Debates of April 30th, 2007

Taxation

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member opposite does not understand that sometimes one has to act in the best long term interests of the country.

I know that the member for Markham—Unionville is not in favour of tax havens or he would get up and say he is in favour of tax havens. Tax havens are something Liberal members know a lot about. They are very familiar with tax havens.

Even the Toronto Star, an organ with which the member is familiar, says “it makes no sense to allow companies to claim tax breaks against income on which they pay no tax”. It says that the Liberal leader is “turning his back on sound tax policy”.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Augustin Carstens, Secretary of Finance and Public Credit for the United Mexican States.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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 44 petitions.

Public Safety and National Security

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be presenting two reports. First, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the committee has considered Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), and agreed on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, to report it with amendments.

Second, I also have the honour to present the committee's ninth report, concerning the subject matter of Bill C-279. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

I would like to read for members two brief excerpts from the ninth report. The first states:

The Committee in principle fully supports the intention underlying Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), and believes that the necessary steps must be taken, either by amending the DNA Identification Act or by providing for the establishment of a DNA human remains index and a DNA missing persons index, to help law enforcement agencies to search for and identify persons reported missing.

Although we have deleted the clauses in the bill, we fully support the bill.

We conclude by recommending:

--that the Government consider the advisability of bringing in the legislation necessary to establish missing persons indexes after the completion of federal-provincial-territorial discussions on its implementation.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled, “Ensuring a Sustainable and Humane Seal Harvest”. I would note that the report is a unanimous one, supported by all the parties on the fisheries committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

In according with the motion adopted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, the committee recommends that the government impose a speed limit of 40 miles per hour for trains in the city of Montmagny, Quebec, until the final report of the Transportation Safety Board following the accident that occurred on January 7, 2007, is issued.

Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 7 of the Centennial Flame Research Award Act, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is the 2006 annual report on the administration of the act.

Attached to the report are copies, in both official languages, of the research report submitted by Ms. Audrey King, the 2005 recipient of the Centennial Flame Award, entitled, “But they never looked at me”, and a financial report for 2006, as requested by the act.

Income Tax Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-434, An Act to amend the Income tax Act (in-home care of relatives).

Mr. Speaker, the basic summary states that this enactment would:

--amend the Income Tax Act to allow a taxpayer with a live-in relative who is 65 years of age or older, or who has a mental or physical infirmity, to receive a personal tax credit equivalent to the subsidy normally provided by the Government of Canada to a long-term care facility with respect to such a relative.

The purpose of this bill is to allow people who have infirmities later in life to stay in their own homes longer and it states that people who care for these individuals should receive a tax break equivalent to the break that would be received if they were put in a nursing home or other institution. We ask for speedy passage of the bill.

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

Excise Tax Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-435, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (no GST on the sale of home heating fuels).

Mr. Speaker, again this is a reintroduction of a bill that I have had for now seven years. I firmly believe that there should be no taxes paid by people who heat their homes or their dwellings with any kind of natural gas, oil, electricity, or whatever they need.

Heating one's home is an essential aspect of the Canadian way of life and I do not believe the government should be profiting from people heating their homes.

Now, with the price of fuels, natural gas and electricity, it is time to give taxpayers of this country a real break, just like the NDP did in Nova Scotia. It pushed to have the tax removed provincially. Now we ask that it be done federally as well across the country.

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

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-436, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (no GST on funeral arrangements).

Mr. Speaker, when the government talks about a $21 billion surplus over two years, it forgets to tell us that that money came from people who have to go through the aspect of burying a loved one or having somebody cremated. I cannot figure out why the Conservatives, in the eighties, put this tax on crematorium and funeral services. It is unacceptable.

This bill would remove all federal taxes from funeral and crematorium services.

It is tough enough when a loved one passes away. It is tough enough to have to pay taxes on top of that, which gets to the old adage that there are two things in life we cannot avoid: death and taxes. I do not think we should tax death. It is as simple as that.

