Pat Martin

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, for his sensitivity to this issue and for the way that he outlined the importance of culture and heritage in this context.

I would ask him if Bill S-37 does anything to address one of the most egregious examples of looting of cultural heritage and religious properties that has ever been known? The looting of the Iraq museum is second only perhaps to the property of the west coast Indian tribes in Canada, the Haida, and those tribes whose potlatch ceremonies were outlawed. Now there are huge efforts being made for the repatriation of these cultural and heritage properties.

Would the member agree with me, first of all, that the looting of these artifacts is an element of cultural genocide in this example and is there anything in Bill S-37 that will help with the repatriation of these artifacts, so that these societies can be made whole?

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 21st, 2005]

She took your spot in cabinet.

[Old Age Security Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-301 as put forward by my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

I want to begin by recognizing and paying tribute to the dedication and commitment that my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain has shown to this issue. He has been tireless and has not given up in the face of adversity. Where many would have tired from running into the brick wall, he has persisted, and I appreciate him giving us this opportunity to have this debate today.

As the member for Winnipeg Centre, I also want to recognize and pay tribute to a former member from my riding of Winnipeg Centre, who we can safely call the father of the Canadian pension system. In 1925 the member for Winnipeg Centre, J.S. Woodsworth, was the founder and first leader of my party, then called the CCF. In fact, in those days it was called the Independent Labour Party.

J.S. Woodsworth was in a minority government situation with William Lyon Mackenzie King. In exchange for supporting Mackenzie King's government, he obtained a letter to the effect that to get the Independent Labour Party's votes, Mackenzie King would bring in an old age pension plan.

It is ironic that only a few years before this, the Government of Canada wanted to send J.S. Woodsworth to prison for his role as a leader of the 1919 Winnipeg general strike. However, in 1921 the good people of my riding sent him to Ottawa to be their member of Parliament, and within four years he had negotiated a pension plan for Canadians.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention another member who represented the riding of Winnipeg Centre from 1942 to 1984. That was Stanley Knowles, who many people will recognize not only built on the work J.S. Woodsworth had done but had the Canada pension plan indexed so it would grow with inflation.

The people of Winnipeg Centre are very cognizant of who was the champion of their pension system. I think they would appreciate, in the twilight days of the 38th Parliament, that we are again seized of the issue of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, thanks to my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

The government has known for years that 380,000 seniors who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement were not getting it because they never applied. It knows this because of income tax records. It has known full well who these individuals were and even how much they were eligible for, but it never told them.

When we learned this, partly through the research of my colleague, we were shocked. These are the poorest of the poor. To be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, one's income has to be around $12,000 a year. That is to get the full income supplement. These are desperately poor seniors.

The excuse the government gave was it would be a violation of their privacy rights for Revenue Canada to inform HRSD that certain individuals were eligible for the plan. What an absurd notion that anyone would complain the government misused privileged information in order to give seniors a benefit.

A glaring contradiction exists. If people collecting employment insurance cross the border, the border crossing officer tells EI that these people are leaving the country and the individual should not be because they are collecting benefits. Therefore, the government does not mind violating a person's privacy to rat them out, but it will not violate a person's privacy to give them a benefit. That was absurd. I reject that position and I condemn the government for that position.

Now we have heard the parliamentary secretary, a Liberal from Montreal, say that one of the reasons the government does not want to provide the retroactivity that is called for in Bill C-301 is because the government is worried about opening the floodgates to fraud. Are the Liberals serious? Are they seriously trying to maintain that it is a bad idea to give seniors money that is rightfully theirs because they are worried about fraudulent activity?

These are desperately poor Canadian seniors. If that is the barrier, let me dismiss that out of hand immediately. The government should go back to the drawing board to try to come up with a more credible excuse because that one is spurious.

I do not think we should be having this debate today. I believe the two things that are called for by my colleague's bill are eminently justifiable. The first thing is that eligibility should be based on one's income, not on whether or not the proper paperwork has been filled out. In other words, the guaranteed annual income supplement should be guaranteed, not subject to crossing the right t 's and dotting the right i 's. That is the first point my colleague makes.

The second point he makes is retroactivity. In those cases where people come to the realization that they have been eligible for the guaranteed income supplement for a number of years and, for whatever reason, failed to apply, that benefit should be retroactive to the date they became eligible, not 11 months as stipulated under the Old Age Security Act. It may be three years or five years, who cares? We should give them what they are owed.

