Djaouida Sellah

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first, it is important to point out that this bill originated in the Senate. In a report released in 2011, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all the G7 countries with respect to international bribery. The organization pointed out that Canada rarely, if ever, enforces its negligible anti-corruption legislation.

There have been only three convictions under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. Does my colleague agree that this is an embarrassment to our country?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my brilliant colleague for her relevant questions.

She did already ask this question, but unfortunately we never get any answers to our questions. I feel as though it has been déjà vu since I became a member of Parliament.

What we know is that the hon. minister came up with this idea. It may be relevant to him, but it is not relevant to democracy. We were elected by the public and we must consult the people who are affected before we do anything.

However, the government, which may be blinded by its own ideology, does not see anything around it. It lives in its bubble.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to thank my colleague for his relevant question. In response to his question, I will say that I am proud of the existing museum and its mission.

For a long time, the New Democrats have fought for the recognition of the many facets of our country’ history, and for the inclusion of the history of the first nations and the sometimes acrimonious relationship between anglophones and francophones and their descendants. We want to include the story of Chinese labourers who helped us build our national railway, and the stories of other immigrants who continue to bring their own histories and cultures with them.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 provides for changing the mandate and name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in order to create the Canadian Museum of History. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. Its temporary exhibits on the cultures of the world have made it a tourist attraction that has economic benefits and creates jobs for the Ottawa-Gatineau region. I will also take this opportunity to note that it is the only museum in the federal capital region that is on the Quebec side.

The museum has a long history. It dates back to 1856, the year when the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada passed a law authorizing the Geological Survey of Canada to establish a geological museum. In 1907, anthropology studies were added to the museum’s mission, and in 1927 it became the National Museum of Canada. The Canadian War Museum, which is affiliated with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has been part of the National Museum of Canada since 1958. In 1968, a corporation known as National Museums of Canada was established and it was made up of four museums: the National Museum of Man, the National Museum of Natural Sciences, the National Gallery of Canada and the National Museum of Science and Technology.

It is the mission of the National Museums of Canada to demonstrate the products of nature and the works of man, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, so as to promote interest therein throughout Canada and to disseminate knowledge thereof. In 1986, the National Museum of Man was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and in 1990 it became a separate crown corporation. Now, the museum is to become the Canadian Museum of History.

Bill C-49 introduces major amendments to the museum’s mission. The current mission talks about establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest; that sentence is completely omitted in the new mission. At present, the museum’s mission talks about working throughout Canada and internationally, while the proposed new mission refers only to Canadian history and identity.

However, it is important to understand that Canada has been influenced in the past by the rest of the world. I do not think that this new, narrow vision does justice to that fact.

With the amendments in Bill C-49, the museum’s approach would be limited to understanding and appreciating just dates, events, historical figures and objects. This approach, which is completely outdated in the social sciences, leaves out a number of important aspects of a society's development. A study of historical heroes often leaves out women, children, aboriginal peoples and minority groups, not because they did not have an impact on our history or make cultural contributions, but because unfortunately this impact is too often left out in the Conservatives' approach.

All kinds of moments and processes in our country's history could be lost because of this approach.

For example, there is the poor treatment of Polish settlers in the west who, left to their own devices, had to build dugouts to survive the winter; the fact that slavery existed in New France; the evolution of women's rights; and the evolution of the rights of the workers who built our economy. I am not going to be reassured just because the latest news headlines announce the cancellation of an exhibit about underwear.

Bill C-49 proposes eliminating research and collections from the museum’s mission, which is the first paragraph of its mandate. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a museum and a research location with an international reputation, and it deals with more than 20,000 years of Canadian history.

The Conservatives have to stop interfering in our history. No government must exploit federal institutions or history for political gain. Defining the mandate and the content of the museum must be left up to museologists and their interlocutors, with stakeholders such as the first nations.

The decision has been criticized by a number of groups and individuals. My colleague from Hull—Aylmer has already told the House about opposition from the constituents in her riding, where the museum is located. The founding director of the Museum of Civilization, George F. MacDonald, believes that changing the museum’s name and mandate is part of a plan to impose the Conservative brand. The former president and CEO of the museum, Victor Rabinovitch, condemned the fact that the name “Canadian Museum of Civilization” was being abandoned. He said in his evidence that, in his view, it is the most successful brand name in Canada’s museum sector, a brand that is known and respected throughout the world.

