House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 262
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
House of Commons Debates
VOLUME 146
NUMBER 262
1st SESSION
41st PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Committees of the House
[Translation]
Mandatory Disclosure of Drug Shortages Act
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce a bill concerning the disclosure of drug shortages.
Drug shortages are a major public health issue, one that is not limited to within Canada's borders. Canada has yet to require mandatory disclosure, even though it exists in other parts of the world such as the United States, New Zealand and the European Union. It has been called for by various groups, including the College of Family Physicians of Canada in a letter to the Prime Minister in 2011, and the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec. Even officials at Health Canada have recommended to the minister that it be required.
I am very pleased to give the government the opportunity to do what must be done and pass the mandatory disclosure of drug shortages. I am asking the government to support this bill to make work easier for health care professionals, to avoid additional costs to the health care system and, above all, for the health and safety of Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[English]
Canada Elections Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-524, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election advertising).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to look at the way political advertising is done in this country. I will make it very clear that this is not about censorship. Any political party can have any type of advertising it wants, whether it is during or outside of the election period.
What this amendment to the Canada Elections Act would do is obligate the leaders of the respective political parties to authorize that they are aware of the content of the advertisements and that they are comfortable with it. This is something Canadians would like to see. It is taking responsibility.
An ad on TV, on the radio or in newsprint would have to be authorized and approved by the leader of that political party. We have seen it in the United States. What it would do is ensure there is more accountability and transparency so the viewer, the listener or the reader clearly knows that the leader of the political party is taking responsibility and has approved of the content of the ad.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[Translation]
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 32 people from Prince Edward Island.
This is in addition to all of the other petitions that have been presented in the House in opposition to employment insurance reform. The petitioners are calling on the government to reverse its decision on employment insurance reform.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to present two petitions this morning.
The first petition is from citizens from the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. The petitioners call upon the government to demonstrate its international responsibility by recommitting Canada to contribute 0.7% of GDP to overseas development assistance.
[Translation]
[English]
Genetically Modified Organisms
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present a petition adding to the voices of the thousands who have signed petitions already presented in this House. They are concerned that the licensing and release of genetically modified organisms has a potentially negative impact on all aspects of the Canadian agricultural sector, from transportation to trade and production to whether or not GM crops can co-exist with non-GM crops or organic crops.
The petitioners request a moratorium on the release of further GMOs and request an independent review of existing GMOs.
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present, and the first is from petitioners from the city of Toronto.
As summer is upon us and a lot of people are on their bikes and walking on the street, the petitioners are concerned about street safety.
The petitioners want to see the federal government make sure that heavy trucks and trailers have side guards installed, which is good for the environment and saves lives of cyclists and pedestrians. They note that Jenna Morrison's life might have been saved had the truck had a side guard.
Before any more senseless death occurs, the petitioners urge the federal government to introduce legislated regulations under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require aerodynamic side guards for trucks and trailers.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians all across Canada who are urging the federal government to instruct the Parks Canada Agency, which is responsible for the operation of the Rideau Canal and the Trent-Severn Waterway, not to reduce the hours of operation or shorten the season of operation and to return service to 2011 levels.
The petitioners call upon the government to provide Parks Canada with the necessary funding for both the Rideau Canal and the Trent-Severn Waterway to return to 2011 operating hours and length of season, so that Canadians and visitors can safely enjoy these waterways.
Questions on the Order Paper
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act
Bill S-2—Time Allocation Motion
That, in relation to Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
[English]
Under Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
Questions, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Speaker, I was commenting to my friend across the way that the government might need a more efficient system for signing all of these orders into the House because it does it so often. It must just change the name of the bill, photocopy it, change whatever stage it is at and ram it through.
My question is very simple. We have heard from first nations groups who have said this legislation is wrong and it will not help the situation. It is not what they need.
Further to that, the government at some point in time is going to have to learn how to do sincere consultation. Consultation does not mean ramming things down throats. Consultation does not mean imposing time limits on every debate. Consultation does not mean eroding the very foundations of our democratic institutions, which is what the government is doing here today.
We have a process question. The government is invoking the power it has as a majority government to shut down debate on a bill that is opposed by the very people it would affect. The government is somehow saying Big Brother knows best. The Conservatives are just going to tell first nations how things are going to be done, as if that is going to help the situation that has been bad for so many years.
The minister has been on his feet a number of times on this very same issue. Has he better talking points today as to why his government is so perfect when it writes these bills that it does not need to listen to the opposition or to the very first nations groups upon whom it is going to impose this legislation?
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this issue has been before this Parliament for many years now. My colleague referred to the majority government. All those families living on reserve in Canada will thank Canadians for having elected a majority government.
This is the fourth iteration of this bill before Parliament. The first bill was introduced as Bill C-47 on March 4, 2008, in a minority Parliament and was debated at second reading and referred to committee. It died on the order paper on September 7, 2008. In all of those months, when the opposition and everybody had a chance to debate the bill, it did not happen.
I will continue with the next question, but the member is going to get the same answer as to why it is time we acted.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is amusing, because he is talking about the bill having been introduced in Parliament several times, yet it seems that the Conservatives have not learned their lesson. We still hear the same comments from first nations, and the Conservatives are still using the same paternalistic approach. Since this government has a majority, it wants to impose its own way of doing things.
The problems here do not just affect the first nations. The bill also raises important issues for Quebec, which is governed by the civil code and has certain unique aspects that are not taken into consideration in this piece of legislation. By shutting down the debate, the Conservatives are preventing the members from discussing these problems. Then, they say that this does not matter, that the bill was introduced two or three times during previous sessions. Since they have had three tries before, it seems to me that the fourth should be the charm, but unfortunately this is still not the case today.
The first time the Conservatives adopted a time allocation motion, they said that it was important for the economy. Did they use the same reason for all the other bills for which they moved a time allocation motion?
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that the importance of the issue escapes the hon. member. He is talking about the economy, but we are talking about fundamental rights here.
Why do families who live on reserve in Canada not enjoy the same rights as all other Canadians and children living off reserve?
Anyone who watches the procedures of the House of Commons knows that if we do not limit debate on the bill, then it once again risks not being passed by the House of Commons. With a majority government, we can ensure, once and for all, that Canadian families living on reserve, women and children, enjoy the same protections as other Canadians. That seems to me like a fundamental, valid and justifiable reason to limit debate and ensure that these people will finally have the same level of protection as other Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing forward this very important piece of legislation. We know that aboriginal women are almost three times more likely than other Canadian women to experience violent crime, including spousal violence.
According to the General Social Survey in 2009, approximately 15% of aboriginal women in a marriage, or who had a common-law partner, reported that they had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. Of those who had been victimized, 58% reported that they had sustained an injury, compared to 41% of non-aboriginal women. Further, 48% reported that they had been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked, or threatened with a knife or gun and 52% reported that they feared for their life.
We know that emergency protection orders save lives. Could the minister describe how Bill S-2 would enhance the protection of aboriginal women and children living on reserve?
Mr. Speaker, currently, aboriginal women in our country cannot go to court and seek exclusive occupation of the family home or apply for emergency protection orders while living in a family home on a reserve. The bill extends this basic protection to individuals living on reserve. In situations of family violence, which is what the member referred to, a spouse would be able to apply for an emergency order to stay in the family home at the exclusion of the other spouse for a period of up to 90 days, with the possibility of extension.
An emergency protection order is quick. It follows a simple process and is recognized by child and family justice advocates as being one of the most significant means of preventing family violence. Violations of these orders can result in fines or jail time, hence the importance of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, once again, I am very disappointed to rise to speak to a time allocation motion.
This is the 40th time the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate on a bill. What is more, this bill does not have the unanimous support of the House, civil society or aboriginal communities.
My question is quite simple. I am not going to get into a discussion of the minister's competence today. Did the minister consult with first nations, including women's groups that were opposed to the bill and still are? If so, why did he decide to introduce the bill in its current form, which does not have the unanimous support of aboriginal communities?
Mr. Speaker, in short, the department consulted extensively with aboriginal nations across the country.
We began these extensive consultations in 2006. About 100 meetings were held in 76 locations across Canada, which allowed us to improve the bill at that time. A number of changes were made specifically to address the concerns of certain stakeholders, the first nations and others about the implementation of this bill. We had to ensure that its real objective of protecting aboriginal families living on reserves across Canada would be attained.
Consultations were held and changes were made such that, today, the bill passes the test and achieves its objective.
Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that 100 meetings were held and that there were consultations. I am wondering why the results of these consultations are not reflected in the bill before us. Consulting the people is a good thing, but it is not enough to go somewhere, say that the people have been consulted, but not listen to what they had to say. I believe that consultation means taking into consideration what was said.
Had that been the case, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations would be able to support this bill. They are not. This means that they were not consulted to the extent required to make amendments and for the minister to know what would have secured their support for the bill.
I wonder why the minister consulted people without listening to them and without amending the bill he has introduced.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I totally reject the unsubstantiated and far-fetched allegations made by the member. As I said earlier, consultations were conducted.
This is the fourth iteration of this bill. On several occasions, and every time that it has been introduced in the House of Commons, numerous Canadians and aboriginals—in the first nations and across Canada—were consulted, and a number of amendments were made to improve the bill.
In fact, contrary to what the member stated, amendments were made. The result: the bill responds to the challenge Canada faces of guaranteeing the same rights to all its citizens. Most notably, it will ensure that women, children, and couples living on reserve are not treated like second-class citizens.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for this bill. I have worked extensively with the aboriginal community and have to say that every woman wants the same rights as every other woman in the country.
In addition to providing access to emergency protection orders, Bill S-2 would allow the courts to consider these factors and provide extended exclusive occupation access to the family home. Emergency protection orders are often provided in the initial procedures in a relationship breakup, which would be followed by an application for exclusive occupation and valuation.
During the time period of the emergency protection order, the spouse or common-law partner could apply for exclusive occupation of the family home. In cases where the need for this protection is extended and where there are children involved, having access or extended access to the family home is very important.
Could the minister please describe the importance of providing access?
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the federal provisional rules in Bill S-2 would enable the courts to provide short-long to long-term occupancy of the family home to the exclusion of a spouse or common-law partner. The duration of this order could range from a determined number of days to a longer period, such as until dependent children reach the age of majority.
What is important to add is that the bill contemplates that with the extension of such period of time, the judge would take the advice of the First Nations Leadership Council chiefs about the implications this has on the community. Therefore, this provision in the bill would help ensure that spouses or common-law partners who are primary caregivers would have access to housing for their children and/or dependent adults. As has been demonstrated by witnesses during the debate at committee, this would really be an added value to our set of laws for aboriginal people in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I received an email from Chief Marianna Couchie of the Nipissing First Nation last night. I would like to quote from her email. She stated:
There are some certainties that NFN would like to ensure. We already have our own Matrimonial Rights Property policy in place, that occured quite a few years ago around 2004. (I am concerned about) Will this new Bill have an impact on our Existing MRP Policy?
When we enacted our MRP two matters were of precedent:
1. The safe guarding of the right to preserve for ever our Land.
2. In our Policy/Act the children if they have status own the family home and which ever parent is prepared to raise the children in the family home can do so.
I have two questions on behalf of the chief. If this bill is enacted, will it affect the policy that they already have in place, and would this new bill have an impact on their existing MRP policy? The second question from the chief is this. Does the Conservative government still view first nations as a problem?
Mr. Speaker, on the last question from the chief, the member may tell her that, indeed, the aboriginal presence in Canada enriches this great country of ours. We are attempting to work co-operatively with all chiefs and councils and first nations members in communities all across Canada in trying to reconcile aboriginal rights with Canada exercising its sovereignty.
I will read an important quote in answering the question. I will quote representatives of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples who testified before the committee in November 2011. They stated:
The MRP Act has more significance than meets the eye, because it goes to the heart of the issue-- dignity of the person.... For many years, we’ve been calling for an effective Matrimonial Real Property regime to protect spouses who are forced to leave a reserve.... Promoting the dignity of the person does not erode Treaty or Aboriginal Rights.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 is the fourth iteration of a bad piece of legislation. Will the Conservatives sit down with the first nations once and for all and address concerns regarding the recognition of first nations jurisdiction, access to justice and conflict resolution, for example?
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to remind the member of something. Were he the slightest bit familiar with this issue, he would know that the first nations have already obtained the right to self-government and that they are part of a comprehensive agreement. These first nations already have legislation that addresses these issues.
The bill targets first nations that do not benefit from such a system. It is designed to enable these first nations to pass their own legislation that focuses on their own communities and on the cultural values of those first nations. They will have one year to do this, then the legislation will come into effect. Until this is achieved, even provisionally, federal rules and regulations will remain in effect. The bill was, therefore, developed to fully respect self-government, comprehensive agreements, and, most notably, the rights and treaties that are currently in force.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I heard two members opposite say that maybe it is a bad bill. I find it interesting that they would say maybe it is a bad bill, when it would help women on reserve with emergency protection orders and also give them the same rights that I have standing here.
Critics of Bill S-2 have said that allowing courts to address interests and rights to the matrimonial home on reserve is just too complicated for judges and places too much of a burden on the individual, but these critics want to deny aboriginal women the same rights and protections that many of them take for granted themselves. The fact is that Bill S-2 would simplify the process involved in the breakdown of a marriage or common-law relationship. It would provide individuals living on reserves with access to the legal tools and protections they need.
