Bruce Stanton

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned his contributions to the issues that Canada dealt with in respect to our charter. There is no doubt history will recognize that he made contributions in that regard.

However, our charter also speaks to important equality protections. Sections 15 and 28 compel the government of the day to ensure that it holds up these important rights and protections, especially protections that would provide, as the bill would, the same kind of rights and basic remedies for women and children on reserve.

Notwithstanding that one must respect the consultation and that the leadership in first nations communities must have a mechanism to evolve the laws and rules of their own, which Bill C-8 does, the government of the day must take actions to compel those equalities, such as essential protections for the rights and protections of women and children against violence.

Notwithstanding his eloquent comments, does the member not believe that we should, in this case, stand on the side of protecting women and children against violence and giving them the same rights and remedies as all other non-aboriginal families across the country?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member from the Bloc.

I wonder if he might speak briefly on the notion that has not been discussed too much here this afternoon. That is the notion that Bill C-8 does provide an ability for first nations communities to develop their own laws to deal with this legislative gap on matrimonial real property. The bill provides that mechanism, and in fact, encourages it.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her eloquent and concise remarks on the bill this afternoon, and in particular on the hoist amendment, as it is referred to.

On that point, the Liberals have moved what is known as a six month hoist amendment. It would appear they do not have the courage and directness to vote against the bill at second reading. To be clear, it really means that they want to kill the bill.

As a point of background, I want to quote from the procedural compendium for the benefit of other hon. members: “The adoption of a hoist amendment is tantamount to defeating the bill by postponing its consideration. Consequently, the bill disappears from the order paper and cannot be introduced again, even after the postponement period has elapsed”.

Let us be clear, this is a motion on the part of the Liberal Party to end discussion on this particular bill. I wonder if the member might comment on why the Liberal Party is against expanded rights for women and children, particularly on reserve?

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech this afternoon. He is working hard to support Canada's aboriginal peoples.

Will this bill enable the Cree Regional Authority to pass bylaws related to certain regional issues?

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member and his party for their support of this important legislation.

My question has to do with a comment the member made regarding this new relationship agreement having a second phase, that being step two, the governance agreement with the Cree. He spoke of it briefly, but I wonder if he might talk a bit more about the extent to which he feels the second step would be part of continuing that process for the Cree.

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments and suggestions from the member for Eglinton—Lawrence in his intervention this afternoon.

He will know, certainly as a member who has been around this place for a considerable time, that committees have the ability to make determinations as to which witnesses they will hear. Members from both sides of the committee make those determinations.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I am late coming to the proceedings here this afternoon, but I was given to understand that two of the amendments at least were put forward to address concerns by the Privacy Commissioner. Those were amendments that the committee supported. The report of the committee was supported by the committee in its entirety.

I would say to the member that given the committee has made these determinations, these full considerations, clearly the committee must have known or at least been satisfied that the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner were addressed.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the commentary of the hon. member for Mississauga South on this and on his party's support for the motion. Most of what he has said would seem to be entirely reasonable and, in fact, is consistent with what the government wants to do in terms of working forward to harmonization in provinces, including the province of Quebec.

What surprises me, though, is the motion very clearly requires an automatic $2.6 billion payment to the province, something that would not be part of the fiscal framework at this time and would necessitate an extra burden on the fiscal requirements of the government. Is this the sort of thing the member's party is suggesting it might have to raise taxes for?

[Taxation, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has taken steps to help Canadian families deal with the global recession. We have reduced personal income taxes, increased child benefits, and we are helping families who are purchasing a first home or taking on home renovations.

These are the kinds of actions that are making a positive difference for Canadian families and they are in stark contrast to a new plan released just last week by the Liberal Party. Yes, just last week the leader of the Liberal Party said in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, “We will have to raise taxes”.

This is a very troubling revelation and it should have Canadians worried. The Liberal Party must inform Canadians which taxes it would raise, how much it would raise them by, and who would be forced to pay these higher taxes.

The Liberal Party ought to come clean with Canadians and tell them just how much this new plan is going to cost Canadian families.

[Indian Oil and Gas Act, April 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments and his and his party's support for this important bill.

The member will know through the course of our discussions in committee that one of the features that was discussed about Bill C-5 was the notion that this bill in fact builds a foundation for a continuous improvement regarding the needs that first nations communities would have going forward, knowing that the landscape in the energy business is going to change in the future. This bill would, at the very least, enable a building of a foundation for that going forward.

I wonder if he could comment on the extent to which he believes this bill gives us that ability.

[Indian Oil and Gas Act, April 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments here this afternoon.

One of the topics that he touched on, and that I would ask that he expand on a bit, is the whole notion that the modernization of the act, in respect to this bill, would in fact ensure that the fiduciary relationship that is enjoyed between the Government of Canada and first nations is upheld; and second, that this bill would not in any way inhibit or change the important treaty and aboriginal rights that exist currently. I wonder if he could comment further on those two points.