Even though they say they are interested in history, the Conservatives have already decimated knowledge and research throughout the government and the country. They have muzzled and fired archaeologists, archivists and librarians and destroyed national historic sites, national parks and Library and Archives Canada.

The Conservatives have already laid off 80% of Parks Canada's archaeologists. The deputy head of Library and Archives Canada, who was appointed by the Conservatives, resigned because of spending scandals and mismanagement. I repeat: mismanagement. If the Conservatives are really interested in history, these cuts and this interference must stop. Researchers’ independence and funding must be restored, and the federal institutions that preserve our history must be protected.

The Conservatives do not care about museums. Just last week, there was an article in the Ottawa Citizen that described the financial problems of the Canada Science and Technology Museum, which is located in Eastern Ottawa and requires critical structural repairs of $3.4 million. The article described, in detail, the space problem at the museum, which is already at 130% capacity, with no room for any new acquisitions.

The museum requires $2.5 million dollars in roof repairs and $845,000 in upgrades to the ventilation system. However, the crown corporation responsible for managing the Canada Science and Technology Museum, as well as the Canada Aviation and Space Museum and the Canada Agricultural Museum, has only $800,000 available to it to repair and update the facilities at the three museums. The National Gallery of Canada had to wait a long time before it received funding to repair its leaking roof.

I hope that the Conservatives will not let our museums deteriorate to that point.

I am opposed to the bill because I believe that maintaining the museum’s current mandate is important. I also fear that the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is internationally acclaimed, will be manipulated by the Conservatives as they attempt to impose upon us their politicized version of our nation’s history.

Museum professionals, including historians, anthropologists, archivists and librarians, must be responsible for determining the contents of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, not politicians.

[Health, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about another matter.

The Wait Time Alliance's report clearly indicates that the Conservative government's health strategy is not working. Our military personnel, veterans and aboriginal peoples are not receiving the care they need and to which they are entitled within acceptable timeframes.

Will the minister take her responsibilities seriously and work with the provinces in order to put in place an effective plan to reduce wait times?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our hard-working member, the youngest in the House, for his insightful question.

As I mentioned earlier, the government claimed that it consulted everyone, yet these consultations were quite limited. I quoted Mr. Atleo, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and his words spoke volumes. Moreover, according to the Native Women's Association, this bill does not provide any tangible solutions to address the problems they face every day.

It is obvious that this government is once again trying to pass bills in a hurry just to get them done and pretend that it has already done all the required work.

Since the 2000s, no tangible solutions have been found to address the problem at the community level.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my passionate and hard-working colleague for her question and I thank her for giving me the opportunity to talk about the testimony we heard in our women's caucus.

Aboriginal women are very disappointed that the government has not taken action to combat the violence they are experiencing. They told us that nothing has been done. Study after study gathers dust on the shelf. No action plan has been created. These women took the initiative to get organized and put pressure on the authorities to open inquiries, particularly in the case of abused, missing and murdered women.

These women do not even have the right to a roof over their heads. They have no financial assistance. WIthout a home or financial means, how do we expect them to be able to access the courts? That is the problem with this bill, which was unfortunately introduced in the Senate and not by the government. The government is trying to pass this bill today, but in my opinion, this bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the fifth of its kind to be introduced by the government since 2008. The background on this issue has been given and we have debated it. Every time it has had the opportunity, the NDP has opposed the bill, and that is the case again here.

I am a feminist and I fight for women's rights. I fought as part of the Quebec section of the NDP women's council for years, before I was elected, and I have had the honour of chairing the NDP women's caucus. I take these issues to heart.

Division of matrimonial property is an important issue. Courts have rendered decisions on this issue since the mid-1980s, and parliamentary committees have been studying it since the early 2000s.

