Tina Keeper

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree vehemently with the member opposite.

I am a first nations individual. This is outside the court challenges program and this type of case law, but currently there is a human rights complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission that has been filed by the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada on the issue of first nations child welfare. I disagree with the basic premise of his statement that this is not timely any more and that these rights have been established in Canada.

I also draw his attention to the fact that there is a provision in the charter which states:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

I draw his attention to the Corbiere case in 1999, which was not that long ago. It was a court challenge and dealt with the portability of treaty rights.

I disagree with the premise of the member opposite that rights have been filtered through and ascertained and everything is equal for all Canadians.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to this motion today.

I have been a member of the heritage committee for the last year. As parliamentarians we have had the privilege of hearing from people who support the re-implementation of the court challenges program and who are adamantly against its elimination. We also heard from people who were against the court challenges program. It was a very interesting process.

I would like to speak about the program and about some of the stuff that we heard at committee. It is absolutely critical for Canadians to know that we have heard from witnesses. We heard from people who felt that the court challenges program represented the spirit and the law of this country at its best. They told us about the incredible impact it had on their lives.

We heard from witnesses who talked about the fact that their lives changed dramatically through an injury or an incident of some type. They had different needs and all of a sudden found themselves at a disadvantage. Their rights under the charter were not being met. We also heard from officials of the court challenges program itself.

We heard from many members who have spoken today, from the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc, and about the concept of justice. The concept of justice necessarily includes access to justice. This is what the court challenges program was about.

At its conception, the court challenges program was related to official language rights under the charter and Constitution, and equality rights guaranteed under the charter involving federal laws, policies and practices. It was meant to provide access to justice for Canada's historically disadvantaged and those most vulnerable to marginalization and exclusion from full participation in Canadian society.

Canada's official minority language groups were also trying to claim their full and proper place in Canada. Without this access to justice, these disempowered groups and individuals no longer have a voice in their efforts to seek equality and recognition.

I would also like to mention that Canada had an international reputation. The court challenges program was one of the instruments for which Canada was recognized by the former UN high commissioner for human rights. She commented on the wonderful work of the court challenges program and its uniqueness. That program and our commitment to human rights have given Canada a place on the world stage.

This program cost $5.6 million a year. That is not a very substantial amount of money. We heard many criticisms by the people who were against the court challenges program and they often echoed some of the Conservative sentiments. We heard today that Liberal friends were recipients of the money, that they were the lawyers.

In fact, we had the opportunity at committee to question people, to question individuals or organizations that utilized the court challenges program about whether they even knew the party affiliation of their lawyer. This is not a partisan issue. It really is about Canada. It is about the spirit and it is what makes Canada great.

The other accusation that we heard today was that the program was not worth the money, not worth its value. In fact, the then President of the Treasury Board, when he made the cut to the program, did in fact say that these initiatives, including the court challenges program, were not meeting the priorities of Canadians or providing value for money. That is indeed what the President of the Treasury Board said about the program, but in 2003 the court challenges program was reviewed and the review was very positive.

The evaluation period was from 1998 to 2003. The evaluators noted that the court challenges program was consistent with the objectives of the Department of Canadian Heritage and most of the individuals and groups consulted stressed that the CCP provided for the clarification of equality and language rights, and afforded greater access to the justice system.

I would also like to mention that, as was found in the evaluation of the CCP and as we have heard from Conservative members and others, it is not value for money because it does not represent, as the minister said, the priorities of Canadians.

What we heard often was that people felt this represented special interest groups. Interestingly enough, the people who often made the accusations were not from a historically disadvantaged group and there were accusations that the court challenges program simply represented special interest groups.

I must argue that we have heard on this side of the House from over 170 organizations from across Canada. Together they submitted a letter asking for a reinstatement of the court challenges program. There are 170 groups, including: Alberta Association for Community Living, Brain Injury Association Network, Canadian Council of Muslim Women, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, Canadian Health Coalition, Canadian Women's Health Network, and the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues. I could go on and on because there are 170 groups listed.

What I am saying essentially, as we heard at committee time and time again, is that the court challenges program was indeed a program that represented the values of Canadians.

