Wendy Lill

[Arts and Culture, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this week a coalition of 50,000 TV writers, directors, actors and technicians released a report on the crisis in English language drama.

The relaxing of CRTC Can. con. rules in 1999 for private broadcasters has caused production levels of English Canadian drama to plummet. Private broadcasters are producing and showing less Canadian drama and increasing their expenditures on U.S. programming by 15%.

Will the government toughen up Canadian content policy so we can see our stories on TV, or is it fully committed to an Americanized survivor strategy for Canadian culture?

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his comments. The NDP is pleased to see the first step and the important step that the government has taken in terms of this war.

I and other members of the New Democratic Party would like to know whether the government and the minister are willing to make a statement about the legality of this war. At this point in time people such as former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who is hardly a defender of peace, are saying that a preventive attack on Iraq is inconsistent with international law.

It is important for the government to continue to move and for the Canadian people and nation to move in a proactive, positive, international fashion around this conflict. I would like to know whether the minister could make a statement now about the legality of the conflict that is taking place even as we speak.

[Falun Gong, February 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus it is my pleasure to speak in favour of Motion No. 236, which urges the Prime Minister to encourage the President of China to release thirteen Falun Gong practitioners.

As I understand it, these thirteen people are currently in prison solely because of their beliefs. It is no secret that China has an appalling human rights record and routinely tortures and imprisons people for their beliefs and for taking peaceful action such as publishing an article critical of government policy or assembling in Tiananmen Square to protest the lack of democracy in China. There are hundreds of stories of the Chinese government violating the human rights of the Falun Gong.

I thank the member for Burnaby--Douglas for providing me with the information that I am using today. For example, on March 14, 2002, four Swiss and twelve Hong King citizens were forcefully arrested while staging a peaceful appeal outside the Chinese liaison office in Hong Kong to raise awareness of China's escalating persecution of Falun Gong. As the number of demonstrators was less than fifty, no permit was necessary for this gathering. As video evidence clearly attests, the demonstration was small, unobtrusive and completely non-violent, yet the police used violence in disrupting the event and taking away the participants.

As well, just last week there were four deaths reported. One was that of a 37 year old woman who was arrested for distributing New Year's greeting cards with the words truth, compassion and tolerance written on them. Her husband was only informed of her death 10 days later.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report that many thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been tortured, murdered, subjected to sexual violence, including rape and forced abortions, and arbitrarily imprisoned in psychiatric facilities, labour camps and penitentiaries. As well, the government of the People's Republic of China has embarked upon a massive public campaign to breed hatred and discrimination against Falun Gong practitioners.

I cannot think of any reason that any human being should be subjected to the kind of abuse that the Chinese government has put upon the Falun Gong. The persecution of the Falun Gong violates China's own constitution as well as the international covenant on civil and political rights and the universal declaration of human rights. China is a signatory to both.

Generally it is the practice of sovereign countries not to interfere in the internal affairs of another sovereign country, yet through globalization our world is coming closer together and the artificial boundaries of nation states are fast crumbling. The Chinese efforts to persecute the Falun Gong go beyond the Chinese borders. In Canada, adherents have been victims of death threats, vandalism, harassment, cyber-attacks and other forms of intimidation and discrimination.

I think in this case Canada has a responsibility to encourage the Chinese government to stop these attacks and respect international law. What is the point of having international agreements if countries can sign on and then turn around and not respect them, without any repercussions?

In July 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a resolution that urged the U.S. government to condemn the efforts of the People's Republic of China to persecute the Falun Gong practitioners domestically and internationally and to strive to ensure that China released all imprisoned adherents of the faith in accordance with international human rights laws. Canadian protests also do make a difference, as Canadian Lin Shengli was recently rescued.

I fully support this motion and urge the Prime Minister to discuss the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners with the President of China as a matter of human rights. No one should have to suffer what these people have been through. Canada has a responsibility to help put an end to this.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, February 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today and speak to the third reading of the Bill C-6, the first nations specific resolutions claims act.

The bill aims to modify the current specific claims process by creating a new administrative body which will include a commission to facilitate claims, negotiations and dispute resolutions, as well as a tribunal to make binding decisions on the validity of claims and compensation awards to a prescribed maximum per claim.

We should try to locate the bill in the context of other bills involving aboriginal people. This is part of a series of new legislations that make up the most comprehensive review of the Indian Act in modern history.