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

Canadian Heritage

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all parties. I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the role of the public broadcaster in the 21st century, six members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be authorized to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Montréal, Quebec, from May 23 to 25, 2007, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to move concurrence in the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Status of Women which reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on the Status of Women recommend to the government that it restore the Court Challenges Program, and that adoption of this motion be reported to the House.

What is the history behind this? As the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I have been listening to many women's groups and they have been absolutely dismayed at the wilful way in which the Conservative government treats women and minorities.

If we look at the history behind these cuts, in budget 2005-06, with $13.2 billion in surplus, the Conservative government saw fit to, as we say, stick it to women. Why?

The $1 billion funding cuts the Conservatives brought about were cuts for social programs for the most vulnerable. These funding cuts directly targeted women, aboriginals, those in need of affordable housing, and other groups for which the Conservatives have traditionally shown very little concern.

While the Conservatives continually claim to be standing up for Canada, the truth is they are only interested in standing up for those who already agree with their narrow policies: their core constituency of voters. Witness after witness has come before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and advised us that they feel the Conservatives are governing on behalf of a very narrow base and if people do not fit their profile, then they are out of luck.

How can the majority of women, 52% of the voters of Canada, feel this way? What has led them to feel this way?

If we look at the cuts that came about in the 2005-06 budget there were $5 million to Status of Women Canada and $10 million eliminating the support to the Canadian voluntarism initiative. How could anyone cut $10 million from a voluntarism initiative when volunteers contribute approximately $6 billion to the economy and without them we would not be able to function?

The Conservatives eliminated $6 million from the court challenges program. If one looks at the court challenges program to figure out why that program is important and what it does, it provides a vehicle for marginalized individuals who want assistance. With the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we should not forget that the charter belongs to the people.

Within our system there are many archaic laws that do not comply with the charter and continue to deny citizens their justice. It is a travesty that the government refuses to eliminate such legislation. Hence, the court challenges program is a vehicle that can assist Canadians in this very urgent and important matter.

Supreme Court Justice Beverley McLachlin stated that many men and women find themselves unable, mainly for financial reasons, to access the Canadian justice system. The court challenges program provides Canadians with this access.

The fact is that $6 million is not a lot of money when we look at the whole scheme of things in a budget of $200 billion. Therefore, we look at what the purpose is for the Conservatives wanting to eliminate it.

Leading Canadian non-government organizations are calling on the Prime Minister to restore funding to this program immediately because the court challenges program, which was created in 1978, provides funds to support test cases of national significance to clarify the constitutional rights of official language minorities and the right of everyone in Canada to live free from discrimination based on sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation and other similar grounds.

It has provided the only access to the use of constitutional rights for most Canadians. What do the Conservatives have against official language minorities? What do they have against equality? What do they have against gender? What do they have against women?

Bonnie Morton of the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues said:

The cancellation of the court challenges program is an attack on the charter itself and the human rights of everyone in Canada. When a country such as Canada enacts constitutional rights, it takes for granted that residents, when they believe the government is violating their rights, can and will challenge any offending law or policy. If residents cannot ensure respect of their rights because of financial barriers, Canada's constitutional democracy is hollow. We turn the charter into a paper guarantee, with no real meaning.

That is a very important statement because if people do not have the financial means to support themselves, then they cannot be in a position to challenge any of those laws that violate their democracy. Hence, if we claim to be a democratic country, it is important that we restore the court challenges program.

Yvonne Peters of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities said:

Without the court challenges program, Canada's constitutional rights are really only for the wealthy. This offends basic fairness. And it does not comply with the rule of law, which is a fundamental principle of our Constitution.

Avvy Go of the Metro Toronto Chinese and South Asian Legal Clinic said:

Commitment to the protection of the Charter rights of disadvantaged individuals and groups is one of Canada's core values. [The Prime Minister] recognized this during the last election campaign, and he said then that if elected a Conservative government would “articulate Canada's core values on the world stage”, including “the rule of law”, “human rights” and “compassion for the less fortunate”. The cancellation of the court challenges program belies this promise.

