Debates of Dec. 10th, 2013

Question No. 108

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

With regard to the Enforcement and Disclosures Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), for the years 2003 to 2013, inclusive, by year: (a) what is the budget of the Directorate; (b) how many people work at the Directorate; and (c) what training does CRA staff receive in the prosecution of cases against overseas tax evaders?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 141

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

With regard to human trafficking in Canada and the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking (NAPCHT): (a) how many charges have been laid under human trafficking specific offences in the Criminal Code since 2005 and what were they; (b) how many convictions have there been of human trafficking specific offences in the Criminal Code since 2005 and, in each case, (i) what was the person convicted of, (ii) what was the sentence, (iii) for a person being convicted of one or more offence, what other offences (if any) in the Criminal Code was the person charged with and convicted of, (iv) what was the sentence for each conviction for offences in the Criminal Code; (c) was there consultation done with stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups in the development of the government’s NAPCHT and, if yes, (i) with which stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups, (ii) did the stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups make recommendations to the government, (iii) what were these recommendations, broken down by each stakeholder, non-governmental organization or other interest group, (iv) which recommendations did the government incorporate into the NAPCHT, (v) which recommendations did the government not incorporate into the NAPCHT and why were they not incorporated; (d) what metrics will the government use to evaluate the effectiveness of the NAPCHT and who developed these metrics; (e) what are the metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the Human Trafficking Taskforce led by Public Safety Canada and who developed these metrics; (f) are there reporting mechanisms in place to report on the effectiveness of the NAPCHT and, if yes, (i) what are these reporting mechanisms, (ii) when is the first report expected, (iii) how often will reports be made, (iv) will these reports be made available to the public and, if not, why not; (g) are there reporting mechanisms in place to report on the effectiveness of the Human Trafficking Taskforce led by Public Safety Canada and, if yes, (i) what are these reporting mechanisms, (ii) when is the first report expected, (iii) how often will reports be expected, (iv) will these reports be made available to the public and, if not, why not; (h) what are the costs of this plan, broken down by year and expense; (i) how much has been allocated for the last five years and under what authority or authorities; (j) in what way(s) does the plan address the needs of victims of trafficking; (k) what specific funding is dedicated to the victims of trafficking and how is it accessed; (l) what sentencing models were considered in the creation of human trafficking offences; (m) which of the models in (l) is most effective and how is effectiveness measured and/or defined?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 119

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

With regard to “tax fairness” measures and changes to tax regulations announced in Budget 2011, in which the government claimed that these changes “will yield $240 million in savings in 2011-2012, rising to about $1.0 billion by 2013-2014”: (a) what savings has the Canada Revenue Agency realized, by year, as a result of the implementation of these measures; and (b) which measures yielded these results?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that a request for an emergency debate on the mortality of bees might not be something that the House would usually engage itself in, but I want to bring this forward as an emergency debate because Health Canada and others have all noted over the last two years an increasing mortality rate of bees, which is unusually high.

Why is that important to Canadians? It is because one third of our food sources are pollenated by insects, primarily by bees. There is not much greater emergency than not eating. There is a variety of reasons put forward by experts as to why this is happening, but for the last two years it has been happening and it has been a massive kill.

The reason I am asking for an emergency debate now is that this is effectively the last time that we will be able to engage in debate for the next six weeks. Over the next period of time, the farmers will be buying their seeds. They will also be buying pesticides, so if we have a debate in late January, early February, there is not much that Health Canada or the Government of Canada could do because the seedings will be prepared, the pesticides prepared, the farmers will be prepared. Therefore, we will have another crop rotation through 2014, the effect of which is to postpone the ability of the Government of Canada or anyone else for that matter, to do anything about it until 2015.

The cumulative effect of this increased kill rate on bees is quite significant to our food chain, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask you to give serious thought to this being the last opportunity that we in the House have to discuss this issue. I am not proposing solutions. I think this is a complex issue. I think Health Canada at this point is on top of it, but at some point, and I would hope sooner rather than later, we may have to take actions such as the European Union has taken and such as the United States is considering to deal with this issue.

That is the basis for an emergency debate tonight, sir, and I hope you will favourably look upon it.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for raising this matter. While I have no doubt the importance of it to a great many people, I do not think it rises to meet the threshold for an emergency debate.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-3, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

Letter to the Hon. Member for Terrebonne—Blainville

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair understands the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will be rising to add comments to the question of privilege raised earlier this week.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

You are quite correct, Mr. Speaker. I do rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

The essential facts are that the hon. member sent out a householder, which prompted a critical letter to her, which was sent by one of her constituents.

