Megan Leslie

[Sébastien's Law (protecting the public from violent young offenders), May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-4, which would make certain changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh spoke about this bill last week. He noted that as a society we have been struggling since about 1960 with this idea of what to do with young people when they are engaged with the criminal justice system. Do we treat them as youth, which is different than adult criminals? Yes, we should, but at the same time we have to recognize that they are not adults even though they commit similar offences as adults. We have been struggling with this for a few decades.

In 2002 the House of Commons passed Bill C-7, which replaced the old YOA, the Young Offenders Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act built on the strengths of the YOA. It introduced significant reforms to address the weaknesses. The key concept of the YCJA is that it provides a legislative framework for a more fairer and effective youth justice system.

When I was a law student at Dalhousie, I did a clinical law semester where I was expected to work with lawyers on youth criminal cases. One of the very first things that we did in our training was we reviewed the preamble and the declaration of principle to the YCJA. Our instructors thought that reviewing the preamble was the most important thing that we could do. We would always have it in the back of our minds when we were dealing with youth, when we were giving them advice, when we were negotiating with the Crown, and when we were representing them in court.

The preamble contains significant statements from Parliament about the values on which the legislation is based. It is noteworthy that the YCJA came about after extensive research and consultation. Three key reports were released leading up to the YCJA coming into effect.

These statements in the preamble can be used to help interpret the legislation. I think it is useful for us to review them. They include the following:

Society has a responsibility to address the developmental challenges and needs of young persons.

Communities and families should work in partnership with others to prevent youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, responding to the needs of young persons and providing guidance and support.

Accurate information about youth crime, the youth justice system and effective measures should be publicly available.

Young persons have rights and freedoms, including those set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The youth justice system should take account of the interests of victims and ensure accountability through meaningful consequences and rehabilitation and reintegration.

The youth justice system should reserve its most serious interventions for the most serious crimes and reduce the over-reliance on incarceration.

These points are important to remember when dealing with youth who are engaged in the criminal justice system. They are also really important for us to consider any time we try to make changes to the YCJA. We have changes before us in Bill C-4, changes that really come from a push for amendments, a push for reform after the Nunn commission of inquiry which took place in Nova Scotia.

Pretty much every Nova Scotian could tell us the story of Theresa McEvoy and how it resulted in a provincial inquiry led by Justice Merlin Nunn. It was widely reported and it really struck to the heart of Nova Scotians.

After an extensive inquiry upon the death of Theresa McEvoy, Justice Nunn handed down a report in 2006 called “Spiralling Out of Control: Lessons Learned from a Boy in Trouble”. It was about constructive ways to improve the Youth Criminal Justice Act but also to improve the youth criminal justice system. I believe there were six specific recommendations about changing the YCJA.

Justice Nunn, both in the report and in any media interview he did, would always say that the act is a good piece of legislation. It is strong and it is workable. The term he used constantly was that it needed to be tweaked. My colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe used the word “tinker”. Justice Nunn always said that if we were going to make changes it just needs to be tweaked.

Bill C-4 is an attempt at that tweaking. The NDP will be supporting this bill because there are some good tweaks. There are some good attempts at trying to fix this legislation, which I will describe in a moment.

We very much want the bill to get to committee because Bill C-4 does have its weaknesses. It is important that we make attempts to improve the bill at committee.

Justice Nunn pointed out in his report:

--that for youths adolescence is a time of testing limits and taking risks, of making mistakes and errors in judgment, of a lack of foresight and planning, and of feelings of invulnerability. These factors do not mean that a youth who commits a criminal offence should be excused or should not suffer consequences. Rather, they are factors to be taken into account when dealing with a youth.

I think that the spirit of these words were taken into account when it comes to one provision in Bill C-4, in that it makes certain and absolutely clear that no youth, no matter what crime they are accused of or convicted of and sentenced for will spend time in an adult institution.

