Debates of May 22nd, 2013

Discover Your Canada Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-463 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #689

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

It being 6:19 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion.

Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the substance of the motion before us in the House allows me to focus on concepts related to belonging to a clan as a bastion of aboriginal identity.

My speech today in this House will be consistent with what I said yesterday when I was teaching in Wendake. I am occasionally called upon to travel in order to meet with communities that are sometimes rather isolated. Although in this case Wendake is peri-urban, I was asked to go there.

The concepts I will be going over today will be consistent with what I was teaching yesterday, about the bastions of aboriginal identity and the economic growth that certain communities in the country have been enjoying. This will come into play and I will include it all in my argument.

For many generations, Indian identity had a certain negative connotation. It was not that being Indian was intrinsically bad, but members of Canada's aboriginal communities were perceived as second-class citizens for many generations, if not hundreds of years. It was only recently that economics entered into the Indian identity and way of life. When I say economics, I am referring to the results of land claims and the agreements associated with the impact and benefits of natural resource development.

In 2013, this has become a full-fledged industry. These matters are often handed over to law firms that can afford to have just one client because this generates substantial revenues. Sometimes these law firms charge both a percentage and a flat rate. This can be quite lucrative. That is why there has been such enthusiasm, such a keen interest by a segment of the Canadian public in reconnecting with its aboriginal roots in 2013. My speech here today will be from that perspective.

This was brought to my attention when I was preparing my speech, not that I want to jump to any negative conclusions. I was just asked about my position on this.

Development and opportunities related to major economic and regional issues often fuel an upsurge in assertive measures taken by citizens in relation to the specific status that members of first nations in Canada enjoy.

Economic growth and economic issues are creating somewhat of a stir in my home community. Over the past few years, a generation of Indians has appeared out of nowhere in my riding. If we take this new generation or group that has appeared in my riding and compare it with our Ekuanitshit or Unamen Shipu neighbours, it is clear that there is a fairly weak link with Mongolia, if I may say so.

In short, this new band appeared in my riding in a very specific location that was targeted for hydro development, major work sites and natural resource extraction initiatives. Once again, I am not trying to draw negative inferences, but people can make the necessary connections and figure it out for themselves.

It is conceivable that greedy people stand ready to pounce in regions where a socio-economic boom has been observed. The specific measures set out in land claims, the compensation associated with natural resource extraction and the encroachment on a band's traditional lands are incentive enough for people to claim that they have an aboriginal heritage, which is why bands need to set out principles that define and control who can be a band member.

Now, with regard to the issue at hand, the information that has been brought to my attention indicates that there are 100,000 new applicants for the band in question in today's motion.

Since there is a rather limited number of first nations members across the country, we have reason to wonder how likely it would be to suddenly have 100,000 new applicants or 100,000 people applying—or at least hoping—to be on the Indian Register.

That is why it is up to the band to define and establish criteria for membership and for determining whether a person is eligible to be a member of the band. That already happens, and customary law most often applies. In my home community and other communities, customary law is what ultimately determines who is a member.

Some decisions have been brought to my attention when the community's hands were tied and an individual's name had to be added to the list. These issues are generally dealt with within the clan, and that is unheard of. Based on my own perception and my own analysis, 100,000 new applicants is a significant number. That is why things are stalled and the Canadian government is being called on to take a stand and process each of these files fairly.

That is what this motion says. Each application must be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the supporting documentation must be taken into consideration. However, we could very well end up with a backlog in this type of situation, especially with the high number of applicants.

We agree that all applications must be treated the same way. This means that the validity of documents will be called into question and that decisions regarding enrollment will be challenged.

In light of the limited number of people in the region in question, the figure of 100,000 applicants will have to be reviewed in light of aboriginal identity, to avoid applications for purely monetary reasons. Aboriginal people in Canada share some strong values. There must be no detracting from “Indianness” or Indian identity and serious identity issues for purely political or economic reasons.

I submit this respectfully.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening in favour of my colleague's motion, which seeks to clarify the ongoing confusion regarding the registration process for members of the recently created Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band in Newfoundland.

We must remember that these criteria are the culmination of a process that has extended back, through various phases, for decades. The most recent phase began in 2002, when the previous Liberal government initiated renewed, good faith negotiations with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to redress the historic exclusion of status for Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq people.