Jean-Guy Rioux of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada said:

Cancelling the program shows profound disrespect for the French-speaking Canadians who live outside of Quebec, the English-speaking Canadians who live in Quebec, and for all Canadian residents who may need the protection of equality rights. The CCP has notably given means to French-speaking minorities to ensure that their rights to education in their language are respected.

The beneficiaries of the courts challenges program are many, and we on this side of the House cannot understand why the government has chosen such a very narrow focus and has stuck to its neo-con ideology of not supporting the very marginalized who need support.

The beneficiaries of the CCP are individuals and groups who believe that laws and policies discriminate against them or deny them their language rights. They cannot go forward without lawyers to represent them, since constitutional challenges are legally complex.

Second, when a country like Canada enacts constitutional rights, it takes for granted that residents, when they believe the government is violating their rights, can and will challenge the offending law or policy.

If Canadians cannot use these rights because of financial barriers, then Canada's constitutional democracy is hollow. Governments must care that the rights they embrace are not meaningless and that the court challenges program has provided a simple and modest way of ensuring they are not. I am sure the government could afford the $6 million that it would take. With a $13.2 billion surplus, why would it choose to cancel a program that helps the official language minorities, people who are financially not well off and people who need to address these laws and exercise their rights.

We should emphasize that what the court challenges program provides is far from universal access to exercises of constitutional equality and language rights. It provides only limited funds for selected test cases.

We know the Conservative government, as a critic of the CPP, dislikes some of the cases that the court challenges program has supported: cases related to same sex marriage; cases related to the voting rights for federal prisoners; and cases related to the criminal law provision regarding hitting children.

The fact that some individuals or groups do not agree with some of the test cases funded by the program is not a reason to cancel it. No one among us is likely to agree with every test case that appears.

The point of a constitutional human rights regime is to ensure that diverse claims, perspectives and life experiences are respected and taken into account in the design of laws and policies. The equality guarantee and the language rights in the Constitution were designed to help minorities, whose views and needs may not be reflected by governments, to be heard on issues that affect them closely. Cancelling the court challenges program mutes their voices further and makes Canada a meaner, less tolerant society.

Many organizations have called on the government to restore funding because they believe that the court challenges program is an effective and accountable institution. The court challenges program of Canada has established a track record. It has been an effective and accountable institution which promotes access to justice.

The CCP, as it is called, has existed in a number of different institutions and has made remarkable contributions to the development of constitutional law and to the rights of Canadians over the last 28 years but there is more work that remains to be done.

Since 1994, when the court challenges program was established as an independent,not for profit corporation, it has done a lot of good work. To date, it has been funded solely through a contribution agreement between the Government of Canada and CCP. The CPP is fully accountable to the Government of Canada. It provides quarterly reports on its activities to the government and publishes an annual report with statistics on the number and types of cases that it has funded.

I would like to ask the government which of these cases that it did not like? When there is so much transparency and accountability in this program, why did it cancel it?

The CCP is also subject to some legal restrictions on reporting on funding in cases that are before the courts. This information is protected by solicitor-client privilege and cannot be released by CCP, in the same way that legal aid organizations cannot divulge information about their clients. The CCP's responsibility to protect this information was affirmed by a federal court ruling in 2000.

The court challenges program, which is subject to a full independent evaluation of its activities every five years, has been there for 28 years and has been evaluated three times. On each occasion, independent evaluators found that it was meeting the objectives set by the government as a cost effective and very accountable institution and they made unqualified recommendations that the court challenges program should continue to carry out its mandate.

Our justice system sometimes fails radically when individuals and groups whose constitutional rights are violated and are denied access to justice and the court challenges program plays a very important role in ensuring it.

We on this side of the House are seeking concurrence on this very important matter. We would like the government to reinstate the funding to the court challenges program.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member for Don Valley East talk about the establishment by the previous Liberal government of the court challenges program in 1994. However, what she has failed to mention to the House is that in the subsequent years the government of then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien so drastically cut the transfers to the provinces that, as a result, the Ontario legal aid plan in 1996-97 had to drastically cuts its financial support for legal aid certificates in Ontario.

