Pat Martin

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising those two very legitimate points. I am aware that there is work under way to look at money laundering and the aspects of money laundering. I am aware that there is great interest on the part of the federal government to have a holistic approach to attacking organized crime. I would only put forward that what has been proposed by the Bloc Québécois today is in fact a way of financing that activity.

The hon. member did ask me specifically about the process and perhaps how far it would reach. Let me use as an example the way we wrestle with that in Manitoba. It is up to the chief of police, including the commanding officer of the RCMP, to make application to the Court of Queen's Bench for orders to seize or forfeit and confiscate property. I doubt they would be looking at charitable institutions which may have inadvertently become the repository for proceeds from crime.

I would like to think, seeing as we folded the judiciary into this, that a Court of Queen's Bench has to issue the order. I suppose there would be some analysis of the type of application made and some judicial wisdom shown there.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising those very salient points and adding to my presentation by expanding on an area that I would very much like to add to my comments.

It is true that my inner city riding of Winnipeg Centre is the third poorest riding in all of Canada, by whatever statistical measurement is used. When dealing with chronic long term poverty, one of the predictable consequences is perhaps not more crime, because I do not want to say that poor people commit more crimes, but poor people are more likely to be victims of or exposed to crime. Therefore, it is very much a top of mind issue for the people I represent.

As for the contributing factors to the fact that mine is the third poorest riding in the country, one can be directly blamed on the cutbacks to the EI program in the late 1990s. We did a study and a survey right across the country. In my riding of Winnipeg Centre alone, the cutbacks to EI resulted in $20.8 million per year being sucked right out of my riding, pulled out, extracted and ripped out.

This is a riding that was already low income and suffering the consequences of poverty. Taking that $20.8 million every year out of my riding alone pushed more people from being low income marginal families into families in dire poverty. I thank the member for making that connection.

As for the EI fund alone, with its $20.8 million a year, let us imagine a company with a payroll of $20.8 million a year wanting to move into a riding. We would pave the streets with gold to welcome that company because that would mean 2,000 well-paid jobs. The government pulled that out of my riding just by those changes to EI alone. The impact is shameful. I know of other ridings in eastern Canada, for instance in Newfoundland, where the impact is $50 million or $60 million per year in single ridings, according to that same survey.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus and the constituents of Winnipeg Centre, I am happy to share our views on the opposition motion put forward by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles with regard to what I believe is a very creative and innovative idea to amend the Criminal Code to allow the government to seize the proceeds of crime in a more readily available way.

If I understand the motion correctly, it is to reverse the onus on the persons who we believe have benefited from crime to demonstrate that they acquired those assets through some honest means and not criminal activity.

I am enthused about that idea because I represent an inner city riding, the riding of Winnipeg Centre, where crime and safety are top of mind in virtually every citizen that I poll and survey on this subject. Like many members of Parliament, I frequently canvass and survey the views of the people who live in my riding. By a factor of three to one, the top of mind issues that they cite are crime and safety. Even health care and education rank way down the list. The people in my riding are irritated by the obvious outward demonstration of wealth by people they know full well are involved in some type of criminal activity. They are frustrated by the fact that law enforcement officers seem unable to do anything about it.

It is time we revisited this idea of the burden of proof. If the proposal put forward by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles gives better tools to law enforcement officers to actually bring justice in these situations, then I am all for it.

Under the category of great minds think alike, I thought members would be interested to know that the province of Manitoba recently implemented such measures as part of its anti-gang program. We believe it now has the strongest anti-gang legislation anywhere in the country and legislation that is very similar to what has been put forward by my Bloc Québécois colleague.

I thought members may be interested in knowing a bit more about this recent legislation. I believe this new law came into full force on December 11, 2004 , which is what we in Manitoba call the criminal property forfeiture act. The whole idea of the law in Manitoba and the proposal by my Bloc colleague is to take the profit out of crime and make it less profitable. The secondary effect would be that criminals would not be able to use the proceeds of crime for more criminal activity.

