Jean Crowder

[Health, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully we will actually see some action instead of talk.

The health minister is ignoring new private hospitals, new private surgeries, new private MRIs. He says that they are not happening. He left Tommy Douglas' party to join the party of Senator Kirby who celebrates the Supreme Court decision opening the door wide for private care.

Why is the minister helping Senator Kirby get what he wants, more private for profit health care in Canada?

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are in complete agreement with the Bloc in that the Liberal government continues to ignore conventions to which it signed on.

I only have to look at the convention for the elimination of discrimination against women, more commonly referred to as CEDAW. We have been cited on a number of different fronts for not living up to our agreement on that particular convention. There are other conventions as well where we have been cited as being in violation.

In fact, article 12 of the United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples is one where we have not moved far enough. There is a preamble on the first nations cultural heritage website in Canada which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archeological and historical sites, artifacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies...as well as the right to restitution of cultural...property taken without their free and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.

This is another international convention in draft form. It is another example of how we have not done enough in Canada to protect indigenous cultural artifacts.

Alert Bay is not in my riding, but Alert Bay has had a long struggle to repatriate many of the artifacts and potlatch items that would continue to be used in a ceremonial and traditional way. It is another example of how the peoples have been forced to have lengthy negotiations about returning these artifacts. Although some formal repatriation of these pieces started in 1998, we are talking about it taking decades in trying to have these artifacts returned to their communities.

It not only happens in museums. We continue to be faced with development in communities where there are burial sites. It is very difficult for the first nations to have their voices heard respectfully in these development applications. We are talking about burial sites, ancient remains of elders that are being disturbed. There is very little consultation and very little inclusion in a meaningful way. We talk about consultation, but it often is “we will send you a letter and tell you what is going on. If you get back to us in the timeframe fine, and if you do not, then so be it”. That is not consultation.

The elders need to be there. They need to have their oral history heard. They need to have their voices heard in terms of respectfully dealing with the artifacts and the remains of their elders.

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP to speak to Bill S-37. I want to talk about a couple of elements in the bill and I turn specifically to the summary which states:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to prohibit certain offences, including theft, robbery, mischief and arson against cultural property protected under the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Those amendments allow for the prosecution of such offences when committed outside Canada by Canadians.

It goes on to state:

—prohibit Canadians from illegally exporting or otherwise removing protected cultural property from an occupied territory. Those amendments allow for the prosecution of such offences when committed outside Canada by Canadians and provide for a mechanism for the restitution of cultural property.

The last sentence is the important point that I really want to get to. It is important for us to specifically consider what we are talking about in terms of the definition of cultural property. The schedule attached to the bill deals with the definition of cultural property. It states:

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “cultural property” shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership:

(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history—

This is an important piece of information because we often do not understand the breadth and depth and range of cultural property.

I turned to the ICRC website when I was preparing to speak to the bill in the House in order to get some kind of historical context. The ICRC indicated how important cultural history is to people, and it went through the historical context. This website goes back to the very early times of humankind with its early cave paintings and pottery, all of the cultural artifacts that have been with us since the very beginning of time.

The website mentioned the fact that it is hardly surprising that conflict leads to the destruction of monuments and places of worship, works of art and so on, that are precious to the human spirit. Some destruction is accidental but some is quite deliberate. Some has been predicated on undermining the underpinnings of an entire people in order to demoralize them. We have had a long history of that with numerous armed conflicts.

We also have that right here in Canada with our first nations communities. Although this piece of legislation specifically deals with Canadians externally, it is important to note that first nations communities in Canada continue to struggle to have repatriation of their artifacts from abroad. One could argue that many first nations were under some sort of pressure or armed conflict at the time their artifacts were taken.

When we talk about the protection of property transcending cultural, national or religious divides, I go back to the ICRC website where it states:

As far as principles are concerned, cultural property is to be respected and protected in its own right, as part of humanity’s common heritage and irrespective of the cultural tradition to which it belongs. The protection of such property therefore transcends cultural, national or religious divides.

