Anita Neville

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the House has heard me many times speak about the importance of child care. I would do whatever is required to ensure that a national child care and early learning system was built across the country, whether it is legislation, or negotiation with provinces and territories one on one, whatever it takes to enshrine and create a national program.

I think it is a definition of who we are as a country. Some of the members may have heard me tell this story in the House before, but it always bears repeating. The first child care agreement was signed with the province of Manitoba. For the hundreds of people who were there that day, it was a very exciting. It was made into a remarkable moment when a group of people stood, as the two ministers signed the agreement, and sang O Canada. I want to be a part of that kind of Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member is taking lessons from members opposite in not answering questions.

It is incumbent upon us, as duly elected legislators, to have the opportunity to hear from those who are most affected by the legislation. It is important that the legislation go to a separate committee, that it be dealt with in a comprehensive manner, that we hear from those who are involved in the immigration world, those who are most affected by the legislation, and then decisions will be made as to whether to support or not support the legislation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-50, the 2008 budget implementation bill, which contains many of the measures set out in the government's budget.

After over two years of lavish spending, the government decided, wisely, to be a little more fiscally prudent with this budget. We have heard many times before in the debates that this is indeed the first Conservative government to have a balanced budget since Robert Borden's government in 1912.

The only reason why the government has not plummeted into deficit is the sound fiscal inheritance of the previous Liberal government. When the Liberal government left office there were billions of dollars in surpluses. Also, the Liberals managed with eight consecutive balanced budgets. Canada had the best fiscal record in all of the G-7 economies.

This year the title of the budget was “Responsible Leadership”. It is rather ironic, I would think. We have heard from many that we are indeed on the cusp of a deficit.

The government went on a foolish spending spree when times were good. It made irresponsible tax cuts, taking $12 billion out of the fiscal framework with the two cuts to the GST, and now that the economy is beginning to slow, our financial situation becomes more precarious. Responsible leadership and sound economic management, I would say, are certainly questionable.

When the government delivered its budget speech, it appeared like a straightforward document, only for the government to deceive Canadians with the bill before us, which contains what I would call a zinger clause. With the budget implementation bill, the government has imposed upon Canadians immigration measures that would give the minister unprecedented power: unprecedented power to pick and choose, unprecedented power to determine who gets in and who stays out, and unprecedented power to play favourites.

What the government is saying yet again is “trust us, we know best, we will make the rules and you will be better off”, a pattern we have seen with the Wheat Board and the government's manipulation of processes and numbers. We have seen it with the censorship activities of Bill C-10 and with the lack of consultation on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the list goes on.

In this case, the government wants to be trusted, trusted to decide behind closed doors if one's mother, father or children can come to Canada, again with no consultation, with no input from those most affected on any of the impending changes, whether they are families, settlement groups, employers or provincial governments.

Just this morning in committee, the Auditor General was before the committee and spoke to the importance of consultation in the development of any policies of government. The government wants us to believe that it will meet its goal, as articulated, of reducing the backlog with an increase in the budget of approximately 1%, and it is asking for trust.

Immigration needs to be taken out of the bill and properly studied in committee. A few years ago, I was part of the committee that revamped the immigration bill. The consultations were widespread. The chorus was not unanimous by a long shot, but everybody had an opportunity to put forward his or her position and the consequences of decisions taken and decisions not made, and I would say that we have to do that again this time.

The government plays mind games with Canadians. It talks about being tough on crime, yet it stalls its own justice bills in the House and uses them to play petty partisan games when they get to the Senate.

When I look at this budget, I have somewhat the same reaction that I did to last year's budget. A little money was spent, with a sprinkle here, a dash there, a pinch for this and a pittance for that. Once again the government tried to appeal to everyone, but has spread its funds too thinly. One of my constituents calls the Conservatives' style of government and budget making “fast-food government”.

We know that our cities and communities are in vital need of investment. We have all heard about the billions of dollars of deficit Canadian municipalities face with respect to their infrastructure. We have also heard from the finance minister that potholes are certainly not his responsibility.

My own city of Winnipeg, like other cities in members' ridings, has significant financing challenges and yet there has been no recognition by the government of these challenges faced by cities. What the Conservatives did finally incorporate was the step the Liberals promised, and that was to make the gas tax permanent, and I commend them for that.

Budget 2008 provided $500 million for public transit out of the 2007-08 surplus. However, within days of that, we learned that $108 million of it was going to restore a train service to run through the minister's riding. Nobody had asked for that and no advice had been given on it.

The government has refused to answer questions about Manitoba's infrastructure program. We know that the floodway for Manitoba is non-negotiable. We know how important it is.

It was over a year ago when funding for the floodway was announced under the Canada strategic infrastructure program. A month later, it was decided to allocate the funding under the building Canada fund, which, I might add, is full of moneys committed by the previous Liberal government. This would shortchange the province of Manitoba by $170 million in infrastructure funds that could well go to a host of other issues.