If we make it easier to give the civil law process the tool to seize and freeze the proceeds of unlawful activity and have them forfeited, then not only does the message get sent that it is not that easy to enjoy the proceeds of crime, but people will not be able to keep the proceeds of crime and will not be able to use these proceeds to commit further crimes, as in the case of grow ops or property used for them. I think it makes eminently good sense.

Another twist to the Manitoba legislation is that the money reaped from the sale of seized properties and assets will be dedicated to the anti-gang program, which includes money for police officers and for various other measures to make our communities safer.

Every police force in the country is strapped for resources. One of the most compelling interviews in the days following the terrible tragedy in Alberta was listening to how quick four RCMP officers said that they could have used more police officers on duty that day and more backup had the resources been available. That is a common complaint from every municipal, provincial and federal police force in the country. They do not have the resources to keep up with the swelling tide of criminal activity.

What is being put forward today is a revenue stream. Under the Criminal Code we already have a way to forfeit the proceeds of crime after a conviction has taken place but only under specific circumstances. That fund is useful because it gets divided up among the provinces to be used for law enforcement.

In the Manitoba legislation, which is very bold, no such conviction has to take place. Manitoba reversed the onus on to the people who are involved in a criminal activity to prove that they bought a property, a car, a ring, or grow op drug paraphernalia through a legitimate stream of income. It is a very stringent burden of proof.

I think Manitoba's legislation is the toughest legislation anywhere in Canada. It was challenged in very aggressive ways by the opposition Conservative Party in Manitoba. Ironically, that party protested and objected because it felt that innocent people could end up having their property seized. I can assure the House that the legislation was examined with a fine tooth comb to make sure it stood up to any charter challenges about individual rights being violated by this groundbreaking legislation.

I think the House would be interested in a real life scenario that has occurred since the Manitoba legislation became law.

A well-known member of a large outlaw motorcycle gang, who shall remain nameless, was living with his wife in a Winnipeg suburb in a brand new $375,000 home purchased last year. No mortgage was registered on the home. The title was registered in his name and his wife's name. Neither he nor his wife had filed an income tax return in over five years. A luxury car, a motorcycle and a boat were parked in the driveway, all of which were registered in the name of a corporation of which he is a director.

The chief of police for the city of Winnipeg obtained an order under the new legislation which allowed him to seize the vehicles and to place a notice at the land title's office about the property. He went to court and satisfied the judge that the man was more likely than not a member of a criminal organization, in this case, a motorcycle gang. The man could not demonstrate where the money had come from to buy any of the items and he could not show any legitimate sources of income. As a result, the properties were forfeited to the government.

The court also did not accept that the man's spouse had any source of income and in fact ruled that the property was likely obtained through crime and no one could demonstrate otherwise. As a result, the government sold the property, subtracted it and the police expenses from that amount, and the remaining money was handed over to legal aid.

That was a revenue stream and it would not have been possible without Manitoba's groundbreaking legislation. That was a graphic illustration of how the idea put forward by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois could work on a national level.

I wanted to speak to the motion today because I am very proud that Manitoba has taken tough action against organized crime in this way. What used to drive people crazy was that these guys could actually flaunt it. They could rub our noses in the fact that they were making thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, a year from criminal activity. As we know, selling illegal drugs yields enormous windfall profits. The police, who are bound by this burden of proof under the current Criminal Code, cannot act even though they know full well that these guys get their money through selling dope.

We could stop people on the Sparks Street mall and ask them whether they would like police officers to be able to actually act on what they know to be true instead of being held back by this burden of proof under the Criminal Code which, by necessity, has to be very stringent. I am sure they would agree to shifting the onus on the criminals to prove they did not buy their house with the proceeds of crime. It is just common sense.

I suppose there may be some bleeding hearts who would say that it may infringe upon private rights but I do not accept that. I think we have gone beyond that in terms of the scope of the problem. Naturally it has to be able to survive charter challenges, as my colleague across the way said. I am looking forward to the first charter challenge on the Manitoba legislation because this has been developed by authorities and constitutional experts across our province and, believe me, it would not have been introduced if we had thought it would fall as soon as it was put in place.