The Indian Specific Claims Commission, the ICC, was established in 1992 by order in council as a temporary independent advisory body to review specific claims that have been rejected by government and to issue non-binding decisions. This limited mandate has frustrated commission members and aboriginal claimants.

The ICC has called for a permanent independent specific claims commission. This has been on the Liberal agenda since the 1993 pre-election agenda. As it stands now, claims are presented to the Canadian government for review and acceptance.

In 1996 a Joint First Nations-Canada task force began considering the structure and the authority of this commission and submitted a report containing a model bill for a new specific claims body. Although the new legislation in question makes massive changes to the JTF report, the proposed Bill C-6 will replace the ICC.

I listened with interest to the comments of the member before me who expressed a great deal of disappointment with the bill and a sense of betrayal for native people. New Democrats feel the same. We have a lot of difficulties with the bill and I would like to go through some of our concerns.

As with the other bills included within the ministry's suite of first nations legislation, such as Bill C-7, the governance act, and Bill C-19, the fiscal institutions act, this bill would further damage the relationship between the government and the first nations as it would arbitrarily impose legislation upon the first nations people regardless of their input and their massive objection.

Treaties are nation to nation agreements that date back over 300 years and are central building blocks to the creation of Canada. They are legally protected under section 35 of the Constitution of Canada. Bill C-6 does not respect the spirit of those treaties, and as such it is unconstitutional. The government is in conflict of interest in this instance. It is both the defence and the adjudicator.

With this bill, the government has not created the independent and impartial committee for which was asked. Instead the minister has the last say about everything in the bill.

Bill C-6 dismisses the role of the Assembly of First Nations when it comes to their inherent right to self-government. Not only does the bill dismiss the government-AFN joint task force report model bill, but nowhere does the legislation even mention the Assembly of First Nations.

In addition to dismissing the joint task force report, the consultation process regarding Bill C-6 has been a joke. The committee set aside only three weeks for Bill C-6 and this included everything from introduction to all witnesses, to clause to clause revisions.

Under the joint task force report, there is no provision in Bill C-6 for appointments, renewals and approvals to require the consent of the AFN as well as the federal government. All appointments, such as the chief executive officer, commissioners and the tribunal will be made on the recommendation of the minister alone.

What is wrong with this picture? It has to be fairly obvious. Faced with constantly being dependent upon the federal government for reappointment, members will feel the pressure of wanting to be favourably regarded by the government. Thus the members will not be seen to be free to make a decision against the very government that would be responsible for their reappointment.

There are many other flaws in this legislation. With Bill C-6, the minister also has control over the so-called independent bodies through its ability to add more members whenever he or she pleases.

First, Bill C-6 ignores the JTF report and dramatically and arbitrarily narrows the definition of specific claim in the following way. It excludes obligations arising under treaties and agreements that do not deal with lands or assets. Second, it excludes unilateral federal undertakings to provide lands or assets. Third, it excludes claims based on laws of Canada that were United Kingdom statutes or royal proclamations.

The bill also severely limits access to the tribunal by denying all claims that are over the cap of $7 million. That amount can be unilaterally defined by the federal cabinet. It can be lowered as well as raised. The majority of claims, whose content deal with land, damages or loss issues, will be seeking compensation that is above that cap. The Indian claims commission reports that out of 120 claims they have dealt with, only three were worth less than $7 million. It is not meeting the needs of claimants in this regard whatsoever.

Delay is a major problem in the current system as well. It explains much of the current backlog estimated to be over 550 claims. Bill C-6 does not create any independent or impartial body designed to clear up that huge claim backlog. Instead, it is an instrument that enables the federal government to closely control the pace of settlements and decisions by granting the minister the power to consider a claim indefinitely at an early stage in the process. There are no time limits for compliance that must be observed.

Bill C-6 authorizes the federal government to delay the claims resolution process. It does so in the following ways.

No claim can proceed to alternate dispute resolution administered by the commission or the tribunal without the consideration and the approval of the minister. Bill C-6 says that no delay in responding can ever constitute constructive denial. A first nation cannot take a claim to the tribunal unless all alternative dispute resolution is exhausted and it must wait for the minister to deem that process exhausted. The government can request additional preparatory meetings even if the first nation does not think that it is necessary. If a first nation ever amends a claim during commission proceedings, the claim cannot proceed to the commission until the minister has considered the amendment. Finally, the government can delay by unilaterally lowering the cap on the overall amount of potential awards that a tribunal can issue in a given year.

