Anita Neville

[Committees of the House, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this morning to rise to speak to this motion. I presented the first report on behalf of the committee on November 26, 2007. I presented it based on a motion that I and my colleagues put forward in committee, so I am happy to have the opportunity to discuss the issue of human trafficking as it relates to the 2010 Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Mount Royal.

I had the opportunity recently to visit Vancouver and meet with a number of groups there concerning this very important issue. We have heard from members opposite that trafficking is indeed a modern day form of slavery. It involves the recruitment, transportation and harbouring of victims for the purpose of sexual exploitation and often for other purposes. What we have not focused on as much is the importance of addressing the trafficking of women within our own country, and I will speak to that a little further on.

Typically we know that the victims are deceived or coerced into the sex industry, often for reasons of their existing lifestyle and poverty, and the opportunity, as they see it, for a way out.

The UN estimates that over 700,000 people, mostly women and children, are trafficked annually. The estimates vary but we are told that it is a value of somewhere between $10 billion to $12 billion U.S. annually. It is a very substantial business for some very ruthless individuals.

Before I speak to the existing issues, I want to put on the record the amendments that were made by the previous government to the Criminal Code, which provided the underpinning for some of the issues and initiatives that are going on today.

There were a number of Criminal Code amendments where we identified trafficking in persons which would prohibit anyone from engaging in specified acts for the purpose of exploitation or facilitation, and would carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment when they involved kidnapping, aggravated assault or sexual assault.

A second offence would prohibit anyone from receiving financial or other material benefit from the commission of a trafficking offence. It would be punishable by a penalty of 10 years of imprisonment.

A third offence would prohibit the withholding or destroying of documents, such as identification or travel documents, for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a trafficking offence. This would carry a maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment.

It was an important step by the previous attorney general, my colleague from Mount Royal, in laying the underpinning in addressing the issue of trafficking. To combat trafficking requires an ongoing government commitment. I want to put on the record a number of the initiatives that were taken by the previous government and which have subsequently been built upon by the current government.

We developed a website on the trafficking of persons. We developed an anti-trafficking pamphlet which was available in at least 14 languages and a poster in over 17 languages. Round tables were held in British Columbia and elsewhere to address the issue. Training seminars were held for police, prosecutors, immigration and customs officials and consular officials. The Department of Justice was a co-host. A community forum on trafficking in persons was held by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council in conjunction with the Department of Justice and Status of Women Canada.

There are four major components in terms of dealing with the issue of trafficking of individuals, particularly as we look at the 2010 Olympics. There is the whole issue of awareness, prevention, sensitization and commitment, and protection. As we heard earlier, a comprehensive legislative strategy is required.

I sat on the status of women committee when we looked at the trafficking of women. I was shocked, perhaps naively, when I heard the Vancouver police department indicate that Vancouver was known across the country as a sex destination city. Coupled with that, the lead-up to the 2010 Olympics makes the issue even more pressing.

I want to take a moment to note the work of some of the people in my own community. At my last International Women's Day breakfast, I was fortunate to have a speaker, a lovely articulate woman who has been involved in the modelling industry, Liz Crawford. She talked about the hazards of models who model internationally. That was an important session in terms of increasing the awareness of those who were in attendance.

The Sisters of the Holy Names in Winnipeg have taken on this issue with great energy and commitment to advance their concerns and to get government officials to speak out on it. I particularly want to note the young women of St. Mary's Academy who have taken on this matter. They developed a very moving play, which I had the privilege of watching not too many months ago. They have taken this issue on in terms of awareness and sensitization of the community. It is an important issue.

We have heard other members speak about the importance of protection, the role of the police officers, the sensitization of police officers, the role of immigration and border security officials and I will not repeat those remarks. A comprehensive legislative strategy certainly is required. We on this side will work with all parties to ensure that such a strategy is put in place.

While there is much emphasis on the international trafficking of women and children, we often turn a blind eye to the trafficking of women and children that goes on in our country. I can assure the House that unless there is an aggressive attempt to deal with that, the 2010 Olympics will become a focal point, a hub of activity for many of the young women who are in a kind of enslavement, certainly in my city and other cities across the country, to those who use the bodies of young women for their own purposes.

Frequently we see that young aboriginal women are the victims of real poverty in their own communities. They come to the cities and see this as a last resort and an opportunity for what might be, in their minds, a better life. When the government looks at developing strategies to address the whole matter of the trafficking of women leading up to the 2010 Olympics, it is important to address the issue of the internal trafficking of women with a particular focus on the internal trafficking of young aboriginal women largely from western Canada.

