Sue Barnes

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will put this exactly in perspective. This is the member who, before the last election, an election that I fought partially on this issue, spoke about the charter in very derogatory ways, in my opinion. That is why the government has allowed me, as a member of the Privy Council and as a parliamentary secretary, to have a free vote tonight. I will be voting in favour of this.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the gist of the member's comments had to do with equality. Equality also brings in the concept of dignity of an individual.

I am of an age where I can remember in my childhood that in some states in a country to the south of us there were some separate but equal things called water fountains; fountains for white people and fountains for black people. The equality in that situation was not there. Because they both delivered water did that make them equal? Absolutely not. Can anybody in this Chamber tell me that they were equal? Would anybody be proud to say that was the same level of dignity?

What the member just said could have the same results. Although they would get all the benefits, they would not be getting the benefit of a civil marriage. That is what is missing and that is what we will correct.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker,on this historic last day of debate in this House on Bill C-38, I am pleased to have the honour of speaking in favour of the civil marriage act.

The debate has been a long one. A full range of arguments both for and against the extension of civil marriage to same sex couples has been articulated and discussed in many forms, and not just in this House. It has also been in the legislative committee of the House, which recently re-examined the bill, and in the standing committee that discussed this question in 2003. The issue has also been discussed in the courts, in different jurisdictions, in the media, and of course in the public sphere.

I would like to use my time today to quickly review the legal framework of the bill for tonight's vote.

As the Minister of Justice pointed out this morning, the bill is organized around two very fundamental rights and freedoms in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The first is the charter protection of equality and minority rights, in other words, the extension of access to civil marriage to gays and lesbian couples. The second is the charter protection of religious freedom, in other words, the assurance that religious groups would remain free to follow their beliefs and make their own decisions about what marriage is within those beliefs, and that no religious official can be forced to perform marriages that are contrary to his or her beliefs. Both of these charter principles are fully respected and affirmed by this bill, which is rights protecting legislation.

Courts in eight provinces and one territory have already changed the law to extend equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples. Thousands of same sex couples are now legally married in this country. As a result, the decision now for the Parliament of Canada is not only whether to extend these rights, but whether to take away charter rights from a minority group.

Some Canadians have expressed concerns that the courts have made this decision rather than the elected Parliament. Although it is the court decisions that have changed the law, it remains up to Parliament to make the final decisions.

Under the Constitution, Parliament and the courts both have important and complementary roles. It is an important part of the courts' mandate, given to them by Parliament when the charter was passed democratically, to examine current laws to determine if they meet the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that Parliament itself approved through a democratic process.

At the same time, Parliament is best situated to look at the complete picture in designing a Canada-wide approach that meets both the equality and freedom of religion guarantees of the charter.

I am a member of Parliament from Ontario where this has been the law for nearly two years now, and nothing is going to change in my province. Whether we vote one way or another, the law has already been changed in my province and in many other jurisdictions in Canada. It is critical that this Parliament take responsibility to act to provide a uniformity of law across our country, rather than leaving this to the courts alone any longer.

Many members have again indicated during the last days of debate that they would prefer that the legal recognition given to same sex unions be some term other than marriage, such as civil union. The Minister of Justice reminded us this morning that civil unions are not a workable option in a Canadian legal and constitutional framework. Although theoretically possible, creating a separate institution in addition to civil marriage must be done under provincial and territorial laws, not federal laws, and so cannot respect the right of same sex couples to equality without discrimination, meaning that it would still be in breach of the charter.

As the opposition has stated, Parliament has legislative jurisdiction over civil marriage, but it does not have any jurisdiction to establish an institution other than marriage for couples of the same sex. As only the provinces and territories have jurisdiction to create civil unions, the inevitable legal patchwork caused by some 13 different forms of civil unions could well result in legal confusion, but it will not result in equality.

The Supreme Court declined to answer the fourth question in the reference and returned it to us to decide, but it did not do so in a vacuum. That is important to understand. It clearly indicated, as the member just reiterated, that Parliament must exercise its jurisdiction over civil marriage in a way that complies with the Constitution and the charter.

The Supreme Court also clearly told us that it refused to answer the question not because it disagreed, but because courts in eight provinces and one territory had already made binding decisions and thousands of couples had married in reliance on those decisions. The government is not only bound by decisions of the Supreme Court but by decisions of all courts. That is how the law changed in Ontario a couple of years ago. It was not a Supreme Court decision. It was another decision of another court of compelling authority in my province.

Unless we are willing in this Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to overrule those findings, this is not going to change. As the Minister of Justice reminded us again, the courts' decisions did not only address the common law but two statutes of the House, the harmonization act for Quebec and the modernization act, both of which set out a legislative definition of the opposite sex requirement for marriage and which were also declared unconstitutional.

