Tina Keeper

[Canada Elections Act, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-54, which focuses on creating further restrictions on the use of loans for political entities.

I understand the bill, if passed, will amend the pre-existing rules of the Canada Elections Act. This is legislation that touches on the national discussion of democratic reform, a discussion that has always been of great interest for all members of this House and, indeed, for many constituents across my riding of Churchill.

As some members in the House may know, the Churchill riding is a very northern riding in Manitoba and it covers more than half of the province of Manitoba. It reflects rural Canada and aboriginal Canadians, including first nations and the Métis nation.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to be continuously working to find ways to enhance our nation's democracy. As parliamentarians, we must work together to foster a nation that values both civic responsibility and empowerment. These virtues are the centre of any debate on democratic reform.

Bill C-54 purports to establish a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors.

Strangely enough, the government's proposed provisions already exist in the current law.

The legislation is also designed to tighten rules of treatment of unpaid loans to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans. This does not represent a substantive change to the law as, once again, there are already provisions in place to ensure that loans cannot be written off without consequence. Political riding associations would ultimately be held responsible for unpaid loans taken out by their candidates.

This would allow only financial institutions and other political entities to make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals, and only at commercial rates of interest, although the current law already requires all loans to be made at commercial rates of interest. Under the proposed legislation, unions and corporations would now be unable to make loans and financial institutions could not lend money at rates of interest other than the market norm.

While it seems that the government intended to increase transparency with this bill, the shortcomings of the bill, as it is currently laid out, are such that it would do nothing to increase accountability. Instead, Bill C-54 would build new roadblocks that would restrict the access Canadians have to the democratic process.

If passed as is, the legislation would give financial institutions the full say on who gets to run for political office in Canada rather than Canadians.

In line with the Conservatives' trends of discriminatory policies, the bill would negatively impact many Canadians, especially people in my riding, including first nations, minority candidates and, I believe, women for nomination. Canada is at the point in our history where the government should be continuing the Liberal legacies of encouraging greater participation in the democratic process. The government must celebrate our diversity through political empowerment rather than design laws that would hinder one's ability to run for public office.

The proposed changes would make it very difficult for Canadians, especially those of limited means and those with limited contact to potential wealthy contributors to even seek nomination in Canada because of the challenge of securing loans from banking institutions. I am curious as to whether the members opposite were intentionally doing this or perhaps it is an aspect of the bill that they merely overlooked. Either case, I think it is a question worthy of further exploration.

I also want to add that under Liberal leadership in this country, the government passed legislation that limited the roles of corporations and unions in electoral financing and introduced the most dramatic lowering of contribution limits in Canadian history.

The key difference between limiting the role of corporate and union contributions in political campaigns and limiting loans in the manner that the government has introduced is a matter of equity. I feel that their proposed approach would be regressive. Given this opportunity to advance this debate, we should seize the opportunity to democratize our institutions where available.

For some, the window of opportunity to influence policy may only come once every four year. Since the passing of Bill C-16, the next scheduled time Canadians will have the ability to voice their opinion for policy change will be in October 2009. This is not to say that the federal election will occur on that date but rather that it is theoretically conceivable.

Our democracy is an institution of the people and in order for such an institution to be truly meaningful it must be truly accessible, regardless of gender, race and social status. With this in mind, we need legislation that will address these demands for all Canadians.

I look forward to hearing other members' perspectives on this debate and observing how it unfolds in the near future.

[Canadian Heritage, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the anti-culture government has broken another platform promise. It said that it would follow through on a national museums policy. For 16 months it has misled Canadians. It has demonstrated nothing but disdain for hundreds of museums across the country. It cut the much needed museums assistance program by 25% and it has provided no leadership and no vision.

Why does the minister care so little about heritage in small communities in Canada?

[May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the parliamentary secretary mentioned the $65 million commitment that the past Liberal government made to aboriginal youth suicide. Indeed, on the issue of suicide, if we look at international studies, the single most key factor in terms of health and well-being for any people is self-determination.

Self-determination is the key. As the government moves forward, it has refused to work in a conciliatory fashion. This was reflected in the Kelowna accord, which it has absolutely dismissed, and also reflected in the past government's commitment to first nations in the first nations-federal Crown political accord. Recognition and implementation of first nations governance is the key.

In fact, when we speak about matrimonial real property, there is no consultation. First nations women have voiced emphatically that they are against this. Bill C-44 does not include consultation. We know there is a duty to consult.