It is clear that Bill C-6 favours the government by requiring the first nation to disclose all the facts and laws it is relying on before it reaches the tribunal. It does not require the same transparency from the government. The government sets the rules and controls the system by which it governs itself. This proposed process is not an independent or impartial process.

It is extremely insulting to the Assembly of First Nations and to native people across the country that the government asked the AFN to take part in the joint task force in 1998 responsible for making recommendations in this regard and then it completely ignored the model bill which it proposed.

First nations leadership wants changes to the Indian Act and they welcome change. Yet Bill C-6 has generated an unprecedented degree of animosity and disgust. Partly because of the content, but more important because of the process that animosity has occurred.

I will finish by saying that the NDP will not be supporting Bill C-6. It is not a constructive bill at this point in time and it is causing damage to relationships with native people.

[Petitions, February 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to table a petition today on behalf of a great number of constituents from Dartmouth, Fletchers Lake and Halifax who are deeply concerned with the spread of child pornography in Canada and the damage it is causing to young lives. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to protect our children and take necessary steps to ensure that materials which promote pedophilia and sado-masochism are outlawed.

[Government Appointments, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today we hear that former Cape Breton MP David Dingwall will become the president of the Royal Canadian Mint, which includes an annual salary of $250,000, a car and a chauffeur. It is a nice gift from the Prime Minister to his former minister of health who was rejected by his Cape Breton constituents and who presided over billions of dollars of cuts to health services, leaving our health care system in the state it is today.

Is this the first in a long string of patronage postings to be handed out by the Prime Minister to Liberal loyalists, or will he consent to having a public process for this type of appointment?

[International Women's Day, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day on March 8 is a day to reflect on how much women have achieved as we move toward a world of gender equality free from sexism.

It is a day to commemorate women like Nancy Riche, who recently won the AFL-CIO 2002 human rights award for her tireless work to improve the lives of working women around the world.

However women in Canada still face very real problems: 19% live in poverty and women on average still only earn 64% of men's salaries.

How is the government responding? Instead of changing EI rules for part time workers, most of whom are women, the Liberals hiked RRSP limits, which help less than 2% of women workers, and they have only delivered 3,000 of the 150,000 day care spaces needed for working women and their families.

It is time to start taking women's issues seriously again instead of sweeping them under the carpet or hoping that surfing the net, the theme from Status of Women Canada, will bring about women's equality.

[Canadian Heritage, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's main estimates show some disturbing cuts to programs under the Department of Canadian Heritage. There was $7 million taken from Telefilm Canada and a $20 million cut to aboriginal organizations and native friendship centres.

The minister said there would be more money for the CBC, but the estimates clearly show a $56 million cut to its operating budget. That money was being used to create Canadian programs.

How can the minister justify cuts to distinctive Canadian programs on TV and radio in both official languages?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak after the member for Winnipeg--Transcona. He has an eloquence about him that I often admire.

I want to take this opportunity to speak to the budget and to the implications that it has on my community and on the areas for which I advocate.

We have all heard that this was billed as a legacy budget. When we actually saw the document unfold last week, it did not have that kind of quality at all. It appeared more to be a patchwork budget. I was hoping, as were I am sure many of the people in the House, for a legacy budget. We were hoping for some relief from the years of cuts to the very important services and social infrastructures in our communities.

So far the legacy that we have seen from the government has been long waiting lists for surgery, soaring debts for university students, a rise in child poverty and a reduction in the meagre assistance for persons with disabilities. We have seen a deterioration in our housing stock, more homelessness, more kids growing up in shelters, crumbling municipal roads, and a generation growing up in overpriced, underregulated day cares. A legacy was what we needed and what we continue to need.

In my community of Dartmouth, post-secondary students are facing another rise in tuition, where tuitions are already the highest in the country. Nova Scotian students pay over $1,500 above the national average for tuition.

In my community, seniors in nursing homes pay costs that normally would be covered by medicare, and MRIs and bone density scans have been shipped to the for profit sector. These are scandals and they mark serious violations of the Canada Health Act. The Liberal government has done nothing to defend the fundamentals of medicare in Nova Scotia so that private medicine would not continue to gouge the sick.