We look at similar legislation in other jurisdictions that has had a net effect. Perhaps the best bonus is not just the revenue stream that we could tap into, but the fact that it drives criminals away from those jurisdictions.

The criminal assets bureau in Ireland, for instance, has reported that a large number of high level criminals have left Ireland as a result of the vigorous pursuit of the forfeiture of the crime related assets. Ireland's legislation seizes crime related assets to such a degree that it is not all that profitable to commit those crimes in Ireland so they leave. What could be better? They drove the snakes out of Ireland and now maybe they are driving the drug dealers out of Ireland.

The office of Nassau county and the district attorney in New York report that certain illegal businesses have been driven out by attacking them through the state's forfeiture laws. For example, so-called legitimate businesses that are fronts for other illegal businesses, such as gambling and prostitution specifically, have been driven out of the state of New York and Nassau county because of their rigid forfeiture laws that reverse the onus in that situation as well. This particular district attorney points out that the forfeiture of luxury cars owned and flaunted by drug traffickers has had a positive impact on the neighbours particularly affected by drugs.

In the state of New Jersey, the department of law and public safety reports that a number of traditional organized crime families in that state have been decimated. Their legs have been cut out from underneath them because they have not only taken away their luxury toys, they have taken away their ability and their resources to commit more crimes.

I should point out that in Manitoba we can seize a luxury car, a house, the property, jewellery or a boxful of cash if the person cannot demonstrate where he or she got the boxful of cash. Criminals saying that they found it on a street corner probably would not pass the test of any judge in the province of Manitoba. We are ganging up on gangs is what it is.

We saw Quebec, and Montreal specifically, suffer through gang wars. Quebecers would not tolerate it any more and called for firm action. They called for an iron fist in dealing with organized crime, and specifically motorcycle gangs. We are in the same boat and we are not going to tolerate it. Nobody is going to pussyfoot around on this issue.

I would point out again that the purpose of our legislation in Manitoba is to make crime, particularly organized crime, less profitable and more difficult to commit by confiscating the property obtained through the breaking of law. Unlawful activity covered by the legislation includes any provincial or federal offence, as well as similar offences from jurisdictions outside of Canada.

I should also point out that no conviction is required. This is a civil court proceeding in which the court must be satisfied that the origins or the intended use of the property is more likely than not to be illegal. If the property has been obtained through illegal activity or it is about to be used for an illegal purpose, we will take it away, sell it and use the money to put more police on the street to catch more people. That is common sense.

This is the fun thing about being in government. If people have any courage, they can do that kind of thing. If they do not have any courage, they just stay in government forever like the Liberals and do not in fact ever do anything that really has a meaningful effect on the safety of our citizens.

Just to clearly differentiate this from the Criminal Code activities that can also seize property and sell it, in this case the judge cannot and need not find anyone guilty of any offence in the seizing of this property. Really, I think it is fascinating. Property owned and possessed by members of criminal organizations or by a corporation in which a criminal organization member plays a key role, in other words, the clubhouse of the bike gang in this case, is presumed to be obtained through unlawful activity unless the owner can prove it was obtained through legitimate means.

How is that for cleaning up a bike gang clubhouse in a residential neighbourhood? Instead of having to drive by it year after year knowing full well that illegal activity is taking place and knowing full well it was built, bought and paid for by the proceeds of illegal activity, now we can just seize it and put the burden of proof on them to prove to us that it was purchased through legitimate means.

Any chief of police, under our legislation, which includes the commanding officer of the RCMP, may apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for orders to seize and forfeit or confiscate property that is either the proceeds or an instrument of the illegal activity. This is revolutionary. This is very bold legislation.

The Manitoba government becomes the owner of the property at that time and it then must sell the property and must use the money for crime prevention initiatives. There is a specific designated use mandatory in this legislation. It cannot just go into general revenue and pay for health care or anything else. It has to go to crime prevention. This is why it has been so enthusiastically greeted by the citizens of Manitoba. Those who wanted more money spent specifically on crime prevention now have the avenue of a revenue stream they can look forward to other than a tax increase.

