This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was peoples.

Topics

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Conservative

Rod Bruinooge ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member for Don Valley East, I have a number of questions. Her perception on our actions is that they are simply rhetoric.

I would suggest that bringing about the historic resolution of the Indian residential school settlement as the first act of Parliament by this government is not rhetoric but real important action. I would also like to suggest that proceeding with implementing important historic legislation in relation to setting up a specific claims tribunal has been called for for years and will improve upon the incredible backlog that we received as a government. There were nearly 800 specific claims which burgeoned from a very small number in the early 1990s.

My question for the member is in relation to the actual agreements that her party when in government signed. The previous Liberal government signed the Kyoto protocol and then did nothing to implement it. In fact, it left our government behind in a terrible way with 35% emissions above important initiatives in terms of greenhouse gas reductions.

Would she have our government sign a new declaration on the international scene which we know as a government we simply cannot implement? Is she suggesting we follow the former Liberal government initiatives where they simply placated the international community but did absolutely nothing to follow through on their commitments?

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, it would take me 10 minutes to answer his question, but I want to ask him a very simple question.

The Conservatives claim that they have the aboriginal community at heart. The declaration says to establish a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity, well-being and rights of the world's indigenous people, to address individual and collective rights, rights to education, health, employment and language. What is it within that declaration that the Minister of Indian Affairs finds unacceptable? What is it that the Conservatives find so unacceptable?

The Conservatives simply want to play with words. They have done nothing, absolutely nothing.

If the Kyoto protocol is something the Conservatives could not follow through on, it is because they lacked the leadership. Theirs was the Prime Minister who did not even believe in the science of climate change. They are later converts to climate change.

When the Conservatives do not have any knowledge, any background, any inclination to support climate change and any inclination to support aboriginal people, they will fall flat on their faces and keep on talking rhetoric.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague would agree with me that September 13, 2007 was a historic day for indigenous peoples around the world. On that day the UN and its member states voted 144 to 4 in favour of the declaration. Sadly, one of those four members was Canada, even though Canada has been participating in the declaration from day one and has always endorsed UN declarations and always has been at the forefront of these declarations.

This declaration which is now part of a larger body of international law makes a much needed contribution to global understanding and promotion of human rights that are indispensable to survival and well-being of some of the world's most marginalized and--

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

If the hon. member for Davenport wants an answer, then he will have to leave time for an answer. There are 40 seconds left.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague not agree with me that it is a shame the government has abandoned human rights internationally, has abandoned the U.S. and has abandoned indigenous people in this country?

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

There are 20 seconds left to respond.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the member. Human rights were something brought in by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the late right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberals are the proud custodians of that.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very important motion moved by the member for London—Fanshawe.

The Amnesty International report, “The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Righting Historic Wrongs, Embracing a Future of Justice and Hope” talked about the urgent need for the declaration. I am going to read from it because it sets the context for why it is important for the House to support the UN declaration on indigenous rights. It states:

Indigenous peoples are among the most marginalized, impoverished and frequently victimized sectors of the societies in which they live. This is true in every region of the world...

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated:

For far too long the hopes and aspirations of indigenous peoples have been ignored; their lands have been taken; their cultures denigrated or directly attacked; their languages and customs suppressed; their wisdom and traditional knowledge overlooked; and their sustainable ways of developing natural resources dismissed. Some have even faced the threat of extinction.... The answer to these grave threats must be to confront them without delay.

That is a very powerful statement and why we need to take a look at supporting the UN declaration.

In this context, we have a long sad and sorry history in this country of appropriating lands, removing children from the care of their parents, residential schools, deliberate attempts to extinguish language, and certainly deliberate attempts to extinguish culture. We only have to look at the potlatch laws in British Columbia in the earlier century.

In that context, I want to talk about a couple of issues. One is around children. Of course, many members of the House have children and grandchildren. We know how near and dear those children are to our hearts and how important it is to make sure that our children grow up in environments that are safe, loving and protective.

The B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society made a presentation in February 2008 on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, as we can tell from its name, the B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society's main focus is with children.