The government's commitment to uphold the right to equality without discrimination precludes the use of the notwithstanding clause which would deliberately deny the right of couples of the same sex to equal access to civil marriage. If one minority can have its rights taken away by deliberate government action, then all other rights are potentially at risk.

As Canada is a nation of minorities with a history of tolerance and acceptance of differences, this is incompatible with responsible government. I believe it will be shown tonight by a vote in the House that is the accepted will democratically elected members will make.

For those Canadians who are concerned about the impact of the bill on freedom of conscience and religion, the government will uphold freedom of religion. I would not vote for this bill if I did not think this bill would not have that effect. It is an equal charter right.

I belong to a Christian faith that supports this bill. One of the things that has been difficult to take during this lengthy debate is someone telling other people they are unchristian or they have no faith just because they disagree on a rights issue. That is not the case for many members in this chamber and I think we should be respectful of each other in the way we express our views.

The Supreme Court was categorical. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already protects freedom of religion. This protection is clearly echoed in the bill to extend civil marriage to same sex couples now in five separate places, asserting the government's commitment to religious freedom by stating that everyone has the freedom of religion under the charter and that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. The bill only applies to marriage for civil purposes and will not have any effect on religious marriage in any way.

To extend this protection, further specific guarantees could also be made under provincial and territorial human rights acts and marriage acts. The Minister of Justice has already asked his provincial and territorial colleagues for their cooperation in any necessary amendments that those provinces or territories choose to do. I know that legislation passed in Ontario.

As the Minister of Justice has said, the charter is the expression and the entrenchment of our rights and freedoms, the codification of the best of Canadian values and aspirations. We are all its beneficiaries, and that includes the minority groups who live in my riding and who I have been elected to also represent. It is not a question of percentages or numbers. Even if there are very few as a percentage of population whom this bill protects, it is also my job to protect them. I take that responsibility seriously.

When people come to me and tell me their stories, whether it is orally in my office or through their letters, I know that many people have been suffering because they did not feel the dignity of equality. They do not want to take anything away from someone who disagrees with them. They are not asking to take away any benefit from another person. They are just asking for the legal extension of the same benefits.

The charter defines who we are as a people and what we aspire to be. It is in that spirit that the legislation has been tabled and in which the democratic debate and exercise in democracy will be carried out. It is also in that spirit, and I would suggest my hope, for equality the rights of minorities and the protection of religious freedoms that I trust the legislation will be enacted.

This is not about social experimentation. This is about charter rights for all, including what to some are unpopular minority groups in this country.

In my home constituency, it was the same charter and protection of minority rights that I went to when I was looking at anti-terrorism provisions that we were debating. I talked to minority groups that felt threatened. I used those provisions to bring areas into the legislation and to change legislation in the House with the help of others. We brought in sunset clauses to the legislation that I had found a little close to draconian at the time.

It is that same charter that gives those individuals and those communities the protection. We do not know when we will need our charter rights. There are many countries around the world that do not have those protections. Many of us have young folks who are travelling abroad. If they get into trouble in another country, those charter protections and justice system are just not there in some parts of the world. We are very fortunate in this country. I celebrate having a charter.

The right to equality, in my view, is an extremely important fundamental right guaranteed by the charter. I know that some people at different times have made comical comments, or at least they thought they were, or they did not understand how the charter could protect them and their families. I think the majority of Canadians do celebrate this piece of legislation.

Rights are rights. It does not matter if we do not like the phrase, it is still true. None of us can, nor should we, pick and choose whose rights we will defend and whose rights we will ignore. The government must represent the rights of all Canadians equally. This bill is the only way possible to fully protect both the important charter rights involved here, religious freedom and equality. One right does not trump another right. They have to coexist.

The House has a duty not only to those opposed, but to those in favour, not only to those religious groups who do not wish to perform same sex marriages, but also to those who do.

In the discussions surrounding the 1968 Divorce Act, religious groups took sides, some urging the government not to pass the civil divorce law for Canada, fearing the impact on religious practice, and others urging the government to go further and include a ground for divorce based solely on marital breakdown.

Bill C-38 already represents the Canadian compromise, the change to the civil law, while at the same time respecting the right of religious groups to determine religious law in a way that is consistent with their beliefs. I would just as forcefully argue for that protection as I would for the equality and protection of a minority, and so should every member of this chamber.

Now, as then, it falls to the civil authority to legislate in a way that allows all religious groups to continue with their respective beliefs. The way to do that is the bill before us today. I fully understand, and I do not think any member could have worked in this House for a number of years without understanding, that this issue of extending equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples is one that evokes strong feelings. That is a given. A number of my constituents as well as my own circle of family, friends and colleagues have struggled with this issue.