I also want to talk about Lake Winnipeg. We heard grant announcements on what we in Manitoba call “our beloved Lake Winnipeg”. We heard that an additional $11 million would be headed toward the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg, bringing the total, with moneys committed previously, to $18 million.

Examination of several websites, coupled with conversations with many researchers and scientific experts on the restoration of the health of the lake, show that few funds indeed have been forthcoming to date. Again we have heard empty words and hollow commitments.

The Conservative government continues to treat the women and children of Manitoba and this country as an afterthought. Many of the issues of importance to women have largely been bypassed. The programs that most women talk about as important and transformative, such as housing, child care, education, health care, unemployment insurance, and legal aid, are of limited interest to the government.

We hear members opposite espouse family values and talk about children as the future. We also hear members opposite talk about skill shortages and the need for skilled workers. However, social programs go hand in hand with economic programs.

I have spoken many times here in this House about the need for quality child care. What about it? Nothing is forthcoming except that cheque through the mail. Where are the promised spaces? In my riding, there are huge waiting lists. Parents are forced to leave their employment. Parents, and particularly single mothers, do not have the necessary supports.

In the last few months, the waiting list at one day care in my riding has grown from 300 to 400 children. It receives five to ten inquiries a day about spaces. The government has not made the connection on the availability of child care spaces to economic growth.

Although I do not have time to read for members an email on this, I will take another opportunity to do so. I received an email that listed all the parents with respect to that child care facility, the jobs they do, and the contributions they make to the economic growth of the city of Winnipeg. Coupled with that is the desperate need for space in their day care.

I wanted to talk about the government's shortcomings with respect to aboriginal people, whether it is in education or in how the government is ignoring them in the consultation process on the repeal of section 67. We heard in committee this morning from a group of aboriginal women who have very grave concerns about the matrimonial real property legislation, which I look forward to reviewing.

However, we know that the government has not addressed the needs of aboriginal peoples except in this piecemeal, cherry-picking, fast-food manner of a little bit here or a little bit there. We will see what we can do.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to put something on the record. The parliamentary secretary referred to the fact that the opposition was opposed to the government's two bills that it brought in, the repeal of section 67 and the matrimonial real property act.

Let me state for the House, and I think I have said it 17 times already, this party is not opposed to the repeal of section 67 and, in fact, supported it in committee. As to the matrimonial real property, I do not know why he is making up fables. I have no knowledge that this opposition party is opposed to the introduction of matrimonial real property on reserve.

The member opposite talked about the consultation between aboriginal peoples and the government. From February 2006 until the signing of the declaration on the rights of indigenous people in September 2007, there was absolutely no negotiation with indigenous peoples on the declaration.

Why did the government actively lobby other countries to oppose this declaration in spite of the fact that no consultation had gone on with our indigenous peoples? Why would he think first nations and indigenous peoples in our country would want to support a declaration that would give up all the treaties, policies and rights that he says have been in place for 100 years?

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the assumptions upon which both the government and the member opposite have come to that conclusion. This document has been negotiated over 20 years. Legal experts from across Canada and around the world have negotiated, compromised and looked at its implications.

As I said in my earlier remarks, Canada's Constitution is a living document and accommodation is interpreted through the courts.

I suggest for the member opposite that the supposition upon which the government wants to build the rationale for its objection is a false one.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if I could just take issue with my colleague opposite on a small point of her question. We do have a declaration that Canada could indeed support, if it had the political will to do so. This is an all-encompassing declaration and it would address some of the many needs of aboriginal people in our country.

She speaks about children being born drug-addicted or substance-addicted. We also know there is a higher infant mortality rate among aboriginal children in the first nations communities. This is in part a result of the living conditions in which first nations women find themselves, whether it is lack of adequate health care, or poor housing or poor water.

It is a function of all the shortcomings in their lives, and it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that no Canadian lives under such circumstances.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, neglected to indicate that I would be sharing my time with my colleague from Beaches—East York, so I may be concluding.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to endorse the motion we have before us, that is, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly September 13, 2007.

This is a declaration that has been worked on for many years. Indeed, as my colleague opposite has cited, for over two decades Canada has played an important role in the development of the UN declaration, including the drafting of the document's text.

The declaration, as it now stands, is the result of extensive negotiation between member states and between indigenous people from around the world. It is important to note that this is the first time in UN history that rights holders were actually participants in the process. The current text, as I said, now stands because of these extensive consultations that took place.

Canada was known throughout the world and at the UN as a strong supporter of the UN declaration on human rights.

When this government took over, the Prime Minister's friends, Mr. Bush and Mr. Howard, had a considerable role in helping Canada to change its position. It was after the visit to Ottawa of the Australian prime minister that Canada indicated its unwillingness to support the declaration. Since February 2006, as I cited earlier, there has been a total failure to consult between Canada and the indigenous people.