Some provinces have already been following this principle but it is not universal across Canada. Sometimes it is because a province has a particular ideological approach to punishment of youth but more often it is simply because it does not have the resources or the facilities to incarcerate youth in a contained setting, especially when we consider rural areas of Canada.

The government has not done anything to assist provinces in actually meeting this goal. So it is my hope that the witnesses at committee will be able to shed a bit of light on what it is that the federal government must do to ensure that the provinces can meet this requirement.

However, there is no specific date concerning this provision. Therefore, there is nothing there to instruct us on when it is going to come into effect. Hopefully, we can fix this so that we do not have a bill that will actually not take effect.

A change to the YCJA, about which I am very concerned, is the provision to allow courts to lift the ban on any publication of the accused's name. There are good reasons why we have that publication ban. Admittedly, I think this could be a very dangerous change to the YCJA, but I am looking forward to hearing from witnesses to see what experts who study youth justice have to say about this provision and if they think this change is a wise idea.

My colleague and the NDP critic for justice, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has already pointed out some problem areas where it looks like the government is trying to get in stronger language for general deterrence and denunciation, which we know does not work. However, when one looks at the amendments to the act overall, there are a few places where it seems like it is trying to get this language in through the backdoor, trying to get general deterrence in through the back door. There are six recommendations in the Nunn report that deal directly with changes to the YCJA. Deterrence and denunciation are not among them.

I am quite concerned about these sections and once again, I look forward to the bill coming to committee so we can talk to youth criminal justice experts to see if this is actually effective and perhaps flesh out exactly what the Conservatives are doing with this sort of backdoor language.

In all, we are cautiously supporting Bill C-4 at second reading, so we can get the bill to committee to hear from witnesses about these proposed changes to the YCJA and to make constructive suggestions for improvement.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to shed some light on some of the statistics the member quoted. It is not just about the numbers. Those are real people. What happens when those people are denied? I can tell everyone what happens. They come to my office desperate to figure out what they can do next.

Luckily, in Halifax we have an incredibly supportive community. The community has been rallying around a lot of these people trying to figure out a solution. These are real people.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for clarifying the position on some of what I said.

The minister talked about people being treated differently depending on the country of origin. There is a question of whether it passes the smell test. Some countries are deemed okay and other countries are not. We have to wonder if any nuance will be available for claimants. We have to wonder if any special circumstances are available for consideration.

Refugee determination requires an assessment of each case, not group judgments. I see the minister nodding. If that is the case in this bill, then we welcome that kind of situation, but the way we are reading this, it certainly is not clear.

I thank the minister for his clarification of the numbers, that it is not a quota but a prediction, and I accept that. However, we come back to the 25,000 who were accepted last year and the prediction is only 9,000 for next. We are left wondering what is going on and how this is happening.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canada purports to be a champion of human rights and in many respects it is, but there are failings in Canada's system and one of those areas is the refugee determination system. Now is the opportunity to fix those failings. Now is the opportunity to improve.

Refugees are not just people in need, they are people. They are part of our history, part of our present and part of our future. The life stories of refugees are informative, not only of injustices around the world but of injustices that occur here in Canada with a bureaucracy that can and should be more responsive, more sensitive, more accommodating and more reasonable to the situations in which refugees find themselves.

Who are refugee claimants? They are people who are often fleeing dangerous situations which often are political and sometimes are societal. They seek fairness and justice for themselves and for their families, the kind of fairness we sometimes take for granted here in Canada.

Canada is an extremely wealthy country, a stable country and a country built on human rights principles. Our refugee system is one of the ways we can actually demonstrate to the world that we can be leaders in establishing a fast and fair system. We should hope that our system is duplicated around the world and not derided.

What we need is a streamlined system that avoids backlogs and makes the right decision the first time based on individual merits and without unnecessary rules. We need a system that truly recognizes it is deciding the future of someone's life and which represents our domestic human rights policies to claimants.