In its opening statement it provides a vision and talks about the fact that our children are sacred gifts from the creator and bringing up children is a sacred responsibility, that the well-being of children is indivisible and not separate from the general health and well-being of women, families and indigenous people, communities and nations. Then it goes on to talk about a number of factors that impact on aboriginal children in this country.

It specifically cites a couple of articles from the declaration that directly impact on the ability to protect and care for children in this country. I will not go through all of them but there are a couple that I want to mention. One is article 14 which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching...

Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination.

Article 15 states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information.

Those articles talk about a framework for how children are raised and cared for. Sadly, in this country a disproportionate number of children are in care. I am going to talk about that a bit more in a few minutes but I first want to touch on a very special child named Jordan.

In the House last December members unanimously supported Jordan's principle. Jordan's principle is about a little boy who, sadly, in his four short years of life, did not enjoy the benefits of a home.

Jordan was a little boy born with complex medical needs and as a result, his family made the very difficult decision of surrendering him to the care of the province because the family could not get the care he needed in his community. After two years of being in hospital, Jordan's circumstances stabilized to the extent that he was able to go into a foster home where he would be provided with specialized care.

This is the sad comment. When we talk about the rights of children and the declaration of indigenous rights, what we had is a child who then spent a further two years in hospital. Why did he spend two more years in hospital? Because the federal and provincial governments argued over who should pay for his care.

We have this tale of a little child who was removed from his family because he could not get care. The family gave him up, surrendered him because he could not get care. Then governments argued over dollars and cents to the extent that the child died in hospital. They went so far as to argue about who should pay for shower heads.

Unfortunately, this child's story is not an isolated one. In this day and age in this country, many children from coast to coast to coast are in exactly the same circumstances.

The Norway House Cree Nation has 37 special needs children who are currently living with their parents and getting additional care as needed. These are children with complex medical needs. Unfortunately, it is another case of jurisdictional dispute. Many of those 37 children's parents are having to look at surrendering them to provincial foster care because we cannot get the federal government to come to the table and agree on a child centre approach, to agree that children should be put first. If that is not a fundamental human right, what is?

The irony of this is that it would cost the government more to have these children in provincial foster care than it would to keep them in their homes in Norway House Cree Nation.

That is fundamentally wrong. Yet we cannot get the governments to move on this. The federal government could demonstrate leadership, could demonstrate its commitment to human rights by coming to the table and saying that it will pay for those children to stay in their homes where they will get the cultural support, where they will get the language support, where they will benefit from the elders.

Norway House Cree Nation is limping from funding crisis to funding crisis. There is a two month extension right now, but in two months' time, many of those kids could end up in provincial care. That is a shameful crisis in this country.

Jordan's principle has widespread support. There is a coalition of many groups and organizations across this country who support Jordan's principle, which says that we would come from a child centre approach and put kids first.

In its journal, the Canadian Medical Association had an editorial about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It said:

...we endorse putting the medical needs of First Nations' children first. We also make this recommendation: that if the provincial, territorial and federal governments ignore Jordan's Principle and entangle themselves in financial or jurisdictional battles first, then governments deserve to be sued, in the most winnable test case that First Nations' advocates can manage.

Once again we are talking about forcing first nations into litigation because government will not do the right thing. If we truly care about working and middle class families in this country, if we truly care about their children, we would not force first nations into litigation to make sure their kids are well looked after.

Part of this coalition is called Many Hands, One Dream. “Health care professionals know all too well the need for Jordan's principle,” said Dr. Kent Saylor, a pediatrician in Kahnawake, Quebec and chair of the Canadian Paediatric Society's First Nations and Inuit Health Committee, “We see families struggling to get the services that their children are entitled to, while governments argue over who will pay the bill”.

While we are talking about children, I also want to talk about the fact that unfortunately the Assembly of First Nations and the organization that Ms. Cindy Blackstock works with had to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They filed a complaint regarding the disproportionate number of children in care and the fact that many of these children receive less funding as first nations children on reserve than they do if they are in provincial care. In some of the provinces there is a 22% discrepancy. A child in provincial care gets 22% more toward his or her care. In addition, measures are sadly lacking around putting those children first in terms of least disruptive measures, support to their families.