Could the minister please explain how this bill would aid judges in enforcing matrimonial real property laws on reserves and how it would ease the so-called burden on individuals?
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there is no legal protection available to couples living in first nation communities that are governed by the Indian Act. This is what we are attempting to correct here. I would argue that nothing should be considered so complicated or burdensome as to justify not extending these basic rights and protections to one segment of the population.
Throughout the country, judges already deal with the division of matrimonial property off reserve. As part of our implementation plan, we are committed to ensuring that judges will receive educational materials to help them better understand the legislation and the social context in which these matrimonial real property issues arise in first nation communities.
In closing, I would also argue that Bill S-2 does not place too much of a burden on the individual, rather it is the complete opposite.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives make it seem as though they are passing legislation in support of the rights of aboriginal women, when in fact they disregard what these women have to say. They are trying to push through legislation without addressing the real, relevant, non-legal problems faced by aboriginal women and their families.
Why are the Conservatives trying to ram through this legislation, despite a great deal of testimony stating that in order to resolve matrimonial real property issues with something more than interim rules, there first needs to be a more comprehensive response by first nations leadership?
Mr. Speaker, you would really have to be on the other side of the House, in the New Democratic Party, to seriously contend that the bill is being rammed through, six years after its introduction in Parliament.
The member’s proposal would enable the opposition to delay, if not completely block, a fundamental initiative under which families living on reserve in Canada would have the same rights enjoyed by other Canadians.
I know that the New Democratic Party would like to see the rights of women and children on reserve remain inferior to the rights enjoyed by every other Canadian. We, however, believe that it is time to act, and that is what the motion seeks to achieve.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic that we are here debating ending debate, and what we hear from the Conservatives is debate on the bill, not on ending debate.
It is yet another example of the disdain the government has for our parliamentary democracy. It is the 40th time in just over two years, that is one every seven sitting days, that we have had to end debate. We have had to shut the mouths of the parliamentarians. We heard from the Conservative backbenchers how much they liked having their mouths shut, when they complained about the fact that they could not be heard on issues that were of importance to them.
Let us look at the other abuses of parliamentary democracy that we have had in the House of Commons. We have had omnibus bills on the budget that had nothing to do with matters that were raised in the budget, that raised all kinds of other things, yet this was supposedly part of the government's plan, which was never mentioned in their plan.
Instead of a revered chamber of sober second thought, the Senate has become a place for cracks, hacks and flaks who are doing nothing to make this parliamentary democracy work for us.
Mr. Speaker, the abuse of parliamentary democracy is the opposition. It is the opposition members using every means they can to prevent the House from adopting a bill that will give equal rights to families living on reserve. That is an abuse of democracy. That is an abuse of parliamentary democracy. The member may gesture with his head as he wishes, but I do not think that is parliamentary.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order, please. There are three minutes left in this question period, so I am going to ask members to keep their questions very short so we can accommodate all the members who have been standing since the beginning.
I will go first to the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Speaker, aboriginal women, as you well know, have been waiting for this legislation for a very long time. In fact, this morning at breakfast I spoke to Sophie Pierre, the Chief Commissioner for the B.C. Treaty Commission, who said that aboriginal women desperately want to see the legislation passed.
I would like the minister to please explain how time allocation will finally bring this important legislation to aboriginal women.
Mr. Speaker, time allocation, as I just indicated, will allow another five hours of debate at third reading. Finally, after 25 years of a matrimonial property regime in this country that excludes aboriginal women, children, husbands and common-law partners on reserve, this allocation will solve an injustice that has been taking place in this country for much too long. Hopefully, the NDP and the Liberals will wake up to the necessity of ensuring equal rights for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, who is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it was the Conservatives who abused their power when they appointed senators to fundraise on behalf of the Conservatives. That is an abuse of the institution of democracy.
I have a question for the minister. If he knows, could he tell us why aboriginal women and chiefs are against his bill? Does he at least know why? Why are aboriginal people opposed to his bill?
The government is trying to get the legislation passed quickly, but the reason the bill has not been passed is that the Conservatives prorogued Parliament and called elections. The bill was not defeated as the result of a democratic debate in the House.
Mr. Speaker, true to form, the member brought absolutely nothing to the debate, except for once again making a remark that I cannot repeat because it would be unparliamentary.
One thing is certain: Parliament will be called upon to vote on an injustice that has been perpetuated for far too long. I would invite the member for Acadie—Bathurst to continue, in the tradition of the NDP, to deny the right of first nations members living on reserve to enjoy the same rights as other Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this abbreviated time for debate to raise one point.
It is not enough for Conservative members of Parliament in this place to say that aboriginal women should have the same rights that each of us have. The issue is constitutional. It is about the requirement from numerous Supreme Court decisions that decisions that affect first nation rights must have prior, full, constitutionally mandated consultation. That has not occurred and that makes me fear that the hon. minister is asking us to pass a bill that will be ruled unconstitutional later.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 711)
YEAS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Bateman
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Fantino
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Payne
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trost
Trottier
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 145
NAYS
Members
Allen (Welland)Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bennett
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeman
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hughes
Jacob
Julian
Karygiannis
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Valeriote
Total: -- 126
PAIRED
Nil The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. Minister for Status of Women. I hope the House will forgive me for using my laptop for my notes, but I cannot stand up and I will lose my pages if I try to.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. The bill would provide the courts with a mechanism, where there currently is none, to apply matrimonial real property laws on reserves.
What does that mean? Right now, if the conjugal relationship of a couple living on reserve breaks down, one of the spouses—it is almost always the woman, who is often accompanied by children—is left completely defenceless. The spouse can be forced from the home and there is no legal recourse to protect her if the house is sold and her spouse retains all of the proceeds. The second spouse—usually the woman, as I said—is left without any financial compensation. Financial devastation is commonly, if not always, the outcome.
The spouse has little protection through the band council and no recourse through Canadian law. As a result, these women and children are often left homeless and impoverished.
This has created an unacceptable situation with first nations communities. We live in a society where most of us take the protection of our rights and property for granted. We do not even think about it. We believe that the current situation on reserve cannot continue. The time has come for action.
Of course, the biggest criticism to this bill is not its content, the problem it solves or the solution it provides. The false accusation is that there has been insufficient consultation or debate. Just this morning, the House leader of the official opposition said this bill was being shoved down people's throats. He suggested that somehow the hours, days, weeks, months and years of extensive consultation held throughout the country with first nations leaders and countless individuals do not count as consultation. For some reason, it seems that consultation only counts if someone other than the Conservative Party passes the legislation that results from that consultation.
Consultation has been held. Extensive research has been conducted, and countless hours of parliamentary discourse and debate have been extended. This is not a case of Big Brother handing down a paternalistic non-solution. This bill is a long-overdue response to an oppressed people, perhaps the most vulnerable people in the world, after generations of abuse and abandonment of women and children who, through a technical loophole, have been left unprotected by our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To ignore this situation is nothing but shameful hypocrisy.
Let me briefly review the comprehensive and inclusive process by which Bill S-2—
(The House resumed at 11:53 a.m.)
The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I was about to share some information about how much consultation had been conducted on this issue and how much debate had been held in the House of Commons and in the Senate.
Starting in June 2006, the government appointed a ministerial representative on matrimonial real property issues on reserves to start discussions with first nations communities to produce a report on the consultation process and ultimately to provide legislative options to address the issues.
Of course, she did not do this alone. The Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada collaborated in the consultation process. Dozens of meetings were held to map out the direction and priorities that would take shape during the consultation phase. We had meetings to discuss how we would conduct the meetings. It sounds like a government project.
The Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations each received $2.7 million to consult not just with leaders, but with the residents of first nations and to record their opinions on the issue. The government also made a total of $11 million available to many other first nation organizations and councils, both national and regional, to provide input into the process. These organizations included, among others, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Indigenous Bar Association, the National Association of Friendship Centres and the National Aboriginal Circle Against Family Violence.
Following the process, the ministerial representative created a comprehensive 500-page report detailing the massive problems that resulted from the lack of proper on-reserve property rights for married couples, especially for women. The report made many recommendations, which now are held within the legislation before us.
I will skip a lot of this because I only have four minutes now, but the point is this. This is not the first time a bill like this has been created. Over the years, since 2006, the bill has been recreated and re-debated many times, with many first nations groups included and many expert witnesses. The legislation contains all the improvements, all the recommendations, that have been included in the debate and research.
This is the point. Process is important. In fact, how we do things is almost as important as what we do, but eventually something must be done.
As I said before in my speech, and it bears repeating, the plight of first nations in our country is our great hypocrisy. It is no secret, even though we do not often face it, that our country shoulders a collective shame for what was done to the first ancestors, then the grandparents and even the parents of first nations. Even though we did not kick them off their land as is often said, our forebearers did, and the posterity of those who were kicked off their lands still lives on the reserves into which they were corralled.
It does not matter much now who caused the countless problems that still plagues our first nations, but they are not only our friends now and our neighbours, they are fellow citizens and even our brothers and our sisters.
I for one will not and cannot standby to let petty politics still hold some of these downtrodden hostage. It is not enough to visit the prisoners, the prisoners must be set free. This may sound dramatic and like so much rhetoric that is often said in politics, it will be just rhetoric unless something is done. This bill must be passed to help protect the women and children in first nations communities.
We talk about this collective shame, about how people were kicked off their land and put into bondage, and we try to solve that problem. At the same time, if we let the people who were in bondage be held in bondage even further because for some reason the Charter of Rights and the Constitution does not apply to them, as I said over and over again, that is hypocrisy and our collective shame and it must stop.
Great effort has been made to include all people involved in the consultation process. This is a great solution for people. We cannot wait until everyone agrees that it will be to their political advantage to pass this law. It is for the people who are repressed.
I am proud to stand in favour of Bill S-2. I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support Bill S-2 and set the prisoners free.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He did a good job of catching up despite the fact that we had to leave right in the middle of it.
He stated that it was the third time this bill has been introduced because of elections and minority governments. The fact remains that a number of associations that testified identified problems. For example, the bill does nothing to solve the resource shortage, which makes it difficult for women to access the legal aid provided for under this bill. Furthermore, Quebec’s Civil Code is different from the law elsewhere in Canada. This lack of consistency is a problem.
I would like the member to tell me why, despite three attempts, the bill still has major flaws that make it impossible for us to support it.
Mr. Speaker, there are differences between the Quebec Civil Code and the common law system used in the rest of Canada. However, this problem cannot be solved with a single bill, even if it has been introduced three times. This problem has been around since the beginning of Canada's history. We have tried to address the differences between the two systems, but that is not the issue here. The real problem is that women and their children are being left homeless and out in the cold. We need to focus on this problem before we deal with the one between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it has been 25 long years that on-reserve residents, particularly aboriginal women, have been deprived of basic rights and protections simply because of where they live. This is unacceptable.
The aboriginal women, international associations and even the Manitoba NDP agree that the current situation must change and change now.
Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, is currently the fourth iteration of this bill to come before Parliament. The bill has appeared both in the House and the Senate in a number of different forms and has been the focus of extensive consultations. It addresses the issues that were raised with its predecessors, while providing aboriginal women on reserve with the same rights that other women in Canada have.
Would my colleague provide the House with information regarding the extensive consultation process that was undertaken for this bill?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague answered some of the question in posing it and I answered some of it in my speech, although I did skip over a lot of the consultation process because I wanted to focus on the results. However, the process of consultation has been included. Over 103 consultation sessions were held in 76 sites across Canada with many different associations.
Furthermore, the legislation does not put an end to the ability of any of the first nations to include their own matrimonial laws, as long as they are consistent with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I find it strange to hear my colleague talk about consultations. A number of consultations were held, but they were not about Bill S-2, at least not this version of it. A number of consultations may have been held in the past, but the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations openly voiced their complaints and said in committee that the government did not take into account the problems they raised with the bill.
I would like to know what my colleague has to say to these associations with regard to the government's lack of interest in their opinions and demands.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we talk about the consultations and our system of Parliament. Every time an election is called or Parliament is prorogued, we reset the clock on all legislation. However, it does not erase the consultations conducted in the past nor our ability to refer to, think about and make wise decisions based on those.
As I said in my speech, as important as this process is, ultimately something must be done. We cannot wait until every problem is resolved, while women and children wait in the cold. This bill does not stop problems that have not been addressed from being solved in the future, but it does address a problem that is long overdue from being resolved.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks with the words of Betty Ann Lavallée, the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. She has said that Bill S-2 is:
—addressing the real human issue of an Aboriginal person, sometimes often taken for granted by other Canadians. A spouse within an Aboriginal relationship should not be denied or put out on the street alone and without any recourse because of a family or marital breakdown.
I agree with her completely. Her words are truly informed by her knowledge of the often harsh realities of the day-to-day life faced by many women residents of first nation communities.
At the end of the day, this bill is about one very simple thing, and that is equal rights.
As members know, in 1921, women in Canada were first given the right to vote in the 1921 federal election. However, that did not mean all women in Canada. In fact, aboriginal women, covered by the Indian Act, could not vote for band councils until 1951 and could not vote in federal elections until 1960.