Members can just imagine what a difference that would make in a senior's life. Let us think of the constituents we are talking about here, the poorest of the poor of our Canadian seniors, the people the social safety net has left behind. Imagine that small influx of money. It may be $20,000 or $30,000 in some cases, if the retroactivity went a few years. It is not a huge amount of money but it would improve the quality of life for those seniors in their remaining years. It would seem like a windfall to them and it would not break the bank of the federal government, as my colleague, the Liberal member from Lachine, would have us believe.

Let us go through the barriers thrown up by the Liberal government in trying to argue against these eminently good ideas.

First are the privacy provisions. I put it to members that any senior who was eligible for a benefit and was not getting it would thank someone for informing the officials that they were eligible and would not be filing any complaints with the Privacy Commissioner that somebody violated their right to privacy.

In terms of worrying about fraud, I do not even think that deserves my time here. Eligible seniors would come forward and make it known that they were making application for this benefit and the government should deal with it as any other eligibility for a government program.

The last thing concerns the retroactivity being an undue burden on the federal government. We have just learned it has a $13.5 billion surplus. Liberals are flying around the country as we speak in a spending spree that is hitherto unprecedented in this country. A Roman orgy of spending is going on as we speak. Am I being told that we cannot find enough money to provide for the basic needs of seniors to survive, to pay them the money that was owed to them, money that, by trickery and deceit, was kept away from them?

I do not say that to be romantic or to use exaggerated language. It was by deceit that these people were denied the benefits to which they were entitled. I can defend the use of that language because the Government of Canada knew who they were, and has known for years that they were eligible, and failed to tell them. If there is any fraud taking place here it is on the part of the Government of Canada for not doing the right thing for the senior citizens who were eligible for this benefit.

I am glad we are using this day, maybe one of the last sitting days of this 38th Parliament, to do something to augment the quality of life and the standard of living of our seniors. I compliment my colleague from Saint-Maurice--Champlain for bringing it forward. I will be voting with enthusiasm for this bill and out of respect for those who came before me representing the riding of Winnipeg Centre.

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the concerns I was going to raise in regard to the lack of a clear non-derogation clause.

More specifically, in answer to my colleague's comment, she and the department have characterized this legislation as being self-government. I want to ask how and where they came to this conclusion, because what is really happening is entirely contrary to the concept of self-government.

They state that there is a gap in the Indian Act. Is that true? I would like them to point out to me where, because what about bylaw power? I believe that whatever gap they are trying to identify in the Indian Act could be accommodated by bylaw power, and if there is a gap, if it is not there now, why not just amend the Indian Act and provide that power?

Let us take an exercise in correcting the flawed legislation of the Indian Act. Why not use this as an opportunity to do some real self-government building and encourage first nations to pass regulations which they consider to be to their advantage?

I am not satisfied. I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary is trying to address some of my concerns. I think she is honestly trying to defend a bill and an act that she believes in. I want to be convinced. I want to pass legislation that enables first nations to participate in true economic development. I would not ever stand in the way of something that I truly believed to be in that light.

I hope that at committee I can get answers to my questions regarding, and I will serve notice, the possible regulation (o) which I do not fully understand, and (p) and (q), and clause 5 and clause 9(2).

Clause 9(2) provides for appeal by the provincial courts, unless otherwise provided by regulation. In other words, by regulation, the right to appeal could be totally withheld. That is a problem for me and it is a legitimate concern.

Maybe it is just as well we did not fast-track this bill and do all three stages in one day as was originally contemplated, because these legitimate concerns are coming to the surface now and deserve to be addressed.

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to summarize my comments on Bill C-71.

The point I was trying to make was that any parliamentarian of any party should be very concerned about the regulations that would be permitted by Bill C-71. Imagine, by regulation the government can “confer any legislative, administrative, judicial or other power on any person or body that the Governor in Council considers necessary”. Can we imagine this being acceptable anywhere else in Canada in any other jurisdiction? It is beyond me. How could a decision ever be appealed? One could not go and appeal this in federal courts.