The money can be used for these specific purposes: for crime prevention initiatives or to assist victims or to fund legal aid in the provinces. Victim compensation is another whole chapter of Manitoba justice that we have recently expanded greatly. It came to our attention that victims are often left out of the criminal justice system completely, especially when it comes to compensation.

Certainly I am very proud of what we are doing in the province of Manitoba. I am very heartened and enthused by the proposal put forward to us by the Bloc Québécois through their opposition day motion. I encourage the federal government to examine very carefully what we have done in Manitoba and to expand this throughout Canada as far as it is jurisdictionally allowed to, or at least take steps to encourage provinces to undertake a model like the Manitoba model.

We are proud of it. Everybody here wants to stamp out crime. Here is a good viable way to take a step in that direction.

[The Environment, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the United States decommissioned Zonolite plants are designated EPA super fund sites and full remediation is underway. That is because people who live next to these Zonolite plants are dying of asbestosis.

The Zonolite plant in Winnipeg is right across the street from the largest high school in my riding, yet the federal government has done absolutely nothing to remediate the ten Zonolite plants in ten cities across the country.

Why has the government taken no action about Zonolite? Why is it afraid to admit there is no safe level of asbestos? Why is it not cleaning up these hazardous sites?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to enter into the debate on private member's Bill C-283 put forward by my colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta.

I will begin by thanking my colleague for bringing the bill forward and allowing us the opportunity to speak to this subject in the House of Commons.

I think I speak for most members of Parliament when I say our MPs' offices are inundated with this problem on an almost daily basis. If we need any evidence that it is urgent issue, we need look no further than our own MP offices. Our staff are more than likely dealing with one of these cases as we speak because that is how frequently they come up in my office.

Canadian citizens or other landed immigrants are being denied visitor visas for loved ones, friends and family members who may wish to visit Canada for a perfectly legitimate reason, but have not been granted these visitor visas, and they go to their MPs' offices looking for help. If there is anything we can do to alleviate the backlog, this is the right time and place to do it.

A second issue needs to be addressed and that is the whole issue of ministerial intervention. By the government's own figures, as many as 12,000 of these visas or ministerial permits are granted per year. Those are just the lucky people who manage to reach the minister to ask for special consideration. What about the people who come to a riding like mine, an opposition MP's riding, where there is no access.

We believe the ministerial visas are being granted more to Liberal ridings than they are to opposition ridings. Let me say it plainly. We have good reason to believe this and, therefore, it is an abuse of the system in that it is an uneven application of ministerial intervention.

I believe what my colleague from Newton—North Delta has put forward is a reasonable idea to give some avenue of recourse to families who have been unable to obtain a visa by the conventional means, a visitor's permit. Money will change hands, yes, and it is a fairly complex idea, yes, but it is not an insurmountable problem.

None of the things my colleague from the ruling party just raised are insurmountable. They can be dealt with at committee. If we allow the bill to pass at second reading and go to committee, I believe that none of the problems identified so far are insurmountable or things that we could not address through amendment in committee.

Yes, there will be money changing hands. I put it to the House that there is money changing hands already and it is at the foreign missions and embassies where some of the local staff are taking money to grant special privilege and access to certain visitor visas. I do not say that lightly and I am not accusing civil servants of anything dishonest, but we know for a fact there is corruption and bribery going on in the granting of visas at some foreign Canadian missions. If money is going to be changing hands, let us do it in the light of day instead of under the table where people buy entrance or access.

The dollar figure has been raised as a problem. I agree that the last thing we want to do is set up a system where if people have enough money, they can buy visas, but if they do not have enough money, they are out of luck.

I have already talked with the architect of this bill. He is willing to entertain a friendly amendment that would perhaps introduce some sliding scale that would accommodate income. There are many ideas.

There are other jurisdictions that we could look to for guidance. I believe Australia has recently introduced a similar program. We need look no further than other commonwealth countries that are faced with the same problem for reasonable answers to those problems.

I am excited by this idea simply because, for pure self-interests, it may alleviate some of the workload in my inner city Winnipeg MP office where immigration has become the overwhelming majority of what we are called upon to do.

