Richard Marceau

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the Canadian Alliance motion, a motion we will, moreover, be supporting.

Before I begin my few comments I will congratulate, if I may, my colleague for Châteauguay who has, right from the start of the debate on Bill C-15B, or its prior incarnation, done an admirable job on a very complicated issue. He has always listened with an open mind to the various interests, often contradictory, and has succeeded in adopting a balanced position.

As we know, in public policy, a balance is sought between the various stakeholders and their interests. The very sensible and very balanced middle of the road position of the Bloc Quebecois is a result not only of the painstaking efforts but of the willingness to listen of the hon. member for Châteauguay, and I must congratulate him.

The prorogation of the House and the Speech from the Throne brought one thing home: this government has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This government has never really had the knack of using what was there to use in order to reach optimum solutions. I will explain.

What a missed opportunity. What a great opportunity missed to go back to the drawing board, start over. A missed opportunity, particularly in this case, to take into consideration the questions, the concerns and the objections raised in order to start again, to chew it over and digest again, in order to come up with a bill that better balanced all the issues and all the concerns it raises.

What does Bill C-15B represent? Principally, four amendments to the Criminal Code. First, to create a new section, part V.1 of the Criminal Code, dedicated exclusively and solely to the protection of animals and to cruelty toward animals.

Second, it increases the penalties for animal cruelty offences.

Third, it amends the Firearms Act in order to bring its administrative procedures up to date.

Fourth, it also amends the Firearms Act to give more powers to the commissioner of firearms, resulting in decreased powers for the chief firearms officer, who reports to the Government of Quebec.

The intention behind this bill is a laudable one. The government acted in response to a well orchestrated and well-justified campaign. Thousands were calling for more effective legislation with respect to animal cruelty and for cruelty to animals to be punished.

Since the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois has supported several elements of the bill, particularly the first point that I was mentioning, the creation of a new part in the Criminal Code, which would see the transfer of provisions about animals from part XI of the code, acts in respect of property, to a new part V.1 of the Criminal Code, which would deal solely with animals, and increase related penalties.

However, the Bloc Quebecois can no longer support the bill, because it does not protect the legitimate activities of breeders, farmers, hunters and researchers.

The spirit of the reform is, of course, to protect animals. It would have been imuch better to specify certain elements in the legislation, so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous prosecution.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of the bill in principle, if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence currently laid out in part XI of the Criminal Code.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois—courtesy of the member for Châteauguay—asked that the means of defence in article 429 of the Criminal Code be added explicitly to new part V.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Bloc Quebecois is also opposed to the bill because it would remove a number of powers and responsibilities from the chief firearms officer, who currently reports to the Government of Quebec. Essentially, the Bloc Quebecois is against the bill because it provides for no specific protection for legitimate activities carried out in the animal industry, hunting and research and because it removes enforcement powers from the Firearms Act that are currently held by the Government of Quebec.

Bill C-15B consolidates current Criminal Code provisions regarding cruelty to animals and includes some new elements. Given that animals are currently considered as property instead of human beings, the penalties and possible recourses are essentially minimal. Lenient sentences, as we know, encourage repeat offences.

We support increased protection for animals, but on the condition that the legitimate livestock, sporting and research activities are protected, which is not the case with the current Bill C-15.

The definition of animal in the bill, as “a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”, is too broad. That is what section 182.1 of the Criminal Code provides, in the new part V.1.

This another example of change, besides moving animals out of the property section, which shows how animals will be viewed in the Criminal Code from now on, that is as creatures capable of feeling pain.

Hence the concerns of stakeholders in the animal industry. Could a farmer who deliberately poisons a rat—a vertebrate—be convicted under section 182.1 of the Criminal Code and be liable to the maximum sentence of five years in prison? The bill does not specify either what is meant by “kills an animal without lawful excuse” in paragraph 182.2(1)( c ). Is a hunter who “kills an animal without lawful excuse” also liable to a sentence of five years in prison?

Similarly, Bill C-15B could cause problems, particularly for breeders and the entire sport hunting industry in Quebec, as well as for medical and scientific researchers.

A better balance between these two opposing interests should definitely have been struck, which Bill C-15B as it stands does not do. The Bloc Quebecois also fears that there may be unjustified legal proceedings, which will create significant costs for the industries mentioned earlier, that is the animal industry, sport hunting, and research.

