Anita Neville

[Committees of the House, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite speaks frequently of unknown, undesirable and unintentional consequences. There are two areas that I am particularly concerned about in terms of the unknown, undesirable and unintended consequences.

The first relates to the democratic processes, or the lack thereof, that we are seeing as we move forward on this issue. My colleague here has certainly enunciated them.

The second is quite devastating. We hear frequently from members of the press in our community that when questions are put to Conservative members from Manitoba day after day after day after day, their calls are not returned. Their calls are not returned because those members know what the implications are for the city of Winnipeg.

Does the parliamentary secretary understand that this means the elimination of 500 jobs in downtown Winnipeg? Does he understand that it means a loss of an additional 1,800 jobs in the province of Manitoba? Does he understand that it means a loss of $66 million in wages and salaries? Does he understand what the impact is on governments in terms of lost taxes?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if he had implemented the Kelowna accord, he would not have time to read all those papers.

The Correctional Investigator found that first nations, Métis and Inuit inmates are routinely classified as higher security risks than non-native inmates. Aboriginal offenders are released later in their sentences and are more likely to have their conditional releases revoked.

Instead of addressing these issues, the government proposes to yet increase the overrepresentation. Will the Minister of Public Safety acknowledge the findings of the Correctional Investigator?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minority Conservative government may have trouble with the truth on aboriginal policy, but numbers do not lie.

Now the numbers show that aboriginal Canadians are overrepresented in our prison system. Aboriginals are seven times more likely to end up in jail than non-aboriginals, yet despite the statistical evidence, the Minister of Public Safety rejects this.

Does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development agree with his colleague? Will he apologize to Canadians for failing to acknowledge the truth contained in the report?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to visit a family in my riding that is living under very difficult circumstances. The Raza family has sought sanctuary in Crescent Fort Rouge United Church to escape persecution if returned to Pakistan by the immigration department.

The family has lived in Canada for four years and its members have been model citizens. Four of the six children have never been to Pakistan. Two are Canadian citizens.

I have been unsuccessful in my request to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asking that he allow the family to return to living in the community while the application is processed so the children can attend school.

I have now written the minister asking him to grant landed immigrant status to the family and base his decision on the best interests of the children. The Immigration Act allows the minister to act in a humanitarian and compassionate manner.

Along with many thousands of other Winnipeggers, I urge him to do so and grant the Raza family refuge in Canada.

[Kelowna Accord Implementation Act, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reaffirm my support and that of my party for this private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

It is true that I too wish I did not have to stand here today in support of this bill, just as I am sure the member for LaSalle—Émard wishes he did not have to introduce the bill in the first place.

The new Conservative government was afforded an opportunity when it took power: an opportunity to provide for aboriginal peoples from coast to coast to coast. Blessed with a $13 billion surplus, due to the sound fiscal management of the previous Liberal government, and a ready made plan that only needed the confirmation of the new government, the Conservative government willingly and knowingly set back relations between Canada's aboriginal people and itself by not pledging its support for the Kelowna accord. It did this by abandoning it, trashing it and disrespecting it. The government abandoned aboriginal Canadians and, most important, it disrespected the processes aboriginal Canadians entered into in good faith.

We all know the accord is a landmark document. It signalled the start of a new era of cooperation and reconciliation in Canada, an era when our elected leaders from all parts of this great country said no. They said no to incidences of child mortality 20 times higher in aboriginal communities than in non-aboriginal communities. They said no to an unemployment rate for aboriginal Canadians that is 12% higher than that of non-aboriginal Canadians. They said no to deplorable overcrowded, mouldy housing conditions in which aboriginal Canadians, both on reserve and off reserve, find themselves. I invite members to come on a tour of some of the communities in my province to see the deplorable situations. They said no to a situation where aboriginal people are three times more susceptible to incidences of type II diabetes. They said no to third world poverty in a country such as ours. They said no to inadequate access to medical services and to third world diseases like tuberculosis.