The backlogs for visitors visas and permits from places like Manila in the Philippines, New Delhi and Nairobi are unbelievable. The foreign missions are buried with these applications. Some 600,000-odd visitors visas are in fact issued. We are doing a pretty good job as a welcoming nation. If 12,000 ministerial permits are being granted, that gives us some idea of those who are being turned down. We believe many of those are being turned down for arbitrary reasons.

Sometimes the local hires at these foreign missions make judgment calls about people which are not really based on the strict criteria set out in the act. They are judgment calls made by some bias or prejudice they may have against that person, their family, their race or who knows what. We do not believe there is a fair application of access for the purposes of visitors visas.

It is heart-rending to be the person at the front desk of an MP's office who has to listen to some of these stories. These are often very personal events, family events, weddings and funerals. In certain cultures weddings are more important than others.

I was talking with my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas who worked in an MP's office in Burnaby—Douglas for 18 years. He said that he had to keep a box of tissue at his desk because so many of the applicants who came to him had such heart-rending stories, and it was very emotional. People were breaking down and wondering why they as new Canadians were being treated as second class citizens and being denied visitors visas for their family members on such a widespread scale.

My colleague has brought forward an issues which is very pluralistic. It speaks to the efficacy of our immigration system as it pertains to visitors visas. It speaks to the issues of basic fairness and access to services about which new Canadians tell us they are frustrated. It speaks to the volume of immigration work that has been off-loaded from CIC to the offices of MPs. Whether it was due to budget cutbacks or the sheer volume of cases, for some reason the offices of MPs have turned into mini-immigration offices. We can barely keep up. We are treading water trying to keep our head above it with the volume of cases.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta has come to us with a reasonable proposal. I urge my colleagues not to cast this aside out of hand. This proposal warrants serious consideration at committee. It is at the committee that we can fine-tune some of the irritants that have been identified.

If my colleague from the Liberal Party is worried about the dollar figure that may be assessed, then we should put his mind at ease. We can deal with that at the committee. It is rare that in the House of Commons we set the fees associated with any legislation. Usually that comes after the legislation is passed. At the regulatory stage, fees, the per diem or whatever the cost are set. We do not have to worry ourselves with those, other than to be guided by the basic principles and values that we do not want to shut anyone out based on ability to pay.

Once the NDP caucus is comfortable that our colleague from Newton—North Delta understands this and is committed to that principle, then we are comfortable in saying our caucus will vote in favour of the bill at second reading. We welcome the opportunity to help our colleague fine-tune the bill at committee. We think he has put forward a very worthwhile and legitimate idea.

The one element I should raise, as was raised as a caution with me by our immigration critic, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, is we will have to amend section 193.1, I believe, of my hon. colleague's bill which deals with the refugee status; that a person would not be able to claim refugee status while they were here on one of these permits. I do not think we can do that. I know my colleague is aware of the possible problems associated with that. He has expressed a very generous willingness to accommodate a friendly amendment in that regard.

I again want to thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for his efforts to make our job simpler and his efforts to implement an element of fairness to the immigration system as it pertains to visitors' visas.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the people I represent in the riding of Winnipeg Centre are disappointed. They are curious to know why their money has to be rationed out to them in such a miserly way, and I say that in the kindest way I can. They are frustrated by the fact that the budget announced by the finance minister yesterday is sequenced in such a way that no real goodies will arrive until year three, year four or year five of a five year plan.

People in the riding of Winnipeg Centre who called me said that it sounded more like a campaign speech than a budget speech. The minister was promising goodies to people as long as they kept voting Liberal and kept electing Liberal governments. Maybe in the third year, fourth year or fifth year they will start to get some of their hard earned tax dollars back in the form of either program spending or tax cuts. That is our frustration we on this side of the House.

I did not hear my colleague from High Park mention this. The budget speech did not really state much about what would be spent in the next budget year. It referred to what would come down the road, even though there is a minority government. Surely my colleague would agree that most minority governments do not last three or four years and not five years. This same government will probably not be in effect when the goodies start to be released.