In Ontario in 1996-97, only 75,000 certificates were issued, down from over 225,000 in the early 1990s. In other words, this was a reduction of more than 150,000 certificates per year. In other words, more than 150,000 cases, more 150,000 Canadian citizens in Ontario in each of those years 1996 and beyond, were denied justice because they did not have access to the legal aid program. That was as a direct result of the cuts to the transfers that the previous Liberal finance minister put in place in the mid-1990s.

Could the member for Don Valley East tell me how justice was served in the mid-1990s with such drastic cuts to the provincial transfers that resulted in the gutting of provincial legal aid plans?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, justice under the Mulroney government was not served because it created abject poverty. It led the country down a track to where we were called a third world basket case and, hence, the Liberal government left the current Conservative government with a $13.5 surplus.

In a surplus environment, for the Conservatives to cut programs for the most vulnerable is a shameful thing. I cannot believe the member has the audacity to stand and challenge this. It would only take $6 million for the court challenges program, a program that helps the official languages minority, the vulnerable and the marginalized, I cannot understand his logic.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned les bénévoles, the volunteers, and it was inconceivable to me that a government with all of the money that the member just outlined, the huge surplus, could actually even consider cutting so many programs for the most vulnerable in our society, and particularly volunteers, especially when the finance minister knows, and maybe one of the few members of his caucus who is aware, that the volunteers provide a huge economic boost to Canada by providing so much free service and getting so many things done that would cost government so much more.

I wonder if the member agrees with me when she was so astonished and disagreed with the fact that the new government has cut money to support volunteers who do so much in Canada and who are so much a part of the type of nation that we believe in.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the hon. member because the volunteerism Canada program was another very effective program. However, the minister did not even meet with them to tell them that she was cutting their funding.

I have had volunteer groups from parks and recreation, from all community organizations over the past few years and I have been doing my voluntary awards. This time I had to cancel the awards because the government cancelled the program. Volunteers contribute $6 billion to the economy and without them we would need to get $6 billion from somewhere.

I cannot understand where the government is going with its neo-Conservative agenda. How can it go after things that do not make sense? These are the social justice issues that help communities grow.

As the hon. member said, I was shocked and dismayed but then I do not know whether the Conservatives believe in the charter or not.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as people know, the government is very big on accountability. The Federal Accountability Act took a long time to get through committee simply because members opposite objected to having a fair, transparent and accountable government.

I would like to ask the member for Don Valley East this. It is common knowledge that the Canadian court challenges program was not required to reveal which groups it chose to fund or how much money these groups received. This is not acceptable in today's political environment.

The government wants to support people who are in need and who need a justice system that reflects their human rights. Does the member think it is correct that the former court challenges program should not have to reveal which groups it chooses to fund or how much money the groups get? There is something terribly wrong with that.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first statement the member made had me in shock. In the past 13 or 15 months, the new government has been the most unaccountable, contemptuous government we have had. It is arrogant. Hon. Michael Fortier, unaccountable senators and wait time guarantees are examples.

How about the fiasco that went on with income trusts? How about the Minister of National Defence? Every day in question period we hear this flip-flop. We do not know who is talking and where. The government has the most incompetent ministers.

I believe the government's cuts to the court challenges program were incompetent cut as well. If one looks at the court challenges program, solicitors and third parties have been talking about it and supporting it. The information between the client and the solicitor is privileged information, it is protected and cannot be released.

The program supports the constitutional rights of the official language minorities and vulnerable groups of people that cannot afford it. It is a good program and it should be reinstated.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, historically, the Government of Canada has informed the United Nations treaty bodies that it funds the court challenges program in order to meet its obligation to ensure equal access to the courts and to provide effective remedies under international human rights treaties. These United Nations treaty bodies have recognized that the court challenges program is a vital means of implementing treaty rights and have praised Canada for that.

Considering what is going on today with regard to the Afghan detainees, would the member care to comment on the importance of the court challenges program?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, without the court challenges program, how would somebody who has been detained wrongfully or tortured be given access without having to put out a lot of money?