In her presentation, the hon. member cited page 111 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which advises that the recourse for any member who feels defamed is to go through the courts. She then quoted from page 96 of O'Brien and Bosc, which refers to limits on the freedom of speech protections extended to members.

Let me offer another quotation from page 111 of O'Brien and Bosc:

A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfil his or her parliamentary responsibilities.

In her presentation, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville did not refer to any proceeding in Parliament in respect of which she was obstructed or intimidated.

The very next sentence in O'Brien and Bosc is, therefore, extremely instructive:

If, in the Speaker’s view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties and functions, then a prima facie breach of privilege cannot be found.

Given the nature of the complaint, which is that of a letter from a constituent to a member of Parliament, let me quote from some relevant precedence.

Madam Speaker Sauvé, on March 1, 1982, at page 15474 of the Debates ruled that:

Parliamentary privilege is based on the need to protect members from any action tending to obstruct, or intimidate them or impair their effectiveness in the discharge of their duties. It is not designed to protect them from criticism, however strong, even when the language used might be excessive.

In a later ruling, on October 12, 1983, at page 27945 of the Debates, Madam Speaker Sauvé observed that:

If Members engage in public debate outside the House, they enjoy no special protection.

Finally, given that the constituent in question is a member of the other place, it is relevant to refer to page 278 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition:

Since the two Houses are wholly independent of each other, neither House can punish any breach of privilege or contempt offered to it by a Member or officer of the other.

That passage was favourably cited by Mr. Speaker Parent, on November 16, 1999, at page 1288 of the Debates.

In conclusion, it is clearly established that members of Parliament cannot claim privilege to protect them from external criticism, even when it is in response to their own efforts to communicate with their constituents. Being criticized for one's position is just part of the job for any individual who seeks elected office.

I can assure the member opposite, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, that every member in this Parliament, in fact I would argue every member of any parliament in the world, has from time to time been criticized for the positions that he, she or their party takes. Sometimes that criticism may be extremely harsh. Sometimes that criticism may be hurtful. Quite frankly, sometimes that criticism may be unfair.

However, the point is that when we enter the political arena, when we seek elected office, we put ourselves up to the level of criticism experienced by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville. In other words, that is part of the public and political discourse in the political world in which we operate.

I have no doubt the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville was offended and was probably hurt by the comments from the member of the other place. However, if all members in this place raised points of privilege any time they received an unwelcome communication from one of their constituents, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we would not get much done in this place. In fact, probably every day there would be a member, or members, rising to make such complaints and raise such points of privilege.

One can simply imagine that our days would be filled with nothing but points of privilege based on angry constituents' letters. Although we may not like them, it is part of our job to accept them, and they are certainly not, in my view, a point of privilege.

In short, I would say that a prima facie case of privilege is neither made out in this case nor would it be reasonable, given what could occur after that point.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had to step out of the House temporarily for a conversation, but I will look at the comments from my friend across the way.

This is an important issue for New Democrats and I would imagine it is an important issue for all members of Parliament. It is territory we have not been in before where members from the Senate, as has been suggested, take a coordinated attack on sitting members of Parliament and the legitimacy that each member of Parliament has to take their place here. This is a significant thing for all of us. If this is the pattern that our colleagues in the Senate wish to take, questioning the legitimacy and integrity of members of Parliament and their ability to perform their work on behalf of those who elected them to this place, then it is something I would imagine concerns all parliamentarians regardless of political orientation.

In this case, the senator in question talked about a coordinated effort, going to the Speaker of the Senate, your equivalent, Mr. Speaker, to talk about how to perform this attack on a sitting member of Parliament. This should raise even further concern for all of us, again, regardless of political orientation.

It seems to me that this is an issue that the government should take seriously and not take a partisan stance. It should take a stance on the legitimacy of the House of Commons to do our work, as opposed to those in the other place, in the Senate, who arrived there only by the grace and favour of a prime minister.

I will read the blues of my friend's comments across the way and will seek, if there is an opportunity today or tomorrow, to address some of the points made by my friend.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-9, an act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain first nations and the composition of council of those first nations. While it is not usual for the Chair to provide reasons for the selection of report stage motions, in this case the Chair would like to provide a brief explanation.

As is the case with several standing committees considering bills, members who are not members of a caucus represented on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development were invited to participate in the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9. However, due to an administrative error, these members were not informed of the deadline to submit amendments for the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

As members know, consistent with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Chair would not normally select motions that could have been presented in committee; however, in light of the circumstances in this case, the Chair has decided to select these motions.