Why should we have to wait five years to get what is rightfully ours when we expected it in this budget for this fiscal year?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the terrible legacy of the Indian residential schools is Canada's greatest shame. There has never been an injustice on this scale or of this duration in the country. In spite of a national consensus to apologize with compensation and reconciliation, of the $125 million spent, only $1 million has actually gone to compensation of the victims. The rest has been burnt up by administration costs and legal fees fighting these claims.

I wish all members could have heard the testimony of 88-year-old elder Flora Merrick at the House of Commons Indian affairs committee yesterday. Her award of a paltry $1,500 is being appealed by the federal government. It cost the government $30,000 to fight her claim. She was awarded $1,500 and the government is appealing.

I implore the government to stop victimizing the victims of the residential school tragedy; stop spending millions of dollars trying to paint the abuse victims as liars. Eligibility for compensation should be based on attendance at the school. We believe the victims.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the motion we are debating today deals specifically with the mandatory emissions standards for the auto industry, but my colleague from B.C. is absolutely correct in that on the demand side management of our energy resources there are in fact job creation opportunities and unbelievable energy savings that could take us on the road to meeting our Kyoto obligations.

One such idea is the energy retrofitting of our public buildings. I will put this to him as he is a member of the ruling party. The federal government owns 68,000 buildings, many of which are absolute energy hogs because they were built in a time when energy was not an issue in the 1950s and 1960s. With the current energy retrofit program for the government's own buildings, it will take 150 years to actually retrofit all those buildings because they are doing a handful per year. I challenge him and his government to escalate the federal building initiative tenfold and do 5,000 buildings a year.

It will still take the government 12 or 15 years to get anywhere near full compliance, but it could serve as a demonstration to the rest of the country, to both the private sector and the public sector. It could show people how to save costs in operating buildings, conserve energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create a gazillion jobs, and even create a whole new industry in terms of the new developments in technology, which we could commercialize and export.

There are things that the government could do tomorrow morning. I am trying not to be too critical of the current government, because I appreciate the tone and the content of my colleague's question, but there are things we could do tomorrow that would get us well on the way to meeting our Kyoto commitments. We can start with our own publicly owned buildings.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for generously sharing his time with me and for his kind comments about the province of Manitoba. We take the issue of climate change very seriously.

Yesterday, the first day of the implementation of the Kyoto accord, should have been cause for great celebration in the land. I am surprised there were no people dancing in the streets. We would like to think this was the first day on the road toward a cleaner, healthier environment. The reason we have not seen cross-country jubilation and celebrations in the streets is no one has given the general public any indication that there is a plan in place which may lead to improving the quality of our air and therefore the quality of our life. There is an absolute dearth, a paucity, an absence of any concrete plan whatsoever.

I would like to table today something for the Liberal Party. If the Liberal government is devoid of any plan or any idea on how to achieve the Kyoto goals, the NDP has a concrete plan. We are willing to share that with the government of the day. It is even costed out clause by clause. I will be happy to go through some of that should time permit.

The Liberal government is not even at kindergarten level in terms of how we might achieve our Kyoto goals. The Liberal government is being out-greened by a guy who drives a Hummer. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, is light years ahead of the Government of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada is out-greened by a guy who drives a Hummer. This is shocking to me.

California has taken seriously the fact that voluntary compliance for reduction of emissions will not work, which essentially is the content of our motion today. If we are waiting for the air to clean up through voluntary compliance or voluntary measures, we had better pack a lunch and a puffer because we will be wheezing like my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, complications that we do not wish on anyone.

Our excitement about the advent of the Kyoto accord is tempered greatly by the fact that we do not see a plan on the part of the government to help us get there. We do not have a road map to get to where we need to go. We have soiled our nests so badly that our kids cannot breathe, and it can only get worse unless we take drastic measures. I do not accept that what we are proposing is drastic at all. We believe it is reasonable, achievable, cost effective and necessary.

Our motion simply states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the public health impacts of smog and the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada.

This is not rocket science. The industry and Canadians should have been going in this direction all along.

There has been reluctance in the industry to accept regulation. It is not in its nature to willingly accept limitations on how it conducts business. However, there is a duty and an obligation on the part of government to ensure that businesses act in the best interests of Canadians. I remind members that voluntary compliance to ethical guidelines in the accounting industry is what gave us Enron and Nortel, et cetera, until the government in the United States swept in and introduced strict regulatory measures.