As Ms. Blackstock has pointed out on any number of occasions, for many of these children it is not an issue of abuse, but an issue of poverty. If we want to make the lives of families better and the lives of these children better, we have to look at proactive measures to address the poverty in many first nations communities.

A number of issues around children need to be addressed. The United Nations declaration on indigenous rights goes a long way to providing some benchmarks in order to do that.

As well, I want to talk about education.

Article 13 in the declaration talks about the fact that indigenous peoples have the rights to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures and to designate and retain their own names for community places and persons.

Paragraph 2 of article 13 says:

States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.

Article 14, and I referred to this earlier but it is important in this context, states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.

2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination.

3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.

When it comes to education, on any number of levels, we see a violation of human rights in our country.

My colleague from Timmins—James Bay has been leading a fight on a school in Attawapiskat. Attawapiskat is a community where the school was contaminated by a diesel spill, I believe, in 1979. It took many years to have those children taken out of that contaminated school. They were put in portables. The portables have a lot of problems with them. I am sure most of us in the House would say that after our children had been in portables for eight years, some of them the entire life of their school time, it would be time to ensure they had a school.

The declaration talks about a right to education. In Canada, when we talk about the right to education, we talk about an education that provides the full range of opportunities. We want to see our kids in safe schools. We want to see that those schools are well-equipped. We want to see that the students have access to teachers who are well-qualified.

We have schools like Attawapiskat and many other cases across the country where first nations children on reserve are subjected to substandard school buildings. We have stories about the doors not closing properly, or about mould in the schools, or about some kids being farmed out across the community in order to receive their education.

On the K to 12 system, we had testimony at the aboriginal affairs committee. We studied post-secondary education. We heard consistently that education was one of the doorways to raise families and communities out of poverty.

If we are not providing children an opportunity in that K to 12 system to get access to an adequate education so they can graduate from high school and go on to a post-secondary institution, then we are not fulfilling our duty. We know about the honour of the Crown and the fiduciary responsibilities, but we see a government that continues to fail in this.

We recently asked for some statistics on the number of schools that currently needed to be built. The figures we received indicated that 39 schools across Canada needed to be built, which would take approximately $300,000 to build them. With the amount of surpluses we had over the last 10 or 12 years, that was ample money there to build the schools to ensure that first nations children not only had the schools, but also had the operating budgets to ensure they had an adequate education.

In addition, language is a big issue. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan the Cowichan tribes have done a tremendous amount of work around preservation of the Halkomelem language. They are working hard to build a dictionary, to get oral testimony from the elders, to provide language labs in the schools, to ensure that mentoring and support is in place, yet they are constantly having to struggle to find the funding in order to ensure they can deliver that very important language service.

I believe back in 2006, Justice Berger in Nunavut delivered a report around the state of land claims in Nunavut. He talked about the importance of language. He estimated that approximately $20 million was required to do some of the bridging around education. Not only have we not seen any funds come about as a result of the report in 2006, we have not even had an official response from the current government to Justice Berger's report.

The commitments that were made in the land claims agreement were that a significant proportion of the employees of the Nunavut government would come from the people of Nunavut. The government is lagging behind in those commitments and part of it is because of the fact that people do not have access to the education they need.

When we talk about education, it does start and stop at the K to 12 system. It is also very much part of post-secondary education. The two articles I quoted, article 13 and article 14, talked about the rates of education.

The First Nations Technical Institute has attempted over a number of years to ensure it has adequate long term funding. The aboriginal affairs committee did a report called, “No Higher Priority”. As part of the recommendations that came out of that report, the committee talked about the fact that indigenous institutions were not eligible to receive operating grants, special grants, capital and infrastructure grants or research support for mainstream institutions. Most operate on short term funding grants. The lack of formal recognition of indigenous institutions also means that they do not have the authority to grant provincially recognized certificates, diplomas and degrees.

Over a number of years FNTI has faced significant cuts. In January 2008 it did an analysis on the figures. At that time it was facing a 66% cut from Indian and Northern Affairs to its core budget from the previous fiscal year. This would represent an 84% decrease since 2004.