The talks focused on the recognition of the Mi'kmaq people in Newfoundland under the Indian Act. After constructive discussions, an agreement in principle was signed in 2007.

We cannot lose sight of what these negotiations were attempting to redress. Generations of prejudice and marginalization induced many to hide their indigenous heritage, and as a result, whole family histories have been buried.

Exclusion from status under the Indian Act not only denied Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq people access to supports available to other first nations but robbed them of recognition of their identity and cultural heritage.

The ongoing process is an attempt to reverse centuries of damage, but the current government's mismanagement has left many Qalipu feeling victimized yet again.

The 2007 agreement in principle proposed specific terms for the recognition of membership in, and operation of, the soon to be created Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band. Canada ratified the agreement in principle in 2008 and made a commitment to the Qalipu that the federal government would honour the terms of that agreement. However, it has been brought to the attention of our caucus that a number of applicants are concerned that despite the fact that their membership application was submitted within the prescribed time period, their application has not yet been reviewed under the processes established within the 2008 agreement.

Given that the 2008 agreement expired on March 21, 2013, there are serious concerns about membership applications that may be excluded from the process, especially as the number of applications is higher than expected.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development added to the concern of many applicants when he spoke in this House, on March 28, and referred to the application numbers as “questionable”.

The criteria for enrollment were arrived at through consultation and negotiation. The government must work in co-operation with, not dictate to, the Qalipu to sort out any legitimate registration issues.

However, let me be absolutely clear. The Liberals believe that the federal government must ensure that legitimate applicants are not excluded from the membership process. If the process is flawed, if the criteria are problematic, then the fault lies with the Conservative government, not the applicants, under the current process. It was the current government that negotiated the criteria for enrolment, and now, at the end of the process, has suggested that it wants to change the rules. It is not the fault of the applicants that the number of membership applications exceeded expectations.

The parliamentary secretary also spoke in this House about ensuring “the integrity of the enrolment process”, but this is an agreement the government signed, in good faith, only five years ago.

Indeed, the Prime Minister himself signed the agreement on behalf of the Government of Canada and publicly announced the creation of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation in November 2007.

When we talk about the integrity of the enrolment process, we also have to consider the honour of the Crown, which requires the government to keep its word. How will the integrity of the process be upheld for the remaining unprocessed applicants who applied under the same criteria as the more than 20,000 applicants who have already received status under the existing criteria? How could it be fair to process the rest under different criteria, or worse, to change the rules for individuals who have already been accepted?

Instead of calling applications made in good faith into question, perhaps the government should work with the Qalipu to ensure that all applications are processed according to criteria already agreed to by the federal government.

The Conservative government must honour its commitment to complete the enrollment and registration of all eligible members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation by extending the process under the agreement.

Chief Brendan Sheppard has asked the federal government for an extension of the 2008 agreement to ensure that the remaining applications are assessed and processed. The motion being debated today calls upon the government to do just that and to extend the 2008 agreement until all applicants who applied on or before November 30, 2012 are processed.

In addition to the extension of that agreement, basic procedural fairness dictates that the current rules of eligibility for membership be followed by all government decision-makers in any continuation of the enrolment process.

I note that this year marks the 250th anniversary of the Royal Proclamation. In that context, it is important to honour the original foundation of that relationship based upon partnership, respect and co-operation for mutual benefit. If, in the 21st century, first nations cannot take the Crown at its word, we will never achieve the reconciliation and trust that is so crucial to moving forward toward a more prosperous common future.

I urge all members of this House to support the motion, which would bring clarity to the government's commitment that no eligible members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band will be excluded from this important recognition of their proud heritage.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our Indian ancestry, the people of Newfoundland, and Newfoundland, in particular, not so much Labrador, have not been overly proud. We are not proud because the aboriginal people of the island of Newfoundland, the Beothuk, have been officially extinct for nearly two centuries. Known as the lost people of Newfoundland, the Beothuk were ravaged by massacres, epidemics and territorial losses, until, by the early 19th century, the group is said to have been completely wiped out.