Members have heard me speak many times on the systemic issues facing young aboriginal people in their communities. That must be addressed with a long term solution by the federal government and other governments in this country. There have to be very definitive strategies developed in the short term to ensure that the trafficking of young women inside this country is curtailed substantially.

[Human Rights, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last week three parties in the House of Commons came together to support the government's decision to withdraw from the Durban Review Conference. The conference became a platform for blatant anti-Semitism, making a mockery of the fight against racism.

Yesterday, the meanspirited government could not resist the opportunity to politicize the issue. The member for Calgary Southeast irresponsibly misrepresented the multi-partisan support for the decision to withdraw from the conference. His intemperate comments undermine the constant struggle against racism.

On Monday, in the House, I called on the government to halt funding to non-governmental organizations that would be attending the conference. Yesterday, it took that step. Still, Canada should do much more to lead the fight against racism. Instead of taking the lead, the government attempted to smear members on this side of the House.

The government must stop playing petty partisan games and come together with all members of the House in the fight against racism.

[Privilege, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.

While we are dealing with issues of misleading the House with false quotes, I want to read into the record the correct quote as stated by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:

[The] Liberal Indian Affairs critic said she's pleased to see the government is making progress on water issues. However, she reiterated her party's concern that the Conservatives have made water a priority at the expense of other pressing on-reserve needs, such as housing and schools.

I can read on, but it is again another quote out of context.

[Human Rights, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government announced last Wednesday that Canada will not be participating in the 2009 Durban review conference. Despite mixed messages sent by our General Assembly votes in the fall, I am pleased that the government is now doing the right thing. This is an important first step.

The Durban review conference is set to be an exercise in racism and discrimination, in complete opposition to its stated objectives.

I believe the government should further demonstrate the strength of its convictions by halting federal funding to non-governmental organizations that will attend this charade, and by calling on our friends and allies to boycott this conference as well.

In addition, I propose that Canada consider hosting a parallel conference to combat racism and discrimination to facilitate global dialogue and action on this important issue, and what better place to hold it than in Winnipeg in the shadow of the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member should read the transcript and get his facts right. It is those members across the floor who ignore the voices of Canada's aboriginal peoples. It is those members who ultimately deny them their human rights.

Last September, the chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador challenged the government to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The chief said that voting against it would bring dishonour and worldwide humiliation upon the Canadian population as a whole.

Why does the meanspirited government continue to ignore the voices of aboriginal leaders?

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the leadership role Canada has long enjoyed in the global human rights movement is in question because of the mean-spirited government.

Canadians, aboriginal leaders and human right activists were appalled when the government reversed Canada's position on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and voted against it at the UN General Assembly.

Today is International Human Rights Day. Will the government side with the international community in favour of the declaration?

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member is somewhat economical with the truth.

What recourse do disadvantaged Canadians, particularly aboriginal women, have to fight for their rights through our justice system?

Yesterday REAL Women of Canada, friends of that government, suggested to Ms. McIvor that she find her own money for the appeal. This is the same attitude the government has toward all vulnerable Canadians, that they are expendable.

How will the rights of these Canadian women be protected?

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Sharon McIvor recently won a landmark case at the British Columbia Supreme Court through the court challenges program.

The decision affects the status of thousands of aboriginal women who, by an act of Parliament, were improperly denied Indian status. First, this meanspirited government stayed the decision, and now it is appealing the decision.

The government cut the court challenges program. Now Ms. McIvor has no recourse for the appeal.

Will the government reinstate the court challenges program?

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Bill C-30, Specific Claims Tribunal Act. Today my hon. colleagues have an opportunity to respond to 60 years of requests from first nations to create an independent tribunal. We agree that the legislation is an important first step in dealing with existing backlogs of claims. The legislation now before us strives to fulfill a legal and moral imperative to address the specific claims of first nations in a just and timely manner.

Bill C-30 proposes to create an independent tribunal to bring greater fairness to the way specific claims are handled in Canada, while at the same time accelerating those claims. A legislative tribunal is not a new approach. Indeed, this approach was proposed by the Liberal leader in his leadership platform.

To understand the importance of resolution of specific claims, allow me to provide some context. Specific claims deal with past grievances of first nations. These grievances relate to Canada's obligations under historic treaties or the way it managed first nations funds or other assets, including reserve land.