New Democrats have a history of advocating for a better determination system, a system that is fast and fair. We need more independence in the system. One way to do this is to use an independent appointment commissioner to hire Immigration and Refugee Board members. Board members should really have relevant expertise. We need to clear the backlog that exists, and we can do this by hiring more refugee officers.

Time after time we see inconsistent decisions being handed down. There is too much discretion in rejecting claims and not enough discretion in accepting claims. We need to create an appeal division that uses law and fact in order to make consistent decisions.

Refugee hearings have been tainted by bad advice from dodgy immigration consultants. These consultants, as we heard earlier in this House, should no longer be invited to the Immigration and Refugee Board hearing room. We should have the resources that allow for proper and fair representation of claimants and provide them with legal aid.

The bottom line is that we should empower refugee claimants, not stigmatize them. How we treat refugee claimants is indicative of the values our country espouses. In a country built on the backs of people from around the globe, our policies should reflect those values of democracy, fairness, human rights and a minimum standard of care and concern for the lives of others.

Here is some interesting and telling context with respect to the contributing causes of our current claimant backlog. The government has greatly contributed to this problem. The concern it shows now is actually pretty late in the game, although we are encouraged by the concern it is showing.

After the election in January 2006, the government, for murky political reasons, stopped most appointments to the IRB and left many vacancies. This was a system that already had many problems, so it is no wonder that over four years later we have an even bigger problem, a problem that could have been prevented. Let us not kid ourselves; change has only been because of a report of the Auditor General. The report said that the system was flawed, was failing claimants and ultimately, it was failing Canadians.

In 2005 when there were more officers, Canada accepted 25,000 refugee claimants living here. For 2010, the minister is proposing to accept only 9,000 refugees in Canada. To fix a backlog that has been created, the government is proposing to use rejection of applications as a means to meet its targets. Simply put, this is a travesty of human rights.

This refugee reform bill is flawed.

The first flaw is the safe countries list which creates two classes of refugees, those with the right to appeal and those without. Where do we find the fairness in that? We should not let this type of inequality exist in a document that demonstrates our human rights system to the world. The safe countries list ignores the reality of things like gender-based discrimination and sexual orientation-based claimants. It is discriminatory. It is likely that many countries we deem as safe will fail a human rights test based on those two categories alone.

Equality rights have been struck from the immigration guide. Changes to the procedure of the refugee claim process should not follow suit.

The safe country rule discriminates from the get-go, and it does not take reality into account. A safe country is not prima facie safe for all of its citizens. The concept that a safe country exists ignores research, social study and first person accounts.

The second major flaw is that the first hearing is not done by people with any independence to the department or minister. Further to this procedural unfairness, which we have gone to great lengths to prevent domestically, is the limitation of access to pre-removal risk assessment within the first year after a refugee claim is denied. The result of this is that most denied claimants will be deported before having access to the risk assessment, as it takes close to two years to have that assessment decision, and this is unacceptable. We cannot have one type of legal or procedural system for Canadians and another for non-Canadians. It is unfair, it is negligent and it is contrary to our human rights codes.

There are several amendments that would make Bill C-11 more suited to the actual needs faced by refugees. The NDP is making proposals that are in the interests of claimants and which respect human rights and procedural fairness.

Those amendments include things like all refugee claimants should have access to the refugee appeal division. We need to remove the provision for the safe countries of origin in keeping with our human rights regime within Canada. Each individual's circumstances are unique and we should respect that. At minimum, the process for determining a safe country of origin should be streamlined and should reflect the realities of people from marginalized communities living in tolerant majorities.

Currently, some claimants can be removed before a PRRA decision is made. This should be stopped and the process should be speeded up from two years to six months. We need to review and provide an independent evaluation of the legislative changes after three years' implementation, and these results should be sent to CIMM and refugee advocates for discussion.