This is found in the preamble from the 1954 convention. It continues:

The High Contracting Parties [...] convinced that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world—

Two questions remain: Does the protection of cultural property fall under the heading of international humanitarian law? Should the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement concern itself with the matter?

Its response to that question was:

Let us start with the first question: Does the protection of cultural property fall under the heading of international humanitarian law? Of this there can be no doubt.The destruction of cultural property is not aimed just at the object in question. When a cultural object is destroyed, it is always people who are the real target. The object itself does not provoke hostility.

Conversely, by protecting cultural property, one is attempting to protect not only monuments and objects but also a people's memory, its collective consciousness and its identity, and indeed the memory, consciousness and identity of all the individuals who make up that people. Ultimately we do not exist outside of our families and the social framework to which we belong.

The reason I raise that particular issue is that in Canada the first nations, the first people in Canada, have been subjected to cultural appropriation that has in effect been an effort to destroy their culture, their heritage, their social framework and their history. When we are looking at sanctions for Canadians who go abroad and bring back cultural artifacts from places of conflict, it would behoove us to also consider the impact on the first nations people here in Canada.

The Assembly of First Nations in July 1999 actually passed a motion asking for repatriation of first nations cultural property. I will not read the preamble, but the motion states in part:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Assembly Of First Nations Re-Affirm The Importance Of Cultural Properties To First Nation Cultures;

And BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT The Assembly Of First Nations Approve The Efforts To Locate Items Of Cultural, Spiritual And Historical Value That Have Been Removed From The First Nations;

And BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT The Chiefs-In-Assembly Hereby Endorse And Support The Efforts Of First Nations In The Repatriation Of Cultural Properties Currently Held In Foreign And Domestic Institutions.

My colleague from the Bloc talked about the importance of domestic policy when we are looking at repatriation of artifacts or when we are looking at protecting our own artifacts in Canada. This is a very good example of why it is absolutely critical that we look at it in a domestic context as well as in the foreign context.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we have a number of very proud first nations people. I want to speak specifically about the Cowichan people and the Hul'qumi'num treaty group which consists of a number of first nations including Chemainus, Cowichan, Halalt, Lake Cowichan, Lyackson and Penelakut. These first nations people have peopled the area for thousands and thousands of years. The six chiefs have agreed to a case study that looks at the kinds of cultural artifacts and cultural issues around repatriation. They are going to be exploring customary laws, traditions and rules about sacred and historically significant places, artifacts and human remains. In addition, they will be contributing to broader project objectives which are specifically designed to help Hul'qumi'num treaty group in better understanding and protecting their heritage sites and objects for future generations.

The Cowichan people have been involved with some of the people from Washington State in attempting to repatriate artifacts that are held in museums throughout the world. Currently the repatriation office of the National Museum of Natural History is looking at detailed reports in response to travel repatriation requests that summarize all the available information in its collections.

I have to wonder why it is that we continue to ask first nations communities to continue to struggle to repatriate their artifacts. Part of the challenge is that some of the museums have said to the first nations communities that they cannot give them their artifacts back unless they stick them in a museum. These are historical sacred objects that are critical to the ceremonial life of the community. It should be up to the community to determine whether or not those artifacts should be stuck in museums or whether they should become part of the ceremonial and sacred life within a community.

Potlatches are a good example. Way back people took artifacts that were used in potlatches. They were part of the ceremonial and spiritual life and they were taken out of Canada. They reside in museums throughout the world. Now when first nations communities ask for them back so that they can use them in their potlatch ceremonies, they are told they cannot have them back if they are actually going to use the artifacts. Surely it should be within the first nations people's right to determine how they are used.

When we are talking about repatriation, I would urge members to consider repatriation in the Canadian context as well.

I will close on that note. I encourage members in further discussions to consider the fact that our first nations people deserve a voice at the table when we are talking about repatriation of articles. We should not only be looking at the foreign issues.