I want to finish by saying that on this issue of special interest groups, we did hear the member for Winnipeg North mention Kevin Rollason, who presented his daughter Mary's story. One of the things he said is that his life did change with the birth of his daughter. He said, “Little did I know my decision would spark a constitutional battle against the federal government and its employment insurance laws”.

He talked about the change in his life from being a Canadian who felt that he had equality to somebody who was disadvantaged and needed to fight on behalf of his family and the court challenges program allowed him to do that.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague for his response to the statement by the Conservative members that the court challenges program represents special interest groups in Canada.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely insulting not only to me and members of the House but to Canadians and to our troops that the member would even allude to such a thing. We did not vote in the House because this is the role of cabinet. The members opposite are aware that the previous government had been involved with the NATO discussions since 2001. It was a number of agreements at that level that Canada participated in at--

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I was not able to hear the rest of the question from the member opposite.

I too voted in the House not to support the extension. I did so not with any intent to hinder the support for our forces in Afghanistan, but certainly because I felt it was an unfair vote that was put to this House. I think that without debate and without clarity about the mission it was unfair for parliamentarians to have to vote on this extension.

In fact, it was the first time in approximately 70 years, I think, that parliamentarians were expected to vote on--

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am as shocked and confused as the member opposite. When he talks about confusion, I will take the opportunity to quote the Conservatives' defence minister, who has not been clear, has not provided clarity and has in fact misled the House. It is troubling. The defence minister stated last Sunday, on April 15, that not only had cabinet failed to discuss the timeline of the current combat mission, it had no plan to discuss it until next year.

That admission came at a time when Canada suffered its bloodiest week in combat in 50 years. Therefore, why is the Conservative government not taking steps to ensure that our NATO allies can take over in Kandahar by 2009.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I begin my speech this afternoon by offering condolences to the families and loved ones of the Canadian soldiers who have fallen since we began this mission.

It is a privilege for me to have this opportunity to speak today. I know all members in the House, the people of the Churchill riding, and indeed all Canadians, join me in honouring our brave young men and women in uniform.

I would also like to express how pleased I am to have the opportunity to speak on Canada's mission in Afghanistan, as it remains the most important issue in the minds and hearts of all Canadians. Moreover, the recent heightened incidence of casualties, since moving into the conflict-ridden southern Kandahar region, highlights the significance of constructive dialogue among parliamentarians on our current role and direction in Afghanistan, such as the motion we are debating today.

For me to fully contribute to the debate on this mission, I feel it is necessary to begin by explaining why I feel our current mission is important to Canadians, to the Afghan people, and to the world.

The horrific events that took place on the morning of September 11, 2001, undeniably impacted not only the United States, but Canada as well. Since this time we have witnessed changes to both our domestic and foreign policies that have been directly related to these events, which many will agree reflect the changing realities of the world we live in today.

When 9/11 occurred, it made it clear to the world that the instability in Afghanistan was a threat to the world. The Taliban was consciously harbouring terrorist groups such as Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

To help bring stability to the Middle Eastern region and Afghanistan, the United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of an international security assistance force. This UN mandated force would be composed of soldiers from NATO countries, Canada included.

Under the leadership of a Liberal government, Canadians would embark on a mission of hope. It was a mission that would bring strength to an otherwise failed and dismal state, a mission that would bring rights and education to women, and a mission that would provide opportunity and peace to the Afghan people.

To achieve this mission, the Liberal government established the 3D approach in dealing with our tasks in Afghanistan. We were to focus on diplomacy, defence and development.

Canadians across the country maintain that this is the most appropriate direction, as this mission cannot be won by focusing efforts and capital on military above the rest. We must acknowledge and embrace our genuine partnership with the Karzai government. Through diplomacy we can build stronger ties and assist the Afghan people with their emerging democracy.

On the ground, we must continue to work hard to earn the trust and respect of the Afghan people. This aspect of the relationship must obviously be addressed through economic opportunities and developmental aid toward reconstruction efforts.

However, Canadians also acknowledge the challenges of such a complex mission and the attached risks.

As I mentioned earlier, we have witnessed a drastic increase in fatalities, the vast majority of which have occurred during combat or in bomb attacks by insurgents. This is why it is absolutely imperative to provide adequate military support to the Canadian armed forces and not put them in harm's way.