I would like to conclude with a few thoughts. Certainly, New Democrats support efforts to make refugee determinations happen expeditiously, absolutely, but the current plan that has been brought forward is insufficient and we do need those amendments. The plan does not reflect the realities of being a refugee claimant, nor does it adequately reflect that Canada's human rights regime is one of the best in the world, and for a reason: We do not purport to treat people in this country differently just because they are not citizens yet. That is why people want to come here. That is why Canada is seen as a land of equality and freedom.

Our refugee system should be entrenched in those values, the same values that keep me and my colleagues in the House safe every day. We are not a country of double standards or hierarchy and we cannot tolerate it in any of our legislation.

There are flaws in Bill C-11, but I believe we can make this bill better with amendments. I believe we can make it better for the reasons I have outlined, so I look forward to seeing it at committee.

[Climate Change Accountability Act, April 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, we are at a critical point where we need to confront climate change head on but we are also at a critical point where we as a country can seize this moment and see it as an opportunity.

My friends across the House have tried to scare Canadians into believing that committing to reducing greenhouse gases will be bad for jobs, bad for communities and bad for the economy. They are very carefully constructing a culture of fear. We know this has to be a fear campaign because making a commitment to fight climate change is actually an opportunity.

It is an opportunity to grow our economy, to foster innovation and to be leaders when it comes to research and development of renewables, energy efficiency and other green technologies. We know historically that certain technologies have created waves of innovation and that if nations can position themselves strategically within these dynamics, they will achieve economic performance.

The moment is happening right now. This is a period of change when new technologies break through. An event like this is an opportunity to position Canada for the next wave of innovation and the next wave will be one based on ecologically friendly technologies. It needs to be if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change and it will be because we are seeing governments take bold action around the world. This is where Canada should be: building new knowledge and expertise and encouraging entrepreneurship.

I am one of the younger members of the House. Not many of us are under the age of 40 and we have only two members under the age of 30. That means that we often talk about subjects that leave out youth and we leave out subjects that youth often talk about. We talk about pensions all the time but when do we talk about post-secondary education, about jobs for youth or the fact that the next generation is the generation that will inherit a planet on the verge of catastrophic climate change?

This is a matter of intergenerational equity. Our governments are making decisions that those decision makers do not have to live with. We are being left with the legacy of those decisions: a crumbling education system, scraps of a social safety net and a poisoned planet. Young Canadians deserve better than this. All Canadians deserve better than this and Canadians want better than this.

One of the most exciting things about this bill has been that it has captured the hearts and minds of Canadians. Since this bill was introduced, I have been getting emails and phone calls non-stop from people asking how they can help to get this bill passed. The result has been such an incredible demonstration of what democracy is all about.

I have been cc'd on letters to the Prime Minister and opposition members asking for swift passage of this bill. I have read countless letters to the editor by concerned constituents. I have attended panel presentations, workshops and information sessions hosted by concerned citizens and grassroots organizations, all of whom are trying to educate their neighbours about this bill and are working together as a community to try and get it passed. I have been a part of marches, candlelight vigils and church services, all in the name of Bill C-311.

Change happens when a variety of communities work together to demand it. We need lawyers to challenge unjust laws. We need artists to tell our stories. We need organizations mobilizing communities around issues. We need citizens writing letters to the editor. We need street theatre, protest songs, articles, chants, teach-ins, policy debates and film screenings, and we need elected officials introducing good legislation, raising the level of debate and speaking the truth. I support Bill C-311 because it speaks the truth.

[Bill C-3--Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, April 27th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He is the chair of the committee and welcomed me warmly.

Yes, I agree. I get it; I know what this means. We were going to strike this down. The government needs to act. We need a new provision. That all makes complete sense to me. We need to act. I am in agreement with the member on that point, but here we go. Time me: “(c.2) that person is a child born after September 4, 1951 and before April 17, 1985 of a parent entitled to be registered under section 6(1)(c.1)”. Done, there it is. That is actually all we need to do to make this better.