I want to remind those on all sides of the debate that there is a human face on this issue at all times. It is not just about rhetoric or about words. It is not just about invoking the Charter of Rights. It is about the people inside of those rights. What we decide here will impact on the lives of real people.

I have talked to many who have felt that some of the debate over the time that we have debated this have used words and thoughts in the debate that have hurt them. Some gay and lesbian couples felt that some of the debate had crossed the line. I think that was unfortunate and I hope that none of it was intended. I would like to think none of it was intended. I think sometimes some people get carried away.

Some, I know, contend that the small number of gay and lesbian people just proves that this group is so small that they do not warrant the attention and consideration being given to them by the courts and the legislatures throughout the country.

As the Vanier Institute of the Family pointed out in its presentation to our House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it studied this issue in early 2003, this argument is dangerously misguided.

A democratic and a just society must measure itself, not only by reference to the majority but equally by reference to how it respects each and every individual citizen, regardless of their differences, their heritage, their religion, their abilities or disabilities, their gender, their race or their sexual orientation. Surely history has taught us something, that we cannot distribute justice or fairness on the basis of numbers.

Others are concerned that gay and lesbian couples do not remain in long term relationships. While we may have little scientific data on this to date, it is interesting to note that all the court cases against the government seem to be couples who have been together for 30 years or more. Sure, not all same sex couples may stay together for 30 or 40 years, but as long as some do how can they be treated any differently on that basis?

Are children part of these couples' lives? The 2001 Canadian census indicates that 15% of households headed by lesbian couples had children, versus 3% among male same sex households. That means that at least 3,000 same sex couples are raising children in Canada today.

The children become members of these families in a variety of ways. The Vanier Institute of the Family reviewed the research available and noted that the majority of these children were born into a mother-father unit that ultimately ended in divorce or separation and the parent with care of the child then re-partners in a same sex relationship. That is not the only scenario but it is one that does occur.

How are the children faring in these households with same sex parents? This is a question of great concern to many Canadians, and it should be. They can accept that adults should be free to choose partners of their choice but they are rightly concerned about the children being raised in these relationships.

While no large-scale, definitive study exists, all the research to date suggests that the quality of parenting is a more important factor in the success of children than the sexual orientation of the parent. Indeed, as we all know, most children do not want to know about their parents' sex lives or even that they have a sex life. Maybe if one is in Parliament, one does not, I do not know.

However what makes a good family good for a child is not just the make up of that family, the married couple, the common-law, the single parent, the extended family, the only child, but that the family loves, cares and supports these children and, by extension, the community has to love, care and support these children.

We all know instances where a married heterosexual couple may be the best place for children to be raised but we all know instances where it is not. Whoever their parents are, all children need love and supervision. They all need to be sheltered, fed, taken to school and so on.

Children need and deserve the full support of government, not only for themselves but for their real families, not some make-believe family but their real families existing today on every street in Canada.

[Criminal Code, June 28th, 2005]

They don't work.

[Criminal Code, June 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to recognize the hard work that does go into private members' legislation. I had the pleasure to work with the member opposite from Lethbridge when I chaired the finance committee and he was a member of that committee. He does hard work and I respect him as an individual. I know that every good intention was put into this legislation.

I currently work on aboriginal affairs as the parliamentary secretary. In the last Parliament, before the election, I was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. And before I hear the catcalls, yes, I was a lawyer for 15 years in a previous career. I enjoyed that, and I bring that training to this Parliament too. I also taught law at the local university part time and also for the bar admissions.

That is not what this is about. This discussion today is to try to come to grips with the activity of teenagers and differentiating that from criminal activity that occurs as the sexual exploitation of children, which we are all concerned about.

Many times over the last dozen years while I have been in this Parliament I have heard that we have been delaying this. I want to take people back to the point before the last Parliament, when I stood up in this chamber many times, in fact day after day, trying to get what is now Bill C-2, which is the act to amend the Criminal Code, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act, through this Parliament then.

This Parliament just passed Bill C-2, which gave major protections on the subject matter we are talking about. It could have been passed in the prior Parliament. I will say what happened here, because I need to refresh, and maybe the people who were not here at that time need to be advised that that bill had basically the same format. Now there have been a few minor changes as it travelled through this time around in committee.

Basically, that bill was subject to a procedural hoist motion, which means it was postponed. It was postponed by the opposition and we did not get that bill. That bill not only had sections respecting the protection of children and child pornography, it had voyeurism sections. It also had really important sentencing sections, and it had the facilitating of testimony for children, so they did not get retraumatized when they had to go through the court system.