Some first nations would dispute the claim that the Beothuk are extinct. There is a belief in Mi'kmaq oral history that as white incomers tightened their control of Newfoundland, the Beothuk fled to the mainland and integrated with neighbouring groups. In other words, among us all there is Beothuk blood somewhere in our genes through the marriages that took place. That is the theory and I think it holds weight. One thing is absolutely certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Mi'kmaq bloodline runs through the veins of generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is what this motion is about.

In the fall of 2011, in what a government release deemed an historic occasion, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs granted official Indian status to the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq. The Newfoundland Mi'kmaq had been denied any claim to aboriginal title ever since 1949 when Newfoundland joined Canada. Why is that? Joey Smallwood, who brought us kicking and screaming into Confederation, did not bother to mention the Indian Act and the Terms of Union. Talk about a monumental oversight. There is no mention of aboriginal peoples within the Terms of Union that brought Newfoundland and Labrador, or Newfoundland as it was called then, into Confederation.

Aboriginal Affairs granted official Indian status to the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq finally. They finally got it. It was originally anticipated that fewer than 10,000 people would step forward and apply for aboriginal status. That number has since ballooned to 10 times that. More than 100,000 people have applied. Some of those 100,000 people live in Newfoundland, more live on mainland Canada, and more still live all around the world. The huge number, 100,000, has created a problem in terms of processing applications. There are 70,000 applications that have yet to be processed.

The deadline for applying to become a member of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band was November 30, 2012. The agreement for the recognition of membership in the Qalipu First Nation Band expired this past March 21. This motion calls on the Conservative government to extend that agreement for the recognition process of the Qalipu First Nation Band until all applications are processed and to ensure that the rules of eligibility for membership are followed by all government decision makers in any continuation of the enrolment process.

Further, all previous interpretations, precedents and rulings on matters affecting enrolment that were not specifically addressed within the agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu First Nation Band but were established through the records of decisions made by the enrolment committee and the appeals process should be made known to all participants in all future enrolment processes. In other words, make the process fair and above board so everyone knows the rules of the game. Spell them out, do not change eligibility requirements because more people applied than expected. Do not do that. That is not the right thing to do. All applications received before the original deadline should be processed in a fair and timely manner. That is not the case.

The total number of enrolment clerks hired and trained by the Government of Canada, by the Conservative government, to help with applications is three. There were more than 100,000 applications and we have three enrolment clerks.

Why did so many more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the province, in the country and around the world apply for status than had been anticipated? Why did the numbers go through the roof?

For generations, aboriginal roots were often hidden in Newfoundland and Labrador by those who preferred to pass as non-aboriginals because of discrimination. People now, finally, are coming forward. They are admitting and embracing their aboriginal heritage and history. Sheilagh O'Leary, a councillor with the city of St. John's who has also applied for status, said, “It's about reclaiming identity and understanding where you came from.” In many ways, people embracing their aboriginal heritage should be a cause of celebration. Instead, the Conservative government is treating it as a cause of concern. The Conservatives are telling them that the rules may now change because too many people are applying.

In the lead-up to the 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, federal officials estimated that a maximum of 12,000 former students would step forward. By last July, the secretariat handling the agreement had processed more than 30,000 claimants, driving up costs by more than $2 billion.

What does that tell us? It goes to show that the Conservative government has a history of underestimating aboriginal populations and ancestry in this country. Once again we see that the Conservative government has not provided the necessary resources to deal with a greater than expected number of applicants. The right thing to do is to provide the necessary resources to finish the job and make sure the job is done right.

Although this application opportunity is no longer available for people, the application process for that membership was lengthy. It certainly was not easy. It involved geological research and compiling all necessary documentation.

However, there is still an opportunity for people to apply for membership through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, but that is an even lengthier process that can take years.

It is unfair to force these applicants to wait that long when the delay in processing the applications was the fault of the Conservative government that was due, again, to a lack of resources. People whose applications are in limbo are concerned that the government never intended to create a landless band with nearly 100,000 members. They are concerned that the government is going to alter the terms of the agreement and the enrolment process to deny the applicants or apply more stringent means of determining whether they are eligible for membership.

The government's decision to hire a special representative to review the enrolment process and investigate possible measures to address the situation while maintaining the integrity of the process and the spirit of the goals of the agreement only adds to people's concerns. Both the enrolment committee and the people who judge the appeals set up the recognition order that created the Qalipu, and they have had to judge a number of membership applications. During that time, a number of precedents and interpretations were made of documents.

