Jim Maloway

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to many of the speeches today, I have the impression that the whole issue of rights surfaced around the year 1982 and the ascension of Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal government.

However, to add more balance to the debate, we have to look back to 1947 when Tommy Douglas introduced the Saskatchewan bill of rights and all the activities that led to that and after that with John Diefenbaker, who was also from Saskatchewan, introducing the national Bill of Rights when he was the prime minister of Canada. So we are getting the impression that somehow this issue only surfaced after 1982, when in fact it was an issue long before--

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the history of human rights in this country.

On April 1, 1947, under the leadership of CCF premier Tommy Douglas, Saskatchewan became the first province in Canada to introduce a bill of rights. That decision of Tommy Douglas' inspired John Diefenbaker, who was from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, influenced him and led him to bring in the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. That part of history is not well known. In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses brought a petition to Parliament containing 625,000 signatures in 1947. This demonstrates that all the activity in this area is not just recent; it goes back a long way.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much Hansard caught of my last question but I did want to follow up and explain it in a little more detail.

Historically speaking, in 1947 the CCF government of Tommy Douglas passed a Saskatchewan bill of rights, which was the beginning of the bill of rights. That and John Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960 were inspired by the Jehovah's Witnesses who were fighting battles of religious freedom. They had established a number of libertarian precedents before Canada's highest courts.

In addition, in 1949, they launched a national campaign for the enactment of a bill of rights. On June 9, 1947, they presented a petition to Parliament with 625,510 signatures, which, I would say is pretty amazing given the rural nature of Canada at the time. That inspired John Diefenbaker, who later became prime minister, to introduce the national bill of rights that he introduced at the time.

The point is that the historical record would indicate that it all started in Saskatchewan under the CCF and that John Diefenbaker was inspired by that because he came from Prince Albert and became prime minister—

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to follow up on my last question to the member for Leeds—Grenville, as well, but I know the member can answer any question that is thrown his way.

The fact of the matter is that Saskatchewan, under Premier Tommy Douglas, the CCF leader, on April 1, 1947, was the first jurisdiction in Canada to pass a bill of rights act, and we assume because John Diefenbaker, later to become prime minister of Canada, was from Saskatchewan he would be certainly aware of the application of this law in Saskatchewan.

However, interestingly enough, during that period there was a campaign brought on by the Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada. They popularized the idea of the Canadian Bill of Rights that John Diefenbaker eventually brought in because they established numerous libertarian precedents before Canada's highest courts. In 1949, the Jehovah's Witnesses launched a national campaign for the enactment of a bill of rights. On June 9, 1947, they presented a petition to Parliament with 625,510 signatures. And that is very interesting because that amount of people in those days, when people lived on farms, would be an amazing number. Anyway, I asked the--

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my comments can be taken as comments or as a question, if the member wants to respond.

The fact is in Saskatchewan, on April 1, 1947, the CCF government of Tommy Douglas introduced the Saskatchewan bill of rights act, which was Canada's first general law prohibiting discrimination. It affirms the fundamental freedoms that Canadians now take for granted. It prohibits discrimination on account of race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin. It prohibits discrimination with respect to accommodation, employment, occupation and education. It prohibits publications that are likely to deprive someone of his or her legal rights on account of race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin.

That was the legislation in Saskatchewan on April 1, 1947. The fact is John Diefenbaker was from Saskatchewan, and 13 years later, in 1960, as the Conservative prime minister, he introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights, the precursor of what is now the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have much more to say about this subject, but could the member take that idea and move forward on it to demonstrate that human rights are just not the purview of the Liberal Party, that they go back a long way, starting with the CCF in Saskatchewan and then John George Diefenbaker as Conservative prime minister of Canada?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his presentation on the Liberal opposition day motion. The member knows that the charter applies only to government laws and action, not to private activity. In Quebec, the Quebec charter of rights from 1976 does apply to private activity. I just wonder whether there is a problem with that. Does the member feel that private activity should have been included in our national charter?

[Petitions, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my petition has been signed by dozens of Canadians to end Canada's involvement in Afghanistan.

In May 2008, Parliament passed a resolution to withdraw forces by July 2011. The Prime Minister, with agreement from the Liberal Party, broke his oft repeated promise to honour the parliamentary motion.

Committing 1,000 soldiers to a training mission still presents a danger to our troops and an unnecessary expense when our country is faced with a $56 billion deficit. The military mission has cost Canadians more than $18 billion so far, money that could have been used to improve health care and seniors' pensions right here in Canada. Polls show that a clear majority of Canadians do not want Canada's military presence to continue after the scheduled removal date of 2011. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Prime Minister to honour the will of Parliament and bring the troops home now.

[National Holocaust Monument Act, December 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-442. I am very happy with the resolution of the bill thus far, although there have been some hiccups along the way. The last time I heard debate in this House on this particular bill, it was quite acrimonious, as I recall, but things seem to have calmed down.

At the outset, I want to give thanks to the Conservative MP for Edmonton—Sherwood Park. He is the sponsor of the bill and, having done this before, I know there is an awful lot of work involved in getting a bill like this together. I recognize that the original impetus for this started elsewhere, but he carried the ball and took it this far, through what we saw during the last go-round here. It is surprising that we are all still standing after the battles involving this bill.

In the beginning, we have Ms. Laura Grossman from Toronto, I believe, but who is a student here in Ottawa. She is actually the originator of the idea. She evidently went to her member of Parliament, who was in the cabinet of the government two or three years ago, and got him onside, and then of course he got the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park onside, because he was unable to introduce private members' bills.