While some subsections of the bill require that the powers exercised be done in a manner that is consistent with the provincial regulations, other sections seem to give it unbridled power. This is my fear again of this bill being seemingly simple, but actually a Trojan horse seeking to accomplish some secondary objective that is not clear at the front end.

Knowledgeable people have come to us saying that for the five first nations who sponsored Bill C-71 there were ways for them to accomplish what they needed to accomplish to allow the economic development to take place in their communities without this legislative change in Bill C-71. In other words, within the parameters of the existing acts of Parliament that have jurisdiction, these first nations probably could have taken these steps.

I do not have time to go through all of my party's concerns, but subclause 2(o) in Bill C-71 is of concern as well as subclause 2(p) and 2(q), clause 5, and subclause 9(2). I am registering my concern about all of these clauses and subclauses for further investigation when the bill gets to committee.

My party is very concerned that the tone and the content of this bill may take communities to places they do not realize they are going. I simply point to the summary of the bill on the cover which states:

--Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to Indian lands--

That is worrisome in and of itself because it does not respect section 35 of the Constitution. The preamble states:

WHEREAS existing Acts of Parliament do not provide sufficient authority for Canada or first nations to establish such regimes;

I challenge that because under the Indian Act a first nation could have simply established a bylaw which would incorporate the provincial law as its own and this bill would not have been necessary.

[National Defence, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Year of the Veteran is almost over. We have made reparations to aboriginal war veterans and to merchant marines, but there is a significant block of veterans who have still fallen through the cracks and those who were deemed never to have served because they did not fill out their discharge papers properly.

The minister's answer that they can come forward individually and be dealt with is not good enough. We need to reinstate their service records by order in council so when they apply, there is a record of them having served.

Will he not agree to give justice to this last group of forgotten veterans?

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-71.

Let me set the record straight from the get-go. If this bill gets held up or bogged down, I do not for one moment accept that it has anything to do with the opposition parties. In fact I, for one, as the aboriginal affairs critic for the NDP have been waiting for three months for this bill to come to the aboriginal affairs committee in order to deal with it properly. We cleared the slate for it to come here. So, if there are any misconceptions out there about our democratic right to call the Liberals to task in the event of an election happening, it certainly does nothing to undermine this initiative.

Having had the fullness in time, now, to deal with this bill, I am glad we are having this debate today. We would not be having this debate today because as of a week ago there was an all-party agreement to fast-track this bill. However, this bill has fallen as collateral damage to other negotiations taking place about fast-tracking other bills. Now we are told that, until we get all-party agreement on how we vote on those other fast-track bills, there will be no cooperation on this bill.

So, let us be clear on what is really driving the lack of progress on Bill C-71.

Speaking to the merits of the bill, let me begin by saying that we have had feedback from some first nations around the country who are concerned about the bill. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc that there is justification to have this bill go to committee and hear some of these concerns. Even the government's own briefing note starts by saying there is some opposition to this bill. I can tell members the Indian Resource Council of Canada is thoroughly opposed to this bill.

Looking at the bill, the summary begins:

As Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to Indian lands,--

We know that is simply not true in either tone or in content. Parliament's jurisdiction may make provincial jurisdiction ultra vires, but now that we have subsection 35(1), there is a first nation jurisdiction the government wants to squelch. It could be said that provincial regulatory laws do not apply on reserve, so why this preamble? I believe it reveals the true thinking of the authors. This is one of the points that is being made in competition here.

The preamble states:

WHEREAS existing Acts of Parliament do not provide sufficient authority for Canada or first nations to establish such regimes;

There are two concerns I have with that statement. I should point out as a historical note that we would not have subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, were it not for the specific efforts, in fact the stubborn obstinance, of the NDP of that time. I am sitting here with my colleague from Ottawa Centre who as the leader of the NDP at the time made two personal visits to Prime Minister Trudeau imploring and urging the government, emphasizing that we must acknowledge existing and inherent aboriginal and treaty rights in the Constitution Act, 1982, or it would be incomplete and we would have lost this opportunity.

So, we would not have subsection 35(1) were it not for the efforts of people like the member for Ottawa Centre, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who was fully engaged in that negotiation and debate, the member for Skeena at that time, Jim Fulton, the aboriginal affairs critic, and Jim Manly from Vancouver Island, the NDP critic also at the time. All these members urged and dragged the Liberal government of the day, kicking and screaming, into recognizing the inherent existing aboriginal and treaty rights.