To sum up, this motion calls upon the government to ensure that all of those previous precedents during any extension of the registration process be applied, be above board and be made public so that everybody knows the rules of the game.

New Democrats agree that all applicants should be treated the same way. Let us hope that happens.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in the discussion brought forward by my friend, the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte concerning what appears to be the very arbitrary and secretive way in which the Conservative government is attempting to alter a formal agreement signed by the Government of Canada and a first nation.

Motion No. 432 addresses concerns about the deregistration of thousands of current members of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band who have already been recognized by The Indian Registrar as status Indians just a few short years ago.

This motion is also about thousands of applicants throughout Canada who have applied in good faith under the existing rules that were established after a lengthy negotiation between the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Government of Canada. Under these rules, people throughout Newfoundland and Canada who maintained a connection to the many Mi’kmaq communities of the island were deemed eligible for membership in a newly created first nation band.

These are not rules that were written in haste or on the back of an envelope, as our colleagues on the other side sometimes like to say. In 2007, the Prime Minister personally approved the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation ratification agreement and personally endorsed the criteria for membership in the band when he signed the agreement.

Simply put, the motion brought forth by my colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte asked that the Prime Minister of Canada fulfill the promise he made to thousands of members of this first nation who have already been accepted and to thousands of applicants to the band who are waiting for their applications to be processed.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Government of Canada has signalled it will break its promise. It has announced that it intends to change the rules midway through the process. This is not the first time we have seen the government break a promise. It is not the first time that we have seen the Conservative government betray Atlantic Canadians or our first nations. We all know that the Prime Minister broke his promise to honour the Atlantic accord. Of course it cost Bill Casey his caucus membership over there.

Ironically, the Prime Minister carried out his betrayal after quoting a Gaelic proverb that states, “there is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”. That seems to be applicable here. I suspect he may have learned that from Senator Duffy, but I digress.

Earlier this year, we witnessed the deep distrust the first nations have with the government. Idle No More was a sign of the growing frustration among aboriginal communities, leaders and indeed all Canadians over the litany of broken promises and the complete lack of progress from the government on issues affecting indigenous people in Canada. The government's refusal to consult first nations on matters that may impact their inherent rights or treaty rights gave rise to the Idle No More protest movement.

The Liberal Party of Canada has stood against the cynical actions of the government in Parliament and worked to highlight its short-sighted approach for all Canadians, just like we are standing here today.

In relation to this motion and what happened here, in a nutshell the government is suggesting that the number of members and applicants who presented themselves for recognition is too many and that this situation could not have been foreseen. Standing today at 24,000 members and at 75,000 applicants, the government is suggesting that this is far beyond the intended 8,000 to 12,000 members that the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs originally projected when the Prime Minister ratified this agreement in 2007.

The record is clear. In 2009, the number of members in the band stood at 10,000 and the number of applicants waiting to be processed stood at 20,000, with three years left in the enrolment process. Therefore, if the expectation was that only 8,000 to 12,000 members would be assumed to be eligible for membership in the band, that forecast was proven totally inaccurate almost four years ago. Any belief that those numbers would not grow the way they have is just not credible. What would be the basis for it in view of these facts?

Furthermore, the government has raised no concern in the four years that the agreement has been in effect. Meanwhile, the number of applications and the number of members enrolled have been steadily increasing. Now, after four years of executing the agreement, the government is trying to create a story that there is a problem with the high numbers and that the problem is not its doing, that it is the doing of the applicants. What a silly thing to say. The government is suggesting that people who are applying for membership are doing so without proper entitlement to do so. That is what the process is all about.

It is typical of the government to point fingers. What did the Prime Minister do, even last week, when he had the problems with Senator Duffy? He pointed the finger at his own office. For some reason, he never points it at himself, which is most unfortunate. The Conservatives ought to look at themselves in this case. They were part of the design of the rules. The Prime Minister signed off on these rules that he now does not like.

The agreement spelled out the enrolment criteria for the band in plain language. The agreement stated that to become a member an applicant would have to demonstrate that they or one of their ancestors was of Canadian aboriginal descent. The applicant would not have to show that they were necessarily of Newfoundland Mi'kmaq descent. They would simply have to show that they were of any aboriginal heritage from anywhere in Canada and that would be sufficient.