I will acknowledge that only part of the problem in the health care debate is money, but if we look at the public versus private sector mix of money and medicare, we now see that Nova Scotia's per capita spending on private health care is second only to Ontario, having now surpassed Alberta. That would not be allowed if the Canada Health Act were being defended by the Minister of Health.

On top of all of that, equalization payments are expected to drop by $600 million, which means a cut of tens of millions of dollars in Nova Scotia. This is not the legacy that I want for my community.

When I put on my hat of advocate for persons with disabilities, for culture and communications, and for children and youth at risk, I see how this budget is a PR exercise designed to help the leadership fortunes of the Minister of Finance, not designed to help Canadians.

For example, the budget is nothing less than a slap in the face for culture and for creators in this country. We see no mention in the budget that the CBC funding of $60 million, which has just become a top up fee to the very small parliamentary appropriation that is now in existence for the CBC, will be renewed. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has indicated that the CBC will still be getting some money from a mysterious pot of money called the fiscal framework, but it is safe to say that it will probably be significantly less than $60 million. I know the CBC has no idea what will happen in terms of its funding so it cannot effectively plan its programming for the upcoming year.

I have heard over and over again how important it is to have a distinctive public broadcaster to protect and promote Canadian culture. This new cut will probably mean that our national public broadcaster will have to cut further into English and French TV and radio production. It means that fewer Canadian stories will be told.

However even more sinister is what the Minister of Finance has done in the area of film and television incentives. He has increased the film and video tax credit for foreign production, while reducing the federal contribution to the Canadian television fund by 25%. This means that our largest support for distinctively Canadian programs, with all Canadian scripts, casts and crews, will be cut to make way for more Hollywood productions.

A major Halifax producer, Michael Donovan, has said of this that “either the government is saying that we no longer wish to support Canadian programming or it is a mistake...It's not saving money--it is taking money from Canadian pockets and giving it to Americans”. It is almost like the Minister of Finance is remembering the days when he was industry minister and constantly fought with the heritage department over his view about culture as being simply an industrial product. As Minister of Finance, he is using his position to finish the job, to entrench our culture as a product of Los Angeles policy, open to Los Angeles whims and desires and, eventually, trade deals.

The budget gets worse. The disability tax credit is still not fully refundable, so that the most vulnerable, those with no or low taxable income, the vast majority of those in need, still get nothing. I was proud to lead the fight, with my colleagues from all sides of the House, against the Minister of Finance's proposal to further restrict who would be able to claim this small tax credit. We received thousands of letters from people across Canada, and my friend from the Bloc received over 6,000 names on a petition. Every member of the House, except the Minister of Finance, stood up and asked the minister to withdraw these restrictions.

The budget shows that the minister, his deputy and his department think they are above the will of the House, for in the ways and means motion tabled in the House as an appendix to the budget plan last Tuesday, once again there are increases in restrictions for section 118 of the Income Tax Act, increases in the eligibility restrictions for the disability tax credit in matters of feeding oneself and dressing oneself. What the minister lost on the floor of this place last November he is trying to sneak back in through a technical amendment buried in the budget papers in a vote of confidence. I do not think that on this section of the motion he has the confidence of any MP, including government MPs. He has no confidence but has obvious arrogance. In my opinion, this action shows a contempt of Parliament.

Even more damage can be found throughout the budget. The renewal of the employment assistance for persons with disabilities program, for example, is a meagre measure, which delivers no increases after five years. This program funds a variety of vocational training, mental health services and addictions programs tailored to each province's needs, but to beg the question, why on earth should the provinces continue to work with the federal government for this program under the social union framework if the federal government is not even going to keep the level of financial commitments indexed to inflation? As well, there is no sign in this budget that core funding for disability organizations will be continued, so the people out there on the front lines dealing with clients face great uncertainty.

Much has been said about the infrastructure program. People had very high hopes for urban centres across the country, including Halifax. The municipalities had the hope that there would be $2 billion over five years to help them with their sewage and water and the many infrastructure programs that are waiting. In Halifax, there is a sewage harbour cleanup project bill of $300 million at this point in time. With the federal government's commitment that might be coming our way for this particular infrastructure project, we might be seeing $50,000 in Nova Scotia. Someone has made the point that with that kind of financing it would take 3,000 years to get our sewage treatment plant.