That being said, while the Chair certainly appreciates some of the challenges presented to members who are not part of a recognized caucus to follow the work of numerous committees, the Chair would nevertheless strongly urge all members to continue to ensure they are prepared to avail themselves of all opportunities presented to them with respect to committee proceedings on bills.

Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 3 have been selected for debate at report stage. They will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Motions in amendment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-9, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following:

“(b) the Minister, having obtained the opinion of a representative sample of electors of that First Nation, is satisfied that the majority of electors of that First Nation believe that a protracted”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-9, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 3 the following:

“(1.1) For greater certainty, the Minister may not add to the schedule the name of a First Nation that governs its elections according to the custom of the band, unless such an addition has been approved in accordance with prevailing customary practices.”

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 12 the following new clause:

“REPORT

41.1 Within one year after the coming into force of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Minister must prepare a report on the implementation of this Act and its effects on elections of band councils and elections on reserves.”

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your earlier explanation as to why it is that the amendments are coming forward at report stage. I appreciate your consideration of the fact that due to a clerical error at committee, we did not receive notice to bring amendments forward at committee.

I must say that I am pleased. I have found that the so-called invitations to committees circumvent rights. I am able, at this point, to speak at report stage to what is a very significant flaw in this bill.

As everyone in the House knows, Bill C-9 initially came to us through the Senate as Bill S-6. It is a first nations elections act. Except for everything I am attempting to amend this morning, it is a good bill. It provides more precision in first nations elections. The bulk of the bill is a result of recommendations that came from first nations themselves, specifically from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, which represents the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy first nations of Atlantic Canada.

Before I move to my amendments, the intent of the good parts of the bill was to provide greater precision, to create set terms, and to provide for those first nations that had already opted in to elections under the terms of the Indian Act. That is worth underlining. The recommendations that came from the first nations themselves were to apply only to those first nations that had themselves already opted in to elections under the Canada Elections Act and not to those many first nations that elect their councils through traditional customs and methods other than under the Indian Act.

In any case, I will set aside the parts of the bill that are acceptable and will focus only on the amendments you have just read before the House of Commons. They both go to correct the mistakes that are found in clause 3 of the bill.

Parenthetically, I want to note that today is international Human Rights Day. Today is the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Vienna Declaration, which brought respect for human rights to the entire community of nations. Why is it relevant that we are looking at a first nations elections act? What about that is relevant to the fact that ironically, today is Human Rights Day?

The problem with this bill and the sections I hope to correct is also found in other bills that have come forward from this administration, such as the bill, not yet tabled, on first nations education. It is also found in bills that have been tabled, such as the NWT devolution in Bill C-15 and this bill, Bill C-9. What they all have in common is a failure to respect the constitutionally enshrined right of first nations to be consulted about changes that impact them directly.

In Bill C-15, in addition to the NWT devolution, which everyone supports, there are substantial changes to the Mackenzie Valley regulatory systems that are part of first nations agreements and treaties, without consultation with or the consent of first nations. This brings to mind that these changes are actually questionable constitutionally under section 35 of the Constitution, as interpreted in many Supreme Court decisions. From the Haida case and the Delgamuukw case to the Marshall case, it is clear that first nations in this country are protected under section 35 of the Constitution. Further, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility, a constitutionally enshrined obligation, to consult with first nations.

In this case, we have something that is, in my view, outrageous. Under paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c), there are two ways in which the minister may impose upon first nations, based on his or her own discretion, a different system for elections within the first nation. What could be more critical in touching on the rights of first nations than changing the way a first nation conducts its own internal elections?

These two paragraphs that are objectionable state that the minister may add the name of the first nations to the schedule of first nations that must conduct their elections as under the act. In other words, the bulk of the act is for first nations themselves to opt in and request to be seen under these sections of a new Indian Act procedure found in Bill C-9.

These are the two exceptions that are outrageous. Paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c) state that the minister may add the name of a first nation to the schedule if:

(b) the Minister is satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of the First Nation; or

(c) the Governor in Council has set aside an election of the Chief and councillors of that First Nation under section 79 of the Indian Act on a report of the Minister that there was corrupt practice in connection with that election.

As the Canadian Bar Association aboriginal law subsection has pointed out, the bill does not provide any guidance as to what the corrupt practice might be or what threshold the minister has for making this change.

It is offensive in a couple of ways. One is that it appears to apply to not only those nations that have already opted in to the current version of the Indian Act in their internal elections. It would apply to those first nations that have explicitly not wanted to operate under the Indian Act and that operate under their tradition and custom. Again, what could be more directly a denial of rights?

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says very clearly, in article 3:

Indigenous people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4 states:

Indigenous people, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal or local affairs...

These changes in paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c) strike directly at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and further offend the Canadian Constitution section 35.