In this example there is perhaps something even more important at stake, and that is the air that we breathe. What could be more important and what could be more natural than the government to intervene on behalf of the well-being of all Canadians? If some people are unwilling to accept that we should do these measures for the right reasons, then they can look at the monetary reasons.

Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has calculated that the benefits, when compiled about achieving air quality standards contemplated in Kyoto, would be valued at $10 billion annually. That is a $10 billion net benefit for doing the right thing and making our air safe to breath. Do we need any more arguments about why we should take steps now? There are secondary impacts that are not even usually factored into the equation of air quality.

Research shows that in the greater Vancouver regional district, improving the quality of air would prevent $74 million a year in crop damage. That is something we do not consider. As we soil our nest and pollute our environment, it has an effect not only on the air we breath for human consumption, but the residue hurts agriculture and that industry sector. The B.C. Medical Association estimates that 2,000 premature deaths per year in B.C. are the result of air pollution. I will not bore the House with those statistics because shocking as they are, I think we are all quite aware of them. That is only one province alone.

There has been a pattern of reluctance of the industry to even implement research and developments to the auto industry without regulation. There was opposition to even publication of car-gas mileage in the early years. In 1975 the American Environmental Protection Agency wanted car companies to start listing what mileage one could expect from the cars they were selling. They baulked at that. They did not want to do it because they thought it would interfere with their ability to market certain models of cars. Now, after a threat of action from the EPA, car companies stamp right on every product what mileage one can expect from X, Y and Z car. This has been a net benefit. It now becomes a marketing advantage for companies to brag that their vehicles achieve X, Y and Z kilometres per litre.

The Environmental Protection Agency met with car companies to try to implement reduction of smog causing tailpipe emissions. The industry was not crazy about it. Some even claimed that such a rapid change would lead to bankruptcy. Some of the big three car companies said that if they had to reduce tailpipe emissions, it would be the road to bankruptcy. That was not the case. Now Ford and other companies claim that they go beyond regulatory requirements and that is part of their marketing strategy as well, to promote what they make.

We argue that there will be no negative impact on the industry if we raise the bar and expect a higher standard of fuel efficiency. In fact, the industry will rise to those new expectations, meet them and we will all benefit from that.

We have a number of points that we put forward in a comprehensive package on how Canada would meet its Kyoto obligations. As I alluded to earlier, I am glad to share these good ideas with all Canadians, and specifically with the ruling party of the day. We not only have the ideas, through consultation and canvassing right across the country, but we costed them out. We did an analysis as to what the impact would be on jobs. I am happy to report that there are far greater job creation possibilities in the demand side management of our energy resources than there is in the supply side of natural resources. We should all take note of this.

I used to work on the oil rigs and it does not take very many people to produce a barrel of oil. Once the well is pumping, there are very few people involved at all. However, it takes a lot of person hours to energy retrofit a building envelope to save energy.

As we clean up the environment, we will be creating jobs. This will be jobs and the environment, not jobs versus the environment. This is something to celebrate as we implement these things on our way to Kyoto.

Yesterday is a day we are celebrating, the first day in the survival of the planet. Let us put a road map in place. Let us implement motions like this and clean up together for a better world.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Indian residential schools dispute resolution plan has been a catastrophic failure, with $125 million spent and less than $1 million actually going to victim survivors. It is not meeting the goals of just and fair compensation. It is certainly not meeting the need for truth sharing, public education, and awareness that could finally lead to healing and reconciliation.

With the aging population, 50 former students are dying every week and justice will surely never come to them.

The Assembly of First Nations has tabled a resolutions plan which comprises two components: first, fair and reasonable compensation in an expedited process that includes recognition of loss of language and loss of culture; second, a truth sharing and reconciliation process, including the continuation of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Today, February 17, is the deadline for Canada's response to the Assembly of First Nations plan. I call upon the government to end this shameful chapter in Canadian history and accept the proposals of the Assembly of First Nations.