The agreement was not between Liberals and aboriginal Canadians. It was not a partisan accord. It was an agreement between the Government of Canada, the leadership of all national aboriginal organizations in this country and the first ministers of all the provinces. This agreement spoke to the honour of the Crown. Everyone who was in Kelowna that weekend said that we had enough poverty and enough of a two tiered society.

From the outset, the Conservative government wasted no time in trashing and belittling this accord. The current immigration minister very quickly said that the accord was written on the back of a napkin. What an attitude. Unfortunately, this attitude has been borne out by subsequent events indicative of most of the views of members opposite.

The accord represented a new beginning in developing policies that affect aboriginal Canadians. It was a fully integrated and fully consultative process. It involved 18 months of talking with aboriginal Canadians, listening to aboriginal Canadians and working with aboriginal Canadians to formulate the policy and goals that are now part of the Kelowna accord. This process was a model for all departments of government for policy development. It included consultation, collaboration, stakeholder buy in, political commitment, respect for regional realities and differences, and the allocation of resources to begin the job that must be done.

To have this agreement described as being written on the back of a napkin is an insult to all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, who worked so hard and for so long to see the Kelowna accord come to fruition.

Some members opposite have said that the money for the Kelowna accord was not booked by the previous government. I suggest that is another misrepresentation and another insult.

As has been confirmed by finance department officials, the money for the Kelowna accord was designated in the fiscal update presented by the former finance minister. The money was there. The funds were booked. To say otherwise is to perpetuate a myth. It is misleading the House.

The money was designated as a line item in the sources and uses table. The only ones who can remove a line item from a sources and uses table are the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

When members opposite muse as to the whereabouts of the money for the Kelowna accord, they can ask that question of the Prime Minister or the finance minister. They removed the money. They were the ones who abandoned the Kelowna accord. They were the ones who said yes to continue third world living conditions for aboriginal Canadians. They were the ones who indicated that the pressing needs of aboriginal peoples were not a priority for this government. They hold the brunt of the responsibility.

The government has now been in power for 10 long months. Its approach to dealing with aboriginal Canadians is becoming apparent. It is quite happy to revert to confrontational times that most Canadians believed were behind us. It seems to be prepared to dictate policy with only a gesture to consultation.

Along with Russia, the government does not want to champion the rights of indigenous people at the United Nations. It is prepared to create animosity where the Kelowna accord and the consultative process leading up to it achieved much in tearing down barriers between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

The era of the government handing down policy without consultation is behind us, or I should I say it was behind us until this government came to power. Aboriginal Canadians need to be at the table in determining policies. They do not need an overseer. They need to be a partner.

In my mind, any accord in which all of the ministers come to a consensus is a historical document. NDP premiers, Liberal premiers and Conservative premiers all said it was a historical document. They were all in support of it.

If I can quote NDP Premier Gary Doer of my province, the province of Manitoba, who said on the signing of the Kelowna accord:

This is the most significant contribution to aboriginals made by any Prime Minister in the last 30 years.

The Liberal premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, said upon its signing:

Our duty now is to ensure that when this room goes dark, the light that has been lit, the light of hope that has been lit over the last two days, lives on and burns brighter, month after month, year after year in our hearts and in Canada's corridors of power.

The Conservative Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, said:

We're committed to working hard on initiatives that will lead to significant improvement for aboriginal people in Canada over the next five or 10 years.

The only person who is not heeding the calls that it is time to help aboriginal Canadians is the individual who should be listening the hardest and most eager to help. That individual is the Prime Minister.

A true Prime Minister, a true leader, is the Prime Minister of all Canadians. The time for real leadership is now, leadership to alleviate the suffering of thousands of Canadians.

The Kelowna accord was an opportunity. It was an opportunity to end the shame in our country, an opportunity to allow aboriginal Canadians to be on the same level as non-aboriginal Canadians. It is the duty and responsibility of this government to see that this accord be implemented. It has failed. Not only did the Conservative government fail aboriginal Canadians but it failed all Canadians by abandoning this accord. It failed the premiers. It failed the aboriginal leadership.