I would have wished that these sections had been corrected inside the committee, but I hope that today we may give them fair consideration.

What is being proposed in amendment 2, line 9, on page 3 is a proviso to protect those first nations that have been operating under their own customs. The amendment states:

For greater certainty, the Minister may not add to the schedule the name of a First Nation that governs its elections according to the custom of the band, unless such an addition has been approved in accordance with prevailing customary practices.

In other words, self-determination is protected within those first nations that have already decided that they will not opt in under the Indian Act. They will preserve that ability, which is enshrined in our Constitution and enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is therefore further protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which today has its 20th anniversary.

I appeal to my colleagues in the House to assess this amendment. It would preserve the right of first nations that are operating their elections under traditional custom to maintain those rights.

The second amendment would deal with this quite discretionary notion of protracted leadership disputes. We have seen instances when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, or DIAND, as it was in the past, decides that, for instance, the ministry does not like the way things are going, to use an example, in the first nations of the Algonquin of Barriere Lake. The dispute is real, and the minister ends up taking sides. That is hardly respect for a first nations' right to self-determination and self-government.

In this amendment, I propose that the minister may not take that step unless, having obtained the opinion of a representative sample of electors of that first nation, those within the first nation are satisfied that they need to have the minister take this step. Otherwise, we have made a mockery in Bill C-9 of first nations rights under our constitution.

We will again do so if we fail to change Bill C-15 for the first nations within the Northwest Territories and some that are affected in neighbouring areas of the Yukon, where the first nations in that area have competing land claims issues. The leadership of the Tlicho as well as the Dene and other nations are appealing to have the bill split apart so that we can proceed with NWT devolution without offending first nations rights.

There is a pattern here with this administration of, bit by bit, chipping away at some fundamental rights in this country that are constitutionally enshrined and further protected by international law.

With the amendments I am proposing, we could pass Bill C-9 in good conscience. We would know that we had contributed to good governance, fairer elections, and clearer terms. However, to pass it as it is would be an insult to first nations, and this House would be violating our own constitution.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech.

I agree with what she says about accountability, good governance and transparency with regard to this bill. Of course, these are ideas and concepts that we can all agree on. We do not have a problem with the bill so much as the illegitimate way in which the government imposed it on first nations.

I would like to ask my colleague if the governments that usually like precedents so much could not have followed the example of the Government of Quebec in 2002. That was when Premier Bernard Landry of the Parti Québécois signed the peace of the braves with the Cree. Before the government imposed a bill or did anything, there were proper negotiations with the first nations to ensure that the legislation truly came from both nations.

The Conservative government could have followed that example and sat down and legitimately negotiated, nation to nation, with the first nations in order to reach an agreement on this bill. Then we would not be here today talking about the government's paternalistic way of imposing its views and options on the first nations with regard to good governance.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague very much, especially because he helped me this morning by seconding my amendments.

The federal government is clearly imposing its own solutions on the first nations in complete violation of the aboriginal rights entrenched in Canada's Constitution. The importance, the very unique situation and the rights of Canada's first nations must be respected.

It is true that the other governments have made an honest effort to negotiate on a nation-to-nation basis in the past. That is how to work together respectfully.

I find it truly appalling that we are here this morning, faced with a bill concerning elections for Canada's first nations without consideration or respect for their fundamental rights.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. I should talk about the magnificent riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, even though it is not as magnificent as mine.

She spoke about International Human Rights Day. I was at the international conference on human rights in Vienna, in order to make the entire world recognize that aboriginal peoples are also peoples, just like all the other peoples on the planet. We have fought that battle for a long time.

However, I would like to come back to an issue that I find to be important in this debate on relations with Canada's first peoples.

It is an important issue because, at present, we are celebrating the life of the extraordinary Nelson Mandela, who defeated a system that made no sense.

Does my colleague not have the impression that with the Indian Act we are dealing with almost the same system as apartheid in South Africa?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I am absolutely astonished to learn that he was at the Vienna conference in the earliest days of recognition of respect for international human rights.

It is indeed very ironic that this bill concerning our aboriginal peoples is based to an extent on the apartheid system in South Africa. It is precisely as he said. This is a serious issue for aboriginal peoples, the first peoples in Canada, and for the Government of Canada. We must find another way to work together.

It is clear that we have to reform the Indian Act. The best way of crafting this bill is not obvious, but any changes made to Canada's legislation on aboriginal peoples must prioritize what the first peoples want and need.

It is unacceptable to propose such a solution as Bill C-9, which was imposed on first nations. Relations are based on respect between the two nations. Relations between the federal government and first nations must be based on respect.