That is what the Prime Minister signed off on. Those are the rules he agreed to. Now he wants to change the rules. He effectively wants to change horses in midstream. Furthermore, as specifically stated in the agreement, “no minimum blood quantum” or fraction of Indian ancestry was relevant for membership in this band either.

By pointing out these two rules for membership, it might make it easier for people to understand why such a relatively high number of applicants have come forward. It is not surprising. Those are the rules that were set up after the negotiations and these are the rules that the Prime Minister signed onto. If anyone is responsible for the rules that he now does not like, he should look in the mirror. Pointing out that this is exactly what the federal government negotiated, and obviously intended in forming the agreement, is also relevant.

The next criteria for enrolment was that the applicant or their aboriginal ancestor would have to be either (a) a resident of, or (b) connected to the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community, as listed within the agreement.

The rules were clearly spelled out in the agreement. They were clearly spelled out for people who are no longer a resident of such a community in Newfoundland. They would have to demonstrate an ongoing connection to that community by way of regular telephone calls or visits to such a community. The requirement is spelled out in plain language within both the agreement and the application guides produced by the federal government and Newfoundland authorities for the applicants.

If I have time, I would like to highlight a couple of key elements in what the government signed as part of the agreement with the Mi'kmaq.

Part 13 of annex A specifically states, “The applicant must provide evidence that he is of Canadian Indian ancestry. There is no minimum blood quantum”. The Prime Minister signed onto that. To reinforce that, both the government and the first nation were fully aware of the criteria that they agreed to. The documents produced to assist applicants in preparing their applications, as well as the information found on the government website, specifically stated that residency was not a requirement for enrolment as long as a connection to a Mi'kmaq community can be established, and a connection is described as “visits or communication”.

The government has only itself to blame if it does not like these rules. It ought not to be breaking its promise. It ought to be in this case, unlike so many others, keeping its word to these people, following the process, letting people apply if they wish, and letting the process decide whether or not they qualify under the rules that the Prime Minister signed on to.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, to say the least, that an opportunity was held here tonight for all members of this House to speak, to express their points of view and to establish a discussion about the Conservatives concerns about the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation agreement that they signed.

The House of Commons is the place where these issues can get resolved, if there is a discussion. Not one member of the government took the opportunity tonight to present an argument to the people of Canada, and especially to the applicants and members of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation. The Conservatives had that opportunity, but they declined. Secrecy seems to be the issue of the day for the current government. They had an opportunity to express, in very clear language, what exactly they were concerned about. Let us be clear. It is the Conservatives who are saying they are concerned about something. However, will they express that on the floor of the House of Commons, the forum for the people's business? No. They are holding these discussions exclusively in secret. Is that the right way to do business? I will let them answer that.

Let us talk about what they will not talk about. Let us talk about their agreement, the agreement that was negotiated in good faith, not in the course of a day, a week, or a month, not even in the course of a year, but over the course of several years. It was signed and sanctioned by the Prime Minister of Canada, and every word of that agreement was taken as if it were his very own. That agreement held the very substance of the enrolment criteria which the Conservatives now say they have a problem with. However, do they say they have the problem? No. They will never admit that the agreement is what they are now taking issue with, the agreement that the Prime Minister of Canada personally sanctioned. No. The fault, according to the Conservatives, is with those darn applicants, those people who are coming forward now who should never be coming forward and applying the rules to them that they negotiated in good faith.

The Conservatives will not talk about the agreement. In order to talk about it, they would have to express why they find fault in their own agreement and promises. If they talked about the agreement, they would have to admit that they no longer support their own agreement, the one they negotiated with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, the agreement that was ratified through a referendum by every member of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians after a five-month referendum campaign. It was the agreement that was ratified by the cabinet and then ratified in a signing ceremony.

Then, over a four-year period, an enrolment committee, comprised of a majority of members of the federal government's Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and appointed by that department and by the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, then had the opportunity to say who was in and who was out. It was the members of that enrolment committee who actually said that 24,000 individuals would now become members. That enrolment committee had an opportunity to use various means and mechanisms to say there was a problem. Did the members of that committee ever do that? No. In fact, not only did the enrolment committee keep processing applications for the four years that it sat, it actually accelerated the enrolment process, in response to a motion to slow it down by one of the Mi’kmaq elders.