Today, we are seeking to eliminate another unacceptable human rights issue. Through Bill S-2, we will finally be extending the same basic rights and protections to aboriginal women that all other Canadians already enjoy. I urge the opposition to stop denying aboriginal women equal rights and vote in favour of Bill S-2.
As my colleague said already, it has been over 25 years since the Supreme Court of Canada identified this legal gap that exists today on reserve and our government would finally close it with this bill. Bill S-2 proposes an effective solution to this injustice and we are proud to be the government to bring an end to it by providing women and children on reserve with legal protection.
As Minister for Status of Women, I feel strongly that the proposed legislation will provide options to women and children living on reserve who are experiencing family violence. Wives, spouses or common law partners who are living on reserve today face the reality that in the event of separation, divorce or death, the law currently does not protect their matrimonial real property interests or rights.
This is now our government's fourth attempt to pass this legislation. Clearly, as my colleague said before me, it is time to move forward with the bill.
Bill S-2, as proposed, will guarantee the matrimonial real property rights and interests of women who live on reserve and will protect spouses from violent domestic situations.
Statistics show that aboriginal women are almost three times more likely than non-aboriginal women to report being a victim of a violent crime, including spousal violence. Among victims of spousal violence, six to ten aboriginal women reported being injured. For comparison, the proportion was four in ten among non-aboriginal women.
According to the 2009 Statistics Canada “Women in Canada” report, 15% of all aboriginal women who were married or in a common law relationship had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. In that same report, the rate among non-aboriginal women was 6%.
Nearly half of all aboriginal women who experienced spousal violence reported that they had been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked or threatened with a gun or a knife. A similar proportion reported that there were many times they feared for their lives.
This legislation is about eliminating an injustice by giving on-reserve women access to the options that are available to all other Canadian women to date. However, most important, the bill would provide emergency protection orders to aboriginal women and children who are experiencing violence in the home.
Emergency protection orders clearly save lives. They are recognized by child and family justice advocates as one, if not the most significant, means for preventing family violence.
Several witnesses before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women acknowledged the need for matrimonial real property legislation.
A member of a first nation in Ontario, Rolanda Manitowabi, described how she and her common law partner had built a home together. She invested her life savings into that home and to protect here interests, she got the band to issue her a document naming her as the owner of the property. However, when she and her partner split up, she was evicted from her home. It was at that time she found out that the document in fact had absolutely no legal foundation. Bill S-2 would change that. About the bill, she stated, “I hope it's available to help other women and children on reserves”.
Jennifer Courchene, a member of a first nation in Manitoba, also appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Jennifer and her children became homeless after her abusive partner forced them out of their home. She said, “if there had been something [like this] to help us, we would have taken it, rather than be homeless, that's for sure”.
Aboriginal women on reserve who are not able to stay in the family home are forced to flee the reserve with their children, sometimes with nothing more than the clothes on their back, to a shelter or, even worse, somewhere homeless. Currently, a woman living on reserve who is a victim of violence has no legal protection other than pressing criminal charges. There is no mechanism to allow a parent and her children exclusive access to a family home.
I repeat the importance of using emergency protection orders to save lives. In the case of domestic violence and physical abuse, a court cannot order the spouse who holds the interest in the reserve home, which is almost always the male, to leave the home, even on a temporary basis. When a woman and her children are evicted from a family home on reserve, no judge currently has the power to intervene.
Extending the same rights that women off reserve have to aboriginal women living on reserve would address this dire situation. If emergency protection orders were enforced, abusers could be removed, allowing the women and children to find safety in the comfort of their own homes.
If aboriginal women were granted the ability to remain in the family home on reserve, they could escape situations of domestic violence, while the perpetrator was taken from the home, and they could stay to continue to care for their children and also maintain that vital access to the support in their own communities.
In addition to the protections provided by these orders, Bill S-2 would also provide for the granting of temporary exclusive occupation of the family home. This protection is important for two reasons. First, in situations of family violence, women could be granted temporary exclusive occupation of the home for a period of time extending past the emergency occupation.
Second, in the case of the death of a spouse or common law partner, the surviving spouse would be allowed to stay in the home for 180 days. During that time, the surviving spouse could apply for exclusive occupation of the family home for a period of time to be determined by the courts.
As my colleagues have said in the House many times, there has been a need for the bill for more than a quarter century. Our government has brought this issue before Parliament four times now, debating this issue in both chambers and in committee for more than 60 hours, and this includes more than 25 hours of debate on this particular iteration of the bill alone.
Yet after spending $8 million on 103 consultation sessions in 76 different communities across Canada, even after the Supreme Court of Canada has identified this legal gap and the United Nations Human Rights Council has identified this as a gap for aboriginal women in Canada, after countless reports and studies going back a quarter of a century, the opposition continues to propose that we need more talk. We have said clearly that we have had enough talk and it is time to act.
Some first nations have established matrimonial property rights, and I applaud them. However, similar legal regimes are not yet in place in hundreds of on-reserve communities across Canada. It is time that aboriginal women living on reserve shared the same rights as all other Canadian women.
As the Minister for Status of Women, I work very closely with my colleagues to address violence against aboriginal women, and we do this by supporting many projects that address this issue in a very comprehensive manner, the projects that build economic security and develop the leadership skills that prepare women to successfully escape violent domestic situations.
Since 2009, through the women's program, we have provided a great deal of funding in support of projects that helped to empower and protect aboriginal women and girls. For instance, the La Loche Friendship Centre Corporation is addressing violence against aboriginal women and girls living in northern Saskatchewan. With the support of community stakeholders—men, women, youth and elders—they will be able to better address violence faced by aboriginal women.
Actions taken by this government to end violence against women and girls include increasing funding to the women's program to its highest level in Canadian history. We have now funded more than 600 projects in Canada from coast to coast to coast since 2007.
We have also launched a comprehensive national action plan to combat human trafficking to ensure the safety and security of women and girls across Canada who are being targeted for sexual exploitation by violent traffickers.
We are moving ahead with Bill S-2, which would give aboriginal women equal rights and access to their matrimonial property rights and, most important, emergency protection orders to protect them in cases of domestic violence.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. She mentioned that consultations were held. It is therefore surprising that the government then introduced a bill that does not have the unanimous support of aboriginal communities.
The Native Women's Association of Canada severely criticized the bill for a number of reasons, including the lack of funding to support first nations governments and the additional obstacles this could create for first nations members who are seeking justice. The association also criticized the 12-month transition period.
The Assembly of First Nations and the national aboriginal women's summit also expressed a number of criticisms of this bill.
If the government really held consultations, why are members of aboriginal communities who truly understand the situation criticizing the bill? Why did the government not listen to them and why were these criticisms not taken into account when the current bill was drafted?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the proposed legislation would actually meet 30 of the 33 recommendations of the groups we work with and the ministerial representative who did a lot of the consultations across the country with aboriginal women and with a number of first nations. There are challenges with enacting a new right, if they want to look at it that way. However, that is definitely not a reason to not move forward with giving aboriginal women equal rights.
We put in place funding associated with this bill. We would provide training for all of those front-line workers, like prosecutors and others who deal with this issue, to support them. We understand the challenges of transitioning to a whole new legal framework, and we have all the means in place to ensure the training happens and those support mechanisms are in place.
Again, that is the responsible way to do this, but any challenges that face us should never be a reason not to move forward with giving aboriginal women the protection they deserve and the equal rights that all of us in Canada have and that aboriginal women are denied today.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize that there are numerous pieces of legislation, and this is but one of those pieces, which the government has brought in with the idea of passing through the House. On the other side, there has not been the type of consultation that has led to consensus building to try to resolve a number of issues that are there within first nations communities. It is in good part an issue of respect also, and the government has not clearly had the support of the majority of the people whom this would affect.
I wonder if the minister can provide comment. Can she incorporate Bill S-2 into this in terms of the obligation she feels to work with first nations leadership in trying to build toward consensus in bringing legislation that would ultimately pass with the support of all political entities inside the chamber, and have wider support outside the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker, the member knows this is the fourth iteration of the bill and that close to $10 million has been spent on consultations in 67 different communities. I could go on, and the member knows that, but as I said, those challenges should never stop us from giving aboriginal women the protection they deserve on reserve, the same protection that all of us in this room are afforded.
The member talks about respect, and I ask him to think about the respect these women deserve from Parliament. It has been more than 25 years since the Supreme Court identified a legal gap that needs to be closed. This framework would at least be, I hope, the beginning of what needs to be addressed on reserve. It is one piece of a larger issue, but it is a piece that has to be addressed. For the member to suggest we should go on and continue to deny aboriginal women this legal protection on reserve, to me, is just unconscionable.
I agree with the member that there are some chiefs who have moved forward to give women on reserve this legal protection, and I applaud them. However, there are many chiefs who are fighting this because they do not want to share property, and that is unacceptable. I, for one, will continue to advocate to ensure aboriginal women have access to the support they need to use this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech I would like to mention that I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Chambly—Borduas.
I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.
This concerns matrimonial real property, which is the subject of this bill. At least there is some effort to resolve some problems, a certain form of discrimination against women that currently exists on reserves. This is the issue that Bill S-2 seeks to address. “Matrimonial real property” means lands and structures affixed to those lands. In this case, it would apply equally to couples in a conjugal relationship and those living common-law.
As has been mentioned, there is now a certain legal vacuum on reserves concerning matrimonial real property. This legal vacuum exists as a result of the current Constitution and the division of powers it provides for. The provinces and territories are responsible for property rights and civil rights in their respective territory. The federal government is constitutionally responsible for legislation regarding Indians and lands reserved for Indians.
Bill S-2 seeks to grant equal property rights to both spouses in a relationship. Regrettably, unlike what the government continues to say in the House, it is impossible to implement Bill S-2 as it stands. There are several reasons for this, and they have been repeatedly raised by various stakeholders who work either directly in aboriginal communities or closely with them.
Many members stood in the House and bragged about the large number of government consultations that took place before this document was produced. What they forget to mention is that there was no consultation on Bill S-2 specifically, on the most recently introduced version. There were a number of consultations that, in one way or another, broached the topic that we are discussing today—that of matrimonial real property—but aboriginal communities were not directly consulted on the content of the updated version of the bill. Off the top of my head, I believe this is the fourth or fifth version of a flawed bill that the Conservatives have been trying to pass in the House since 2008.
Certain groups and organizations were consulted in the past, and they were called before the committee to study Bill S-2. They raised the same concerns and issues that they had years before. Take a look at the testimony from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and it becomes clear that the problems previously brought to light were not taken into consideration by the government when it wrote this bill. I am thinking, for example, about testimony from the Assembly of First Nations.
Again today I am giving a speech within the context of another time allocation motion imposed by the government.
A number of people have complained that the government did not listen to them and did not take their opinions into consideration. The government is trying to restrict our ability as members to represent the people who want their views expressed in the House and to try, once again, to amend the bill or at least ensure that it is not passed now, without the necessary consultations.
If the proposed measures in the bill are imposed, we will completely overrule the rights of first nations communities. I feel that is disrespectful.
In addition to the work of the committee and the various stakeholders who have spoken out publicly and who appeared before the committee on this matter, a number of reports drafted over the years raise the same problems that have been raised from the outset, whether it be issues with funding to implement the measures that would be set out in a bill of this nature or issues with a lack of funding to enable aboriginal women to take advantage of any new measures that may be put in place to help them.
All of these issues have already been raised many times. Unfortunately, once again, they cannot be found in the document before us today and on which we will soon have to vote. This government is staying true to the new tradition for which it is so well known and it is doing whatever it can to restrict the right of opposition members to reflect the views of the citizens they represent.
Ever since the beginning of this debate, I have heard a number of members say that it is the opposition parties that are being undemocratic and are trying their best to limit debate. I find this absolutely ridiculous. I do not know if they have had an opportunity to listen to what they are saying or to read their speeches before they give them, but when I hear comments like these, I am appalled. Every day, I am surprised at what we can hear in the House from the party in power. It is just amazing.
Earlier I was talking about the very important problems and issues raised by the Assembly of First Nations. It has determined that three main principles are key to addressing matrimonial interests or rights on reserves.
The first of these three principles is the recognition of first nations jurisdiction. The government did not consult or even ask for their opinion or their support for Bill S-2, which is currently before us, so I find it rather odd to even think that we might be able to recognize their jurisdiction and respect their fundamental rights. In any case, when the government asks for their support or their opinion, it is not taken into consideration at all. I think this is one of the major problems we have with recognizing the first principle identified by the Assembly of First Nations.
The second principle is access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies. Here again, there is a chronic lack of funding for certain communities. I am thinking of the northern communities that are far from major centres, which will now have to appeal to the provincial courts more regularly, without necessarily having the financial resources to get there and exercise their rights.
Finally, the third principle identified is to address underlying issues, such as access to housing and economic security. I am also thinking of access to safe drinking water, another major issue that the House will soon have to deal with and take concrete action to resolve.
Coming back to this principle, we see that on reserves there are still many issues that prevent the full implementation of the measures in Bill S-2. These measures would make it possible to protect women on reserves who are unfortunately experiencing family violence.