I am all for an exploratory session on many of the things that need to change about the Indian Act, but if we are going to vote on Bill C-3, why can this piece not be in there to effectively address gender discrimination in the act? It is not onerous. It is not really time consuming. How long did that take me, 30 seconds?

We know what the answer is. I do not understand what is happening. It is to be stubborn and to have one's head in the sand not to see the opportunity to at least do this.

Note that we do not have a motion about section 9. Note that we do not have a motion about addressing the lack of funding that would be necessary to process applications. We do not have motions about those things. Let us have an exploratory process about those things. I do not even know if section 9 would stand up to a charter challenge, to be frank.

We are just talking about one simple tiny passage that could change everything and prevent what would be more injustice for women under the Indian Act and exacerbate the historical injustice they have already faced.

[Bill C-3--Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, April 27th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to expand the scope of Bill C-3 so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

There are a few problems with Bill C-3. For example, it attempts in section 9 to take away the right to sue. It is a bit problematic. Some witnesses came forward and said we really need to look at this section again.

Quite a number of witnesses are concerned about the fact that there may not be resources to process applications in a timely way. We saw that when Bill C-31 was enacted. That is another area where there is a bit of a problem, and we need to look at it.

The motion we are speaking to deals directly with the fact that under Bill C-3 there is still gender discrimination, despite the government's attempt to address gender discrimination as a response to the McIvor decision. The Assembly of First Nations made a good comment specifically about this. It said that this legislation would defer discrimination to one or two generations later. It would entrench differential treatment of women.

The AFN is also concerned with other problems, like increased financial pressure, the creation of divisions within some communities and families, and declining status.

Let me get back to the motion before us. The AFN has been very clear that Bill C-3 would not adequately deal with the differential treatment of women.

Permit me to give the House a quick overview of this situation.

This stems from a case that Sharon McIvor brought forward. Ms. McIvor was born in 1948 and was not a registered Indian. She married a non-Indian in 1970. Ms. McIvor did not believe she was entitled to status under the Indian Act, but regardless she would have lost her right to status under the Indian Act when she married a non-Indian.

When Bill C-31 came into force in 1985, Ms. McIvor applied for Indian status on behalf of herself and her children. This was an incredibly long process, but after many years she obtained Indian status. But her son Jacob Grismer was not able to pass his status on to his children because his wife was not a status Indian. Mr. Grismer and Ms. McIvor challenged the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act on the basis that the status provisions contained residual discrimination based on sex. They won their case at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Even though they won their case, we still find ourselves standing here in the House of Commons debating what is essentially the same issue, residual discrimination based on sex.

Let us look at the government's response to the McIvor decision.

A really good presentation was done at committee by the Canadian Bar Association. It encapsulated the government's response.

The federal government scheduled several sessions with national and regional aboriginal organizations. It accepted written comments prior to the introduction of Bill C-3.

The government has now come up with this bill. There are quite few pieces, but the main amendment proposes the addition of section 6.(1)(c.1) to the Indian Act. It would provide status to any individual whose mother lost Indian status upon marrying a non-Indian man, whose father is a non-Indian, who was born after the mother lost Indian status before April 17, 1985 unless the individual's parents married each other prior to that date, and who had a child with a non-Indian on or after September 4, 1951.

The CBA pointed out, and it is a bit puzzling, that a woman would have to have a child for this to be triggered. It seems there is a bit of discrimination here based on family status because a woman would actually have to have a child to fall under this section of the act. This is a bit odd to say the least.

To look at what this actually does and what this actually means, we can go back to the CBA brief. It put together an excellent chart. Conceptually, this might be a hard thing to think about and navigate in the mind to understand what this means in reality. But it is not actually rocket science. It is pretty clear if we can wrap our heads around the concepts.

The CBA has put together this beautiful chart listing this proposed amendment by Bill C-3. It has two examples: Sharon McIvor, married to a non-Indian man, and a hypothetical brother who is married to a non-Indian woman. If we follow this chart down and see what happens to their children and grandchildren and whether or not they have status, with these changes proposed in Bill C-3, the bulk of the situations would be actually the same. That is great. There would not be any discrimination.