What they are now suggesting, which is really charming, is not to look at the agreement but to look at the census records from 2006. In 2006, only 24,000 Newfoundland and Labradorians self-declared that they were of aboriginal ancestry. That apparently is clear evidence that it would be totally ridiculous that anyone should suggest having anything more than 24,000 members. Well, guess what? That would be the same census that the same Conservative government said was an outrageous invasion of the rights of personal privacy and that no Canadian citizen should ever be forced to fill out. That is the long form census. They are using the long form census, the one they abolished in 2011, as the entire basis of argument to shut down the agreement that the Prime Minister of Canada personally signed off on.

If not even bothering to stand up in the House of Commons is a matter of principle, the members of that party and government should stay sitting down and abide by their agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The time provided for debate has now expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, 2013, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North still has five minutes of questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Halifax West.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech today on this topic. We have seen that the government has used time allocation, closure really, a record number of times, more than any other government in history. I wonder if my hon. colleague would care to comment on what he feels is the reason for the frequency for using time allocation, why it uses closure and why it does that so often.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things of which I would like to make a note.

We need to recognize that, first and foremost, when a government moves time allocation as a motion, what it is really saying is that it is going to limit the number of members of Parliament who can stand and express their thoughts on the matter. On many occasions, if not on all occasions, expressing their thoughts involves ideas and thoughts that come from their constituents. The government is therefore limiting the ability of MPs to represent their constituents on a wide variety of different issues.

The member is right when he makes reference to the fact that the government does use time allocation. In my opening remarks, I made reference to it. The Conservative government, more than any other government, has used it as a legislative tool to the degree in which it is almost automatic in its usage in the House of Commons.

That is most unfortunate and definitely very undemocratic. I would suggest that the government has chosen to use this because the government House leader has failed to recognize the value of sitting down with the opposition House leaders, whether it is the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party. If the government did that in good faith with the respective House leaders, we would see agreements being accepted, a more timely passing of legislation and more dialogue, so the high priority bills get more debate than others.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North quite a bit today and, as a matter of fact, most days. Today, his main point is about restriction of debate. His main point is that he does not get enough chance to speak. It is important that he should have an opportunity to speak. The last time I checked he had spoken in the House over a period of months and years more than 50 other MPs put together.

I wonder if the hon. member should be a little more circumspect when he talks about the subject, especially when there are only 34 members in his own caucus and they need a chance to speak.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about me. It is about all members of the House of Commons. In fact, it is important that all members recognize the role of ensuring members have the right to speak.

Whether an individual MP from whatever region or community decides to take advantage of the opportunity and the privilege of being in the House and addressing the many different issues that come to the House, or decides not to, it is up to him or her. I will defend the rights of those who never say anything and of those who have plenty to say on a lot of issues.

It is consistent, ensuring—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak this evening to Motion No. 17, which everyone on our side of the House knows is simply a motion that will extend sitting hours for the next few weeks to allow increased debate and participation by all members, dealing with a series of what we consider to be very serious and important legislative bills that the government wishes to bring forward.

I should point out at the outset that there is nothing new here. This is not unusual. In fact, as all members know, when they look at their parliamentary calendars, those little plastic calendars that we all put in our wallets to see when the session is on and when we adjourn, they will notice that the last two weeks in June always have asterisks attached to the last two sitting weeks. It is interesting, because every year even the most experienced parliamentarians continue to ask the same questions. They look at those little stars and come to me, or others on our side of the House, and ask if that means they can get out two weeks early. We have to point out that, no, it does not mean we can rise two weeks early. It means the government has the ability to extend the sitting hours for those last two weeks to allow for enhanced and increased debate.

This is quite a common occurrence that occurs every session and every sitting of a Parliament. All we are suggesting this time, hence the motion we brought forward, is to extend sitting hours for a few more weeks than the last two weeks of the scheduled session.

Why are we asking for that to be done? It is simply because we feel we have a very busy legislative agenda. We believe we have a number of pieces of important legislation that have yet to be passed in Parliament. We would like to see many of these, if not all of them, debated, voted upon and hopefully, from our perspective, passed before we rise for the summer. That is all. There is no other ulterior motive, as members opposite seem to be suggesting. We are not trying to engage in increased sitting hours now so we can rise earlier. Not at all, we are simply stating a fact, that our government has many pieces of legislation that have yet to be debated fully in this place and yet to be put to a vote.