Other problems noted by the NDP prevent it from supporting this bill. First, the bill includes a one-year transitional period to allow first nation communities to enact new laws. This one-year period is too short for many communities that want to resolve a number of outstanding issues that are not being addressed here.
Quebec is a prime example of some of the problems this bill will create. According to lawyer David Schulze, Bill S-2 overlooks the specificities of Quebec. Under the Civil Code, common-law partners do not have property rights, but they would under Bill S-2. For example, a first nations member would have rights to his Innu spouse's home on the Uashat reserve, but she would have no rights to his home across the street in Sept-Îles.
Clearly the bill does not exactly resolve the problems of discrimination that the women are experiencing when it comes to matrimonial real property.
We still have a lot of work to do to ensure that their rights are respected. That is why the NDP will continue to oppose Bill S-2, which does nothing tangible to give first nations women the help they really need.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her excellent speech. I wanted to ask her more or less the same question that I just asked the Minister for Status of Women, who did not provide a specific answer to my question regarding the consultations.
Many aboriginal groups, such as the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the national aboriginal women's summit, have been very critical of the Conservative government's consultation process and the manner in which it passes bills.
Had the government held serious and effective consultations and had it listened to and respected what aboriginal stakeholders had to say, would we still be dealing with the bill in its current form?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
In my opinion, the bill would be altogether different. Quebec Native Women is another group that opposes the current version of the bill. This group, which the government is trying to protect, clearly said:
...Bill S-2 in its current form does not meet all the concerns expressed repeatedly to the government by FAQ, particularly with respect to access to justice and capacity building of our governments and communities.
It is very clear: women who should usually feel that the government provides them with the means to stand up for themselves are telling us, their representatives, that this is not the case. Bill S-2 does not meet their needs and does not really give them access to all the legal avenues that they should have. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any measures to address the systemic violence experienced by women in their communities.
Had the government truly considered their proposals, briefs and testimony, it would have introduced a completely different and much more effective bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, given the fact that many first nations across Canada are watching how this debate is evolving, there is a great deal of frustration and a sense that the government did not go out of its way whatsoever to have legitimate, genuine consultation even though court rulings have directed the government to work with first nations.
My question is related to what the member started to talk about: the idea of the government bringing in time allocation on the bill, which is adding insult to injury. Could the member provide a perspective as to how that will be received by our first nations communities?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is similar to that of my colleague from Sherbrooke and which will allow me to speak more about the lack of respect for democracy that this government shows on a daily basis.
This is even more obvious now that we are approaching the end of the session. There are two or even three time allocation motions every day. Every time, we have to fight for our right to speak, a right stemming from our mandate.
I sincerely believe that first nations communities will be very disappointed with the government's attitude, which is once again reflected in the way in which the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development manages his file and speaks with first nations groups.
How he manages the file is symptomatic of how this government manages all issues that affect first nations. It does not consult very much, it does not really focus on coming up with real solutions to first nations' problems and it does not even address systemic problems. I have the feeling that the communities will be very disappointed with the results of the study of today's bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for sharing her time with me.
I want to begin by saying that I already know what to expect as criticism from the government in terms of our position on the bill. It is easy, because we have often heard it during question period and statements by members. The government accuses us of not giving any consideration to the rights of women on reserves.
I must admit that I think expressing that view is intellectually dishonest. The issue is much more complex than one where everything is either black or white: if you are against the bill, you are against women’s rights, and if you support the bill, you support women’s rights. This is ridiculous, and I think the members of the government are intelligent enough to understand the issue. At least I hope they are. It is a question of rights and legislation. We must therefore recognize the complexity that lies behind our opposition.
I would like to go back to the debate that we had earlier with the minister when the time allocation motion was adopted. I do not even know anymore how many time allocation motions there have been over the past few days, there have been so many. The number of gag orders and time allocation motions has been particularly high.
The minister answered one of my questions, and I heard other Conservative members reiterate the point that this is the third or fourth version of the bill, given the various versions that died on the order paper because of elections and so on.
Even though this is the third or fourth draft, what puzzles me is that the government still has not managed to strike the right note and achieve a result that reflects the consultations that were actually held. There were consultations held in the early 2000s. Things have changed a great deal since then.
A variety of reports have been tabled, and consultations were held in 2003, in 2005 and more recently in 2008. In reality, the situation is constantly changing. I think we should hold consultations on a more regular basis, especially on this bill specifically.
The government is bringing in a bill. However, according to the presentations made by the first nations during the consultations, the bill falls short of its goals. It is therefore rather difficult to see it as the result of the work that was done. The people who were consulted are telling us that it is not.
Of course, this causes huge problems. In addition, it is representative of a failure to listen and a lack of rigour by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as well as his troubling incompetence in this issue, as in so many others. We are aware of the major problems faced by first nations communities.
I would now like to come back to the issue of complexity. Frankly, I must say that I am offended, just as my colleagues must be, to be told every day, by a government that does absolutely nothing for women that we are opposed to women’s rights just because we are opposed to the bill. I have to say it, especially in this very complicated context.
We in the NDP are very proud of the record number of women sitting in the House. Our caucus is made up of women who are very dynamic and very aware of the issues. Ever since I have been involved with this party, I have had the pleasure of learning a great deal about these issues.
The idea is that the bill proposes changes that will fill the legal void in the area of matrimonial rights. We need only look at the provincial civil codes and the federal government's responsibility to the first nations to appreciate this void.
For example, an aboriginal couple who are going through a divorce will not be able to properly deal with the situation or manage it from a legal standpoint. By introducing this bill, the government is making it look like it is doing something to address the problem but, at the end of the day, the bill is nothing but a talking point for press conferences, and does almost nothing concrete to help women in difficulty.
To begin with, there is no funding attached to the changes proposed in the bill, despite the fact that funding would give these people access to the legal resources they need to benefit from the changes proposed in the bill.
If the court is located too far from a reserve, it creates an additional financial burden. People who are unable to get assistance from a lawyer, or some form of legal aid, will need money to make the trip. They will need access to resources, and the bill does nothing in that regard. That is the first problem.
The other problem, which was raised on a number of occasions, pertains to determining the symptoms of the problem. In theory, the bill changes the act. However, in addition to the lack of resources, combatting violence against women is outside intended scope of the bill.
First nations communities are experiencing poverty and shameful third world conditions. Obviously, we need to start somewhere, which is probably the intent of this bill. However, since it does nothing to achieve concrete results, provide adequate resources, or address related problems, it is difficult for us to support it.
We must not forget that the communities themselves appeared before the committee and made this observation. The Native Women's Association of Canada stressed that the problems I just listed are not going to go away and that, in certain cases, they may get worse. This bill is a way for the government to say that it has addressed the problem and that it has taken action. The government will, in all likelihood, use the bill as a pretext for taking no further action when, in fact, we know full well that there is still a great deal of work to be done, work that this government, unfortunately, does not seem prepared to do.
I would like to address another issue that I have already raised a number of times today in the House. It concerns the lack of resources and what the bill claims, in theory, to do. A number of aboriginal communities in Quebec have an important place in the Quebec nation. We are trying to work with them, and maintain a good relationship with them.
However, the Quebec Civil Code is very different from the common law system used in the other provinces. Lawyers testified in committee, and elsewhere, that the bill does not take this difference into account. In the provinces, especially in Quebec where the differences are substantial, procedures and rules already exist. The bill is a way of imposing the Conservative government's vision, and it does not take into consideration all of the issues I have mentioned. This creates a multitude of problems, and is a demonstration of bad faith.
I would like to conclude on this point. I talked about the minister's incompetence in this file. This is a common problem with this government, which has very fractious relationships with the provinces. Indeed, the Prime Minister never meets with the provincial premiers to talk about such issues as the economy.
However, this government has adopted the same attitude in its dealings with first nations. It does little things here and there so it can boast about it in front of the cameras, yet, according to testimony and what we see on the ground, these measures actually lead to very few concrete changes. My colleagues whose ridings include reserves are in a better position to testify to this than I am.
The government then has the nerve to show contempt for the people who organize to protest this paternalistic attitude. Take for example the minister's recent comments, which I will not repeat because of his unparliamentary language. His general approach and the way he treated some of my colleagues on the committee, including the member for Churchill, when discussing this issue show a certain contempt that does nothing to encourage good relations with communities that have gone through very difficult situations. The government should be bending over backwards to work better with them, but instead it is content to engage in public relations.
This is really unfortunate. There are too many problems in this bill for us to support it. We want to see more tangible, meaningful action. The government must recognize that this issue is much more complex. We want the Conservatives to stop insulting us by saying that we do not respect women's rights. This is utterly false.
This is why we oppose this bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 is, first and foremost, about protecting women, men and children who live on reserve. Providing them with basic protections for matrimonial real property interests and rights is something that needs to be done now.
They can spin this any way they want, but the fact is that women on reserve need to have the same rights that he has, that his colleagues have and that I have. It is shameful that the members of the opposition would vote against rights to protect women and children in situations of family violence.
Why does the member think that aboriginal women should have less protection than his colleagues and we on this side of the House have?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I was expecting these sorts of comments, which we have been hearing since this debate began.
We all agree on this issue. The government and the opposition parties agree that something must be done to improve the lives of aboriginal women. I find it reprehensible that the government is saying that we do not believe in women's rights simply because we want to have a debate on the complexities of changing the law. That kind of comment is completely unacceptable.
To respond to my colleague's question—for which I thank her—and to reiterate what I said in my speech, it is all well and good to change the law in theory, but the fact of the matter is that the resources are not there to allow women to benefit from these changes. It takes resources to hire a lawyer, use legal aid, go to court and make the legal challenges required to benefit from these laws—resources that these communities do not have.
That is what we heard from witnesses. It is not coming from me. That is what people from the communities and the members who represent them told us. We also heard it from the various associations that testified in committee and in public forums. That is why we have no qualms about opposing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather disarming to see my colleague take the time to explain at length how unacceptable it is to be accused of not supporting women's rights because we disagree with the approach to this bill and the lack of resources to go with it. It is a bit like the regiments needing tanks and the government buying them minivans instead. We would vote against that because we would be buying minivans for soldiers who need tanks. The Conservatives would tell us that we are against the army. This tactic has gone so far and it is so low that I am sure that historians will look back on this in 10 or 15 years and remark how harmful this was to democratic debate.
I would like my young colleague to elaborate because he is a fine example of the future of democracy and parliamentary work in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He described the problem perfectly. We have asked questions in the House on other issues affecting aboriginal communities and the answer we got from the various ministers concerned was that we did not respect women. That is nothing but rhetoric and demagoguery.
Based on the consultations we held and the testimony we heard from the people affected by the changes, we see that there are problems with the bill. We therefore come to the House to tell the government that the bill does not go far enough. We want to achieve the same objective that the government says it wants to achieve, except that we know that this bill will not help us do that. We want to propose better measures that will truly make life better for aboriginal women. This government has some nerve telling us that we are against women's rights, especially aboriginal women's rights.
We have seen this government's inaction and the contempt this minister has for the communities he is supposed to represent. We have no lessons to learn from this government.
I want to thank my colleague for his comments.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.
As an aboriginal woman, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about the importance of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.
The basic principle behind the legislation is very simple. It is about the equality of non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people when it comes to matrimonial rights. It is about access to the same basic legal protection for those living on and off reserve. Everywhere else in Canada there is a legal protection when a marriage or common law relationship breaks down or a spouse or a common law partner dies, except on reserves. Provincial legislation ensures that matrimonial real property assets are distributed equitably, for instance, and that children and spouses are protected, but there are no similar family laws to speak of in first nation communities.
Aboriginal women have been waiting for this legislation for a long time. It is simply appalling that this legislative gap still exists in Canada in 2013. They deserve to have the same rights as non-aboriginal people in Canada. Our government believes that Canadians should not be denied access to basic rights and protection simply because of where they live.
That is why our government is responding to the call of aboriginal women. Parliamentary committees, international bodies, even the Manitoba NDP, have called for urgent action to finally eliminate the long-standing legislative gaps that have caused much pain and indignity. As hon. members of the House must recognize, Bill S-2 does not simply speak to the principles of fairness, equality and respect. It will also have a direct and positive impact on people's day-to-day lives during a family crisis.
Bill S-2 would protect the right of married or common law couples living on reserve in the event of the breakup of their relationship or a death. It would provide an equitable division of matrimonial real property assets, and in the case of violent and abusive relationships, it would protect the spouse and children by authorizing the court to grant an individual spouse exclusive occupation of the family home. Until an appropriate matrimonial rights and interests law is in place, spouses or common law partners living on most reserves in Canada will have no legal protection and rights in the event of separation, a divorce, death or domestic violence.
In our great country, it is outrageous that there are still individuals, mostly women, who do not have the legal means to defend themselves in situations of spousal violence and who have limited rights when it comes to protecting their matrimonial real property and interests in the event of a marital breakdown.
As parliamentarians, we cannot and must not allow this state of affairs to continue any longer. Now is the time to act, because innocent women and children have suffered long enough and because we do not want this legislative gap to claim any more victims. Every day that goes by leaves thousands of aboriginal men, women and children across our country vulnerable and without the same protection as anyone else in the House takes for granted.