The sad thing about FNTI is it is an aboriginal controlled institution. It opened in 1985. Hundreds and hundreds of students over the years have received their diplomas and degrees and have gone on and had success in employment. It has had some very successful employment placement as a result of that. I believe roughly 80% of the graduates have gone on to employment or further education, and that is a success.

FNTI has worked hard in partnership with other institutions. Even though it is not an accredited institution, it offers a number of programs, including an aviation program, which is a unique first nations program that gets students from across Canada. It has a first nations public administration and governance program with Ryerson, which is the most successful aboriginal university initiative in Ontario. It has broken new ground by partnering with Queen's University in a masters in public policy. The Mohawk adult language immersion program with Trend University is having ground breaking success in creating new speakers in an endangered language. It has pioneered the practices of community based intense mode delivery. It has delivered initiatives in urban centres, fly-in communities and everything else in between.

It is making great progress in terms of lifelong learning. It has done something called prior learning assessment, which is really important in terms of recognizing a student's life experience and translating that into the academic setting.

Because this institution is not an accredited institution, but works with other accredited institutions, it has not been eligible for some of the funding transfers that come from the federal government to the provincial governments. Because of the fact that it is working partnership with some other accredited institutions, it is often not in a position to keep the percentage of the tuition fees to which other institutions are entitled.

The government's response has been, go out and raise funds from its alumni. It is a small institution. It has not had thousands and thousands of alumni coming through its doors.

In the context of the UN declaration on indigenous rights, which clearly calls for support for education, language, culture, surely it would make sense that when we have a successful aboriginal institution, that we would put money into it.

The Conservative government has talked consistently about the importance of skills training in aboriginal communities. We have an institution that it could fund, support and ensure that more students could have access. Instead what it does is it cuts the funding. This institution needs is multi-year long term funding so it can come with some assurance to its faculty, students and communities and say that it will be around for the long term.

From working in an academic institution, I know this kind of long term stability is very important. We want to get elders involved in these institutions as well. Elders are going to want to know that this institution is going to be around for the long term.

Therefore, I urge all members of the House to support this very important declaration.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Conservative

Rod Bruinooge ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan on the work she has done in relation to Jordan's principle, a motion that was passed unanimously by all parties in the House last year.

My question today will be similar to some of the questions I have asked other members who have spoken to the concurrence motion. It is in relation to Canada's long history of negotiated settlements with our first peoples and the Constitution of Canada in which we have entrenched aboriginal rights.

Could the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan suggest to me how she reconciles the concept of returning lands and rights to indigenous peoples with our existing negotiated settlements and Constitution that make up Canada today?

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, a document called “Patterns of Deception: Canada’s Failure to Uphold the Honour of the Crown” from the Assembly of First Nations in November 2006 addressed this issue extensively. Unfortunately, I do not have time to quote from all of it, but one of the things it points out is that the declaration cannot provide rights in the manner claimed by Canada.

It goes on to talk about the fact that there were many legal reasonings and precedents. I do not have time to go through all of them. However, it also talks about the fact there are many court decisions that talk about the onus and rights of proof.

Again, it is fearmongering. The document will not override existing treaties and it sets a framework for first nations and aboriginal peoples to come together and have a discussion with the government around treaties, negotiations, rights and title.

It is an important aspirational document that sets the tone and the flavour for where we should move forward.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague from the New Democratic Party on her research and on her articulation of the case to be made for supporting the international declaration.

I have heard her argument. The House has heard it. I have listened, as the House has, to the parliamentary secretary. It hinges on two arguments. One argument is the legal implications and an attempt to extrapolate that and apply it to existing treaties and so on. The parliamentary secretary says that the government has concerns because there may be precedence. My colleague from the NDP has based her argument more on natural rights, natural justice, a sense of morality and ethics when it comes to these inherent rights that the first nations peoples had and the circumstances of history. Because they did not have natural law and natural justice, they lost those rights.

Does my colleague come down on the side of, from time to time, articulating what are basic human rights, what is basic natural justice and articulating that without prejudice, to what perhaps the deeper implications may be with respect to the international justice system, or even justice systems in our country or in any other country?

Would she like to give us an opinion on which side she comes down on with respect to first nations and the international declaration?