We want to see that happen as quickly as possible. Hence, we are recommending that we sit, starting tonight, for an extended period of time. It would be a number of hours every evening, Monday through Thursday so we would be able to engage all parliamentarians in a proper debate of some of these legislative agenda items.

I have also heard some commentary from members opposite who seem to engage in these ongoing conspiracy theories. They suggest, for example, that one of the things the motion would do, in addition to extending the sitting hours, is impair the opposition members' ability to bring forward concurrence motions. I want to speak to that for just a moment.

If one is to adhere to the arguments brought forward by members opposite, one would get the impression that these concurrence motions, in other words debate on reports, are the most important thing that Parliament has to consider. Mr. Speaker, as you would well know, and I think all members know, that is the furthest thing from the truth. Concurrence motions, when brought forward by members of the opposition, are nothing more than dilatory tactics to try and prevent our government from engaging in its legislative agenda.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, and all members should know, once a concurrence motion is brought forward, it allows for three hours of debate on that motion. In other words, if a concurrence motion was brought forward on a Wednesday, which as we all know is a short day, three hours of government time would be used in debate of an opposition motion. The government then would be unable to bring forward its own legislative agenda and would be unable to debate the bills that we wanted to see debated in the House. Instead, we would be engaging in a debate on a concurrence motion brought forward by the opposition, which means opposition members would simply be trying to delay legislation from being passed.

On one hand, we hear consistently from members opposite the argument that they need more time to debate, that the government is preventing real and fruitful debate in the House. That again is the furthest thing from the truth. In fact, just the opposite is occurring on a regular basis.

Opposition members are using procedural tactics, like concurrence motions, to prevent our government from introducing legislation. Why? Because they are not merely trying to oppose our legislative agenda; they are trying to prevent it from even making it to the floor of the House for reasonable debate.

That is what concurrence motions are and that is what the opposition is arguing that Motion No. 17 would prevent, but that is not true. The reality is, if we adopt Motion No. 17, concurrence motions would still be allowed, even though we all know they are dilatory in nature.

Members of the official opposition and third party would still be able to bring forward concurrence motions. There would only be one slight change, which is that after the first speaker completed his or her remarks, usually 20 minutes, and after the customary 10 minutes of questions and comments, we would then revert to orders of the day. This does not mean the remainder of the three hours would be washed away. The government would be obliged, in fact compelled, within two weeks to resume debate on that concurrence motion.

We are not preventing debate on any motion for concurrence that the opposition members bring forward. We are merely allowing for proper debate on government legislation to be held, without being impaired and delayed unnecessarily. When a concurrence motion is brought forward, normally our government, to try to get back to orders of the day, would move a motion to do just that, to return to orders of the day. However, that precipitates then a 30-minute bell. Committees are interrupted because members have to return to the House to vote on that motion.

There is important work being done in committees. We do not want that unnecessary delay to committees, particularly as we get closer to the end of this legislative session. The committees are seized with very important bills that have been passed through second reading and are at committee stage. We want the committees to engage in an examination of the bills, but if we are continually interrupted by having dilatory tactics brought forward by members of the opposition, that prevents true legislative examination of bills at committee.

Our intent is quite simple. Motion No. 17 merely suggests that we sit a few hours longer each and every day for the last few weeks before the scheduled adjournment on June 21 to allow meaningful debate on many bills that our government has introduced. The opposition members should embrace and welcome this. After all, it is they who continually state that we are preventing them from debating legislation.

This gives them an opportunity, four more hours each and every day, Monday to Thursday, 20 more hours per week of debate. Yet we hear this hue and cry from members opposite that they do not want to support Motion No. 17. Somehow they are trying to argue that by adding 20 hours of debate per week, it prevents them from speaking effectively on issues that they feel are important. How can that be? How can adding time for debate each and every day be a bad thing? In other words, we cannot have it both ways.