More than 25 years have passed since the 1986 landmark ruling in two cases: Paul v. Paul and Derrickson v. Derrickson. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that provincial family law cannot be applied to homes and real estate on reserves. It is shameful that the opposition does not share this same sense of urgency in supporting legislation that would give these same rights and protections to aboriginal women and children who might otherwise be left homeless and poverty-stricken.
Consider that in a first nations community, when a marriage or a common-law relationship breaks down and an individual, usually a woman who is often accompanied by children, is forced from the home, she has no legal recourse. If the house is sold and the spouse retains all the proceeds, no court can help her.
Jennifer Courchene, a first nations woman, is one of those women who have suffered as a result of this legislative gap. She was evicted, with her children, from the family home by her husband. She told the standing committee on status of women that a judge wanted to help but his hands were tied. She lost the family home. Jennifer and her children needed, and rightly deserved, legal protection similar to what the law affords women who live off reserve.
Bill S-2 is designed to ensure that Canadians who live on reserve have similar matrimonial rights and protections to those who live off reserve. It would promote the safety of children and caregivers who experience family violence. It would give these women the same legal tools that help other Canadian women prevent and combat abuse and violence from spouses or common-law partners. Along with matrimonial real property rights, the bill would ensure continued access to the family home for women and their children after a marital breakup. Legal instruments, such as emergency protection orders and exclusive occupation orders, would also be available.
Parliament has spent ample time reviewing, amending and debating Bill S-2 and its previous legislation. The time for study and delay has passed. Now is the time to act.
The fact is that no one disputes the need for this legislation or criticizes the bill for what it does, which is finally filling a legislative gap that has existed for more than 25 years. It would provide individuals living on reserves with the same basic rights and protections as all other Canadians, yet instead of getting behind this bill, the opposition continues to oppose equality for all Canadian women, whether they be aboriginal or non-aboriginal. It continues to oppose the bill.
I would respectfully urge the members opposite to recognize the urgency of this situation, and to vote in support of this bill and for extending basic equal rights to thousands and thousands of aboriginal women, men and children.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed with the Minister of Health's attitude while my colleague from Chambly—Borduas and others were speaking.
The various disparaging remarks make me wonder if she really understands our overall position. I would like to know if she took that same attitude with the communities and the aboriginal women who wrote to the government and who appeared before the committee to say that this bill does not meet their needs and that it does not take into account the discrimination faced by the women in these communities.
I want to know if she was that closed-minded towards the women who are calling on the government to truly help them.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, a great day in history in Canada was in 1921, when Canadian women were able to vote in federal elections. Unfortunately, that did not apply to aboriginal people. In 1960, under a Conservative government, the Prime Minister introduced the legislation that would allow all aboriginal people to be able to vote.
I find it very hard to believe that today I stand in this House as an aboriginal person debating the rights of aboriginal women and non-aboriginal women. I find it absolutely shocking to be debating this issue with a fellow woman. We need to pass this legislation and address the gap between non-aboriginal women and aboriginal women when it comes to matrimonial rights and property.
Mr. Speaker, I do not question that this is, indeed, an important issue. Having said that, I would have loved the opportunity to ask the minister a wide variety of questions on health care, given that she is the Minister of Health.
That is a tough one to resist, but I will.
The issue before us is one in which the government has brought forward pieces of legislation that ultimately have a significant impact on first nations. We have seen court rulings that have indicated that there is an obligation for the government to work with our first nations in trying to build consensus. Could the member provide assurances to the House that a majority of first nations are supporting the initiative that the government is now proposing?
Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier in my comments, this bill is very simple. It would make matrimonial law applicable to aboriginal people as it is to non-aboriginal people.
Members can cloud the issue with all the excuses they want, whether it be infrastructure or not enough resources here and there. They can cloud the issue with all kinds of excuses, but the fact of the matter is that this is about aboriginal women having the same matrimonial rights as non-aboriginal women. I urge NDP members, their leader, and Liberal Party members to vote in support of addressing the gap between aboriginal women and non-aboriginal Canadians on the issue of matrimonial rights.
The bill is very simple. Opposition members need to stop coming up with excuses for why they cannot support the rights of aboriginal women and support this legislation immediately.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege today to speak in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.
The legislation before us has been crafted to meet the specific challenges presented by the fact that over two decades ago the Supreme Court ruled that provincial or territorial matrimonial real property does not apply to first nations reserve lands.
I feel particularly proud as a member of both the parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. That is the committee that was fortunate enough to hear about this bill in detail and to hear from some of the victims and those people who supported the bill. We also heard from those in opposition to the bill. I want to address some of those comments, which I am hearing today from the opposition as well.
I find it shameful that there are people in this House who would not vote for this bill. It addresses a long-standing legislative gap with regard to matrimonial property rights. As the Minister of Health just stated, this is long overdue.
I want to talk about a mechanism in the bill that would provide for courts of law to apply matrimonial real property laws on reserve where there are none.
Specifically, I want to talk about the fact that first nations could develop their own laws if they so wish. They could do that while meeting the specific needs of their communities. First nations could determine the content themselves with the help of their councils and leadership. What they would need to do is earn the majority support among eligible members in a public vote. This process is public and out in the open. That is a very important provision in the bill.
Another important provision is the 12-month transition period that was added in direct response to a request from first nations to have it built in. We know that many first nations are quite advanced in developing their own laws, so this allows them a 12-month period to do so before the provisional federal rules would take place. If that is the case, 12 months after Bill S-2 comes into force, the provisional federal rules would come into effect so that those communities that had yet to enact a law of their own under Bill S-2 or some other legislation such as the First Nations Land Management Act would also have a law on this subject. All first nations citizens would have access to the same protections and rights as I and other Canadians have, regardless of where they live in Canada. This is the right thing for us to do.
It is important to recognize that Bill S-2 would not require first nations to enact laws that are identical to the federal rules. To do so would essentially defeat much of the collaborative work that has gone into the proposed legislation, which is years of analysis, consultation and engagement.
Through these collaborative efforts, a clear consensus emerged that first nations must be able to develop their own laws on the issue if they so wish. It is impossible to overestimate the value of this provision. First nations could enact laws tailored to their needs and cultural traditions. As an example of how a first nation could personalize the law, it could grant a role to a council of elders to resolve disputes.
In the case where a first nation does not pass its own laws related to matrimonial real property, the bill would provide for the application of provisional federal rules. That would be fine too. First and foremost, these federal rules are designed to protect individuals who have far too often been victimized by the lack of relevant law, particularly women and children. The federal rules would provide spouses or common-law partners with an equal entitlement to occupy the family home. Should the relationship end, each spouse or partner would be entitled to equal shares of the value of all matrimonial interests and rights, including the family home.The rules would also ensure that the family home could not be sold or remortgaged without the consent of both spouses or partners.
These provisions would prevent a scenario that has become all too common in recent years: one partner or spouse sells the family home and keeps the proceeds, leaving the other partner or spouse impoverished and homeless.
We heard this situation time and again in the status of women committee. It was heartbreaking to hear these women. Their lives will never be the same. Some of them are still paying their fair share of this family home that they have been thrown out of by their former partners. It is shocking. It really is.
I want to talk about two other provisions in the bill that would do much to protect family members when there is violence as well.
The first involves emergency protection orders. We have heard the Minister for Status of Women talk about these provisions often, because she knows how effective they would be in dealing with this issue. Specifically, the order would be issued by a court and would be enforceable by police or peace officers. It would exclude a spouse or common-law partner from the family home for up to 90 days, with the possibility of an extension if necessary. The orders would be made in urgent situations when violence has occurred or is imminent.
A second and similar instrument would be the exclusive occupation order, also in the bill. This would again be fully a enforceable court order that excludes a spouse or partner from the family home for a specified term.
In both cases, the excluded spouse or common-law partner would be able to contest the order in court.
Also, the federal rules proposed in Bill S-2 would address the often difficult issue of who can occupy the family home after a spouse or common-law partner passes away. As unfair as it seems, there have been cases in which a widower has been forced out of the home upon the death of his wife. Therefore, under this proposed federal regime, the surviving spouse or common-law partner could remain in the home for at least 180 days.
The government believes that what has been proposed would also balance individual rights and interests with collective rights of first nations. Bill S-2 stipulates that a first nation would have the right to make representation to the court on its collective rights on its reserve land as well as on any relevant cultural, social or legal matters not relevant to a case heard under the federal rules. This provision would not apply, however, in cases involving emergency or confidentiality orders, which I believe is entirely appropriate, given that emergency orders can sometimes involve life-threatening situations.
I believe that there is built into this bill respect for the collective rights of first nations. For example, non-members would not be allowed to acquire permanent interests in reserve land, nor would they be able to benefit from the value or appreciation of that land.
There would be one exception, which is that if a non-member has contributed to the improvement of the land that he or she held together with a former spouse, that person may be entitled to some compensation. That entitlement would apply only to improvements, not to the original value of the land.
Finally, this is the fourth version of a bill that has come before Parliament on this issue. Bill S-2 includes amendments, making the previous bills even better, and of course extensive consultation took place.
I echo the words of the Minister of Health when I say that it is time to stop debating this issue and time to take action. It is time to pass this bill.
The legislative gap has hurt families and entire communities, and there have been individuals on first nations for more than 25 years without the same rights that I and other members enjoy. Let us stop the pain and suffering caused by this legislative gap. This pain and suffering can often lead to homelessness and poverty. Again, this measure is long overdue. I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to join me in supporting this legislation, Bill S-2.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.
After boasting that this is the fourth version of the bill, and that it has been improved, she ended her speech by saying that it is time to stop debating this bill.
If this is the fourth time that this bill has been improved, it must not have been very good to begin with, and additional improvements may be needed.
The Conservatives say that they consulted extensively. However, I do not think that they listened to people. I do not believe that they used these consultations to improve the bill enough. A number of aboriginal groups still do not support it because it does not really apply to their situation.
I am wondering how the member can say that this is the fourth time they have introduced this bill, that they have continually improved it and that they now have to hurry up, stop the debate and pass it as quickly as possible. This approach does not make much sense to me.
Can my colleague explain her position? I do not understand it.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think 20 or 25 years to debate an issue like this one, which would grant aboriginal women the same rights that I and the member opposite have and take for granted, is too long.
That said, there has been a lot of consultation on the bill. I could tell members about the consultation that began in 2005 and consisted of four phases, including national consultation, consensus-building and engagement on draft legislation. Organizations were provided with over $8 million in total to conduct these consultations, but more important, I think, is that many people on reserve—many first nations leaders and many aboriginal men and women—support the legislation. I will tell members more about them if I get a chance to answer the next question.
Mr. Speaker, I have a specific technical question for the member.
Bill S-2 seeks to extend matrimonial real property rights and interests and access to emergency protection orders and occupation orders to individuals living on reserve.
While some have called the bill paternalistic, it would provide first nations with the ability to enact legislation on the topic of matrimonial real property rights that could be legally upheld in court.
Would you please provide us with more information about how Bill S-2 would enable first nations to enact their own laws on the topic of on-reserve matrimonial property rights?
I will not provide that to the hon. member, but perhaps the hon. member for Mississauga South would.
Mr. Speaker, I know we have talked about this and I know how much the member cares about the issue and wants it to be resolved. I am so pleased that he will be supporting the bill.
I want to thank him for that question because I want to say that this is about respect. It is respect for first nations to be able to develop their own laws on this subject.
However, it also means that this government, through this bill, is respecting cultural differences and respecting any social traditions or cultural traditions that first nations want to incorporate into their own legislation. It does that as well. It is because we recognize that there is diversity among first nations that we would have this 12-month transition period, for example, so that they can do exactly that and implement the best law for their own communities.
However, I mainly want to tell the member about Rolanda Manitowabi, who came to the status of women committee and said:
...my son and I were thrown out of the house. I had no place to go. I was in a crisis. ... This legislation would have helped...and it would have considered the impacts on my son. I hope it's available to help other women and children on reserves.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant, the incomparable and the irreplaceable member for Nickel Belt. He will have half of my speaking time.
Bill S-2 comes from the Senate, hence the “S” before the bill number. This means that the process was started in the Senate. I will not be spending too much time talking about the Senate and whether or not it has a role to play here. I think everybody already knows the NDP's position on this issue.
I think that it is the elected officials in the House of Commons who should put forward bills as often as possible. This bill has already appeared in other forms in previous Parliaments. The Senate took it up again, probably at the request of the government, for reasons that I have not yet figured out. In my view, it is the right of elected officials to introduce bills.
Unfortunately, there is an additional process. We always have to send our bills to the Senate, which spends thousands—if not millions—of dollars to do just about the same job as we do here, that is, to study bills.
Frequently, the other chamber hears the same witnesses and conducts the same studies as we do. I will not elaborate much on this, because I know it is not the point today. However, I would simply like to point out that every time we consider a bill that starts with the letter “S”, it means that it was introduced in the Senate.
As I was saying earlier, this is the fourth version of a piece of legislation that the Conservatives have been trying to get through Parliament since 2008. The NDP has opposed each one of these bills when they have come up for debate. This is nothing new.
The Conservatives are showing their ideological blindness. They seem to hide behind their ideology and they do not seem to understand common sense, the truth or the arguments that we put forward. They seem to be caught in their own ideology and cannot get out of it, unfortunately, even though we try to make them see reason with our speeches.