Regarding the $6 million family violence strategy that he talks about, I would like to say that I have one shelter for first nation women in my riding which has not received one phone call, not one response regarding this money. It receives about 27% of the funding that the provincial program would receive, so--

[May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the government's meanspirited approach toward working with Canada's first nations, the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada were forced to file a human rights complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission on February 23 of this year.

On that day I rose in this House to demand real answers as to why the Conservative government has allowed the child welfare crisis to plunge to such deplorable levels leaving no other option.

Since the day that the government was sworn in, it has demonstrated paternalism and contempt toward first nations, Inuit and Métis nations in their attempts to work in a conciliatory fashion with the government.

There are particularly harsh realities facing first nations families and children across Canada which as we know is due to the culmination of years of colonialist policies and laws in this country, but I can assure members opposite that their lack of attention and respect for this issue in particular is causing conditions and issues to worsen by the day.

In the recent Senate report it revealed that, according to the United Nations standard of living index, Canadian children ranked fourth in the world. Yet, using the same mechanism first nations children ranked 63rd.

It is shameful that this country has reached a point where international aid groups are travelling to Canada to assist first nations with the growing child welfare crisis, a country which the Prime Minister has called an energy superpower and it remains one of the world's wealthiest.

The Minister of Indian Affairs often provides this House with empty rhetoric of results from the government. In my riding we are facing a crisis in which first nations children are not being provided with appropriate measures for complex medical needs, for instance. They are often forced into care in order to access services. That is an international shame.

In Manitoba alone and in other jurisdictions across the country many of them have worked on similar issues and have had similar formulas and similar solutions put out such as Jordan's principle which states that funding formulas and jurisdictional arrangements must put the needs of children and family first.

In Manitoba, both the Manitoba first nations education resource centre and the first nations child welfare agencies have not been able to get the commitment of the government neither under Indian and Northern Affairs nor under First Nations and Inuit Health Branch.

To quote the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations: “There are more than 27,000 first nations children in state care. This is a national disgrace that requires the immediate and serious attention of all governments to resolve”.

The child welfare crisis is a fact, as the Department of Indian Affairs own website states. It requires fundamental change in the funding approach of first nations child and family service agencies. This is required in order to reverse the growth rate of children coming into care and in order for the agencies to meet their mandated responsibilities.

I find it particularly disconcerting that while the minister's own department has identified the dire need to address this crisis, he completely disregards the existing child welfare situation.

What will it take for the government to realize the first nations child welfare crisis is what it is, a horrendous atrocity, and when will it start acting to address this horrible international crisis?

[Goldman Environmental Prize, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Goldman Environmental Prize is the world's most distinguished award that honours environmentalists at the grassroots level.

I am especially proud to have the opportunity to congratulate one of this year's recipients, Sophia Rabliauskas of Poplar River First Nation in the boreal region forest of Manitoba, located on the eastern side of Lake Winnipeg. She is one of six individuals throughout the world to be recognized with this honour.

As a result of her tireless leadership and vigorous environmental vision, today the residents of the Poplar River First Nation can proudly say that they have secured interim protection for over two million acres of undisturbed forest land. She is only the third Canadian to have ever won this prestigious honour.

I invite all members of this House to join in honouring Sophia Rabliauskas and the residents of Poplar River First Nation.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again comment on my colleague's speech. He talked about his constituents. Indeed, I am sure all of us have constituents who have been survivors of the residential school system.

Part of what we are talking about is the truth and reconciliation process in addition to the residential school compensation package, as was negotiated by the past Liberal government. Part of that commitment from the past deputy prime minister, on behalf of the Liberal Party and the past prime minister, was—

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech resonated with me. The story that he shared with us from one of his constituents is a story not unlike many other survivors. In fact, my family has those stories as well.

Does the member believe in the commitment that not only the House, but the government and the Prime Minister should indeed apologize? Through the comments of the minister and the parliamentary secretary, does he understand clearly why the government made the decision not to make this apology to first nations, Métis and Inuit survivors of residential schools?

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for mentioning an important, artistic contributor to this country, Tomson Highway. His home community is in my riding.

There are many people from my riding with whom I have a dialogue. I have been raised with a deep understanding of the residential school experience. I am well aware of the trauma and the intergenerational impact. Certainly, from our elders and our artists we hear about the experience. As the member said, this is a human step, this is part of the human process. It is part of a healing process. It is difficult for me to understand how it is that the government can justify not making an apology.

I heard the minister today say that after a fact finding exercise of the truth and reconciliation process the facts would be presented to the executive and at that point they would decide.