Her son, married to a non-Indian woman, has status. The son of the hypothetical brother married to a non-Indian woman has status. That is great. They are all on par there. Sharon's grandchild, born after 1985, has status. That is great. The hypothetical brother's grandchild, born after 1985, has status. Again, everything is on the up and up.

This is where it comes a bit off the rails. For Sharon McIvor's grandchild, born before 1985, there is no status and therefore continuing discrimination. However, the hypothetical brother has a grandchild born before 1985 too and that grandchild has status. We are not talking about strange, adverse effects, discrimination that is hard to figure out or differential impact. We are not talking about hidden discrimination. This is overt. If we follow the lineage, the grandchild of the brother gets status while the grandchild of the sister does not. It is pretty straightforward if we think about it that way.

I would like to read from a submission of the Grand Council of the Waban-Aki Nation. They put together a great submission about the siblings rule and give a different situation. We have Sharon McIvor, and they talk about a woman named Susan Yantha. Susan Yantha was born in 1954 from a common-law union between Clément O'bumsawin, an Abenaki affiliated with the community of Odanak, and Anita Paradis, a non-Indian. At the time of Susan's birth, the Indian registration rules did not allow for the registration of “illegitimate” daughters of an Indian father and a non-Indian mother.

At the beginning of the 1970s, Susan married a non-Indian with whom she had a daughter, Tammy. Born from non-status parents, Tammy obviously had no right to be registered in the Indian register at the time of her birth.

In 1985, the federal government adopted Bill C-31 in a stated effort to eliminate discriminatory registration rules from the Indian Act. Pursuant to the new rules, Susan only had a right to section 6(2) “non-transmissible status” because she only had one Indian parent, her father. As a result, her daughter Tammy had no right to be registered. It goes without saying that Tammy's daughter, now aged four, has no right to be registered either.

Let us compare Susan's situation and that of her descendants to that of a hypothetical brother of hers, born in the same circumstances, and the situation of his descendants. That brother, whom we will call Arthur, would have had the right to be registered at the time of his birth. While the Indian registration rules did not allow for the registration of “illegitimate” daughters of an Indian father and non-Indian mother, they did allow for the registration of their “illegitimate” sons.

If Arthur had married a non-Indian, as Susan did, his wife would have acquired Indian status by marriage. Had Arthur and his wife had a child at the same time as Tammy was born, that child would have had the right to Indian status as a legitimate child of a status male, but would have lost that status upon reaching the age of 21 years because of the double mother rule.

With Bill C-31, Arthur, his wife and their child would have each been conferred transmissible 6(1) status in 1985, the goal of Bill C-31 being also to preserve the “vested” rights of those who had Indian status at the time the new rules were introduced. As to Arthur's child, his status would have not only been preserved but also enhanced, since under the new rules he would have enjoyed status indefinitely, not only until the age of 21, and could have passed on his status.

As a result, the child of the child of Arthur, or Arthur's grandchild, would have the right to non-transmissible section 6(2) status. This blatantly discriminatory treatment was described by the Minister of Indian Affairs in a letter written to Susan Yantha in 2002. As I said, that was a submission of the Grand Council of the Waban-Aki Nation.

It is pretty obvious there is discrimination. Also, to be blunt, it is obvious there is a solution and it is right in front of us. There have not been changes to the Indian Act concerning this issue since 1985. This is the golden opportunity, in 2010, to make sure the act does not discriminate against any women who fall under the Indian Act. The solution that has been brought forward by government is so narrow in its scope that all it does is address the injustice in which Sharon McIvor found herself. What we are going to have to deal with 25 years from now is the injustice that the next Sharon McIvor in a different situation will have experienced.