Where does the money come from? With a small tax base like Halifax-Dartmouth's, it will inevitably end up coming from property taxes. It will come from user fees. It will come from increases in rent. It will come, really, from people who can ill afford it. All this just simply so they will be able to have a decent sewage treatment plant.

In terms of housing, again very small amounts actually have been put into housing. We have a deteriorating housing stock, certainly in Dartmouth, and we have determined that in fact we might see perhaps 100 homes started in our community in the course of the next year.

In terms of day care spots, we may see 10 new day care spots.

In closing, the legacy we see here is one of continued disappointment in terms of infrastructure, culture, housing and day care. I guess we again will have to wait for another year and another budget to see a government come through on the promises it made to Canadians.

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and support my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin and his Bill C-227, an act to formally recognize Canada's important role in the World War I Battle of Vimy Ridge which raged in France from April 9 to 12, 1917.

I support the bill because I believe we should always do everything possible to remember and honour the efforts of our brave young men and women who fought and died in Canada's wars.

I come from a constituency with a very proud military tradition which predates the first world war. I am told that the cliffs of Dartmouth were used by General Wolfe to train his troops for an eventual assault on Quebec in the 18th century. As well, the Halifax harbour has been North America's staging ground for both commerce and war for the last 400 years. I know my constituents carry a deep respect for the accomplishments and sacrifices of our armed forces.

1917 is a very special year. It is a year that had a major impact on my city. During that year of the great war, while husbands, sons, brothers and sweethearts were away fighting in the muddy trenches of France, much of Dartmouth and north Halifax was destroyed by an explosion in the harbour of an ammunition ship bound for Europe.

Just imagine that, many of our fighting men and women in places such as the newly held Vimy Ridge survived terrible battles only to be told of the death of their loved ones in the largest explosion in history before the development of atomic weapons. Some of the damage from the Halifax explosion is still visible today. I am told that some of the ammunition still stored in the Bedford magazine dates back to that era as well.

The traditions which have been handed down from those times still live on in Dartmouth. Today the harbour is busy with the preparations for the imminent departure of the destroyer and command ship HMCS Iroquois . It is bound for the Persian Gulf as part of our contribution in the UN sanctioned battle against al-Qaeda and terrorism following the attacks of September 11.

That crew, like the soldiers who left Halifax harbour in 1916 to do battle on Vimy Ridge, sail off into unknown danger. I pray for their safe return and I know that everyone in this place offers their prayers as well.

The bill asks Canada to lower our flag to half-mast every April 9 in memory of the 3,598 young men who were killed and the 7,004 who were wounded on Vimy Ridge in that snowy April 86 years ago.

It is reasonable to ask why Vimy is so special, because Canadians have fought and died in many wars. Why is Vimy such a special day and battle to remember?

Many historians will argue that the Battle of Vimy Ridge gave Canada its right to act as an independent country both in war and subsequently in peace. They claim that on April 9, 1917 we became a really independent nation and that we paid the price in blood.

On April 9, 1917 after months of preparation, the Canadian Corps attacked the Germans on Vimy Ridge, an area which was considered to have great strategic importance as guns on that height threatened France's northern coalfields. The Canadians were sent to Vimy to force the Germans out and claim the area back for France. The battle ended four days later when the Canadians captured the ridge.

Claiming back Vimy Ridge was a great victory because it had been one of Germany's great positions and great strongholds in France. The Canadian Corps captured more land, guns and prisoners than the British during any of their earlier attempts. By the end of the fourth day, Canada had advanced 4.8 kilometres into enemy territory, taking 124 machine guns and capturing 4,000 German prisoners.

Unfortunately the attack took a heavy toll on Canadians. In all, 7,004 Canadians were wounded and 3,598 died at Vimy Ridge.

The final reason the victory was significant at Vimy Ridge was that the success of our soldiers encouraged our national pride. The battle of Vimy made Canadians proud of their young, independent nation. They were impressed that the men of the Canadian Corps represented many cultures from across Canada. Most of the men had enlisted as untrained volunteers. However by 1917 they were one of the world's most skilled and respected fighting battalions.

Canadians have reason to be proud of their hard won victory at Vimy Ridge. I am very glad to be standing here today and supporting my colleague across the House on this very important bill.