It is in that same context that I am here to defend subsection 35(1)of the Constitution Act, 1982, to ensure that nothing is passed and certainly not fast-tracked in such a way that would undermine or diminish the tone and content of this piece of legislation.

That is the concern that I raise here today. When the bill states that Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to Indian lands, how is that recognizing the inherent existing rights of aboriginal people to self-determination? We are off to a bad start before we even get to the substance of the bill.

That tone is worrisome because there is a fear in Indian country that we are fast-tracking pieces of legislation through that incrementally diminish the inherent right to self-determination. When such time as self-government does come about for first nations, there will be nothing left to regulate because it will all have been incrementally chipped away and handed over to other pieces of legislation.

The preamble in the legislation states:

WHEREAS existing Acts of Parliament do not provide sufficient authority for Canada or first nations to establish such regimes;

An act of Parliament is not needed to provide this sufficient authority for a self-governing first nation to regulate its own internal affairs such as establishing a regulatory regime. First nations can do that now under self-determination.

There already is an act of Parliament, the Indian Act, which could have been used in this case where there are no secondary motives at play. A first nation could simply establish a bylaw which would incorporate provincial law as its own law. That would have been a simple way under an existing act of Parliament to harmonize the regulatory regime on a reserve to the regulatory regime of a province without undermining or chipping away the right of self-determination or putting another law in effect which could erode that first nations jurisdiction.

It is good that we are having this debate today because I have another concern to raise. These ideas have developed since--

[Official Languages Act, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the few minutes that are left to join the debate on Bill S-3 that comes to us through the Senate. I notice that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst spent a good part of the introduction of his remarks complimenting, recognizing and paying tribute to the sponsor of this bill, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier.

I too would like to recognize Senator Gauthier's contribution but in the same context I would like to recognize the contribution of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. I say to the House without any fear of contradiction that the rights of the francophone minority outside Quebec has no greater champion than my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who has worked tirelessly since he has been here to emphasize the Official Languages Act and the importance of it. Even anglophones like myself have come to recognize, through his hard work, just how important language is to culture and culture is to the Canadian fabric and how this act plays such an important role.

In recognizing my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, I would like to point out that it is not just his colleagues in the NDP who recognize his contribution. Internationally my colleague has been honoured with recognition from the Francophonie and has been made a chevalier of the Francophonie, which I think is an honour that should be recognized. It was given to him in Vienna recently and this is something he will wear all of his life as an honour and a recognition.

In the same spirit of recognition of those who are champions of this issue, in the province of Manitoba, where I come from, the former NDP government in the 1980s made a very bold step, although not quite as bold as the province of New Brunswick which is officially bilingual and the only official completely bilingual province. Roland Penner, when he was the attorney general of the NDP government in the 1980s, took a very courageous step to demand equal French language rights in all matters of justice. All laws and legislation, the courts and especially the criminal justice system had to be available to the francophone minority in Manitoba in both official languages. This step in fact cost the NDP the government in those years, which is why I say it was a bold step.

I put it to the House that Roland Penner was a visionary because Manitoba is a better province today. At no point in time will we have a case like Marie-Claire Paulin who tried to get service from the RCMP in her home province of New Brunswick, an officially bilingual province, and was not served in the language of her choice. No one should have to go to court to be served in one's first language, one of the two official languages in Canada, certainly not in New Brunswick and, I am proud to say, not in the province of Manitoba because of the courageous action of visionaries early on.

I am happy to stand today as an anglophone from Manitoba to fully endorse and support Bill S-3, which will give teeth to the laws pertaining to official languages in this country. I recognize the importance of the rights of the francophone minority outside Quebec. I am proud that the House of Commons has come to some consensus and spirit of cooperation to make sure this bill passes in this 38th Parliament.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Kitchener is trying to defend the indefensible. He is trying to represent a government that has been shamed beyond any other measurement in Canadian history. If he objects to the strong language that I have used, I am only trying to represent the righteous indignation that is evident throughout the riding of Winnipeg Centre. We have been wronged. It is not the Liberal Party of Canada that is the victim here. The people of Canada are the victims here and no hollow words from the member are going to change that reality.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

If they would stop stealing money, the reputation would be a lot better.