We are not in any party of this House immune from what happens to our children. I am a mother. I have a 16-year-old. I have kids in university too. We are all trying to do the right thing. But we cannot take that “I am better than you” position. What we have to do is look at this in an objective way and look at not only the good a piece of legislation can do, but also the unintended consequences that could affect our children for a long time.

That is why I am very much in favour, when we look at criminal activity, of looking at the activity of the person doing that activity and judging that. That is what Bill C-2 did, and it is now in the Senate.

I know what the hon. member's intention was to do here. It was to allow that close-in-age exception for an accused who is 12 or more but under 16. The reality in homes across this country is that we have teenagers who could get into trouble with this bill, serious trouble that will affect them. It will give them a criminal record and it will affect their ability to get into college or university or to get into employment with the government, or a whole pile of other things.

I am not only talking about the trauma of what happens, but under this bill as it is currently written, I want to give members the scenario of what could happen.

Under Bill C-313, a 15-year-old boy could engage in consensual sexual activity with his 14-year-old girlfriend, but on the day of his 16th birthday the boy would be committing a sexual offence even if he kissed his girlfriend. Remember, we are not talking rape here. Rape is rape, and that is a criminal offence and it does not matter at what age. What we are gathering inside this net is something that was not intended.

We have to be very careful, because when you take a net widening in the Criminal Code, you put not only all of those emotional situations on the children involved and the parents, but you have financial implications in the criminal justice system and the social service system. That is what happens when you get that scenario of the charging prosecution.

I used to work with young children in the court system, and it is not easy when they go there. It is certainly not easier on their parents and their guardians. We have to be concerned, and we have to do this in a logical manner.

The member who spoke before me talked about Bill C-2. I will go to Bill C-2 because the section the hon. member's bill tries to get at is in Bill C-2. It is already there. It just passed this House; it is in the Senate. As I said, it could have passed in the last Parliament if it had not been hoisted by the opposition, because they did not want this bill before they went into an election.

Bill C-2 proposes the creation of a new prohibition to better protect youth against sexual exploitation. Under the prohibition, courts would be directed to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitative of the young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship, including specific indicators of exploitation. Those indicators could involve a number of things. First is the age of the person. Obviously the younger, the more there is a presumption of exploitation. Next is the age difference between the child and the accused. Obviously the greater number of years between their ages, the child's age and the accused's age, the greater the amount of exploitation that could probably be inferred, especially if it is a person in a position of trust. Another is the evolution of the relationship, how the fact situation in that particular situation occurred. Then there is the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person. These are all elements that the criminal mind has to be apprised of, that the court has to look at, and in actual fact it gives a greater amount of probability of success in the conviction of a true exploitation. It eliminates that situation where you could have young people doing things that maybe as a parent I do not want my 16- or 14-year-old doing, but, ladies and gentlemen, they are doing them, and that is reality.

We live in a real world where teenage youth in this country are engaging in something every day. It might not be what we want, but it is also not criminal activity--not criminal activity with lifelong criminal sanctions. I think we have to deal with that.

I want to talk about the benefits that were in Bill C-2, which just passed. These were some of the additions that were put in Bill-2. It proposed significant reforms to ensure that sentencing in cases involving the abuse and sexual exploitation of children better reflects the serious nature of crimes. And this was just passed. This work was done. It is complete in this House. It is now in the Senate. It increased the maximum penalties on summary conviction for child-specific offences from six to 18 months. It doubled the maximum penalty on indictment for sexual exploitation of a young person from five to 10 years. That is serious time in our system of justice. It increased the maximum penalty on indictment for failure to provide the necessities of life and for abandonment of a child from two to five years. And it increases the maximum penalty on summary conviction for all child pornography offences from six to 18 months. That is what was done. I do not want anybody in Canada to believe that this House has not been paying attention to these issues.

Why did we do Bill C-2? The Speech from the Throne committed to crack down on child pornography. It proposed criminal law reforms that strengthen child pornography and sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, and it created a new category called sexual exploitation. In other words, something was added to the Criminal Code that focused on this particular activity that should not be occurring with our children in this country. It facilitated testimony by children and other vulnerable victims and witnesses, those with an impairment of some type, and it created new voyeurism. Those little photo cameras? There is now a criminal offence that goes with those cameras and any voyeurism offence.

I think we have done a good job in Bill C-2. I am very pleased it passed the House this time. I wish it would have passed over a year ago, as it could easily have done if we had not been so interested in delaying it so that another party could claim victory down the road.

I am not going to take anything away from the member who worked on this bill, because I know him and I know what he is trying to accomplish. I just do not think that this bill is complete enough, and it creates as many problems as it could solve in this country.