Another problem with Bill C-15B is that adding a new section to the Criminal Code will have the effect of moving animals to a section of their own, without transferring the defences available under section 429 of the Criminal Code, in the property section. The fact that the means of defence are not included in the new part V.1 will result in those who legitimately and legally kill animals or cause them pain being deprived of the protection currently afforded them under section 429 of the Criminal Code. Such a provision would ensure lawful justification, excuse or colour of right.

Although Bill C-15B contains provision for lawful excuse for certain offences, as well as the common law defences set out at the present time in section 8 of the Criminal Code, these are inadequate because they apply only to offences under sections 182.1 (c) and (d) and are much narrower than those set out in the current provisions.

It would have been so simple to take the defences set out in section 429 for property offences and transfer them to the new part V.1 which would be the part reserved for animals.

Furthermore, section 8 of the Criminal Code, which responds to the concerns of various stakeholders, states that common law defences render a circumstance a justification or excuse.

According to the government, the rules of common law are still in force, but it has chosen to reaffirm them in the new part of the Criminal Code. We have serious misgivings about this. On the one hand, legal experts tell us that defences provided for under section 8(3) of the Criminal Code apply all the time and, on the other hand, the government chose to include them explicitly in its bill. This lays the appropriateness of this approach open to question.

The first common law defence is that of necessity. The three evaluation elements for this defence are: first, the existence of an imminent danger or peril; second, the absence of reasonable legal alternative; and, third, the proportionality between the harm caused and the harm avoided.

The second defence is the inducement to commit an offence, or police provocation. This defence may be used when, during the course of a criminal investigation, peace officers provide an opportunity to commit an offence, in the absence of a reasonable doubt that such an offence would be committed.

The third defence is due diligence. This involves a reversal of the burden of proof, in that the person accused of an offence under a regulation must prove, under the balance of probability, that he acted with due diligence. This becomes a reasonable restriction on the presumption of innocence.

A fourth defence is intoxication. If the intoxication is induced by the accused himself, it is not a defence. However, it can be a defence for a crime of general intent, if the intoxication is such that it is not associated with a reasonable person.

Finally, the last defence under the common law is known as an alibi, where the accused endeavors to prove that he was in a different place when the offence was committed.

As everyone knows, Quebeckers and Canadians are very attached to the moral principle of ensuring the wellbeing of animals. Many are concerned about this issue and feel that animals should be better protected against criminal behaviour. Many studies have also confirmed the existence of a close connection between cruelty to animals and aggressive criminal behaviour. Therefore, it appears that imposing harsher penalties on those who are cruel to animals could help prevent violent crimes against people.

However, we must start from the premise that, in its current form, this bill is unacceptable to all those who are directly or indirectly involved in the animal industry.

For the great majority of stakeholders in the animal industry, these new provisions are likely to increase the likelihood of criminal charges against those who work in the industry or who engage in recreational activities such as hunting and fishing. Moreover, producers are also asking for protection of their livelihood, which is normal.

Someone who owns an animal industry and who, legitimately or legally, earns a living and provides for his family and children has the right to expect that his livelihood will not be threatened by a poorly drafted piece of legislation. These producers are asking for assurances that they will not be hauled before the courts because of their professional activities. We can understand that.

Stakeholders in the animal industry are saying that this bill is poorly drafted, but there is also the case of hunters and sports associations. This is an industry that generates millions of dollars every year and that creates thousands of jobs in Quebec and in Canada.

According to a number of hunters and people who engage in sport hunting, the bill was drafted as though hunters, fishermen and trappers did not exist. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to reconcile the legitimate activities of hunters, fishermen and trappers with the bill in its present form.

The severity of the new bill would be such that a sport hunter could fairly easily be charged with a criminal act for which a means of defence had not yet been anticipated, even with all the necessary permits and authorization for hunting, fishing or trapping.

Three offences would be created for acts committed against animals not necessarily causing death, but pain, suffering or injury. However, the bill goes even further, by including unnecessary. If a fisher loses a fish, if a hunter only injures game, how can necessity be used as a defence?

If Bill C-15B were passed as is, many people think that hunters, fishers and trappers would all be guilty.

As well, aboriginal communities, which have always practised these activities, would also be in the same boat.

The Bloc Quebecois proposed a compromise to ensure that those who intentionally cause suffering to animals receive the appropriate punishment, while protecting the means of defence of those who cause suffering in the context of legitimate activities.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this compromise. It has championed it, but the government wants nothing to do with it.

The animal industry has problems with the bill. So do hunters and sporting associations. There are also, however, the universities and colleges, their researchers.

You yourself know this, Mr. Speaker—you were here in the House when the former Bill C-17 was introduced in the fall of 2000—the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada asked that certain provisions of the bill be clarified in order to ensure that Canadian universities were not subject to unjustified legal action.

On March 15, 2001, that same association adopted a resolution to express to the then federal Minister of Justice, who is now the Minister of Health, its concerns about the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code regarding the treatment of animals. These changes could inadvertently jeopardize legal university research that uses animals in compliance with the standards recognized in Canada and abroad by the Canadian Council for Animal Care.

As we know, Bill C-15B includes major amendments to a provision of former Bill C-17. Section 182.3, which the government proposes to add to the Criminal Code, states that “Everyone commits an offence who negligently causes unnecessary pain to an animal”. The term “negligently” means “departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use”.

The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is very pleased that these amendments were made. To a certain extent, they reflect its concerns. However, according to the association, the bill does not at all identify a behaviour “departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use”. The amendments made by the government between Bill C-17 and Bill C-15B did not clarify the situation at all.

Bill C-15B also includes changes to the Firearms Act and part III of the Criminal Code. One of the amendments proposed addresses airguns. Although the Department of Justice claims that the intention of clause 2(2) of the bill is to exempt a weapon if it meets either of two criteria, there is still some confusion because a double negative is used.

We proposed new wording for this article, which would eliminate any confusion. Unfortunately again, despite all the listening to the various stakeholders that was done, the government refused to respond to the Bloc's fears, which it wanted to see eliminated by redrafting.

I could go on and on about this bill. I am getting the signal that I do not have much time left, so I would just like make one more point—and this is one of the reasons we oppose this bill—which is that this bill would create a firearms commissioner, which will have the effect of diminishing the powers currently held by the chief firearms officer, who currently reports the Government of Quebec.

In short, the bill as drafted is unclear. On the one hand, it does not strike a balance between those, ourselves included, who are in favour of enhanced protection for animals, and the others, the various associations of industries involved in animal husbandry, sports, hunting or research, who want to see this important objective of animal protection balanced by the acceptance of various legitimate and legal industries, which are the livelihood of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Correctional Services, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that some prisoners had used their personal computer in prison to commit fraud through the Internet and to devise escape plans.

Following these revelations, correctional services announced a moratorium on the procurement of personal computers in the future, but said that inmates who already had a computer have vested rights.

My question is for the Solicitor General. How does he justify and explain the fact that the notion of vested rights applies in prison, particularly since it is inmates who already have computers who have used them for dubious purposes?

[Regulatory Framework, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this past August 12, in London, Ontario, the Minister of Justice said that there has never been an Enron-style scandal in Canada. He went on to say that the government must be prepared to act should this become necessary.

How can the present Minister of Justice say such a thing when, during his time as Minister of National Revenue, he himself refused to cooperate with the RCMP in the Cinar affair, thus enabling the Cinar officials to escape any criminal charges?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the main issue, I would like to take a few moments to speak about the form of the political exercise in which we are engaged today.

As recently as last weekend, in my riding of Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, people were asking me to explain what a throne speech was. I said that someone who had not been elected to office, someone who had been chosen and appointed by the Prime Minister, would be reading the government's policies out to a chamber full of other unelected and unrepresentative people. When I mentioned that MPs, the people's representatives, those who had been elected, did not have access to this chamber, people were surprised, to say the least.

They had some idea of what it meant. However, when one stops to think about it for a few minutes—and that is all the time I would spend—the absurdity of these colonial trappings hits home, and one might wonder how this exercise is representative of societies, such as those of Canada and of Quebec, which are themselves hardly monarchist and very egalitarian. All in all, one might have some questions about the form itself of the exercise, which, of course, is not as important as its substance.

What we saw in the Speech from the Throne is a reflection of Canadian dynamics. We have a country that has been built at quite a pace since 1995. This pace gathered steam in 1995, following the defeat of the yes side in the referendum, but it began back in 1982. I am referring to the building of a strong central Canada with equal provinces, a nation from coast to coast. When conflict arises between the Canadian way and the Quebec way of doing things, it will always be the Canadian way that will come out on top.

About this nation building, the Speech from the Throne is a good illustration of the fact that there is no status quo. Those who believe that some constitutional, administrative, or even political status quo exists are totally wrong. There is no status quo. Since 1982, Canada has rebuilt itself, and the process has gathered speed since 1995. This process is clearly illustrated by three specific examples.

The first example is that of centralization, a power grab by the central government in areas of responsibility that do not come under its jurisdiction. This is not simply about labelling powers. In very specific areas, this centralization has meant that Quebec cannot implement programs that it wants.

Just this week, the Speech from the Throne mentioned that the federal government would provide access to quality day care. Yet everyone knows that Quebec already has a $5 a day day care program that is very popular, in fact the only problem with it is that it is too popular. The federal government has once again announced its intention to interfere in research, in literacy and education, when we know very well that this is a provincial jurisdiction. The same can be said for health, education, university research, public transit. There are numerous examples.

So, the first example of this nation building is a complete disregard for jurisdiction by Ottawa, as it decides to act in areas where it does not belong.

The second example, which follows on the first one, shows that fiscal imbalance allows Ottawa to impinge upon areas which do not come under federal jurisdiction. I would remind the House that because of this fiscal imbalance, which is recognized by everyone in Canada—except the government—by the three political parties in the National Assembly and by all of the provinces, Ottawa can now afford, through its spending power, to get interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction.

Ottawa can tell the provinces “You are hungry, you are thirsty, you cannot afford to carry out your responsibilities in your own jurisdictions, but it does not matter. We, in Ottawa, can give you the money you need; you will be able to do your work, but under our conditions and according to our standards”.

On one hand, we have Ottawa's stated intention to centralize, illustrated by the three examples from the throne speech that I have given. Also linked to that is the issue of fiscal imbalance, where Quebec loses $50 million, that is $2 billion a year. Ottawa has the means and the desire to impose its standardizing and centralizing vision for Canada.

The third example of this centralizing web is the fact that the federal government does not care about consensus in Quebec in the least. For example, I was very disappointed not to see anything about young offenders in the Speech from the Throne.

Judges, defence counsel, crown attorneys, social workers, police officers and the three political parties represented in the National Assembly all say that Quebec's approach to young offenders had produced the best results in terms of youth crime in North America.

With its bill, which has now been passed and which, by the way, that will be challenged before the appeal court at the end of November, the federal government has axed that approach. While it would have been so easy to allow Quebec to continue with its approach, since it was producing good results, the government said that, no matter, it would ignore the Quebec consensus, because it had a Canadian vision and, when there is a conflict between the Canadian vision and the Quebec vision, the former must prevail.

Here is another example: parental leave. Quebec is willing to give its young families the most generous parental leave program in Canada. What has Ottawa done? It refuses to transfer the money to Quebec so that it can impose its own parental leave program, which is not as good nor as generous as Quebec's program and to which six out of ten people would not have access.

I have used various elements of the Speech from the Throne to show how Ottawa is building a Canada where it wants to interfere in areas that are not under its jurisdiction, which it has the means to do because of the fiscal imbalance, where it can impose its Canadian vision, where it shows nothing but contempt for any consensus that may exist in Quebec and for Quebec's way of doing things. I think that all that is leading Quebeckers to realize more and more that there is no status quo, which brings us back to my introduction.

There is no status quo, and the choice that Quebeckers are facing is this: they can either build their own country or accept to be a province like the others, accept to live in a system that is increasingly centralized and standardized.

When the alternatives are clear, I am sure that the latter option, this centralized Canada, will be rejected by the vast majority of Quebeckers.

[First Nations Governance Review Act, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite fitting to speak to Bill C-399 today, given that tomorrow is National Aboriginal Day.

There is not much that the hon. member for Wild Rose and I see eye to eye on. However, Bill C-399, to establish a first nations ombudsman and a first nations auditor whose job it will be to assist first nations with their administrative and financial problems, is a highly commendable initiative, and I wish to congratulate my colleague from Wild Rose.

The principle of the bill we are discussing appears well structured and should truly address the concerns regarding the day to day operational management concerns expressed by aboriginal communities,

And while the approach proposed by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance contains certain positive elements, I believe some mechanisms are necessary to ensure that the bill is in line with the real aspirations and needs of first nations.

Allow me to explain. First nations communities, through their leaders, have recognized the sometimes flawed management of certain communities.

In my opinion, this is an honourable admission that represents the start of a constructive approach for these communities. The financial and administrative problems of certain nations, while they may be isolated, are still problematic, and real measures must be taken together with the communities involved, obviously, to remedy the situation.

In recent weeks there have been initiatives to give greater autonomy to first nations, to gradually bring them to take full responsibility, with the leadership needed to ensure that it lasts.

There is a clearly defined will among aboriginal peoples to take charge of their destiny, something the government recognizes.

For too long now the government has had a paternalistic, even colonial relationship with first nations, undermining both the ambitions and their communities' potential for development. For decades, the attitude of the federal government should have been one of equals with first nations, one of dialogue nation to nation.

This is what the Government of Quebec realized several years ago, and this openness toward aboriginals was commended by the Grand Chief of the Assembly of the First Nations, Matthew Coon Come, on the occasion of the ratification of the peace of the braves between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of James Bay.

Thus, from a world subjected to the decisions of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for more than a century, aboriginal nations want to have access to a real level of self-government and to ensure the governance of their communities, in accordance with their culture and their traditional approach. This is also the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois.

The transition may sometimes be slow and difficult, but we are convinced that the results will be better.

This is where the vision of my colleague from the Canadian Alliance comes into play. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the intent of the member for Wild Rose is to be viewed in a perspective of increased self-government for the first nations.

However, probably unwittingly, he has the same attitude that we deplore in the federal government, by giving too many decision making powers to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and to the governor in council.

The first nations wish for and support the idea of appointing an auditor and an ombudsman. It has be established that the creation of such positions was really necessary.

However, my colleague from Wild Rose wishes for the appointment of these officers by the governor in council, that is by the government, on the recommendation of the minister of Indian affairs, from a list drawn up by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, to whom the first nations would provide a list of candidates.

Do you see the problem here?

Quite a few people are getting to be involved in the appointment process of two people. Of course, I would never want to deprive members of the House of the powers of examination and recommendation. However, I think this process is a little twisted and leaves too much room to the arbitrary power of the minister and the governor in council, that is the government.

You know as well as I do that we must not give too many powers to the government, particularly when it comes to appointments, because Liberals being who they are, they have many friends to reward, which gives us people who are highly qualified to fill such important positions as that of ambassador to Denmark, for example.

What the Bloc Quebecois is proposing and we will be supporting is that the appointment process be a joint process between first nations and the federal government. Period.

For one thing, it would show the minister's good faith and it would maximize the impact of the appointment of the auditor and the ombudsman on the management of aboriginal communities.

There is a clear consensus on the need to appoint these bureaucrats to ensure transparency in the management of aboriginal communities. It would be unfortunate to cloud this consensus by giving what I would call a partisan dimension to the process, since the Liberal minister will surely be unable to resist the temptation to appoint someone who is too close to the government.

What surprises me the most is to see that this kind of proposal comes from the Canadian Alliance.

Either the Alliance acted in good faith to give parliamentarians a greater role in the selection process, which is very praiseworthy but rather harmful in this case or at least contrary to the dominant concept of aboriginal self-government, or the Alliance harbours some negative judgments regarding the first nations' ability to manage their own affairs.

We have to wonder about the real motivations of the Canadian Alliance in proposing such a bill. I honestly prefer to believe it is the first possibility.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois would have voted in favour of the bill at the second reading stage, had it been votable, and would have proposed the necessary amendments to correct these elements of the bill, as I explained, to make the appointment process a joint process between first nations and the federal government.

Members certainly know that the Bloc Quebecois, just like the Government of Quebec, clearly favours an approach based on a nation-to-nation dialogue with first nations.

In fact, this proposal is part of the Bloc Quebecois election platform and is the result of extended consultations with aboriginal groups, so that we can defend their interests just as we do for the whole population of Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois is committed to creating strong and durable ties with the aboriginals and, in this perspective, we must support their development to benefit from it and to create the fair and dynamic society that we all want.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-60, An Act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims.

This bill represents a praiseworthy initiative by the government in its relations with the first nations. However, there are rarely roses without thorns. As the minister said in his statement to the press, shortly after tabling the bill last Thursday:

The government made clear commitments in the Speech from the Throne to improve the lives of Aboriginal people by dealing with the grievances from the past, and to equip First Nations people with the tools for a successful future.

This is also a Red Book commitment made by the Prime Minister, and by this government.

Well now, good for them. I would, however, point out that the throne speech to which the minister refers was the one opening the 35th parliament, on January 18, 1994, more than eight years ago. Also, the red book he refers to was presented by the Liberals during the 1993 election campaign—not the campaign of 1997 or 2000, but the one of 1993.

The minister is right to be pleased, because at last, he can rise in this House and announce some government initiative for the benefit of aboriginal people, something very few of his predecessors have been able to do. I am thinking of the Minister of Human Resources Development or the Canadian ambassador to Ireland, Ron Irwin. But never mind, as they say, better late than never.

So, Bill C-60 will create the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims, a measure that has become necessary, indispensable even, because the federal government has, most obviously, neglected to honour its legal obligations as required by a series of treaties ratified with the first nations.

It is somewhat ironic to see the government creating from scratch a body mandated to repair, or at the very least, arbitrate the injustices committed by it in connection with aboriginal nations.

This is a good initiative, I agree, and the first nations have everything to gain in having an independent body, a tribunal what is more, finally able to decide on their claims, claims the government could leave unresolved as long as it wished.

For the aboriginal people this represents a step forward. Let us hope that the claims brought before this body will be settled diligently and in their best interests. For too long, the first nations have suffered because of Ottawa's laxity and lack of leadership. It is important now to look to the future.

However, I must again call attention to the wait and see attitude of this Liberal government in its relationship with first nations. Indeed, instead of taking action as it promised to do nearly ten years ago, the government preferred to wait and let things drag on, probably with the unspoken and unspeakable intention of seeing the aboriginal nations get fed up and abandon their various claims against it.

I fail to understand why the government would want to stretch the time frame to the limit since its inaction has considerably hampered the development of first nations and its lindifference has made highly critical situations even worse, which is not saying much about a government run by a former Indian affairs minister.

The support of the Bloc Quebecois for the principle of this bill at the second reading stage shows our party's interest in the development of aboriginal communities and the nations to which they belong.

The openness shown by the Bloc Quebecois is based on the fundamental premise that the nations that take part in the dialogue must do it as equals. This kind of dialogue applies to the whole relationship between non aboriginal governments and first nations.

As I have often said, this way of thinking was evident in the negotiations that led to the ratification of the peace of the braves between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of James Bay.

Quebecers know better than anyone else in Canada how important a constructive dialogue with their partners is, and I hope to see all my colleagues in the House adopt this attitude that does credit to Quebecers.

While we discussed what the major thrusts of Bill C-60 should be, its referral to a committee after second reading will promote a most constructive discussion on this bill and, more importantly, will ensure that the bill reflects as closely as possible the fundamental objectives that were set.

Among other things, we will have to give priority to the concerns raised by the Assembly of First Nations, in particular as regards the arm's length nature of the appointment process to the tribunal and the ceiling imposed on the value of the claims that can be submitted to this tribunal.

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources will have the opportunity to consult directly with aboriginal nations and with all those who take an interest in this most important issue, and it will propose amendments to the minister, so as to ensure that the legislation achieves its objectives.

Since this is a new and innovative government initiative in the area of aboriginal claims, it is important to ensure that the process is as open as possible. My colleagues on the committee and I are anxious to hear what the leaders of aboriginal communities will have to say, since there are some claims that are critical to the development of their nations.

Also, I do believe and hope that the government will be truly determined to ensure that this bill is passed quickly, because the hopes of a very large number of aboriginals rest on it.

Needless to say, it would be truly be unfortunate if the government used its powers to prorogue the current session at some point during the fall and left first nations out in the cold for long months by letting them down once again with broken promises and failed commitments.

It would be ironic, to say the least, to hear once again the governor general solemnly reaffirm the clear and true will of the government to promote the development of aboriginal communities. These lofty words have been used too often without leading to any action. History must not repeat itself, because this could break the fragile trust that exists between the federal government and aboriginal nations.

Before concluding my remarks, I want to reiterate the support of the Bloc Quebecois for this important bill, and particularly for its impact on the development of first nations.

The Bloc Quebecois is determined to do its utmost to improve this legislation and to have it passed, so as to speed up the settlement of specific claims which, in some cases, have been dragging on for years.

[First Nations Governance Act, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this important debate. The bill that is before the House today is the outcome of a long and protracted process that began several years ago to fundamentally change relations between the federal government and first nations.

This bill, whose short title is First Nations Governance Act, is the result of in deep reflection on the management and consideration of the numerous claims made by various aboriginal nations in Canada and in Quebec, and particularly on the increasingly complex dispute settlement mechanisms.

The First Nations Governance Act primarily seeks to replace the current Indian Act, which is 126 years old, so as to adapt to today's context the legal framework governing relations with aboriginal peoples.

As I mentioned, this legislation is the outcome of a long and protracted process marked by what had become almost systematic confrontation between the federal government and first nations, regarding their land, cultural, social and economic claims.

The long-awaited action by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is laudable in various respects, but includes a number of irritants which it would have been preferable to avoid so as not to needlessly detract from this major initiative. Of course, the main irritant is the refusal of the vast majority of aboriginals, as well as the Assembly of First Nations, to take part in the consultation process. This is particularly unfortunate because modernizing relations between aboriginal peoples and the federal government lies at the very heart of this legislation.

During the months preceding the drafting of this bill, the department of Indian affairs introduced a series of initiatives designed to consult first nations about their expectations and their needs. But the approach used in organizing the consultation process was the very approach which the government was proposing to change and restructure. I will explain.

Everyone agrees that the Indian Act has become outmoded and unworkable because it no longer corresponds to the reality of the 21st century concerning the place of aboriginal peoples in our modern society and particularly the increasingly autonomous role they are entitled to want to play.

For 126 years, the federal government has displayed a deplorably paternalistic attitude to first nations by unilaterally prejudging what ought to be good for their development. This approach by the federal government is nothing new and is part of the heritage left by the founding fathers, who mistakenly believed that they knew what would be good for aboriginal peoples at the time of Confederation.

Ironically, the offhand and arrogant “Ottawa knows best” attitude, which we criticize almost daily from this side of the House, goes back much further than one might think. All one has to do is take a quick look at the terms used to designate the various aboriginal peoples over the years. Their often inferior, subservient, scornful character is quickly apparent.

The central government's tendency to think that it had the magic solution to the problems of first nations held the latter back in adapting to life with non-aboriginals, to the now necessary cohabitation of nations of equal status.

The social crises that have marked the history of first nations could have been avoided if there had been a attitude of openness toward first nations' people from the outset. However, the attitude of the day dictated, almost instinctively, the mean and insidious paternalistic attitude that whites had toward any groups they considered to be inferior to them, or underdeveloped.

To come back to the crux of my argument, Ottawa's attitude throughout the consultation, which culminated in the introduction of the First Nations Governance Act, has been riddled with problems which must be corrected if we hope to come up with a permanent framework for relations with first nations. Once again, this must be on the level of nation to nation.

From the outset, the government biased the consultation process with native bands by proposing an operating framework that met its own needs.

What the government should have done was to let first nations organize amongst themselves and then listen to their long list of expectations. However, the government imposed its own framework instead of taking into consideration the cultural and social differences, which could have allowed for a much better and much more indepth discussion from the outset.

The best example of this is without question the fate that awaited the famous report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The commission, also known as the Erasmus-Dussault commission, did an admirable job of drafting what should have become a redefined relationship between first nations and the federal government.

However, the political and partisan approach prevailed and the report was quickly shelved at the National Archives without the government bothering to follow up on it. Interestingly enough, the current government made the status of aboriginal peoples a central component of its recent election platform, without ever following up with any real action, something that we in the Bloc Quebecois find deplorable.

The federal government, headed by the Prime Minister, has wilfully side skirted this key issue, which has undermined the development of first nations and given rise to crises that may take generations to solve.

It is disturbing to note, once again, this attitude that can be best expressed as “Ottawa knows best. We want what is good for you, and we want your goods as well”. Thousands of people are feeling its impacts. Worse still, this approach to problems undermines, right from the start, any initiatives to remedy the injustices of which aboriginal peoples have been victims right from the start.

As for the Bloc Quebecois, from the very start it has always supported an equal-to-equal, nation to nation approach with the aboriginal peoples. Following the example of the Government of Quebec, discussions and negotiations relating to the various claims, regardless of their nature, must be based on a common and accommodative approach so as to be as advantageous as possible to both sides. A historical agreement such as the peace of the braves between the Cree and the Government of Quebec is probably the best example.

The process of consultation called for by Ottawa in the wording of this bill is not the right one and does not in any way meet the expectations of the first nations. I trust that the Prime Minister and his minister will listen to reason and heed the arguments of the first nations, and that he will deign to admit that it was a mistake to impose his views on the future of these communities.

As I have said, Bill C-61 contains a number of irritants, and the approach the federal government is taking is absolutely the wrong one.

The First Nations Governance Act, as it has been conceived—in other words, through a flawed process—will harm relations between aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginals. So, what should we do?

First—and this is the reason we support the motion to refer this to committee before second reading—we need to launch the broadest consultations possible, in order to hear as many first nations opinions as possible.

As for the second point—I hope the federal government and the minister will take good note of this proposal and adopt it—the Bloc Quebecois proposes that one or several aboriginal community leaders be appointed to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, in order to make the most of the consultations.

This is a suggestion that I hope the government will adopt, particularly since this is something the minister himself seemed open to considering a little over a year ago.

This governance bill should not be used as a tool to delay treaty negotiations with aboriginals.

In closing, we hope that the government will listen to reason, resume negotiations with aboriginal leaders and come back with a bill that was developed jointly by the federal government and first nations.

This is what the Bloc Quebecois hopes to see as a result of the consultations the committee will be holding across Quebec and Canada. This is also the only result that will lead to productive, friendly and equal relations in the future.

[First Nations Governance Act, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give my consent to the minister, provided the other parties can have as much time for their speeches.

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I see that the minister is very eager to hear the explanation.

The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is spending a lot of time in law schools these days, which means that his legal and constitutional knowledge is really up to date. I know that the Minister of Health will appreciate the importance given to the legal profession by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

Of course, according to the division of powers, health is a provincial responsibility. The tool used by the federal government to interfere in the area of health care is the spending power.

Very recently, I had a most interesting conversation with Eugénie Brouillet, a doctoral student in constitutional law at Laval University who specializes in Canadian federalism. She explained to us how the spending power theory undermined the very principle of federalism because it prevented or removed any real separation between the various levels of government.

We know that a federation is defined by the distribution of powers among different levels of government. By introducing the spending power theory, the Canadian federation has undermined the very principle of federalism. As a result, Canadian federalism has lost many of the elements that are usually the trademark of a federation.

We could take other examples. The most recent is the social union agreement. It is the latest example of this distorted vision of Canadian federalism that the federal government has.

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat disappointed in the parliamentary secretary not being on top of the news. First, he should know that, following an agreement with the Collège des médecins, enrollments in Quebec's medical schools has increased significantly.

Second, I said that if the tax imbalance issue were solved, Quebec would be able to hire an additional 3,000 doctors and 5,000 nurses. That is what I said. The parliamentary secretary and the minister cannot deny that.

Getting back to these figures, the Séguin commission used a study from the Conference Board of Canada, which is definitely not a haven for separatists, nor is it a PQ office or a branch of the Mouvement national des Québécoises et des Québécois. It is a completely independent organization with a federalist tendency, and it makes no bones about it.

The fact is that the needs are glaring and that the shortfall, the tax imbalance is of the order of $50 million per week, or $2 billion annually, which means $24 million for the riding of Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. These are concrete figures.

And how many problems could have been solved by simply settling the tax imbalance issue?