We also heard the minister in the past month say publicly that an apology was not necessary, that this process was a matter of trying to educate people and that the residential school system was an effort to educate children.

I shared this with one of the prominent academics from my riding. She did her Ph.D. work on residential schools and her own residential school experience. I shared with her what was happening in the House today. Today as we speak, a national residential school survivor conference is taking place in Winnipeg. Professor Young said she felt that this was belittling. It belittles the process. It belittles the motion. It belittles the truth and reconciliation process.

It is beyond my comprehension. Certainly, I do not think we have had a fair answer from the other side of the House as to how the Conservatives justify that decision.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for putting forward this motion today because it is indeed for me a special honour to speak to the motion today.

I represent a riding in which thousands of survivors have lived and thousands of survivors have passed on. Indeed, as a first nations individual myself and a daughter of survivors, I feel a deep privilege today to speak to this motion.

I think it is a great opportunity first and foremost to pay tribute to the legacy of strength, resilience and I would say spiritual tenacity of survivors who have made this day possible. They did so by allowing us not to forget their experience and allowing us to ensure that we in the House of Commons as parliamentarians, as representatives of our ridings, both for the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in our ridings and indeed for all Canadians and I believe for the world, do not forget this tragic and devastating chapter in the history of our country.

I say so with an absolute conviction because it is the strength and the courage of survivors I believe that has made the whole residential school compensation package a reality and it is their courage and conviction which has made it an issue, indeed, that we are talking about today in the House in terms of an apology coming from the House.

I think that the issue of an apology, where the government of the day should take the lead and take the cue from parliamentarians, is mandatory as part of the healing and reconciliation process. That needs to occur in this country for us to be able to stand in truth of the commitment we have to human rights in this country, as Canadians and, as we often claim, as leaders and champions of human rights in the world.

I would like to especially acknowledge certain individuals because I am very proud to say that the current National Chief, Phil Fontaine, who has been absolutely central to this process is from my riding. He has been active on this issue for almost 20 years now and in 1990 he came forward as a survivor and shared with Manitobans initially and shared with the country his experience. I believe that it was the courage of our National Chief, Phil Fontaine, that has been instrumental in helping this issue move along at the political level.

I would also like to acknowledge elders from my riding, Elmer Courchesne and Kenneth Young, who have also been key supporters of the first nations effort to ensure that this issue is made a political issue and that the compensation package remains a priority.

I would like to acknowledge the role that first nations people from all over the country have played in terms of making the compensation package a reality. The current government likes to take credit for the compensation package as it is. I applaud the Conservatives for moving forward on the residential schools compensation package in a non-partisan way. That was the right thing to do. It was certainly what we needed to do as a country.

The residential schools compensation package occurred because of the commitment by first nations individuals. My colleague has shared with us what an extremely painful experience it has been for first nations, Métis and Inuit individuals, and not only those who survived the devastation of having to leave their communities and families. They were only children. They were in an institution that was foreign to them. Often they were the victims of an effort to eradicate their culture, and they were also victims of horrendous types of abuse. Sadly, that experience was not uncommon.

The dispute resolution process began with the previous Liberal government. It became apparent to the government and was made very clear by first nations, Métis and Inuit people that it was not a reconciliatory process. It was not a process which would allow the victims and the country to move forward in terms of truth and reconciliation. It is an understatement to say that the individual claims were moving at a snail's pace. Out of the thousands of claims that were filed, literally less than a hundred were settled over several years.

It is because of the injustice of the process that the previous Liberal government engaged with the Assembly of First Nations to ensure that a just and fair process would be put in place and to ensure there would be fair compensation. It was because of this cooperative nature that in May 2005 the previous deputy prime minister, the hon. Anne McLellan, communicated to national chief Phil Fontaine that a political agreement would be struck for a new residential schools compensation package. The agreement would include the common experience payment, an alternative payment program and the truth and reconciliation process that we have heard about today.

Also, the former Liberal government had within that commitment, a commitment for an apology. I commend the House and I commend the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River--

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it appeared there was discomfort as the hearings continued, not so much when we were dealing with the organizations, which the government has already cut, such as the law commission and women's legal organizations, but as we heard from individuals whose very lives had been affected and who had as individuals utilized the court challenges program.

I agree with the member as well that there is an ideological basis for this cut. In fact, we heard it at committee. There were references which I found particularly startling. We heard accusations of feminist and homosexual court challenges and not representing Canadians and similar rants. It made it particularly uncomfortable.

I agree, as my Liberal colleague said, there was a court challenge by the current Prime Minister in the past and that there may be a particular personal agenda.