Right now, when a couple divorces, the division of family property, such as the house and the couple's personal property, is determined by provincial legislation. Subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that property and civil rights are under provincial jurisdiction. However, under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution, the Parliament of Canada has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Therefore, provincial laws are not applicable to the division of property on the reserves.

In 1986, in the Derrickson case, the Supreme Court of Canada created a legal vacuum when it ruled that the courts could not rely on provincial law when determining the division of matrimonial real property on reserves. The absence of provisions at both the federal and provincial levels with regard to the division of matrimonial real property on reserves is a problem, because the people who live on reserves cannot appeal to the Canadian legal system to resolve issues relating to the division of property when a marriage has broken down. It is usually aboriginal women who pay for this legal vacuum.

The Assembly of First Nations determined that the following three broad principles were key to addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserves: first, recognition of first nation jurisdiction; second, access to justice; and third, addressing underlying issues related to housing and economic security.

The bill does nothing to address any of these principles. On reserves, gender discrimination clearly exists when it comes to matrimonial real property. Everyone says so, including the courts, aboriginal people and politicians.

Bill S-2 does not solve the problem. It does not address the issues related to a lack of financial resources to support first nations governments to actually implement the law, a lack of funding for lawyers and legal advice, a lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts, a lack of on-reserve housing, and a lack of land mass that would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserves.

Here is what Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo had to say:

The legislation...does not provide the necessary tools or capacities for first nation governments to deal with the issues that arise when marriages break up. This is rightfully a matter of first nation jurisdiction and we must have this capacity.

First nations have repeatedly and forcefully called on the government to work with us on an approach that will truly give our people in our communities access to justice. There are already first nations that have put their own laws and approaches in place on this matter. These must be respected and a similar approach must be supported for all first nations.

The Native Women's Association of Canada also has a problem with this bill.

Despite previous recommendations that first nations must be involved and create the solutions that will address the multitude of socio-economic issues impacting on families, the government has consistently tried to rush the process and to push through legislation that has been drafted mostly on its own, with little involvement and disregard for the comprehensive recommendations of the past ministerial representative, and many first nations governments and organizations.

As I indicated earlier, a lot of work has already been done on this issue. For example, there was the 2005 report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development entitled “Walking Arm-in-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property”.

The report set out a number of very worthwhile suggestions. It recommended that the government consult with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations in order to develop a new law or amend the Indian Act. It also recommended that the first nations be given financial assistance so that they can develop their own matrimonial real property codes, and that any new legislation should not apply to first nations that have their own codes. What is more, the Canadian Human Rights Act should be amended to apply to people living on reserves. The report also suggested that Canada recognize the inherent rights of first nations to govern themselves.

Canada is a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, as such, consultation entails the consent of the people consulted. Although Canada conducted some limited consultations, no consent was given by the rights holders. As a result, we are opposed to Bill S-2 because it violates article 32 of the UN declaration, which requires the free and informed consent of the rights holders prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or well-being.

Those are the reasons why I cannot support this bill. However, I would like to add that the government must treat our first nations with more respect. In addition to a better bill on matrimonial real property, it is urgent that the government work with first nations in order to put an end to violence against aboriginal women. It must improve living conditions on reserves, particularly with regard to the housing crisis, and it must put an end to systematic discrimination with regard to funding for first nations children.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a 2011 report by Indian Affairs and Northern Development clearly states that a significant financial commitment to infrastructure development will be necessary, and that it will cost $4.7 billion over 10 years to ensure the needs of first nation communities regarding water and waste water systems are met.

My question is for the minister. Why is the government refusing to invest in access to safe drinking water for first nation communities, despite the recommendations from its own group of experts?

[International Day of Action for Women's Health, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on May 28 we celebrated the International Day of Action for Women's Health. This day provides an opportunity to reflect on the challenges associated with women's health, especially with regard to reproductive rights.

A number of studies prove that access to contraceptives and vital information results in positive outcomes such as better health, reduced poverty and greater gender equality.

The situation of Beatriz in El Salvador is a glaring example of the need to fight for this right. Her life was at risk because of her pregnancy, which she also had no chance of bringing to term.

Women have the right to choose. It is because of people like Beatriz that this day of action is necessary.