Since 1973, the government has had a policy and process in place to resolve these claims. The current process begins when a first nation submits a claim to Canada. Canada then completes a thorough review of the facts of each claim to determine whether it owes a lawful obligation to the first nation. If a lawful obligation is found, Canada negotiates a settlement with the first nation and, where applicable, with the province.

If an outstanding lawful obligation is not found and the claim is not accepted by Canada, the first nation can refer its claim to the Indian specific claims commission to conduct an independent review of the government's decision. If requested, the current commission can also assist first nations and Canada in mediating disputes.

The independent body does important work, but it does not have the power to make binding decisions. It can only make recommendations for consideration by the government.

All are agreed that the current process needs to be improved. The history of calls for and efforts to create an independent tribunal on specific claims date back to 1947. In July 1947, the special joint committee of the Senate and the House reported:

That a Commission, in the nature of the Claims Commission, be set up with the least possible delay... in a just and equitable manner any claims or grievances arising thereunder.

The number of claims is too high. Since 1973, almost 1,300 claims have been submitted to Canada. To date, 513 of these have been concluded and 784 remain outstanding.

The proposed plan proposes four key elements as we have heard: the creation of an independent tribunal; more transparent arrangements for financial contributions through dedicated funding for settlements; practical measures to ensure faster processing of claims; and, better access to mediation once the new tribunal is in place.

The tribunal will have authority to make binding decisions on the validity of the claims and compensation issues in respect of claims that have a value of up to $150 million.

Most Canadians recognize and support the settlement of long-standing claims and a resolution of historical grievances for first nations.

As I said at the outset, the legislation is an important first step. There is still a ways to go. I look forward to hearing from representatives of first nations from across the country and others on the proposed legislation.

I hope the government is also open to listening too. It is unfortunate to say this, but I am sure the government does not want to hear it, but since coming to power, the government has shut out the voices of aboriginal Canadians more than it has listened to them. There has been a lack of trust and the relationship to date has not been one of respect or inclusiveness.

Last week marked the two year anniversary of the Kelowna accord. The government ignored the voices calling for the implementation of that agreement. It ignored the aboriginal leaders, provincial and territorial leaders and others who were involved in the 18 month process that led to that agreement.

Last week marked the two year anniversary of the Kelowna accord. The government ignored the voices calling for the implementation of that agreement. It ignored the aboriginal leaders, provincial and territorial leaders and others who were involved in the 18 month process that led to that agreement. It made a unilateral decision to cancel it, yet it still held the Kelowna agreement up at the United Nations as an example of how it was working in partnership with aboriginal organizations. It also voted against and actively lobbied against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, again ignoring the voices of aboriginal peoples from across the country and not standing up for the rights of indigenous peoples at home or around the world.

First nations, the Métis and the Inuit have been virtually shut out of two budgets and two fiscal updates. For example, budget 2007 had $6 billion in new funding for Canadians. Of that, only $70 million was for aboriginal peoples. In its other fiscal documents, the funding provided for housing, for example, had been previously booked. It was not new money.

On water, the government's own advisory committee warned that proceeding with the legislation to establish drinking water standards for first nations communities without the necessary capital and infrastructure funding would not be successful. There has been no action on this report.

The current government must not ignore the voices who go against its refrain that when it comes to first nations issues, money is not the issue. We saw that message regarding the child welfare crisis, where the government chose to blame the victim.

The government has, for the first time, done land claims issues in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations. It has shown a political will to move forward in a collaborative manner, but some are already saying that they were not allowed to speak. The process of review of the bill in committee must ensure that those who wish to speak have the opportunity.

I believe it is important that we acknowledge the concern that the bill does not allow first nations to have a say in the appointment of judges to the tribunal that was created. Concerns have been expressed about that, and I think it is something about which the committee will wish to talk.

If the government is also committed to taking action on claims worth more than $150 million, the official opposition would like to see issues pertaining to the accord to be included in the current legislation to show its commitment to the issues. The official opposition also wants to ensure that the department has the internal capacity to deal with the claims as we expect them to come forward.

This issue is an important one. I look forward to hearing from those who want to come forward at second reading. We look forward to a close review of the bill in committee.

Bill C-30 is a step in the right direction. I urge members to support the legislation.

[Justice, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is not okay to brush this issue off with non-answers. The government's knee-jerk decision on this case will result in the death of a Canadian, a policy decision that a majority of Canadians does not support.

Did the government read the documents produced by the National Parole Board? If so, why did it come to such a quick conclusion in a case that is not exactly black and white?