[London Knights, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute in the House today to the London Knights of the Ontario Hockey League. Their 0-0 tie with the Guelph Storm last Friday night set a new Canadian Hockey League record of 30 straight games undefeated. Sunday's overtime win against the Kitchener Rangers extended the unbeaten streak to 31 games.

This surpasses the 1978-79 record of 29 games without a loss, previously held by the Brandon Wheat Kings of the Western Hockey League.

This is a remarkable accomplishment for the Knights. I am proud to have been among the thousands of fans at the game to witness this historic event. I know that some other colleagues from the House were there also.

I wish to extend congratulations to all the team members, as well as the president and head coach, Dale Hunter, and vice-president and general manager, Mark Hunter, for leading such a well-rounded and disciplined hockey team.

I know that all members of the House, especially my London colleagues, will join me in congratulating the London Knights as the CHL record holder for the most consecutive wins. I say keep going, Knights, and well done.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-272, a private member's bill before the House. I am grateful because it is important to recognize the initiatives of individual parliamentarians. I know that the parliamentarian who has sponsored this bill here today is well intentioned, but I have some thoughts on this bill.

I am speaking not only as a parliamentarian and a member of the House but also as an immigrant to Canada. I am now a Canadian citizen, but my family and I immigrated from the Mediterranean island of Malta. I am certainly very grateful to this country for everything it has provided to me and my own children.

The bill seeks to amend Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by granting every citizen or permanent resident the opportunity to sponsor, once in the sponsor's lifetime, one foreign national who is a relative but not a member of the family class. The concept of a once in a lifetime sponsorship is not new. Governments and stakeholders have debated and analyzed whether such a provision would be workable for very many years now. All of us believe in the principle of strengthening the family class and making it easier for people to sponsor loved ones who now live abroad. However, the one time sponsorship option as presented in Bill C-272 is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons.

Past experience indicates that even with more resources, the increase in backlogs and processing time for this and other categories of immigrants that could be generated by such an open-ended system would seriously undermine the integrity and the credibility of the whole immigration program. The bill before us today addresses one of the many shortcomings of earlier legislation from another honourable member by defining an eligible relative as a brother or sister of the sponsor, an aunt or uncle, nephew or niece, first cousin or child of the sponsor who is 22 years of age or older, and is not dependent upon the sponsor.

However, past experience indicates that such an expansion of the family class would be unsustainable, unmanageable, and seriously impede the government's ability to uphold the will of Parliament by maintaining the current sixty-forty mix of economic to non-economic immigration. This has also been noted by other parliamentarians in the House.

In 1988, family intake nearly doubled over two years, thanks to a similar arrangement to include all unmarried sons and daughters in the family class. The escalated number of backlogs rising out of that program, despite its termination in 1993, is still having an impact and effect on the Department of Citizenship and Immigration even today.

We have already made provision for processing applications from relatives who would not normally fall under the family class, under certain circumstances. There is little reason to duplicate this in a separate piece of legislation with such serious problems. Canadians and permanent residents today can sponsor a relative, regardless of relationship or age, if they have no family residing in Canada or abroad. Section 117(1)(h) of the new immigration and refugee protection regulations defines a foreign national as a member of the family class with respect to a sponsor if he or she is “a relative of the sponsor, regardless of age, if the sponsor does not have a spouse, a common-law partner, a conjugal partner”, or any other immediate family member in Canada or abroad.

In addition, section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act can be used to permit the sponsorship of a foreign national relative who would not otherwise qualify as a member of the family class, if exceptional humanitarian and compassionate grounds exist. Furthermore, foreign nationals who apply as skilled workers and have close family members in Canada are given the advantage of five additional points on the selection grid.

The government passed a series of new regulations in 2002 to make it much easier for Canadians and permanent residents to sponsor their loved ones from abroad, and significantly expanded the family class in a well managed and sustainable way, even though I and other colleagues in the House still have backlog problems with this department.

These changes provided for equal treatment under the law for common-law couples of the opposite and same sex by expanding the family class to include the term “common-law partners and conjugal partners”. They also expand the definition of dependent child to better reflect longer child dependencies. They reduce the age at which Canadians citizens or permanent residents are eligible to sponsor from 19 to 18 years of age.

These enhancements to the family class reflect the government's policy intention of easing family reunification while ensuring that the immigration program itself maintains an appropriate balance between the intake of refugees as well as economic and family class immigrants. We have expanded the family class in a well planned and responsible way. The government has also made provision for individuals who wish to sponsor an individual not included in the family class without jeopardizing the integrity of the immigration program itself.

I find it difficult to support the concept of a once in a lifetime sponsorship and will not vote in favour of what I still consider a flawed scheme as set out in Bill C-272.