Today, the point of my speech is to show the government the many flaws in the bill and help the government understand why parliamentarians should not vote in favour of the bill in its current form.
A number of people have already spoken about the bill, primarily in committee or here in the House of Commons. As I said earlier, these are essentially the same people who go to the Senate to present their point of view.
Opinion on the bill is far from unanimous. It seems that the objective of the bill is a good and laudable one. All members in the House are in favour of equal rights for women, whether they live on reserves or elsewhere. No one opposes that laudable objective. However, since the present bill is flawed, it will improve the situation only slightly, if at all. That is why a number of people, a number of experts who live in these aboriginal communities every day, made presentations and came out against the bill.
When the government wants to propose legislation and make decisions, it absolutely has to initiate negotiations or hold consultations. The government did hold a few consultations regarding earlier bills, but unfortunately, no consultations were held regarding Bill S-2, which we are discussing today, although it is very similar to the earlier bills.
In spite of all the consultations, it seems that the testimony of the people who expressed their views has not been taken into consideration. In committee, they said the bill had problems and they therefore could not support it. I will come back to the more specific positions taken by certain witnesses later.
Another somewhat more technical thing caught my attention. In this version, the bill concerning first nations matrimonial real property has a lower ratification threshold. In the previous bills that tried to do the same thing as Bill S-2, a majority of band members had to vote for the law, that is, 50% plus one. In the present version, Bill S-2, the law must be approved by a simple majority of those who voted, with a participation rate of at least 25% of eligible voters. This is a slight change and is relatively difficult to find, but it is rather important. The ratification threshold has been lowered from 50% to 25%. That is really quite surprising. Is it because the Conservatives are afraid of the results? Are they afraid of what the first nations will be deciding in their own democratic bodies? I offer that as a possibility.
There are other reasons why the NDP opposes this bill. In fact, all of the leading first nations organizations, whose members will be affected by this bill, do not support it because they do not think it will succeed in protecting women against violence. It also infringes on the inherent rights of female first nations members. I am not the one saying that; first nations organizations are saying it.
Those organizations oppose this bill for several reasons. We could mention the lack of financial resources to help first nations governments implement the law or the lack of funding for lawyers or to take into account limited access to provincial courts, for geographic reasons. That is an important point, because aboriginal communities are often in remote areas and what the bill is trying to do is not as simple as the government might think. Sometimes, it seems to be a simplistic solution to a much more complex problem, particularly for aboriginal communities in very remote areas.
We could also talk about the lack of housing on the reserves and the lack of the land that would be needed to provide both spouses with separate houses on the reserves. We could talk about the lack of capacity to implement the law, particularly in remote areas, as I was saying. We can also see the lack of provincial courts that are capable of managing the complexity of the reserves’ land codes and the lack of funding to help women who have to buy their shares back from their partners when they are given access to the house. There is also the lack of resources for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the lack of extra housing on the reserves.
I have listed several reasons why first nations organizations have criticized Bill S-2. They are also reasons why we, as a party and as the official opposition in the House of Commons, have to oppose this bill.
Once again, the Conservatives are taking a paternalistic, confrontational approach to impose their legislative agenda. That is why the NDP will not support any bill concerning matrimonial real property unless it is accompanied by non-legislative measures to solve these serious problems. What needs to be done includes providing speedy access to remedies; ending violence against aboriginal women by developing a national action plan; managing the housing crisis on reserves and funding shelters for women; providing better access to justice, including increased funding for legal aid; increasing financial resources to help first nations governments enforce the law; and providing better access to alternative dispute resolution methods.
These are all reasons why we cannot support this bill. Legislation alone is not what is needed; measures that go beyond legislation, meaningful measures to help all first nations with their everyday reality, are also called for.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the national aboriginal women’s summit are all organizations that have very strongly criticized the bill brought in by this Conservative government, which is congratulating itself today on listening to the first nations when we can clearly see that the responses show the opposite to be true.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently all morning, and now into the afternoon, to members across the way regarding this bill. For years, there have been a number of iterations of the bill. It has been in the public domain and throughout the aboriginal community. There have been 103 consultation sessions in 76 different locations, but members across the way constantly say that we have not listened with regard the bill. I do not understand how they could sit through 15 hours of committee with witnesses clearly saying that the legislation would have saved them their home, from being out on the street with their kids. They continually rationalize why they will vote against it.
Those members keep trying to say that, yes, they are for aboriginal women's rights, but that there are all these technicalities, yet they offered no amendments at all at committee.
Those members need to come clean with the real reason or get onside. Do the right thing and support the legislation so women on reserve can have the same rights as the rest of the women in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Perhaps he misunderstood what I said. I stated that the government had indeed held consultations and that I gave it due credit. However, if it had conducted them properly and then understood what was said during those consultations, the bill would never have taken its current form. Aboriginal groups are criticizing the current bill.
Even though the Conservatives held consultations, they did not listen to what was said in these consultations. We listened. We listened to what the groups said, and that is why we are taking this stand today.
In fact, the bill is well intentioned. I am for equal rights for all women in the country, no matter where they are. However, in reality, the current bill does not address this concern properly.
The NDP proposed four amendments in committee to try to improve this situation. Regrettably, the Conservatives refused to listen. Much as the NDP wanted to change the bill for the better and maybe then support it, the Conservatives did not listen. The government consistently opposes anything that comes from the opposition parties.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherbrooke who, with calm strength, gave a great speech.
The member opposite spoke about witnesses in committee. I would like the member for Sherbrooke to comment on this short quote from a specific witness, namely David Langtry, the acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He said:
Although the measure is meant to be temporary [of course], many first nations lack the financial and human resources to develop effective dispute resolution systems. This is part of a larger issue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question.
During my speech, I did not have time to get to this very important point. This legislative measure will take effect in 12 months. Through an amendment, which was rejected, we tried to change this time period to three years in order to allow first nations to have their own measures in their respective bands and decide for themselves how to proceed.
Unfortunately, most of the witnesses said that these places did not have any resources to implement internal measures within the various bands in order to improve the situation.
In my opinion, this is inconsistent with our current laws, which call for consultation first and for aboriginal reserves to be masters of their own laws. Bill S-2 would come into effect on all the reserves after one year, and they will not have made any decisions on their own internal measures.
There are serious constitutional problems, according to one of the witnesses that the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi alluded to.
[English]
My party is opposed to Bill S-2, now at third reading stage. I will give context to the bill, my debate and my contribution.
There are four first nations communities in my riding.
The first one, Nipissing First Nation, is situated between Sturgeon Falls and North Bay along Highway 17 east, and the chief is Marianna Couchie. I specifically will be quoting Chief Couchie later on in my speech because she is the only female chief in my riding. Members will find what she has to say about Bill S-2 very interesting.
The Nipissing First Nation is a good and very modern reserve. There are a lot of small businesses and some very nice land situated along Lake Nipissing. It is a very progressive first nation.
Another first nation community is the Wahnapitae First Nation, and the chief is Ted Roque. It is situated along Lake Wahnapitae in the riding of Nickel Belt. It works very closely with the mining companies on its land or close to it. It does the water monitoring for the mining companies. The first nation hires some of its own people to do the work, to monitor the water in its reserve or close to it.
The third first nation community in my riding is the Whitefish Lake First Nation, located in Naughton, on Highway 17 west. The chief of that first nation is Steve Miller. Again, it is a very progressive first nation. It is building homes, a subdivision, with the help of Mike Holmes, the famous builder we see on television regularly building energy-efficient homes.
The last first nation community in my riding is the Mattagami First Nation and it is situated on Highway 144 west, next to Gogama. Its chief is Walter Naveau. The Mattagami First Nation is also very progressive and it has an agreement with a mining company, IAMGOLD, which is developing an open pit on its traditional land. The first nation has signed an agreement with this company, which is probably one of the best agreements signed with first nations and a mining company. The Mattagami First Nation will be helping with the development of this open pit.
With respect to this legislation, I will read what Chief Couchie from Nipissing First Nation had to say. She emailed me some information about matrimonial homes last night. She said:
There are some certainties that NFN would like to ensure. We already have our own Matrimonial Rights Property policy in place, that occured quite a few years ago around 2004. (I am concerned about) Will this new Bill have an impact on our Existing MRP Policy?
When we enacted our MRP two matters were of precedent.
1. The safe guarding of the right to preserve for ever our Land.
2. In our Policy/Act the children if they have status own the family home and which ever parent is prepared to raise the children in the family home can do so.
That means that if the mother is a non-native and the father is native, the mother, if she so wishes, can raise the kids in the family home. Chief Couchie continued:
Implicit in the 2nd matter is that if this is a marriage of a Status man and a non Status women. It the non-Status women is going to raise the child or children then she has the right to live in the matrimony home. This woman can never gain control of the land of the house, both have to be transferred in the name of the child or children).
Chief Couchie concluded:
I do, and others at the Nation, worry that the Bill is just another tactic to take our land; our Homeland!
This current government is trying in every way it can to under mine our Treaty and Inherent Rights.
The Conservative government still views First Nation peoples as “a problem”.
The Fundamental question is when will the government stop undermining our Rights and start to recognize that we have rights enshrined in Laws and Treaties. They should just change their plans and leave our lands and Rights alone.
It would be even better if the government entered in to a truly respectful dialogue.
With respect to this legislation and how the Conservative government treats first nations, I have said it before and I will say it again. We, as a country, need to get this relationship right. Until we do, we cannot move forward in any meaningful way as a country. The Conservative government's failure to consult and to recognize treaties and rights continues to be the stumbling block to progress.
As important as apologies are for wrong past behaviour, there is no real walking the walk with the Conservative government on these matters. Despite several good reports, consultations and previous legislation, the government fails to listen here.
The federal Conservatives went to the trouble of consulting with first nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada on matrimonial real property, but ignored the results of the consultation when preparing the original legislation. While this iteration of the bill removes some of the most onerous parts of previous legislation attempts, it still refuses to recognize first nations' inherent rights and jurisdiction in this matter.
The opposition to this legislation should give the government pause to consider moving forward. There is opposition from the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. There is opposition from many nations across the country.
Listen to Ms. Jennifer Courchene, in testimony to Parliament on April 30, 2013:
I'm not sure about the politics of this legislation, this bill. I just know that there should be something in place to help. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has gone through this in a first nation community. There are probably many, many other women who have gone through what I've gone through, and the story is pretty much the same: the woman loses the home. I'm not sure how other first nations communities are run, but if there had been something to help us, we would have taken it, rather than be homeless, that's for sure.
This legislation and the recent budget would not provide any of the necessary resources to take care of the fundamental problem. Bill S-2 is the fourth version of similar legislation that the Conservatives have tried to pass since 2008. The NDP has opposed these every time they came up for debate.
There are fundamental principles that need to be adhered to in addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserve. Unfortunately, I will not have time to name all of these concerns from the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Speaker, because you have given me the one minute signal, so I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech today, as difficult as it is for me to appreciate.
Notwithstanding the fact that the four reserves in his riding that he mentioned are progressive communities, there are hundreds of first nations communities in isolated and remote regions of Canada and many in northern Ontario that do not have access to some of the economic development that his communities have. By way of extension, we run into some very serious problems as they relate to MRP, two of them.
I have grappled with this legislation professionally in my capacity as a nurse working in first nations communities, particularly the isolated ones, and as legal counsel. I fail to understand in any measurable way who would have as compelling and substantive a debate against at least two of the features in this bill. They are the emergency protection orders and the occupation orders. The member himself quoted somebody in his speech who was vulnerable for those very reasons, in fact, if we break down what she was saying.
Can the member rise in the House today and explain to us why he is against emergency protection and occupation orders, very basic and urgent rights that occur at a very vulnerable time for many Canadian aboriginal women, who do not have those rights that other women do in other parts of Canada? I cannot understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I know the member cannot understand, and I am not surprised.
The fundamental principles outlined by the Assembly of First Nations on the problem with this bill include “recognition of first nations' jurisdiction”. That is what we have to do. We have to recognize their jurisdiction. We have to do more than just talk to them. We have to listen to the first nations. We have to stop telling them what they want and start to listen to them when they tell us what they want. That is what we have to do.
The other problem with the bill is access to justice dispute resolution and remedies. This bill does not have that. It also does not address underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security.
Mr. Speaker, we hear lots of rhetoric from the other side, but in fact Conservatives did not consult with the first nations, and this is the problem with this bill.
I have a letter from Chief Shining Turtle dated November 9, 2012. I know he has written other letters since, but I picked this one. He says:
Most recently, Indian Affairs has provided an option for Bands to opt in or out of 4 year terms for Chief and Council. Reflecting upon this further, Indian Affairs can amend Bill S-2 to allow Indian bands like Whitefish River that have an MRP law to be exempt from this hideous piece of legislation.
In another letter he wrote to the minister, he went on to talk about the following:
You directed in writing to have your department staff set up to meet with us and this has not occurred nor have your staff attempted to set up any meeting with us on MRP.
I can tell members that the chief invited government members to his community, and there was no response.