If members of the opposition are trying to make an argument that they need more time for debate on bills, if members of the opposition argue that time allocation prevents them from speaking on bills, how can they then oppose our attempt to add more hours to the day to give them the ability to debate the very bills they are complaining about now, saying that they do not have proper time for thorough examination? It makes no sense. Their argument does not seem to make any sense whatsoever.

Let me give one small example of a bill we want to debate and hopefully pass before we rise for the summer. This is only one of many. Bill S-2, on matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women on reserves, is a bill that has been criticized and opposed by members opposite, both of the official opposition and the third party, for reasons that I can only think about. Again, it defies any rational or logical thought, in my opinion.

What is Bill S-2? Bill S-2 proposes to enact legislation that would allow women living on reserves to have the same basic rights that every other woman in Canada enjoys now. Canadians may be quite appalled to learn that currently, on reserve, if a woman is married and living in a house, but then becomes divorced, she has no right to 50% of the property that she and her husband co-own.

Let me repeat that. An aboriginal woman living on a reserve, living in a house with her husband, who gets divorced, cannot claim 50% of the property that she and her spouse previously owned. That is abominable. That defies any logical thinking by any fair-minded Canadian.

However, both opposition parties in this place oppose our attempts to give aboriginal women the same rights every other woman in Canada currently enjoys. Why? I have asked them. We have yet to hear a logical answer. We have yet to hear an answer that makes any sense.

Members opposite continually seem to criticize our government, saying that we really do not have the best interests of Canadian woman at heart, yet this very bill, which they should be embracing, they oppose, for no good reason. I asked the member for Winnipeg North earlier tonight to give me one reason the Liberal Party of Canada opposes our bill. He could not do so. Why? I can think of several reasons, but none of them make any sense.

The basic point is that we want to debate that bill. We want Canadians to understand what this bill would mean to aboriginal women. We are asking for additional time in this place over the course of the next few weeks to debate this bill, and many others like it, that we believe are important to Canadians.

We have bills that deal with the economy of our country. We have bills dealing with the safety and security of Canadians. We have bills that I know Canadians want to see debated and passed.

However, members opposite are opposing our attempts to do just that. Again, how can it possibly make sense to, on one hand, criticize our government for restricting debate and on the other hand oppose our attempt to add hours to the sitting of this legislature for the purpose of debate? It makes no sense.

I know that I have more time available to me, but I also understand that members opposite wish to make some presentations this evening and that by eight o'clock, this debate will be concluded, so I will conclude my remarks, allowing the opposition members their 10 minutes for questions and comments.

Let me just conclude with this statement, once again. All our government is attempting is to allow more fulsome debate on government legislative agenda items. If members opposite do not want to be sitting extended hours, because they do not want to put in the time for meaningful debate, they should simply say so.

Our government believes that increasing the hours to allow for more debate is something Canadians would embrace.

It is a very simple situation. They either agree that more debate is a good thing, or they say that more debate is something they do not want to engage in. I think one answer is the answer Canadians would embrace; the other answer shows the sheer hypocrisy of the arguments being presented by members opposite.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, and it leaves me with a strange feeling.

We are in some twilight zone right now. Seriously. Maybe it is the time.

I am a night owl, so 7:30 p.m. is pretty early for me. At midnight, it will be as if it is early afternoon for me, so this is not the problem.

I heard some words from his mouth. He talked about proper debate and important work being done in committee. I wondered who was speaking. Was it this side of the House or the government side of the House? Why? Mr. Speaker, you were sitting on the same committee as I was, acting as our justice critic, when we were reviewing some piece of legislation the committee could not really study seriously.

This government limits our participation in committee. It is important for Canadians to know this. In fact, my colleague is suggesting that if we vote against this motion, it means we do not take our work seriously. This government has no credibility in that regard.

The Conservatives are telling us that they want to have proper debates, even though they do not take part in them. We know nothing about Albertans' concerns because their members do not rise to talk about them. We feel as though we are talking to a brick wall.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. As I said earlier to his leader in the House, these 20 additional hours a week do not pose a problem if they allow us to do things properly. If the member guarantees that even with these 20 additional hours a week we will continue to sit until June 21, if he guarantees that the bills will be studied without closure being invoked, and if he guarantees that more Conservatives will participate in the debates, then I do not have a problem with it.

Can the member give us these guarantees, or would he rather pretend that he is a great democrat and then do the opposite?