I also know that in every community there is stress on the receiving end for municipalities and other levels of government that must put the programs in place. I see it in some of the relocation and training programs, whether it is skills or language. We want to properly resource on location when people come to this country. I think we do have a proper balance in this country. There could be more resources so that the system could run smoother.

I thank the hon. member for bringing this up. He has good intentions. I know he contributes in a meaningful way in the House and will continue to do so. With regard to this situation and in these particular set of circumstances, I do not agree with him, but there may be another time when I will.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I referred to the optional part of this bill as in the fiscal tools. The minister stated in committee in his opening remarks that the statistical institute is not optional. It applies to all first nations. If the member had wanted to do something different about severing the statistical institute, I am sure he could have made amendments to that effect, but he did not. In fact, he chose, and I am very glad that he did, to be part of the unanimous passing with other amendments but nothing relating to that situation.

It was clarified in committee. The bill is a reincarnation of two previous attempts to have the bill changed into optional legislation. First nations will choose if and when they wish to participate in the taxing and borrowing regimes established by the bill. The provisions of the bill dealing with these regimes will apply only to those first nations which appear in the schedule to the bill. A band council must ask to be added to the schedule.

The schedule is established by the governor in council. The name of the first nation can appear in the schedule only at the request of the council of that first nation. First nations have had the option, under the Indian Act, to establish real property tax regimes since 1988 and that option will also continue to be available.

First nations would continue to be free to raise capital as they do now. There is no obligation for any first nation to borrow through the finance authority. No one has forced any first nation to tax under the provisions of the Indian Act. No one will force any first nation to tax or borrow under the provisions of this bill. First nations will make that decision. The minister made that point very clearly in committee.

This initiative is first nation led. The bill has resulted from over 15 years of dedicated effort by a group of first nation leaders who seek to remove existing barriers to economic development. The development of the bill has been guided by their vision, their determination, their skills and personal commitment, along with input of industry specialists.

Overall, yes this is optional for the taxation. The whole point of the statistical institute is to be able to do the planning. If that was unclear to the member, I am very glad he gave me this opportunity to clarify that.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member opposite, I am absolutely ecstatic that the opposition party is now in favour of gender analysis. It was a policy put forward through the Beijing meetings nearly a decade ago. I can tell the member that in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs we have already started to do some gender work inside the department on specific projects. I can also tell the member that this side of the House is looking forward to doing more gender analysis throughout all the departments, but we know that this has not been completely done at this stage.

I am very happy to hear the Conservative Party talking to this aspect of government-wide work. I know the member is not referring specifically to the work we are doing in our committee; it is actually another committee of the House that she is referring to.

I can tell the hon. member I agree with her when she says there are problems, specifically with matrimonial property on reserves. This is an issue that has taken the interest of the minister. In fact, he has recently written to the chair of our committee asking the committee to study matrimonial property with a view to looking at legislation the House could put forward to address this huge challenge, which has stymied many first nations leaders and individuals.

I know that the reality of the problem is there. Our committee has not yet had a chance to discuss how we will go about this mandate, so I will not preclude what the committee will do on that matter because that would be inappropriate at this time. I very sincerely believe, as a personal belief, that this is a challenge which we have to all rise to together. We will not do that without a collaborative effort with first nations communities, which also recognize that this is a huge challenge.

As for the bill itself, if the member would read specific clauses in the bill she will see that they specifically talk about getting qualified men and women, for instance on the directorship, including first nations communities, involved in this legislation. At the committee, I actually pointed out the specific clause in the bill that refers to this.

The benefits will be in the well-being of the whole community. I am very much looking forward to people utilizing this aspect. I look forward to working with the member and her party in future on all these issues.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-20, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

Before I speak to the contents of the proposed legislation though, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and I note that our chair, the member for Nunavut is here today, and colleagues in the House who, with their consent, facilitated this final debate today. I acknowledge and am grateful for that.

This important legislation will enable first nations to access the tools they need to increase their participation in the economy. Under the provisions of Bill C-20, first nations will have at their disposal the same financial instruments and mechanisms used by municipal governments to plan effectively, raise capital and secure investments. With this capacity, first nations will be better able to realize their dreams of self-sufficiency and prosperity.

The impetus for this legislation originates with first nation leaders from across the country. It is important to recognize that Bill C-20 was developed by first nations for first nations.

The legislation before us today is the product of many years of hard work, detailed analysis and continual refinement. Leaders of first nations have told us that Bill C-20 represents their communities' best hope for a more equitable share in Canada's prosperity. I believe it is incumbent upon us to champion this hope and facilitate a new reality for first nations in our country together.

The latest figures from Statistics Canada confirm that first nations communities continue to rank among the poorest in Canada; their residents experience the lowest standards of living. This is not acceptable. This we need to address.