As the opposition we had a choice to make. We could howl at the moon about the Prime Minister's shameful actions, or we could take action to overturn this meanspirited decision. We chose to take action, led by the efforts of the member for LaSalle—Émard and supported by the entire Liberal caucus. We are saying to Canada's aboriginal people, enough is enough.

With that in mind, and in my heart, I am pleased to support the private member's bill. I urge all members of the House to support the bill, to indicate to aboriginal people, to the aboriginal leadership of the country, to the leadership of the provinces, and indeed to all Canadians that the House is truly committed to take action to ensure that all aboriginal people have the opportunity--

[Canadian Heritage, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed Canadian museum for human rights will be a national landmark for the city of Winnipeg, a global meeting place for learning, reflection, dialogue and debate on the issue of human rights.

The government has had the file for months now, yet the supporters of the museum have heard nothing on whether they will receive sustainable funding.

Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the Canadian museum for human rights will receive its requested operating funds or, once again, is human rights not a priority for the government?

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I agree completely with what my colleague opposite has said. The important thing is the willingness to commit to move in.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, many have spoken tonight on what we can do. I made the suggestion very clearly in my brief remarks that we should be actively supporting a UN force going into the neighbouring countries of Chad and the Central African Republic. We should take that first step if we are unable to move into Sudan itself.

In terms of implementing the responsibility to protect, we need to move aggressively through diplomatic action and commitment of our own resources and forces.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that my colleague opposite was not paying much attention.

My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has been an outspoken critic and advocate for resolving the situation in Darfur. His eloquence has prevailed widely. He has impacted government policy when there were no UN resolutions mandating us to resolve the situation. The Canadian government responded to the African Union before there were UN resolutions asking us to do it.

The member has been in the vanguard of trying to address and advocate for the people of Darfur. I resent any suggestion that it is otherwise.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Ajax—Pickering.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House this evening, but I am not pleased that it is necessary. We all know that during the summer there was an increase in the pillage and atrocities that have been taking place in Darfur. It is estimated that 400,000 have died and 3.5 million people are in a desperate situation.

I want to come at this a little differently. Yesterday I had the opportunity to be in a situation where prayers were recited for the six million people who died during the Holocaust in Germany. In the course of that period of time, a story was told about 93 women who were asked to service the Germany military. As it happened, during the course of the event, they poisoned themselves and died.

What struck me was the conspiracy of silence and complicity that existed at the time. Given the fact that there are such violent human rights atrocities taking place today, there still is a level of conspiracy and complicity of silence.

We have heard much about what is happening to the women of Darfur, the rapes, the sexual slavery, the torture, the abductions, the destruction of villages and the fact that a disproportionate number of women are in refugee camps. We have heard about the difficulty, the social stigmatization, the destruction of the social infrastructure of their lives, the inability to get help and the fear of being reported. We know there is a genocide taking place where people are hungry and are not having their needs addressed.

We hear words from the other side of what is being done. I do not deny that there are things being done, but it is simply not enough. The genocide in Darfur, and my colleague from the NDP referenced it, must be ended before it destabilizes the rest of Africa. The malignancy of Darfur has now spread to Chad and is moving into the Central African Republic as well. Are we working with France? Are we considering putting UN peacekeepers there or are we being told that we simply do not have the resources?

We are now in the situation where we are looking at appointing a new secretary-general of the United Nations. I want to see a secretary-general whose primary focus will be on ending this genocide, and it is a genocide in Africa.

We have heard much about the responsibility to protect from genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. While there is wide agreement with the principle, the deteriorating situation, and it is deteriorating as we speak tonight, illustrates a gap between stating a principle and having the political will to act upon it.

We have heard much about the Afghanistan situation, but in the riding of Winnipeg South Centre I hear far more about the importance of Canada participating in Darfur. I hear far more about the concerns there. It is important that we take much more concerted, organized action, that diplomatic words are simply not enough. We must take a much harder line with the UN and with other countries.