Canada's efforts in Afghanistan have been extraordinarily successful. In fact, I recall when Afghan President Hamid Karzai visited Canada last year, he praised the work of our Canadian soldiers and development workers. He said in an interview with the CBC:

Your military presence is a must because without that, we would not be able to keep our country together, and your reconstruction activity is necessary because it gives us economic opportunity and employment and a better quality of life...

The president was truly thankful for our cooperative support and commitment to stability and development in his ravaged country. However, his visit was underlined with his persistence to address the situation with a balanced approach.

The Liberals balanced foreign policy for Afghanistan was clear for our Canadian soldiers who would be fighting, as well as their families and communities watching from a distance.

Members on this side of the House are able to contrast that initiative with the ambiguous and misguided direction that the current Conservative government seems to be taking, most notably the shameless news to hold a parliamentary vote on a two-year extension of our mission after a mere six hours of debate in the House.

In the Prime Minister's speech in the chamber on May 17, 2006, he cited the willingness of other NATO countries to contribute their forces to the joint mission, such as Netherlands and the United Kingdom. However, perhaps the Prime Minister can take some notes from our Dutch counterparts, which participated in 10 weeks of constructive debate rather than six hours of debate with 36 hours' notice prior to a vote.

To date, our military commitment is scheduled to end in February 2009. As always, Canada will live up to our word to the international community and the Afghan people and not pull out early as many have repeatedly demanded.

Members on this side of the House believe that the Conservative government is not holding other NATO countries accountable to contribute their fair share toward military and reconstruction efforts in the volatile Kandahar region. To make matters even worse, two weeks ago the Conservative defence minister said that Canada would stay in Afghanistan until 2009 and that the Conservatives would re-evaluate next year whether to extend the mission. Now the minister has admitted that the mission has not even been discussed in cabinet.

The minister's incompetence is insulting to Canadians and, quite frankly, draws into question the minister's overall credibility. I know the constituents in my riding expect more from their government when it comes to responsible foreign policies and defence. They expect clear and strong leadership as opposed to the uncertain and contradictory sentiments we have been receiving from the government.

As Liberals, we unequivocally support Canada's troops. We believe supporting our troops means providing clear, responsible leadership on Afghanistan. Out of respect for our courageous soldiers and their supporting, loving families, we demand that the Conservative government begin to take this mission seriously and stop misleading the House, our soldiers and their families.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and appalled by the member's language and attitude. I find it offensive that he would refer to farmers in that way.

In fact, I think it was that member who mentioned the word scaremongering. That is mongering of some sort. I am not sure what kind of mongering it is, but it is very unfair.

I made no such allusion and I do not think anybody on this side did because we have great respect for the voice of farmers. In fact, it has been respect of the system and the process of the act that should be of primary importance here. When we look again at these results in black and white--

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to restate that the multinational companies this agenda seems to be in favour of supporting are not utilizing the port of Churchill and have not utilized the Bay line. In fact, Hudson Bay railroad officials have just indicated in an announcement if there is no longer a Canadian Wheat Board they will have no alternative but to close the Bay line operation as well as the port of Churchill. This will have a dire impact and will be detrimental to the region.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raised a number of statements and questions. I am going to start with his statement that our leader, the leader of the official opposition, has said that it does not matter what farmers say, that he is going to reinstate the single desk marketing system no matter what.

I have to say unequivocally that I disagree with that statement. Our leader has said that he will respect the will of farmers, but he has also been very clear in terms of a fair, transparent and democratic process, which is also part and parcel of this discussion today.

I would like to go on to his next question regarding the plebiscite results. People can go to the website and check out the numbers. They are right there in black and white.

In fact, if we put those numbers together, as the member has indicated, the government's spin number, again, was 62.2%. I would have to say that if we look at the questions and look at the results, there is a preference between the single desk, which we all know means the Canadian Wheat Board, and an option to market to the Canadian Wheat Board. If we combine those two numbers, we actually come up with 86.2%. In fact, even in Alberta we come up with 84.8%.

That is what we are finding, but the member adds up his numbers his way, meaning 62.2%. As I said, that second question also says that farmers prefer the option of marketing to the Canadian Wheat Board. It was not a clear question. We do have the Canadian Wheat Board. That is clearly stated there. If we look at it from that perspective, we can clearly see that 86.2% of farmers voted in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think that has answered the member's question.