Manny Jules, the principal architect of Bill C-20, summed up the current situation eloquently, when he said:

Today a wall surrounds First Nation economies; a wall built by past legislation and policies; a wall of mistrust and dependency that traps us in poverty. Each additional year of dependency adds another brick in this wall. The wall has not served Canada well because it prevents us from participating in the economy.

Manny Jules, together with Chief Strater Crowfoot, Chief Tom Bresette, Harold Calla and Deanna Hamilton are foremost among the committed leaders of this legislative initiative. Others have done amazing work to assist the development and realization of their dreams, and I acknowledge not only their presence and support today, but their steadfast efforts over time.

I am convinced that Bill C-20 will help dismantle the wall. With this vitally important legislation, first nations communities will be able to fulfill their vision of self-sufficiency and prosperity. Bill C-20 would enable first nations leaders to meet the specific needs of their specific community.

The essence of the legislation is a series of four distinct yet complementary institutions: a finance authority, a tax commission, a financial management board and a statistical institute. Precursors to two of these institutions, for instance the Indian taxation advisory board, have operated for several years and the results have been remarkable. The time has come to move forward to do better.

Once these institutions are in place, first nations will have many of the powers long enjoyed by municipal governments, including the ability to borrow money at competitive rates, to develop effective real property tax systems and to protect the interests of their ratepayers.

First nations that participate in these institutions will also be able to increase financial management capacity and improve long term planning. In short, first nations will exercise greater control over and assume greater responsibility for the economic and social health of their communities.

The viability of every community in Canada is affected by the strength and reliability of its physical infrastructure. For example, transportation links, water and sewage treatment facilities and other components of modern infrastructure are also essential to economic growth, Municipalities across Canada have long funded infrastructure projects through low interest loans. Lenders were keen to invest in these projects because of the legal status, financial health and political stability of municipal governments.

Most first nation communities, though, struggle to attract investors and finance the construction of infrastructure. Funding even the most modest of projects quickly becomes prohibitively expensive due to high transaction costs and interest rates. Furthermore, verification and approval processes often delay the start of projects, leading to additional costs.

According to a study completed by first nations fiscal institutions initiative, funding an infrastructure project in a first nations community can be up to 10 times more expensive than a similar project built elsewhere. As a result, today many first nations communities suffer from the effects of inadequate physical infrastructure. Bill C-20 would establish these four independent institutions that would provide valuable services to first nations at every stage of growth.

I would like to describe these institutions briefly now and explain their roles.

More than a decade ago, a handful of communities pooled their resources to create the First Nations Finance Authority Inc. for investment purposes. As the number of first nations participating in the authority grew, so did the feasibility of issuing debentures to access long term capital at competitive interest rates. The concept attracted the support of a key partner, the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, which had 30 years' experience and a triple A credit rating.

The new First Nations Finance Authority will provide participating first nations with access to capital markets by issuing debentures using property tax revenues as security, debentures that will finance infrastructure projects.

To assist band councils in instituting effective property tax regimes, Bill C-20 would create the First Nations Tax Commission, or FNTC. The FNTC will establish the legal framework needed to effectively balance community and ratepayer interests. It will institute processes to resolve disputes and to approve bylaws and it will provide the services needed to securitize real property tax revenues. In short, the FNTC will foster the secure and stable fiscal environments sought by investors.

To ensure that this environment thrives over the long term, first nations must have access to adequate financial management services. Lenders must have a clear and accurate picture of the fiscal health of borrowers. Independent assessments must be readily available. The First Nations Financial Management Board, or FMB, is designed to meet these requirements.

There are two components of the FMB's mandate. The first component focuses on the provision of technical services to first nations regardless of financial status. The FMB will assist with research and advocacy, policy and capacity development, along with financial management, reporting and standards. These activities will help first nations communities to make the most of their financial resources.

The second part of the board's mandate focuses on first nations that collect property tax and seek to borrow against this revenue. The FMB will certify and monitor financial management standards of these first nations, providing potential investors with a clear and accurate picture of fiscal health. By conducting independent assessments of financial status, the board will ensure that lenders have the information and the confidence needed to invest. The FMB will be empowered to intervene promptly and decisively if needed.

To ensure that the institutions I have described can function appropriately, their performance must be recorded accurately and also analyzed regularly. To accomplish these goals, an effective method of gathering statistics is needed. Unfortunately. the quality and accuracy of statistical systems in first nations communities has been inadequate and, I must say, inconsistent. Precise, relevant data is particularly essential for community planners. Information on population growth and effectiveness of service delivery mechanisms, for instance, is needed to design effective housing and health initiatives.