It is important for us to note that the court challenges program is a program that protects the human rights of a person who does not have the wealth to protect himself or herself. As Canadians are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we should be mindful of this.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand and address this issue. It is a great honour to rise as a Canadian citizen and as a member of Parliament. It is a privilege to speak in the House, a House that has long been a symbol of fairness and equality.

It is in this House that the laws which protect each of us have been crafted and the bills which defend each of us have been passed. It is in this chamber that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms emerged and it is in this chamber 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 or race.

It is our system of Parliament which has served as the foundation for our way of life, and will continue to shape and mould the way we live as we evolve together as a community and as a nation.

Canada's system of Parliament stands as a model for countries around the world striving to achieve equality and justice for all its 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 that reflects the values of all Canadians. We believe in creating laws that in themselves promote diversity and equality. The government believes in the democratic process and believes 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 elected in the House. We believe public policy should be driven by the will of the people. We believe that will is best expressed through publicly elected officials that sit in debate in the halls of Parliament and who 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 is it 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 interest 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 government is committed to ensuring that laws are fair, and we are committed to the review and update of these laws which no longer reflect the values of Canadians. It is working directly with disadvantaged groups to improve conditions so they may participate fully in society. The government is committed in ensuring that minority groups are guaranteed access to social, economic and cultural rights.

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

In 10 short months the government has done more to protect the rights of vulnerable citizens than the previous government did in its full term in office. The government acknowledged the injustice that was committed against aboriginal children through the residential school program. In May of this year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, along with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, approved a final Indian residential schools settlement agreement and the immediate launch of an advance payment program, with the hope of fostering reconciliation and healing among all Canadians.

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 and earlier this year Canada's new government officially apologized.

The hon. Bev Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, along with her parliamentary secretary, were instrumental in working with the Chinese community in order to begin the healing process. The Prime Minister issued an official apology for the head tax imposed on Chinese Canadians, and the government announced that 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.

The government acknowledged the unjust treatment to the victims who contacted hepatitis C from the blood system before January 1986 and after July 1, 1990, I believe. 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. This was so important. I had a constituent in my riding who was waiting for this compensation.

The hon. Tony Clement, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario—

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I do this with some regret. I understand my hon. colleague is very sincere in her commercial for the Conservative government, but it strikes me that she may want to refer to her colleagues by their role as minister of their portfolio rather than their names, as that is not proper protocol in the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the chief opposition with much appreciation. This is a point that I make often and I would hope that all members would heed.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was focused on the content of this very serious issue rather than names. I apologize to the House for that.

The hon. Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, along with his parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Cambridge, the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, and the member for Halton spearheaded the movement to finally address this injustice, an injustice that the former government refused to recognize. As I said previously, I had a constituent in my riding who was waiting for this very important announcement. The government set aside nearly $1 billion in a special settlement fund, the sole purpose of which was to provide compensation to the pre-1996 and post-1990 hep C victims.

The government acknowledges the plight of aboriginal women who are struggling with a marital breakdown and are faced with overwhelming barriers to securing a future for themselves and for their children. Just a few weeks ago the government took the initiative and began working to secure fair and equitable on reserve real matrimonial property rights. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development began consultations across the country in the hope of establishing on reserve matrimonial real property solutions for first nation communities.

Members of the government are proud to act as advocates for the vulnerable citizens of this country. 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 and not the self-serving special interest groups. The government is committed to ensuring that legislation passed is legislation that is good for all Canadians.

I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say that Canada's new government is committed to repairing the neglect of former governments through policy and legislation and to move the country forward with values of equality and justice for all, for which we all stand.

Quite honestly, it is very important that all parliamentarians in the House, instead of going on a political agenda, ensure that all legislation is fair and equitable and that all legislation, like the Federal Accountability Act, is implemented. There were some real inherent flaws in the court challenges program. It did not address the inequality of the poor. Nor did it address our most vulnerable citizens.

I have listed a few of the many programs in which our government has taken a leadership role. We are getting the country on its right footing to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are addressed.