He further stated:
I will now remind you and your staff that this act undermines the Supreme Court decisions in this Country. In Sparrow, the Crown must have demonstrated accommodation of Aboriginal views and concerns.
The bill does not.
Again, maybe my colleague can remind the government of its duty to consult and the inherent rights of first nations to be respected.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that the Conservative government does not believe that the duty to consult exists, even though there was a court case on it.
I did not have time in my opening remarks to thank the MP for Nanaimo—Cowichan for all of the excellent work she has done on this bill. I also know that my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing does a lot of work for the first nations in her riding.
I know the Minister of Health speaks to a lot of first nations and first nations women, but I want to quote one of her answers a while ago. She stated:
I find it very hard to believe that today I stand in this House as an aboriginal person debating the rights of aboriginal women and non-aboriginal women.
What a shame that the Minister of Health, an aboriginal herself, would find that other people cannot speak for aboriginal people.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
I want to take a few minutes as I begin to speak on Bill S-2, the bill that would give real matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women and men living on reserves, and talk a little about why this bill is so important to me personally.
I get very emotional whenever I stand to speak about this. I feel very passionate about it. My granddaughter, Arcaydia Faith, is a baby girl of just over a year old, and she is of aboriginal descent. My son's girlfriend, a beautiful young aboriginal woman named Tamara, is a status Indian. When I look at my granddaughter, Arcaydia, and I look at her beautiful mother, Tamara, who together with my son are trying to build their lives, and I realize that my granddaughter and her mother do not have the same rights as I do as a Canadian woman just because they are born as status Indian women, it saddens and troubles me, and it literally breaks my heart.
It breaks my heart not just for these two aboriginal women who are part of my family but, more importantly, for the tens of thousands of aboriginal women and, frankly, men who are victimized over and over again because of who they are and because of their Canadian status.
When I speak about this issue and when I hear the opposition say it is not aboriginal women talking about aboriginal rights, as Canadians we do not accept that argument anymore. We are here, standing up for those who nobody else will stand up for.
On this side of the House we are standing up for them, and as a grandmother and as a mother, I am standing up for my aboriginal granddaughter and her mother. I am very proud to do so. I will do it for as long as I can, until we see the same rights that are afforded to every other Canadian afforded to aboriginal people.
As well, I want to say this does trouble me. I have a lot of respect for many of the opposition members who I believe are here for very solid and good reasons, but it does sadden me deeply when they oppose this legislation. I think if they looked at themselves in the mirror, they would know they do not have any good reason to oppose it.
I will also say I am very disappointed there has not been more coverage of this issue in the media. I do panels, almost on a weekly basis. I do news panels on the RCMP. I do news panels on prisoners and all kinds of very interesting topics. Why are we not doing panels and why are we not talking about Bill S-2 and the rights of aboriginal women?
We should be talking about this day and night for the next several weeks. We should have been talking about this. I am troubled. I think it begs the question that maybe we all have to look in the mirror. Why is it that aboriginal women in this country deserve to be virtually ignored not only by the media but sadly also by the opposition who I believe are here for the right reasons?
I challenge the opposition members to stand up and have the courage to maybe vote against their leader, maybe vote against their party, and do the right thing and support aboriginal women and the rights of aboriginal women on reserve.
I do want to take few moments to talk about what our government has done in terms of consultation. I think it is important that we look at the statistics on what aboriginal women face.
Approximately 15% of aboriginal women in 2009, in a marriage or with a common-law partner, reported that they had experienced spousal violence in the 5 previous years. This is a very serious and relevant issue. Of those who had been victimized, 58% reported that they had sustained an injury, compared to 41% of non-aboriginal women. Further, 48% reported that they had been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked or threatened with a weapon, and 52% of aboriginal women reported they felt threatened and feared for their lives.
Bill S-2 is designed to address this very real need in first nations communities for fair matrimonial rights and interests. It proposes not only to protect today's victims but also to prevent similar injustices from occurring in the future.
Bill S-2 and its implementation plan have been meticulously developed to take into account the realities of life on first nations reserves. For example, due to the remoteness of many first nations communities, the regulations under this legislation would enable an individual to secure an emergency protection order by telephone, email or fax.
Right now they could be crying for help, they could be phoning, and there is no protection order for them. Not only would this bill bring in the ability for a protection order, but it could actually be acquired by telephone, email or fax for emergency protection. Bill S-2 would also authorize a peace officer or other appropriate person to apply on behalf of a spouse or common-law partner, again providing that support that is so needed in times of crisis.
In addition, the government plans to support the implementation of the legislation through education and training. Front-line police officers would be given tools, policies and training to effectively enforce relevant laws governing matrimonial property rights. Education material and opportunities are also planned for provincial and territorial superior court judges. This would provide judges with a clear understanding of relevant on-reserve social issues, along with Bill S-2 and first nation laws.
There is a two-part phased-in approach proposed for the implementation of Bill S-2. The first part would allow courts to apply first nations' laws. This is very important and something that we recognize. The second part is a provisional federal regime that would apply to those communities that have yet to develop laws related to matrimonial rights and interests. The federal regime would not take effect until 12 months after Bill S-2 becomes law. The end result, however, would be that laws that protect the matrimonial rights and interests of all Canadians, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, regardless of where they live, would occur.
Some first nations currently deal with family violence issues by bringing an independent third party into the household to help resolve disputes, and their laws would continue this process. First nations would be free to create laws that align with their traditions and cultures. Laws developed under the mechanism proposed in Bill S-2 must satisfy only a few criteria. They must be endorsed by a majority of members in a free and open referendum, and they must respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I do not think anyone could argue that aboriginal people should not have the same rights that we enjoy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or under the Canadian Human Rights Act. To suggest the opposite, some would say is not only unfair but extremely discriminatory.
To support this empowering and culturally sensitive approach, our government would fund the creation of a centre of excellence for matrimonial real property. With the centre of excellence, first nation communities would have support and resources as they draft their own regimes. During its life cycle the centre of excellence would become an important resource to synthesize important tools, communications and research activities, and assist first nation communities and organizations in the development and application of the new legislation.
In addition to its critical role as a central resource, the centre of excellence would be supported by an advisory committee comprised of key stakeholders, such as the Government of Canada, aboriginal organizations, non-governmental organizations and centre of excellence staff. The committee would provide non-binding guidance on the direction of the centre in such areas as research and implementation related activities.
By endorsing Bill S-2 we could close this deplorable legislative gap and start the real and necessary work required to prevent the gap from claiming new victims, while putting an end to the pain and suffering that countless children and women are currently experiencing. It is time that all Canadians, regardless of where they happen to live, have access to a process to help them receive protection from domestic violence and abuse.
Clearly, Bill S-2 would provide first nations women with rights and protections in situations of domestic abuse. It is an essential part of any effective solution of violence against women and children. We talk about that so much in the House, whether it is murdered or missing aboriginal women, or violence against women and young girls in other parts of Canada. This is a very direct thing that we can do to help women on reserve.
I hear words like “we need to consult” and “culturally appropriate” and “treaty rights”. All of those things are extremely important, but imagine a young aboriginal woman having someone look her in the eye and say, “You don't have the same rights as every other Canadian because of who you are, because of your ethnicity, because you were born a status Indian and in Canada we are not going to protect that”.
That is what the opposition is saying. I ask them to reconsider and to pass this. We are going to do everything we can to pass the bill. I think we have the votes to do it, but more importantly, what a wonderful strong message it would send to aboriginal women if the opposition stood together with us and as one Parliament of Canada we support it and say, “Aboriginal women, we are here for you. We will not turn our backs on you, no matter what opposition we have”. I ask the opposition to do that.
Before I go to questions and comments I just want to remind all hon. members that if they want to ask a question they ought to wait until the speech is over as opposed to standing several minutes in advance in order to hopefully catch the eye of the Speaker.
Having said that, questions and comments, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
Mr. Speaker, the member said that consultation is important but that there are other avenues. According to the law and the inherent rights of first nations, it is a mandate for the government to consult. So again, let me remind her about Chief Shining Turtle from Whitefish River First Nation. He said:
While MRP laws may be needed for a handful of First Nation communities, what is desperately needed is capacity building and funding to support First Nations to work with their communities to come up with their own laws and local dispute resolution mechanism—we already know from residential schools how things turn out when Canada imposes its own views on Aboriginal peoples.
Again, here is a community that has had matrimonial real property legislation already in place within the community. Why is it that the Conservative government does not just provide capacity and resources to other first nations who are in need, because there are a lot of first nations that already have that?
Mr. Speaker, this is what I continually hear from the opposition on this matter, a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Instead of talking about—
The chief the hon. colleague was talking about, if she is a woman, would like to have the same rights as I have as a non-aboriginal woman. Let us talk about basic human rights. As a woman or a man in Canada, I am free from violence. I am free to acquire assets and if I go through a divorce, I actually can have half of those assets. The law makes sure that happens.
Why will that member not stand and instead of just talking a bunch of talking points and bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, actually stand up for women in this country who live on reserves and happen to be born as status Indians. They should have the same rights as I have as a non-aboriginal woman.
Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to debate a bill and we are to debate a bill on its own merits, but the sanctimony and hypocrisy coming from that side of the House is mind-boggling.
The member said let us look at ourselves in the mirror. Let me remind her, this bill started off as Bill C-47. What happened to it? It died on the order paper because the Prime Minister called a sudden election in 2008. It came back as Bill C-8. It died again on the order paper. Why? Because the government prorogued in December 2009. It came back again, this time as Bill S-4. They had seven months and the Conservatives did not do a thing with it. It came back as Bill S-2 in May 2011. It has been there almost two years. What did they do?
Now we are in a big rush. What does the government have to say about the priority of the bill?
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. colleague clearly did not hear is that this is actually very personal to me. My granddaughter is a member of the first nations. Her mom is a status Indian. I only speak for two Indian women in this country, but there are tens of thousands of Indian women who deserve the same rights as we do sitting here as non-aboriginal women.
The member can holler and yell. He can do the same thing that the opposition and the NDP are doing. This is a basic right for every single Canadian. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal women should have the same rights. That is what this is about.
Here is the good thing that I can say to my granddaughter: “We got it passed. We got it done. We are making sure that aboriginal women have the same rights as everybody else”.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Captain Jonathan Snyder
Mr. Speaker, David Snyder was one of my favourite teachers in high school. He was more than an impassioned English teacher and author. He was also a husband to Anne and a father to Adam and Jonathan.
It was five years ago this week that his son, Captain Jonathan Snyder, tragically lost his life while on night patrol in Afghanistan during his second tour of duty. Captain Snyder was the recipient of the Star of Military Valour. He was brave, courageous and strong. Captain Snyder saved the lives of his team when under fire from a Taliban ambush. He was 26 years old.
Today in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla a memorial plaque will be commemorated in honour of Captain Jonathan Snyder.
May we never forget the sacrifice of our brave men and women who serve and may we always find comfort for the family and friends left behind.
Environmental Stewardship
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an exceptional citizen from my riding who shows great leadership, dedication and community spirit in her care for the environment. Every spring for the past three years, Maja Vodanovic leads a team of families, students, teachers and local residents to clean out the Bouchard Creek. This year, more than 100 students from 10 schools participated.
This is a noble effort to reclaim a piece of land that belongs to all of us and to pass on the importance of environmental stewardship to our kids.
[Translation]
I commend Maja and all the volunteers on their good work. The Conservative government is jeopardizing the water quality of our lakes and rivers with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. An NDP government will protect and respect the environment, and it is precisely this optimism, this hope and these actions that we will bring to Canadians every day.
By coming together to clean riverbanks and waterways across Canada, Canadians are showing the Conservative government the right way to go.
[English]
1989 Tiananmen Square Protest
Mr. Speaker, the Canada-China relationship is a successful partnership based on co-operation in trade and investment, and deep and historic people-to-people ties. Human rights are an integral part of Canada's foreign policy and remain a priority with respect to China.
June 4 marks the 24th anniversary of the violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. Canada expresses its deepest condolences to those who lost friends and family members in the Tiananmen Square massacre.
We reiterate our call for China to account for those who remain missing and to release those who continue to be imprisoned more than two decades later for their participation in this non-violent event.
In light of the ongoing suppression in China of freedom of religion, freedom of expression and other universally held rights, we continue to urge the Government of China to abide by international human rights standards and to engage in an ongoing and open dialogue with its people about the events of 1989.
New Waterford Centennial
Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament representing the community of New Waterford, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and congratulate the town on its centennial year.
This past weekend I was pleased to attend an event honouring some of the town's seniors who have contributed greatly to their community. Over the last 100 years, New Waterford has faced some challenges. It was once one of the busiest coal-mining communities and home to No. 16 colliery, one of the biggest and best coal mines in Canada, which was shut down in 1963.
New Waterford is home to many great traditions from the Coal Dust Days to Davis Day to the Coal Bowl Classic basketball tournament, just to name a few. It is the residents' strong sense of pride for their community that attracts visitors, local and away, year after year to New Waterford.
I say congratulations to all of the volunteers and organizations who have worked so tirelessly to make a difference and to make the centennial celebrations possible.
I look forward to taking part in the festivities throughout this summer and invite my colleagues, especially the member for Charlottetown and his wife Kathleen, to these festivals.