When it came time to vote at the UN, only four countries voted against the declaration: Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia.

Canadian officials have repeatedly denied that the federal government has insisted on changes to the provisions in the declaration that were supported by previous Liberal governments. Yet, in amendments dated August 2007, Canada, with Colombia, New Zealand and Russia, sought over 40 revisions. In many instances, Canada actually helped draft the specific measures.

It is important to note that in opposing this declaration, Canada, well-known prior to this government for its advocacy of human rights both nationally and internationally, for the first time, has opposed an international human rights document.

The government says it was not an easy decision, but the gymnastics to justify its position are at best ingenuous. Canada was lobbying against this human rights instrument, we know, in Geneva in June 2006. This was before the government stated to parliamentarians that it was still studying the text. It encouraged opposition against the declaration and aligned itself with countries with highly abusive records, as I said earlier, with Colombia, Russia and with some hard-lined African states.

As described in the December 2007 Amnesty International report:

Over the intervening year, Canada was at the forefront of urging the UN to undertake wholesale renegotiation of key provisions of the Declaration, a process that would have greatly delayed adoption and would likely have resulted in a greatly weakened text. In doing so, Canada aligned itself with states with poor records of supporting the UN human rights system and with histories of brutal repression of Indigenous rights advocates.

Now that the declaration has passed, the government continues to ignore the document and ignores its international obligations.

The government, as well, misled the Canadian public. If it were truly convinced that the arguments against the UN declaration were valid, it would not resort to what I believe are false statements to justify its actions.

The minister says that the declaration does not provide a balance of individual and collective rights, although it is cited right in the declaration. He said:

In Canada, you are balancing individual rights versus collective rights, and (this) document...has none of that...By signing on, you default to this document by saying that the only rights in play here are the rights of the First Nations. And, of course, in Canada, that's inconsistent with our Constitution.

However, a simple reading of the declaration confirms there are 17 provisions that address individual rights. The federal government is aware that the previous Liberal government took a lead role in promoting article 46, one of the most comprehensive balancing provisions to exist in any international human rights document.

The claims of inconsistency with Canada's Constitution are not substantiated. Canada fails to demonstrate how the declaration is inconsistent with Canada's constitutional framework. The declaration provides uplifting human rights standards. Canadian courts may rely on such progressive international instruments to interpret indigenous peoples' rights.

As the Supreme Court has confirmed, and again I quote:

—our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.

It goes on to state, “A large and liberal or progressive interpretation ensures the continued relevance and, indeed, legitimacy of Canada's constitutional document”.

I talked earlier about Canada's failure to consult with indigenous people. I will not go back to that. However, we hear members opposite trumpet Bill C-21 and the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We support the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and we are waiting for that bill to be brought back into the House. It is now over two months since it has left the committee.

In coming to that, I would question the issue of collected versus individual rights. In the many discussions leading up to the final report of the committee on Bill C-21 we saw a real effort to subvert the collective rights of indigenous peoples.

We have heard much about the importance of this declaration for women. It is an important aspect of our concern for the full implementation of the Declaration of Human Rights in Canada.

We know aboriginal women are at much greater risk of domestic violence. We know that in many situations it is because of the living conditions. We know aboriginal peoples do not have access to adequate water. In fact, the water supply for aboriginal peoples on reserve is not what it should be.

We know the health opportunities for aboriginal women and their families are far less than those for non-aboriginal Canadians living in urban and rural settings. We know the educational opportunities for children are not there. We know the government is in fact robbing Peter to pay Paul, basically taking moneys designated for education projects in communities in order to transfer them to water projects so they can trumpet what it is doing there.

I am not saying that the water projects are unimportant. In fact, they are very important to the health and the safety of all Canadians. However, it is important that all human rights be honoured. When we focus on women, we must understand that human rights are basic human rights.

I want to quote Beverley Jacobs from the Native Women's Association of Canada. She talks about all of the individual challenges facing first nations people, water, education, health, et cetera. She says:

All of these seemingly individual problems stem back to our history where our lands, resources and territories were unjustly taken from us and where our right of selfdetermination was subverted for the benefit of others.

Unfortunately, this is not only an historic problem, but a contemporary one where the order of business has not significantly changed in some respects.

We still see the Canadian government fighting court case after court case to challenge the constitutionally protected aboriginal rights we hold. As indigenous women leaders, we come to our positions not only as defenders of individual women, but as defenders of our lands, our resources and our territories.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite spoke about the consultation that goes on between her government and aboriginal people. I wonder if she could comment on the fact that from February 2006 until the declaration was signed in September of 2007, her government chose not to consult with indigenous organizations in this country.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as the member alluded to in her comments, Canada was one of four countries that voted against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government has now adopted the position that because it voted against the declaration, it is not party to it, or it does not fall within the parameters of the declaration.

Could my colleague opposite comment on the fact that the government believes that since it did not support the declaration, it does not fall under its guidelines?