend each of us have been passed. It is in this chamber that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms emerged and this is where they will stay protected and guarded by the representatives of the people of Canada.

Canadian society has been shaped by the collective values of its citizens who, with thought and conscience, proudly participate in the democratic process by choosing representatives to be their voice, to stand up for the rights and freedoms of all individual citizens and to ensure a society that accords dignity and respect regardless of gender and race. It is our system of Parliament which has served as the foundation of our way of life. It will continue to shape and mould the way we live as we evolve together as a community and a nation.

Canada's system of Parliament stands as a model for countries around the world, striving to achieve equality and justice for our own citizens. We are considered a leader in the promotion and preservation of human rights and freedoms. It is imperative that we ultimately protect this process from those who wish to reject our democratic system, preferring to advance their cause through legal research and court costs paid by Canadian taxpayers.

The government believes in creating legislation that is constitutional and reflects the values of all Canadians. We believe in creating laws that promote diversity and equality. The government believes in the democratic process and that Canadians should be rewarded for practising that right and to experience their hopes and beliefs become reality through laws that are created and passed by those they elect to the House. We believe that public policy should be driven by the will of the people. We believe it will be best expressed through publicly elected officials who sit in debate in the halls of Parliament and commit themselves to standing up for all Canadians.

The Canadian court challenges program is inherently flawed in that it promotes and encourages special interest groups to advance causes that do not reflect the view of the majority of Canadians. It allows special interest groups to use hard-earned Canadian tax dollars to promote a public policy agenda that is not always in line with the majority of Canadian voters. This manipulation of the system is neither transparent nor accountable. The Canadian court challenges program is not required to reveal which groups it chooses to fund or how much money these groups get. In today's political environment this just is not acceptable.

Government funded protest is an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars. Government should have the foresight to enact laws that are responsible and fair and that protect and support the interests of minority and disadvantaged groups. Public money should be used in practical ways to directly support the population through social programs that meet the needs of the citizens.

The new Canadian government is committed to ensuring that laws are fair. We are committed to the review and update of those laws, which no longer reflect the values of Canadians. The government is working directly with disadvantaged groups to improve conditions so they may participate fully in society. The government is committed to ensuring that minority groups are guaranteed access to social, economic and cultural rights.

The new Canadian government, through serious action, has proven its advocacy toward the most vulnerable citizens. The ministers of the government work together to identify problems and work in concert to devise solutions for the benefit of minority groups and disadvantaged citizens.

Let us take a look at the last 10 short months of this government and what it has done more to protect the rights of vulnerable citizens than the previous government in its full term of office.

The new Canadian government acknowledged the injustice that was committed against aboriginal children through the residential school program. In May of this year the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians along with the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women approved a final Indian residential school settlement agreement and the immediate launch of an advanced payment program with the hope of fostering reconciliation and healing among all Canadians.

It must be noted that this is in the face of the fact that the previous Liberal administration had this file on its desk for the full term and it did nothing on this file. In less than six months we resolved the issue where the previous government took 13 years of inaction to do nothing.

The government acknowledged the injustice that was done to Chinese Canadians in the early 1900s. The Chinese head tax was a blatant form of discrimination. In June of this year Canada's new government officially apologized. The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women along with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister were instrumental in working with the Chinese community to begin the healing process. The Prime Minister issued an official apology for the head tax imposed on Chinese Canadians and the government announced it would make ex gratia symbolic payments of $20,000 to living head taxpayers and to persons in a conjugal relationship with a now deceased head taxpayer.

What had the Liberals done on this file? Absolutely nothing. In less than six months we resolved that file, which was a blight on the conscience of Canadians since the 1900s. We did it in six months.

The government acknowledged the unjust treatment of victims who contracted hepatitis C from the blood system before January 1, 1986 and after January 1, 1990. In July of this year the government recognized that all victims who contracted hepatitis C through contaminated blood suffered equally and were liable for compensation. The Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario along with his parliamentary secretary and hon. members such as the member for Cambridge, the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) and the member for Halton spearheaded the movement to finally address this injustice, an injustice the former government had refused to recognize.

I recall very clearly sitting on the other side of the House when our party was pushing on this issue. We actually got the Liberals to agree that this was a complete travesty and injustice to those who had suffered from hepatitis C. What did they do? They agreed only so they could get out of the House with their heads up because they wanted to get across the street. Then they had to put their heads back down again. We got them to supposedly move on this issue of public interest and they did nothing.

Our government has set aside nearly a billion dollars in a special settlement fund which sole purpose is to provide compensation to the pre-1986 and the post-1990 hepatitis C victims. Hepatitis C victims have said thank goodness for the new Canadian government.