[Health, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister promises there will be action on wait times before December 31, MPs have waited and waited for the results of a 1996 cohort study on the safety of silicone breast implants.

The minister is only now trying to get permission from the provinces to release this study. How can we trust the deadline on wait times if we are still waiting for the results of a study finished in 2000?

What has the minister done to expedite the release of the cohort study on silicone breast implants?

[Pay Equity, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued its decision and upheld the Public Service Alliance of Canada's 22 year old pay equity complaint against Canada Post.

The decision states that Canada Post has violated the law and must pay compensation. Within minutes of the decision being reviewed, Canada Post filed for judicial review. The length of time it will take to resolve this complaint could easily pass the quarter century mark. This is a disgrace.

It is a disgrace that women workers in the federal sector have had to fight for over 20 years for money that they are entitled to by law and it is a disgrace that there is no federal pay equity legislation.

The NDP is calling on the Liberal government to stop forcing women to fight for decades for economic equality and introduce proactive pay equity legislation immediately.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has asked for the legislation. The government's own task force on pay equity has asked for the legislation. Where is the legislation?

[Co-op Week, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark Credit Union Day, celebrated during Co-op Week 2005. Credit unions give people more control over there financial services.

As a social democratic party the NDP has a natural affinity with the co-operative movement. We share the vision of greater power for Canadians over their economic lives. The 9,500 co-ops and credit unions in Canada are worth over $175 billion and employ over 150,000 people. Yet this sector does not receive the attention it deserves from the federal government.

For example, the co-operative development initiative will provide $15 million over five years. That is only $3 million a year for a sector that serves 10 million Canadians.

It is time for the federal government to give this important sector the attention it deserves and create a ministry for co-ops and community economic development. The power of cooperation is strong in Canada and I ask all members of the House to join with me in celebrating Co-op Week.

[Health, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister may not have a problem with the NDP but the NDP and Canadians have a problem with the government's money-for-nothing federalism.

The NDP is ready to sit down and come up with new rules to stop private health care's growth any time. We need new rules because the Liberals do not have any. There is not one word to stop private health care. So much for the Prime Minister's fight for his life.

Is the minister willing to sit down with me and write new rules to stop private health care, yes or no?

[Pay Equity, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has received a response from the government on pay equity legislation and women across the country are outraged.

The Liberals have yet again decided to study and consult. They want to explore the relationship between pay equity and collective bargaining, which all women know is Liberal code for putting pay equity on the bargaining table. Women are insulted.

The pay equity task force studied and consulted for years. It held public hearings around the country. There were five multi-stakeholder round tables, 29 external research reports and more than 50 written submissions. It heard from hundreds of witnesses and held a symposium with scholars and experts.

The end result was a 500 page report with a clear plan of action for proactive federal pay equity legislation. Over and over again the Liberals refer to pay equity as a fundamental human right, yet every day women continue to earn less, challenge their employers in court and wait for legislation.

What is human or right about that? Where is the legislation?

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that both the Canadian Labour Congress and the Public Service Alliance support the bill with the amendments that are before the House, so that it does report back to Parliament, and that there be more objectivity in the bill. It is with those amendments that I understand that the employees and the Canadian Labour Congress are supporting the bill as it stands.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I think that the member is absolutely right. What we have seen is the fact that a minority Parliament can actually produce results and it was only because it was a minority Parliament did we get the kind of legislation that is actually going to protect whistleblowers in Canada.

I also appreciate the fact that revisiting legislation time after time without results is counterproductive. We always talk about efficiency, productivity, transparency and using our resources appropriately, yet when we keep resurfacing bills without getting on with them, it does not speak to anything that is efficient or a good use of resources.

Transparency is a really important aspect of this and I did not get a chance to talk about a 1996 report that Health Canada commissioned. If we want to talk about transparency and repeat business, Health Canada commissioned a report in 1996 on silicon gel breast implants that still has not seen the light of day. I hope we get more action on Bill C-11 than we have in previous bills.