I would like to talk about solutions. My colleague from Labrador talked about how at committee witness after witness has come forward and has said that they know how to fix this. Witness after witness has said that there are some problems with funding and how to process applications and there is a problem with section 9, but at the very least, can we at least get the discrimination piece right?

There was a submission made by LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. It has followed this case through its entire history. It made a submission to committee. LEAF confirms its support for an amendment that will achieve the goal of eliminating all forms of discrimination against aboriginal women and their descendants. LEAF submits that the committee has the jurisdiction to propose amendments to the bill to achieve this end and believes the committee has jurisdiction because the bill is very broad in its scope. LEAF stated, “It is an act 'to promote gender equity in Indian registration' by 'responding' to the BCCA”--B.C. Court of Appeal--“decision in McIvor. The response by government can and should be comprehensive and should fully eradicate any vestige of inequality in the determination of Indian status”.

That is pretty straightforward. LEAF does have a legal eye and calls into question whether or not the committee has the jurisdiction to deal with this issue. It is important that LEAF raised this. It says that if it does have the jurisdiction then this is what the committee should do, but of course, it talks as well about if there is not the jurisdiction. In the event that the committee determines it is beyond its scope to propose amendments to fully eliminate sex discrimination, LEAF submits that consistent with the submissions made by aboriginal women and their organizations, the bill should be withdrawn and a new bill which fully redresses the discrimination suffered by aboriginal women should be introduced.

I find that very interesting. I am in agreement with the idea that the committee does have the jurisdiction to amend it. We can amend, but if the committee finds it does not have that power, then why are we only responding to the very narrow situation in which Sharon McIvor found herself? Why are we waiting for the next court challenge to come down the pike to deal with the residual discrimination in the act?

On that note, Dr. Pamela Palmater, a Mi'kmaq woman from New Brunswick and also the chair of Ryerson University's study of indigenous governments made a submission to the committee. I would like to read part of her submission about the conclusion. She said:

Part of the problem with Bill C-3 is how to respect gender equality in practice and not just the law. Delayed equality is not full equality. Canada fought the McIvor case for over 20 years and now proposes a minimal amendment that would require another person like Sharon McIvor to spend another 25 years to seek gender equality on essentially the same facts. An undefined joint process that does not have a specific mandate, clear objectives or identified funding for widespread participation does not provide any real comfort that gender discrimination, or any discrimination, will be addressed any time soon.

On that point, we have heard from the parliamentary secretary several times about this process to which Ms. Palmater referred. There is nothing bad about this further exploration process. That is fabulous. Let us explore away. Let us come up with great ideas. Let us be visionary and think about the future.

We do not need to actually envision the future when it comes to this bill. We do not actually need to pull in the best ideas on how to make this bill better because they are already here. All of the best ideas were put forward in committee about how to actually address gender discrimination under this section of the Indian Act. It is stunning to me that we are not seizing this opportunity.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on committee either last week or two weeks ago when the Canadian Bar Association appeared. I read its recommendation. It even drafted the section for us on how we could make the bill better and stronger. Of course, when it made its submission and I saw the writing in black and white about how to change the act, I thought it was a great idea, that those CBA folks are pretty smart and thank goodness they came because now we are going to fix the bill. I certainly was wrong and I am surprised because I find it mind-boggling that we would not actually bring in that provision.

I want to read the end of Ms. Palmater's submission to the House:

Let's try to get it right this time - my children are counting on you to uphold Canada's commitment to gender equality and human rights both in the letter and in spirit.

That says a lot. Those are very heartfelt words from Ms. Palmater about what we need to do.

In conclusion, I strongly support this motion by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I am thrilled she brought it forward and applaud her for doing so. It was the smart thing to do and the right thing to do. I am completely baffled as to why we are not actually implementing the recommendations.

As my colleague from Labrador said, every single person who came forward in committee said this has to change and we can seize the moment and address gender discrimination. We are not doing it and I stand here wondering why. I hope my colleague is successful in this motion.