Planners in first nations communities, though, rarely have had access to the valuable information collected from fellow residents. Although several government departments and agencies have long collected data about and from members of first nations, this information is seldom shared with other agencies or even with the communities that have provided the information in the first place.

A few years ago, the Auditor General estimated that each first nation annually provides the government with information about more than 150 aspects of community life. Data concerning school enrolment, employment, population and dozen of other subjects are recorded and analyzed, but the information is usually gathered for specific purposes and rarely shared with first nations.

Not surprisingly, this severely hampers the ability of band councils and aboriginal leaders to plan effectively. Further compounding the problem is the fact that few agencies involve residents of first nations communities directly in the compilation, collation and analysis of information. As a result, few aboriginal people have acquired any familiarity or expertise with statistical techniques. Although this is a generalization, I think it is relatively true.

Bill C-20 would improve the situation significantly by establishing the First Nations Statistical Institute, or FNSI. FNSI will have the power to collect information from a variety of sources and develop a comprehensive database of accurate and pertinent statistics about each first nation community in Canada. As a first nations led organization, FNSI will bring an aboriginal perspective to every aspect of information collection, interpretation and use.

Of greater significance, though, is the positive effect that the expertise in data management will have on local governance. Chiefs and councils will have the data needed to make informed decisions about economic and social development in their communities.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government committed to begin the essential task of renewing its relations with first nations. The government vowed to follow a collaborative approach and pledged to establish a relationship based on equality, trust and mutual respect. Much progress has been made on this front and we will continue to go forward.

The Canada-aboriginal peoples round table united representatives of dozens of governments, agencies and organizations from across Canada for a series of focused and productive discussions. These talks led to a series of processes to accelerate progress and measure performance.

Sectoral follow-up meetings focusing on health, lifelong learning and housing have already been held. Next week, sessions on fostering economic opportunity will get under way.

The legislation before us today is another part of this collaborative effort. Designed by first nations, Bill C-20 would play an important role in the new relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples. The legislation sends a clear message to all first nations that the Government of Canada is aware of the problems they face, has listened carefully to the solutions they have proposed, and is now prepared to act.

The practical fiscal management tools at the heart of this legislation will help first nations better manage their land and more easily acquire the funds they need to engage in community building projects. Improvements in physical infrastructure would contribute to a better quality of life in two ways. Upgrading transportation and communication links creates jobs, establishes new opportunities for entrepreneurs and increases land values. Investments in infrastructure fuel a healthy cycle of economic development that will continue well into the future.

Bill C-20 provides these tools that would support the building of new relationships and give first nations access to financial instruments and mechanisms to raise capital and secure investment. With these tools, first nations would be able to create a business-friendly economic growth and realize their dreams, not ours, of self-sufficiency and prosperity.

This legislation is not a panacea for the economic woes of first nations. It will not magically transform poverty stricken communities into prosperous, thriving towns. Bill C-20, however, would give first nations the freedom to develop their communities on their own terms. Community leaders would gain access to the same legal tools and financial mechanisms that enabled other Canadian communities to flourish and grow. All first nations can benefit from the expertise of institutions such as the FMB, whether or not they decide to participate in the borrowing pool.

Bill C-20 would not diminish the constitutionally protected rights of aboriginal peoples. Instead, the legislation would help those first nations that choose to participate to exercise those rights by creating equal opportunities for first nations within the Canadian constitutional framework.

The government is well aware that there is no such thing as a one size fits all solution to the divergent needs and aspirations of first nations. First nations governments can use this legislation if and when they are ready. No band will ever be forced to take part. The choice of whether to participate or not will be up to the individual communities.

Bill C-20 is flexible and inclusive enough to meet the needs of hundreds of first nations. I am convinced that the tools accessible through Bill C-20 would help to close the considerable gaps that exist between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in this country.

Furthermore, by combining rigorous standards with legal powers and institutional support, the legislation would ensure that first nations operate within their debt carrying capacity as they move toward self-sufficiency.

Finally, Bill C-20 would create a legal framework enabling first nations to work directly and effectively with private companies and public agencies. This would put an end to first nation isolation and lead to a better quality of life for first nations communities.

In short, Bill C-20 outlines a balanced approach to long term financial health for first nations. Clearly, all Canadians stand to benefit.

Bill C-20 is not a prescriptive bill. First nations are neither required to participate in the institutions I have described, nor must they adhere to a specific regime. This legislation recognizes and accommodates the divergent needs and aspirations of first nations. I believe that the flexible, inclusive approach articulated by Bill C-20 is its greatest strength. Bill C-20 would provide access to a range of options, enabling each community to chart its own path to prosperity.

I thank my hon. colleagues of all parties who have by their actions shown support for this legislation. I say merci and I wish good luck to everyone.