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important issue. When we talk about natural justice, I am not a lawyer and I have great respect for my colleagues who are lawyers. Therefore, I can argue more from a heartfelt place, from that place of natural justice.

One of the elders in the community where I live has told me if we find a place to speak from our hearts and always consider those future generations, that we will come from a place that equates to natural justice.

Therefore, I come down on the side of natural justice and social justice. Many New Democrats have come from this place around really wanting to confront those fundamental issues around access, equality, fairness, clean drinking water, schools and rights for our children.

I certainly agree that I come from the place of natural justice.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU

Mr. Speaker, we know that it was a very embarrassing day for Canada when we as a country voted against that declaration at the United Nations. Australia is another country that voted against the declaration. We have now since heard that there has been a change of leadership there and Australia has changed its position on how it voted at the United Nations. I would like to ask the member if she thinks that is hopefully where we can be in the near future for Canada.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, Australia was one of the countries that was with Canada. Canada was taking a lead role around the UN declaration and was actively trying to encourage other countries not to support it. Australia was one of those countries that was supporting Canada in its efforts. We have seen a complete about-face recently.

In my view, Australia needs to be commended for its apology to the aboriginal peoples in Australia. One can only dream of the day that we will have that kind of heartfelt apology happening here in the House of Commons for the residential schools legacy.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member. First, she covered education extensively and I have just one technical question on that. My understanding is that there were some proposals in the department to actually fix some of these schools and to replace them. I wonder if she too has heard that those proposals have been cancelled. Maybe the member for Burnaby—Douglas could comment on that at some time.

Second, just to support the point related to Bill C-21, which she has made this afternoon on several occasions, it is a bill with a few words in it. It was so bad that, as the parliamentary secretary said, it has taken the government over a year when it should have taken a few weeks. There was no consultation. There was no non-derogation clause. There was not enough time to implement it. There was no training. There was no interpretation clause to deal with the collective society that aboriginal people have.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are two points around the member's question. One point under the issue of schools is that we constantly hear about the money being shifted out of schools that are already on the books in order to deal with other emergencies. I mentioned the fact that we have 39 schools with roughly $300,000. We have heard the government bragging about the surplus that is emerging in this fiscal year. That surplus could have built those schools many, many times over. Again, it is about political will and setting priorities. I would argue that education should always be a priority.

With regard to Bill C-21, the member is absolutely correct. The New Democrats and the opposition parties proposed amendments. If only the bill had had the appropriate consultation, as outlined in article 18 in the UN declaration. It is the Crown's responsibility to consult. If that appropriate consultation had happened in advance, the opposition parties would not have had to spend so many months gathering input from coast to coast to coast in order to make sure that the bill would not be a deeply flawed bill.

We have seen other pieces of legislation such as the voter identification bill, for example, that were rushed through this House, and then we have had to go back and try to fix the problems. Instead, the opposition parties, in my view quite responsibly, were hearing from witnesses to make sure amendments could be proposed that would fix the flawed bill.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I am about to resume debate. The next member on the list is the hon. member for Surrey North, but she has only two minutes. We will have to end debate at 6:13 p.m.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will not get into the specifics, then, but let me just offer some observations of language that I have heard used this afternoon, because when people talk about the natural right of respect for people, of human dignity, very much of it is reflected in the language. The kind of language I heard today from the Conservative minority government is language underlaid with what is not a respectful attitude toward first nations people.

As one of the members from Churchill mentioned, somebody talked not about people but about inhabitants.

After 20 years of working on a document, there was no consultation when that position changed. This is something that says the government does not respect indigenous peoples the same way that it respects other people.

I believe the Minister of Indian Affairs said that the document did not provide enough “guidance” for aboriginal people. I do not know if I have to provide guidance for aboriginal people. That is a fairly condescending way of saying it.

The last phrase that really stuck with me was a phrase used by a member on the Conservative side who talked about “our aboriginal people”. I do not know about everybody else, but I do not have any aboriginal people. It is a very condescending phrase to suggest that they are our aboriginal people in the same way we would express “our” about possessions we have.

In the two minutes I have had, I wanted to reflect the kind of language that I heard and which said to me that it is in part what is underlying this lack of respect for the document.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The vote will take place at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow.