Ken Boshcoff

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Did I say that? I apologize immediately.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. My comments today will focus on the heart of the issue, ensuring that the government uses our taxpayer dollars to support Canadian industry.

It seems like a very simple concept, and it is one that most countries already wholeheartedly follow. Yet in Canada we are continually missing the mark. The concept is one I like to call “apply Canada policy”. The basic principle is this. When public dollars are being used to purchase any number of assets, the government should implement a policy that ensures that Canadian business and labour are given preference for the contract.

Most other countries have policies that encourage local content when awarding a government contract. These countries employ policies requiring certain levels of local content in projects that use public funding. These policies encourage the use of domestic based suppliers that in turn create jobs, tax revenues and other economic benefits in local communities.

The objective of these policies is to ensure that domestic businesses and communities experience some positive impact from public expenditures on infrastructure projects. Polices of this nature often provide in-country suppliers with a distinct competitive advantage over qualified suppliers from other nations.

Canadian manufacturers do not benefit from similar policies in force by their own government. There are no minimal requirements for Canadian content in publicly funded projects. This means Canadian manufacturers are at a distinct disadvantage pursuing contracts in other nations and they also have no particular advantage at home.

The reality is there is very little preventing foreign suppliers from winning Canadian government contracts and then taking the work offshore to benefit labour, business and regions in other nations. Canadian suppliers and manufacturers deserve to compete on an equal footing in the global marketplace. Our businesses, communities,and citizens deserve to enjoy some economic benefit from the projects funded from their own tax dollars.

Many countries around the world employ government policies encouraging or dictating local content levels. This is particularly true for transportation projects. For example, in the United States, which represents 90% of the North American passenger rail market, the buy America act imposes strict regulations for local content. In the area of rail rolling stock, for example, 60% of the components used to manufacture vehicles must come from the United States. Final assembly must also be performed there. In addition, state governments can impose their own local content requirements as well.

New York, one of the biggest rail markets in the world, imposes strict requirements for state based content. Requirements like these limit the ability of Canadian suppliers to access the largest rail market in North America. They also keep suppliers from using Canadian sub-suppliers on any contracts they win. There are no government policies, however, requiring local content when U.S. enterprises compete for contracts in Canada.

Most other countries have employed similar policies. Most of these policies provide for local content regulations for a mix of incentives and regulatory requirements. The Government of Canada currently has no incentives for local content. That is why I put forward a private member's motion for consideration by the House. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement a policy, which is consistent with North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization policies and guidelines, to mandate Canadian content levels for public transportation projects, and to ensure that public funds are used to provide the best value to Canadians by supporting domestic supplier and labour markets.

I look forward to discussing this issue further when my private member's business comes forward for consideration.

With regard to the motion before the House today, I am very pleased to participate in this discussion, as it relates to the aircraft industry.

In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, we are privileged to have Confederation College's Aviation Centre of Excellence. Conveniently located at Thunder Bay International Airport, the 59,000 square foot ACE building brings together the programs of Confederation's School of Aviation all under one roof. The Aviation Centre of Excellence offers programs in aerospace manufacturing engineering, aircraft maintenance and aviation flight maintenance and will soon commence a program in avionics.

This centre of excellence makes Thunder Bay ideally suited as a potential candidate to take advantage of regional benefits and economic spinoffs from contracts for aircraft manufacturing and repair services on defence contracts. The Thunder Bay International Airports Authority has also been actively pursuing a variety of aircraft manufacturing opportunities to help diversify the economy of northwestern Ontario.

January 2007 statistics show that northwestern Ontario has already one of the highest unemployment rates in the province. The recent announcement of 500 further job losses in the forest industry will continue to drive those numbers higher.

Whenever possible, Thunder Bay and area needs have to be included in industrial regional benefits on future large contracts to ensure that our highly skilled workforce can continue to find meaningful employment within the community. My region, and regions similar to it, can ill afford the loss of further residents in search of well-paying jobs in the west.

Regretfully, not only are 40-somethings losing their jobs in the forest sector, but this government, a government that has a $13 billion surplus, is also cutting jobs and funding for jobs across the country. It is closing federal offices. The Status of Women was just closed in Thunder Bay. It has cut funding for economic development programs, such as the social economy program and FedNor, and now ACOA. It has eliminated the visitor GST rebate program, a cut that will not only hurt our struggling tourist industry in northwestern Ontario, but all across the country, which will cost us more jobs. It slashed $55 million from the youth employment strategy, which means for small communities in regions of high unemployment it will be an extremely difficult summer for our young people.

All these cuts are hurting our regions and costing jobs for our citizens when there is no need to make the cuts. The money jar is full and overflowing, yet the Harper government continues in the heartless and shameful penny pinching.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, some serious concerns have been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Churchill. They have articulated most eruditely a wide amplitude of quite legitimate issues that must be addressed before the proposals of Bill C-44 become law.

If the intent is truly to reform, improve and address the concerns of aboriginal, Métis, Inuit and native peoples, then sincere dialogue that truly hears the messages as presented by such organizations as the Assembly of First Nations is more than requisite. It must be compulsory.

In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, a constituency that covers the entire northern border of the state of Minnesota, covers two time zones from Manitoba to Lake Superior and takes seven and a half hours to travel end to end at the speed limit without stopping for coffee, it tells us that the expanse of this one riding affecting 11 first nations is similar to the rest of the nation that has first nation populations.

My riding also has large Métis populations in several communities and growing populations in the cities and towns of the 16 municipalities of the riding. All of these citizens need to feel that justice is being done. Canadians who do not live on reserves and already enjoy all benefits of human rights as enacted want all Canadians to have equity. Who can disagree?

As I hear the other party representatives make their presentations, it is clear that there are some grounds for commonality. I am quite convinced, after listening intently to the arguments of the members opposite, that by following a reasonable process everyone can be heard, adjustments can be made and we will be able to develop a solution that incorporates the unique aspects of indigenous Canadians.

A demonstration of good faith by Parliament utilizing all the principles of decorum and democracy would go a long way to demonstrating to first nations that we are sincere, truthful and honest. Our goal will be to support this bill and have it move to committee with a series of amendments to be introduced in committee stage. The amendments should be to extend the implementation period, allow for consultations to be held, insert an interpretive clause and to allow for an examination of the constitutional analysis and its impact on aboriginal and treaty rights because this is a matter of human rights.

The Liberal Party is the party of the charter of human rights and supports this measure to extend fundamental human rights protection to all native Canadians. The Liberal opposition believes that aboriginal communities will need time to change their laws and interpret the Human Rights Act.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission's report on section 67 recommended an 18 to 30 month transition period and we believe the bill definitely should be amended to allow for this modest transition period. The Liberal opposition supports the legislation and again needs to push the minority government to address the human rights needs of aboriginal Canadians. These include such issues as education, employment, poverty, water supply and health.

In 1977, when the CHRA was first implemented, section 67 was intended to be temporary. The clause was added because it was recognized that it was possible that certain provisions of the Indian Act would not pass human rights scrutiny and could be struck down.

Since its inception, however, it is interesting to note that section 67 has been the subject of innumerable calls for appeal from national and international organizations, such as the United Nations human rights committee. The CHRC issued a report in October 2005 entitled, “A Matter of Rights,” a special report by the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which recommended an immediate repeal of the section.

Since being proposed, it is clear that the stakeholders throughout Canada have had considerable concern in a most valid way, but let us not assume that because someone has a criticism or concern that it is necessarily negative. The Assembly of First Nations and Native Women's Association were disappointed that the legislation was introduced without consultation and have called on the minister to accept the Canadian Human Rights Commission's recommendation of an 18 to 30 month period of transition. This, I believe, is reasonable if we are going to address fairly those questions of capacity.

I believe that in any legislation the affected parties should have a direct response and it would probably save an enormous amount of time if they were actually addressed beforehand.

First nations themselves are recommending that the federal government not proceed with any repeal until they have been adequately consulted. When we think about what that could mean, it could be that we have recognized national groups, not only representing first nations communities but such groups as the Native Women's Association which represents constituencies that will be directly affected and, therefore, have more than a reasonable interest in wanting to have their say.

We know that there should be no repeal of section 67 until an interpretive provision has been designed, developed, passed the scrutiny and consulted upon and then we will at least know that portion will be dealt with properly.

When we think of constitutional analysis, it is also a recommendation that there be no repeal until the government concludes an impact assessment to determine the potential impact of the repeal of section 67 on aboriginal and treaty rights and, furthermore, that the federal government not proceed with any repeal until any analysis on operational issues is completed.

I believe, as reasonable people in the House, we would feel that these would be things that not only would be requisite but, in terms of fairness and equity, should be part and parcel of any provisions.

As I mentioned briefly before, there have been numerous calls to repeal but they also argue correctly that first nations people are entitled to full protection from discrimination. In re-emphasizing the key point, it is a matter of rights.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, in his aboriginal policy paper, “From Principles to Action: ...Plan to Tap into the Full Potential of Aboriginal Peoples” , indicated that it was his position that all first nations people should be protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As an opposition party, we have been on a scale of somewhat to very critical of the minority government for opposing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. We believe that supporting the repeal would be consistent with our position on the UN declaration.

It is interesting how this has become a hot button issue with many first nations people who simply cannot understand why Canada, which seemingly wants to be a world leader and recognized for its position on human rights and fairness, will not support the UN declaration.

Currently, self-governing first nations that are operating outside the Indian Act are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, there is no rationale for treating first nations communities differently and the repeal of section 67 would go a long way to correcting this inequity.

After hearing the other speakers, I hope they will also support the bill, at least those from the opposition parties. We hope the government accepts our proposed amendments and the Canadian Human Rights Commission's report and amends the bill to provide for some period of time for transition. I would think that the minority government would see an implementation period of 18 to 30 months as being fair and that it would address the capacity issues. We also ask that the bill, as recommended by the CHRC, have this interpretive clause to assist the commission and the tribunal in adjudicating claims against first nations governments, agencies and institutions.

A recent article in The Globe and Mail indicated that a major Senate report warned of more Caledonian style blockades and violent confrontations between natives and non-natives unless Ottawa started setting aside $250 million a year to settle land claim disputes. By repealing this and doing it properly with consultation, we can avoid these kinds of things. I agree.

Resolving land disputes would allow native communities to benefit from economic activities and, in every case where these have been settled, it has meant an improvement in the lives of first nations people. Similarly, as federal leaders, we need to treat the legal liabilities in the same way a business sets the money aside so this can be done.

In summary I will just clarify. In 1977, it is remarkable that this was established as a temporary measure. Although it has the effect of shielding the Indian Act and any decisions made or actions taken by band councils pursuant to the Indian Act, it would prohibit the discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction on 11 grounds: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

In an effort for us to reduce, minimize and eliminate the domestic and international criticism for our failure to repeal this, we had an obligation to do it. Historically, I think the three previous bills to repeal it did not receive royal accent due to the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament.

After 30 years we have had enough reports and discussions. We know that the number of aboriginal people representing so many different national and regional organizations have spoken in favour of repeal. I believe that what we can do prior to introducing a bill is consult and determine that, in principle, no aboriginal organization opposes it.

[COMRIF Program, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the COMRIF program was introduced in 2004 to improve and renew public infrastructure in communities with populations of less than 250,000.

In January, the Conservative government announced the recipients of the final scheduled application process.

In reviewing the announcement for the entire province of Ontario, funding totals show that the Conservative government is using the fund to disproportionately favour Conservative held ridings.

Of the total $46 million funding delivered in 2007, $40 million has been awarded to Conservative held ridings. In 2006, of $117 million in total funding, no less than $100 million was allocated to Conservative ridings.

This kind of blatant partisanship is immoral. Small communities across the province are in desperate need of infrastructure renewal. Clean water and safe roads must be available for all ridings, not just those that supported the minority government in the last election.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, at no time did I ever say that a prison sentence was not a deterrent. I believe very strongly in that.

Indeed, although I may not be a lawyer, since the late seventies, in my role as an elected official, I have received numerous awards for my work in crime prevention. I understand these issues very much on a personal level from dealing with victims of crime and in proposing programs that actually work to help people, so I take great offence that I would be misquoted so dramatically and so erroneously.

When we think of what our system is meant to do, clearly if we really want to solve a problem, when there are issues of chronic offenders, then we use the system to all its weight and justice. Can we imagine us going back to trial by battle-axe or boiling oil? We know with certainty that the three strikes legislation has not worked and has led to an 18% increase in prison occupancy with a marginal decrease in crime.

Therefore, we have to worry, given the expense of it, whether it will have an impact. Clearly, without having any consultations with the justice community, with even the victims of crime, these are the types of things that we have to do.

As I speak to people, it may on the surface sound like another one of those glorious things that we are going to wrap up and put away, and maybe that plays well to a certain mentality. However, it all comes down to once individuals have been falsely accused, they are sure going to hope that the justice system works for them. I believe strongly in that and I hope that answers the member's question.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, because that is not even close to a point of order in the rudiments of democracy.

Many seniors have called my constituency offices because they did not understand why the Canada pension plan cheques were reduced. It very clearly proves that the minority Conservative government raised their taxes so that upper income Canadians could save hundreds of dollars on their new cars and yachts.

The issue at hand proposes a significant change in the premise of our justice system. Whose justice system are the Conservatives using as an example of how this change works in other countries? The United States has similar legislation, commonly referred to as three strikes legislation. This was touted as a deterrent to repeat offences. In reality, all the legislation has done is cost millions more for the justice system while producing very little change in crime rates.

A professor at the Centre of Criminology confirmed that a large amount of research in the United States has been overwhelmingly consistent in showing that these changes in sentencing have no effect. In terms of deterrence, it is just nonsense. Professor Doob warns of another hidden cost in that defendants who face the prospect of an indefinite prison term will rarely plead guilty, forcing the court system to absorb the cost of lengthy trials.

Let us recap. The legal community has denounced these proposed changes as unconstitutional. The government has not sought input from experts to ensure the proposal is what is needed. Similar legislation has not worked in other countries. This will add further burdens on our already overtaxed justice system. There is potential for accused criminals to be released due to delays that infringe on individuals' charter rights. We are adding a fiscal burden to the provinces without providing additional fiscal resources for these expenses.

Clearly, the media has really understood this very well when it talked about how the previous attorney general may dream of hitting a home run with his three strikes and you are out legislation, but U.S. experience suggests he is more likely to be thrown out at home plate.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, Valentine's Day, to speak to Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

I will preface my comments by saying that I am not a lawyer. The House has heard from numerous lawyers who have outlined technical flaws, quoted Supreme Court of Canada decisions and discussed at length specific sections and subsections of the Criminal Code and their application within the justice system. I have concerns about the changes proposed in this bill from an average citizen's standpoint.

Under this bill an offender who already has three previous designated offences and who is facing a dangerous offender hearing will be presumed to be a dangerous offender unless the offender can prove on the balance of probabilities that he or she is not. This proposed change is a serious concern to me and many other Canadians.

Our justice system operates on the premise that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. It is not the responsibility of the defendant to show that he or she is innocent. Imagine if all of us had to do that.

The bill proposes a significant change in the premise of our justice system, a change that the legal community has not called for, a change that is unconstitutional and contradicts centuries of common law precedent. This leads me to question why. Why does the government want to reverse the onus of proof on to a defendant?

We have heard in the previous debate on Bill C-27 that the legal community has already denounced these proposed changes as unconstitutional, that the current system is working. What is the current system?

Currently, before the accused can be found to be a dangerous offender, it must be established to the satisfaction of the court that the offence that has occurred for which the accused has been convicted is not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of behaviour that involves violence, aggressive or brutal conduct, or failure to control sexual impulses. In addition, it must be established that this pattern of behaviour is very likely to continue.

Even after this determination, the court still has discretion to not designate the offender as dangerous or to impose an indeterminate sentence. The current legislation meets the highest standard of rationality and proportionality in legal terms. The current system thus is working, so once again I ask why the government wants to change something that is working.

Surely the government must have been bombarded with pleas from the legal community pointing out the need for this change. There must have been hours of discussions. There indeed must have been repeated consultations with lawyers and justices across our country. There certainly must have been studies conducted and research into how such a system has worked in other countries. That is what we would expect. Nay, that is what we as a Parliament would demand before such a proposal appeared on the order paper.

Sadly, believe it or not, it would seem that no consultations have been undertaken. There has been no consideration of the pros and cons of this legislation outside of this chamber. Opinions have not been sought from the best legal minds in this country.

There seems to be a pattern forming here. The government does not seem to care what the people of Canada want. Instead, the Conservatives are heck bent on imposing their own narrow view of society. They do not want to hear what law professors and practising lawyers have to say. They do not want to hear what the John Howard Society has to say. They do not want to hear what average Canadians have to say. They do not want to listen because they think they know best. I can think of numerous other instances where the we know best syndrome has shown through.

In child care the Liberal government set up agreements to fund new early learning and child care spaces. The Liberal government held consultations with families, with child care professionals and with the provinces and territories. They told us they needed more access to child care and the money to pay for it. They told us about the shortages of spaces across the country. They gave us their vision for Canada's children and outlined the importance of these programs to the early education of Canada's children and their future success. Then the minority Conservative government came in. The Conservatives cancelled the funding agreements. They told Canadians they should fend for themselves in finding care for their children.

The we know best syndrome has also led to the cancelling of the Kelowna agreement. Once again the Liberal government had worked for years with aboriginal leaders and provincial and territorial governments to develop a funding agreement that would help. The Liberal government committed more than $5 billion over five years to close the gap between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians in the areas of health, education, housing and economic opportunities. Once again the minority Conservative government came to Ottawa and cancelled the Kelowna agreement. The Conservatives said they would have their own solution, but our aboriginal peoples are still waiting for help.

In taxation policy the Conservatives have refused to listen. Economists have repeatedly stressed that income tax relief is better for the economy and the country than a reduction in a consumption tax such as the GST. However, the Conservatives know best, so they raised the lowest income tax rates and added an additional tax burden to the thousands of low income working families and seniors--

[Mexico, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government needs to take its head out of the sand on this file. Canadians deserve to be notified that their safety could be in jeopardy while travelling in Mexico.

The foreign affairs minister has finally met with his Mexican counterpart. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what concrete assurances were received that Canadians would be protected while in Mexico, or could he tell the House that the minister has instructed his department to prepare an official travel warning?

[Mexico, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last month a teenager from Woodbridge was killed while vacationing in Mexico. Two weeks later another hit and run killed a Chatham man. Just last Saturday a gunman opened fire and shot two more Canadians in Acapulco. All this has happened less than a year after the brutal murders of Dominic and Nancy Ianiero in Cancun.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please tell the House what needs to happen before his department will finally issue a travel warning for Canadians visiting Mexico?