There is a great amount of thanks and gratitude owed to Ms. Grossman, because she is a younger person and is going to carry on the fights long after we are gone. She is a full-time student at the University of Ottawa, a fourth year honours student in public administration with a minor in Jewish studies, and she has been working on this idea now for at least two years, maybe three years now. Congratulations to her for at least recognizing something that no one else did. This memorial probably should have been built many years ago, and it took a young person to recognize the need, to think it through and to push the idea through her member of Parliament and on to another member of Parliament. We should all wish that more young people would be inspired to take on projects like that and drive ideas like that forward.

It has been mentioned by others here that Canada is the only allied nation without a Holocaust monument in its national capital, which also came as a bit of a surprise to me. The former member for Winnipeg North, in her speech to this bill on December 8, 2009, which goes to show how long we have been debating this bill, gave us a list of other memorials that exist around the world. She had indicated that there is a Holocaust museum in Jerusalem. There is the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam. I think we have all heard of Anne Frank. We certainly studied Anne Frank when we were in public school. There is the Auschwitz Jewish Centre in Poland, the Austrian Holocaust Memorial Service, the Beth Shalom Holocaust centre in England, the Holocaust Memorial Center in Budapest, the Cape Town Holocaust Centre in South Africa, the Dallas Holocaust Museum and Center for Education and Tolerance, the Forest of the Martyrs in Jerusalem, the Ghetto Fighters' House museum in Israel and the Holocaust project in Detroit. There are many other monuments to the Holocaust.

This is not a lengthy bill but there are some interesting provisions, and I think there was some confusion out there about the provisions of the bill. I had the privilege and pleasure of travelling to Israel. I am due for another visit, because it was in December of 1986, 24 years ago now. It was a very inspiring visit that I made there. I was there only a week.

I was amazed to see the progress made by Israel in turning deserts into productive lands and cultivating crops in the middle of the desert.

We had the privilege of visiting a kibbutz. We went to the Ein Gedi Spa, where I had my first sulphur and mud baths. I would recommend those to anybody who goes to Israel. Visiting Israel was a very inspiring experience, albeit 24 years ago.

With respect to the provisions Bill C-442, we are dealing now with the amended version. The bill is an act to establish a national holocaust monument. The preamble reads:

Whereas there is no public monument to honour all of the victims and Canadian survivors of the Holocaust in the National Capital Region;

Whereas Hitler’s plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe led to the murder of six million men, women and children;

Whereas the Nazis sought to eliminate vulnerable groups such as disabled persons, the Roma and homosexuals in their bid to establish the hegemony of the Aryan race;

Whereas it is important to ensure that the Holocaust continues to have a permanent place in our nation’s consciousness and memory;

Whereas we have an obligation to honour the memory of Holocaust victims as part of our collective resolve to never forget;

I might remind members that the number of victims is diminishing every year as they age. It continues:

Whereas the establishment of a national monument shall forever remind Canadians of one of the darkest chapters in human history and of the dangers of state-sanctioned hatred and anti-Semitism;

And whereas a national monument shall act as a tool to help future generations learn about the root causes of the Holocaust and its consequences in order to help prevent future acts of genocide;

The bill then goes on to describe how the monument would be structured and how it would be set up. What was contemplated by the member who sponsored the bill was that we were to set up a development council established by the minister under clause 4 and directed as such by the minister to form a legal entity in order to properly manage the functions and ensure good governance and accountability of said council.

The idea is to involve people in the community, not only in the organization by forming the committee, but also to do fundraising, as I understand it, to help build the monument. Within one year after the coming into force of the act, the minister is to establish a council to be referred to as the national Holocaust monument development council, composed of not more than five members. The minister is to hold an open application process whereby members of the public who possess a strong interest in, connection to or familiarity with the Holocaust must apply to the minister to become a council member.

In reading these provisions, all of this sounds very reasonable. How could anybody have any fight with these provisions? Yet we have seen that happen.

The members of the council are not allowed to be paid any remuneration for acting as council members. The minister is also supposed to:

(a) oversee the planning and design of the Monument;

(b) choose a suitable area of public land in the National Capital Region for the Monument to be located; and

(c) hold public consultations and take into account the recommendations of the public when making any decision under paragraph (a) or (b).

That, too, is an absolutely reasonable requirement.

The minister shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the monument and the council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to support the costs, planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the monument and any other costs incurred by the council.

I have a question about that. There seems to be a conflict here because it said that the council should be spearheading the fundraising campaign, but then, further on, it indicates that the minister has the option. There is nothing to prevent the minister from contributing funds for the costs of exactly the same things, planning—

[Criminal Code, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his introduction of what is now Bill C-30.

I was looking at the Supreme Court of Canada decision made in October 2006 and, as the Liberal member pointed out, it has been over four years now that the government has let this situation deteriorate. The parliamentary secretary just explained that it had to go through some procedures, but a proroguing of the House also delayed matters. The fact is that during all of this time there have been many cases that have passed by us by virtue of the government's delaying.

Does the member have any accounting of how many missed cases have gone by now because of this delay of over four years?

[Safer Railways Act, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member time to finish his thoughts because this is not the first time he has spoken about the relocation of railway lines in Winnipeg. He has fought this issue for at least a decade.

Where does he see the rail yards being relocated to? Not only are there rail yards in his constituency but there are rail yards in the Transcona area as well. He seems to suggest that they should be around the airport and I agree with him that the transportation hub would have to be concentrated around the new expansion of the airport.

What is his vision on where the rail yards in his area should be relocated to as well as the rail yards in the Elmwood—Transcona, if at all?