The government acknowledges the plight of aboriginal women, who are struggling with marital breakdown and are faced with overwhelming barriers in securing a future for themselves and their children. Just a few weeks ago, the government took the initiative and began to work to secure fair and equitable on reserve real matrimonial property rights. The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians has begun consultations across the country in hopes of establishing on reserve matrimonial real property solutions to first nation communities.

What had the Liberals done in the full 13 years when they were on this side of the House? Nada, nothing, on this absolutely vital issue. We take no lessons from the Liberals on issues of social fairness and social justice.

The members of the government are proud to act as advocates for vulnerable citizens in our country. The members of the government are proud to stand up for the rights of minorities and the disadvantaged. The government believes that public policy should be made by parliamentarians. Debates on equality and rights should focus on the individual, not the self-serving special interest groups. The government is committed to ensure that legislation passed is legislation that is good for Canadians.

It is very interesting that the member brought forward this concurrence motion today. He will be aware of his own intervention yesterday, and I agreed with the member. The heritage committee will listen to people who will tell us the good things of the court challenges program. I have to state to the House, in fairness to the member, he agreed that people who were denied access to these funds should also be given the access to the committee so they could have their say as well. I commend the member for that.

This is all about the fact that the situation is out of the control of accountability of the House. Why have these people been funded? I do not know. On what basis have these people had access to these funds on what basis? I do not know. The difficulty is there are many people who have felt they should have had access to these funds in order to bring forward their own cause. Yet the individuals who make the decisions as to who should receive the funding are not accountable. We have no reason why they make their decisions.

I am very proud of our government. We do stand up for the vulnerable in our society. As we are made aware of things, we act and we act expeditiously. Our government is very proud to stand up for all Canadians.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a section of the Official Languages Act to the hon. member. Section 43.(2) states:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to ensure public consultation in the development of policies and review of programs relating to the advancement and the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society

Would the hon. member, who is the parliamentary secretary to the minister, tell us what consultations, if any, were held before the decision was made to cancel the program?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in taking a look at the consultation process on this question or any other question, not being a member of cabinet, I have no access to that information.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the member's assertions about caring about the priorities of Canadians, let me remind him of some of their cuts: $5 million from the Status of Women; $45 million from Canada Mortgage and Housing; $10 million from the elimination of support for Canadian volunteerism; $25 million from the funding for the Canadian apparel and textile industries; $10 million from the elimination of the youth international internship program; $11 million from the elimination of the first nations and Inuit tobacco control strategy; $6 million from the Canadian Firearms Centre; $39 million from the regional economic development agencies; $18 million from the literacy skills program; $55 million from the youth employment initiatives; $6 million from the court challenges program; $83 million from public service human resources program; $78 million from the elimination of the visitors' GST rebate program; and $11 million from the elimination of the unused funding for the previous mountain pine beetle initiative.

There is a pattern here, a pattern of a government that says, “Do as I say, not as I do”. It is a meanspirited government. It is a government which is driven by ideology and by political ambition rather than to provide responsible government.

The member has to come clean with Canadians. Canadians deserve the truth. Why does the member not rise in his place and acknowledge that the cuts to the museums, for instance, were meanspirited and wrong? These points were raised by the hon. member moving the motion. Cultural heritage of Canada is important to Canadians.

The government does not seem to get it. Even on the court challenges program, it seems to think somehow that this is a matter of we have to deal with laws correctly the first time round, that there should be no recourse down the road as circumstances change. Laws always can change, and sometimes people cannot afford to go to the courts to argue their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When is this member going to get it?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, we do get the whole issue of accountability.

In the case of the mountain pine beetle, for example, our government has committed $1 billion over the next 10 years, which is $100 million a year, toward the pine beetle program. In the particular instance that he keys on, of the $11 million so-called cut, that was $11 million that had not been expended, that was from a leftover, defunct, very inadequate Liberal program. We simply took that $11 million off the books and replaced it with $100 million and another $100 million the next year after that and after that, for a total of $1 billion. This kind of responsible way of managing the people's money as though it was something of value is a concept that seems to be lost on most Liberals.

Let us take a look at the museums assistance program. When we add the $9.6 million, which was originally in the budget, to the amount in the summer works program for students, which is directed to museums, the total is about $11.7 million.

As my friend was prone to reciting a particular section, I will recite some figures for him of the actual expenditures from 1995-96 and 1996-97. Against the $9.4 million that had been previously budgeted, actual Liberal expenditures were $8.0 million, $7.9 million, $8.3 million, $7.2 million and $8.5 million. In the year 2000-01, expenditures hit $9.6 million but then in 2001-02, expenditures were $7.7 million, $7.4 million, $8.2 million and $8.1 million. These funds were distributed by the Liberals against a $9.4 million program. Why would they leave a $9.4 million program, plus the $2.4 million for students, intact when in fact only in one year did they actually hit a $9 million expenditure?

It is called accountability and our government is very proud of being accountable to Canadian taxpayers.