[Affordable Housing, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last August, the Conservative government asked Ascentum to organize consultations, write a report and develop a national strategy to address the problem of homelessness.

Now—surprise, surprise—this agency's main suggestions are the same as the solutions the NDP has identified in our Bill C-304.

Will the government follow the advice in the report it commissioned?

[April 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, a strategy is action. It would force the minister to develop a strategy and to act on it.

I would note that regarding the stakeholders that the government has put forward as being supportive of the stimulus spending, of course they are supportive of it. It was the first time we had seen money for housing for quite some time, but those same stakeholders actually testified at the hearings on Bill C-304. They have come out strongly in support of a national housing strategy.

They have come out strongly in support of Bill C-304. They have called upon Canada to honour its obligation when it signed, in 1976, onto the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, saying out loud to the world that there is a right to housing in this country. Yet, we have seen no action on it. These same stakeholders are calling on us to honour our international obligations.

A national housing strategy would provide for a more productive and healthier workforce. It would provide stability for countless adults and children. It would cement housing as a right.

Why does the government continue to resist our housing strategy?

[April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start this question to the government with a story. When I was a law student, I did a placement at Dalhousie Legal Aid Service doing poverty law work, and I worked with a lawyer on a case involving a young man who was involved in the criminal justice system.

Nova Scotia has an excellent restorative justice program for youth and this young man was diverted from court to a restorative justice contract where he had to fulfill certain obligations like going to school or doing volunteer work. This young man missed many of his restorative justice appointments. He was hardly ever at school. He did not even come close to completing his contract. He actually missed a court appearance and an arrest warrant was issued.

When we finally tracked him down, he did not have much to offer by way of why he could not complete his contract and he seemed resigned to the fact that he would go to jail. However, this was not the kid who we knew. This was not the kid who had made a mistake, had owned up to it and who was eager to learn from his mistake.

Eventually it came out that he and his mom had been kicked out of their apartment and they were homeless. They were couch surfing from friend's house to friend's house until she could scrape enough money together to put a down payment on a new apartment.

I think a lot about this young man, even now, years later. How was he supposed to go to school and concentrate on it when he did not have a home? How was he supposed to follow his bail conditions when he did not have a home? How was he supposed to concentrate on righting his wrongs when he did not have a home? How was he supposed to contribute positively to his community when he did not have a home?

This story is all too common. We know from a recent report of the Conference Board of Canada that 20% of Canadian households are not able to afford their housing. This means people are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. We know some Canadians spend 100% of their income on housing, forcing them to access food banks and soup kitchens in order to eat and to heat their homes with their ovens because they cannot afford heating. Heat is not a luxury, especially in a country like Canada; it is a necessity. Housing is not a luxury.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are on the brink of losing their homes. We need action. During this parliamentary session, we have the opportunity to set up a national framework that would ensure Canadians are housed. This is Bill C-304, which has been reported back to the House and awaits third reading.

This bill, introduced by my colleague from Vancouver East, would create a national housing strategy and would bring together all levels of government in order to set standards for housing across the country and ensure secure, accessible, affordable and sustainable housing for all Canadians.

The Conservatives claim they have already done enough. They cite stimulus money spent on housing as a sign that they are truly engaged in the issue. Every time we talk about housing in this place, they come back to the stimulus budget, but that is not a strategy. It is a piecemeal approach. It is visionless and it is not coordinated.

Two weeks ago we learned that only 300 housing units were promised to Inuit communities when we know the need was 1,000 units. We know what the solution is, so why should there be a shortage at all?

Time and time again the Conservatives defend their appalling record on housing. Despite having the opportunity to bring Canada in line with all other G8 countries, all those countries that have national housing strategies, they resist. They remain silent on their reasoning and they obfuscate on nothing more than ideological grounds, not based on social policy, on research, but on cementing an us versus them approach to Canadian politics.

Canadians want answers and they want solutions. They do not want their members of Parliament to refuse to see the woods for the trees. When will the government support our national housing strategy?