Mighty Peace Day
Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today in support of Mighty Peace Day, an event taking place in my riding this fall.
Mighty Peace Day will allow youth to come together and reflect on the relative wealth that we all enjoy here in Canada and contemplate how we might work together to give back to those in need. The event encourages philanthropy among youth and is based on the idea that young people have the power to change the world.
Mighty Peace Day will feature speakers, dancers, bands and athletes. The occasion sets out to promote a strong and united global community, built on volunteerism and donating one's own resources to help those in need. Spearheaded by four energetic youth advocates, Tegwyn Curtis, Nicole Chrenek, Emma Chrenek and Hailey Winnicky-Lewis, the event will take place on October 1 in Grande Prairie.
In today's increasingly interconnected world, young people have more opportunity to engage with one another and to effect serious change. I hope all members of the House will stand with me to support Mighty Peace Day.
Helen Lu
Mr. Speaker, I stand to honour the mother of charities, Helen Lu, better known in Toronto as “Mama Lu”.
Nothing gave Helen Lu greater pleasure and pride than helping those in need. Charity was Mama Lu's passion. She was one of the founders of Toronto's Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care and its community wellness foundation. Her trademark was her running shoes. She wore them almost every day as she did not want to miss one minute in her service to others.
For Mama Lu, there were always more opportunities to serve, be it seniors of Yee Hong, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the United Way, or victims of flood and famine. For her 30 years of selfless service to others, Mama Lu was recognized with the Outstanding Achievement Award for Voluntarism in Ontario, in 1998, and Yee Hong Centre named a room after her.
We will miss Mama Lu, but her spirit and her legacy will live on through those who dedicate themselves to volunteering and serving others.
Micronutrient Initiative
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. M.G. Venkatesh Mannar, who was recently invested as an officer of the Order of Canada by the Governor General.
Mr. Mannar is the president of Micronutrient Initiative, a leading Canadian development organization that saves and improves the lives of mothers, children, families and communities every year through proven and cost-effective nutrient programs. I had the opportunity to see Micronutrient Initiative's work first-hand last year when I visited Senegal. I was with Mr. Mannar to launch the Zinc Alliance for Child Health, or ZACH, a partnership between Micronutrient Initiative, the Government of Canada and Teck, a leader in the extractive sector. The goal of ZACH is to scale up zinc and oral rehydration salts to treat childhood diarrhea and, ultimately, save lives.
It is an honour to see such a dedicated person like Mr. Mannar, who has chosen Canada as his home, be recognized for his incredible work through MI with one of our country's highest civilian honours.
Scleroderma
Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to remind all hon. members that June is Scleroderma Awareness Month.
My family and I know, intimately, the terrible nature of this disease, having lost our mother to complications from scleroderma nearly 14 years ago. Scleroderma is a chronic, often progressive autoimmune disease, like rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, where the body's immune system attacks its own tissues. Scleroderma can cause one's internal organs to turn as hard as stone and one's skin can tear easily, like parchment. Unfortunately, it afflicts women three times more often than men.
Our government has invested almost $1.5 million, through a CIHR grant, for the scleroderma patient-centered intervention network and in doing so, has recognized the groundbreaking work of this team. However, more needs to be done. I ask all members to participate in the many fundraising events that will take place this month to raise funds for more research for scleroderma. I will be walking this Saturday, in memory of my mother, at McQuesten Park, in Hamilton.
I kindly ask all Canadians to join me and others to find a cure for scleroderma.
[Translation]
Quebec Week of Disabled Persons
Mr. Speaker, every year, the first week of June marks the Quebec week of disabled persons, which is intended to promote and encourage the social participation of people with disabilities. This week provides an opportunity to raise awareness about the educational, social and professional realities that people with disabilities face.
Whether it involves access to paratransit, affordable and accessible housing and inclusive job markets or putting an end to financial insecurity, action is urgently needed to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy the same rights as all other Canadians.
Accordingly, I want to acknowledge all the work that the City of Mascouche has done in 2013 to develop an action plan for people with disabilities. The goal of this policy is to ensure that every individual can be independent and safely participate in the community's activities. I would like to congratulate Chantal Filion, who works for the City of Mascouche's municipal services, as well as all of the organizations involved in this action plan, including La Rose Bleue.
[English]
James Kelleher
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passing of one of Sault Ste. Marie's former members of Parliament, Mr. James Kelleher.
Senator Kelleher practised law in the Sault before being part of the Conservative sweep to power, in 1984, under the Mulroney administration. He was appointed to cabinet as the international trade minister in 1985, becoming Canada's solicitor general in 1986. In 1990, he was appointed to the Senate and served until mandatory retirement, in 2005.
Jim was instrumental in setting the two nations of Canada and the United States on a course that would, ultimately, lead to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, in 1988, the success of which continues to harness the prosperity-generating power of free and open trade. Jim was the face of the Conservative Party in Sault Ste. Marie for years, always listened to the grassroots people, and was a dedicated family man, known for his integrity and honesty.
I would like to extend my sincere condolences to his wife Helen, daughters Martha and Sarah, sister Patti, and all family and friends. May he rest in peace.
[Translation]
Community Organization in La Prairie
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Complexe Le Partage, a wonderful organization in my riding.
On May 24, during an event called “Panthéon de l'excellence”, business people and members of the Royal Roussillon chamber of commerce and industry awarded the organization a prize in the category of “service and retail business with over 20 employees”.
Complexe Le Partage is a community organization that was founded by Laurent Blais, a municipal councillor for La Prairie, and it is run by Cathy Lepage. It offers peer assistance services, support services, integration services and training to underprivileged families in a spirit of community and of individual and collective responsibility.
For 15 years, this organization has been changing the lives of people in my region, and I am proud that its work and commitment have been recognized and rewarded.
Congratulations to the team and the volunteers at Complexe Le Partage. You are turning social development into a winning business formula!
[English]
Samuel de Champlain
Mr. Speaker, 400 years ago today, the great French explorer Samuel de Champlain sailed up the Ottawa River and set foot on the shores of what would become the capital city of the best country in the world.
[Translation]
Five years ago in this House, I had the privilege of making a statement looking forward to this milestone anniversary. Given that Champlain's voyage was a historically significant event for our region, the government provided funding to the Société franco-ontarienne du patrimoine et de l'histoire d'Orléans, so that it could organize a special event to celebrate the anniversary.
[English]
This evening, I would like to invite all members to join the celebration at Petrie Island. There will be a birchbark canoe launch, a community supper, concerts by l’Écho d’un peuple and Les St-Pierre, and more.
[Translation]
For more information on the SFOPHO's activities to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Samuel de Champlain's voyage, visit sfopho.com.
[English]
Jane Purves
Mr. Speaker, Jane Purves was a refreshingly forthright person, a smart straight shooter with a wicked sense of humour. She spent 25 years in the newspaper business, rising to managing editor of Nova Scotia's largest daily, The Chronicle Herald. She was a trailblazer and mentor for women. She served as president of the Canadian Managing Editors Conference and was on the board of the Canadian Press and the National Newspaper Awards. That career in journalism prepared her well for public office.
Elected as the MLA for Halifax Citadel in 1999, she served as minister of education and then as minister of health. The Nova Scotia Community College paid tribute to her work to increase opportunities for youth to enter skilled trades by awarding her an honorary diploma.
Jane was not a rabid partisan, but a politician dedicated to listening, to understanding and to doing the right thing. She had a deep love for her family, her profession and her province. Her passing last weekend at the still-young age of 63 is an enormous loss to Nova Scotia. We thank Jane. We will miss her smarts, her candour, her sense of humour and her commitment to the people of Nova Scotia.
The Senate
Mr. Speaker, our government remains focused on Senate reform, including elections, term limits and tough new spending oversight. Last week, the Senate adopted our Conservative government's 11 tough new rules governing Senate travel and expenses proposed by Conservative senators, just as we promised we would do for Canadian taxpayers. Today, the Leader of the Government in the Senate will introduce a motion asking the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a comprehensive audit of Senate expenses.
While we are working very hard to make the Senate more accountable, the Liberal leader is defending the status quo in the Senate because it gives an advantage for Quebec. Recently, the Liberal leader said, “We have 24 Senators in Quebec and there are only 6 for Alberta and British Columbia. That benefits us. To want to abolish it, that's just demagoguery...”.
Time and again, the Liberal leader takes potshots at the west and then comes to the House and pretends he is defending its interests. Western Canadians and, in fact, all Canadians know better.
The Senate
Mr. Speaker, while the unaccountable Senate has been embroiled in ugly scandals, Conservatives and Liberals continue to defend the entitlements of their unelected caucus mates. The Prime Minister once called the Senate a “relic of the 19th century”. Indeed, it hearkens back to a time when lords watched over us commoners, when women could not vote, when penicillin was not around. While the rest of our society has evolved, the Senate has not.
For 150 years, Liberals and Conservatives failed to get Senate spending under control, and failed to bring in accountability. The time has come to turn off the taps to this vestigial organ. Tomorrow, this House will have an opportunity to do just that. Therefore, we urge the Conservatives and Liberals to stop defending perks for their partisan senators and join New Democrats in the 21st century. The time has come to roll up the red carpet on the unelected upper chamber, to end the gravy train and to abolish the Senate.
New Democratic Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, day after day, NDP members stand in this House with full knowledge that two tax evaders are in their midst—two NDP MPs who could not be bothered to pay their fair share, yet claim to represent the interests of Canadian taxpayers.
As Pink Floyd might sing, “If you don't pay your taxes, how can you have any benefits? And how can you have any benefits if you don't pay your taxes?”
Sadly, this kind of hypocrisy is not surprising from the NDP, and it gets better. NDP members admitted that they knew from the beginning that the member for Brossard—La Prairie owed thousands of dollars in back taxes. Despite this, well, they appointed him to be the NDP critic for revenue.
The NDP cannot claim to represent Canadian taxpayers when it will not stand up against tax evaders in its own caucus. It has been 10 days. It is clear that the NDP would rather protect NDP tax evaders than stand up for the interests of Canadian taxpayers.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
New Member
New Member Introduced
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he did not find out about the payment from Nigel Wright to Mike Duffy until May 15.
However, yesterday his cabinet colleague, Marjory LeBreton, said, “On the 14th of May...the Prime Minister had dealt with it.”
Who is telling the truth?
Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear. I learned of this matter on May 15, and of course I immediately made this information public.
The real question is why the leader of the NDP, on November 16, 2010, said that he knew nothing about the activities of the mayor of Laval, which are now before the Charbonneau commission, when in fact he had known for 14 years.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, on what exact date did the Prime Minister first speak with Mike Duffy about his expenses?
Mr. Speaker, that information was already made public on February 13, and I have been very clear about this. Mr. Duffy approached me after a caucus meeting to discuss this matter.
From the beginning, my position has been clear: any inappropriate expenses should be refunded to taxpayers by the senators concerned.
The real question is why the leader of the NDP told the public the complete opposite of what he knew about the mayor of Laval in 2010.
Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister confirm that he ordered his caucus to repay their illegal expenses that same day?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, once again, I have been very clear about all of these matters, very clear about the dates, and my position on this matter has been known from the beginning.
I believe that any inappropriate expenses should be refunded to taxpayers. My statements in private and in public have been consistent with that, unlike the leader of the NDP, who told the public he knew nothing about the goings-on of the mayor of Laval in 2010 when in fact he had known the contrary for 14 years.
Why did he misinform the public of his knowledge of what the mayor of Laval was doing?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, were members of the Prime Minister's staff present when he ordered his caucus to repay their illegal expenses? Were members of his staff present, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, from the outset, our caucus and my employees have been aware of my position. Senators should reimburse taxpayers for inappropriate expenses.
[English]
I go back: I have been very clear, very public, very consistent.
Why did the leader of the NDP, as a contrast, not think it important to tell the public in 2010 that he knew of questionable activity by the mayor of Laval? Why did he tell the public precisely the opposite when he knew that to be the case?
Mr. Speaker, why then did the Prime Minister, last week, deny instructing any members of his personnel to settle the Mike Duffy matter when he gave that order with that personnel present in the room at a caucus meeting in February of this year?
Mr. Speaker, it was my view from the beginning that any inappropriate expenses by any senator should be repaid by the senator, not by somebody else. That was very clear.
Those are the facts obviously before us. As I say, my statements on this matter have been very clear and very consistent, which is totally different from the hon. member, who keeps refusing to answer questions as to why his knowledge of bribery attempts were not clearly and correctly conveyed to the public and the police over a period of 17 years.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 21 days—three weeks—and the Prime Minister still has not answered some basic questions about the actions of his chief of staff. Canadians are asking why. Why did Nigel Wright pay a sitting senator $90,000?
The Prime Minister surely asked why, so what was the reason that Nigel Wright gave his boss for having written that $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy?
Mr. Speaker, as I think I have said repeatedly, Mr. Wright said that he wanted to be sure that taxpayers were reimbursed. The fact of the matter is that taxpayers have been reimbursed. They obviously should have been reimbursed by the senator rather than by Mr. Wright, but Mr. Wright obviously will be accountable for those actions.
On the other hand, why has the Liberal Party resisted making Senate expenses transparent, why has it consistently resisted looking into these matters, and why is it today resisting having the Auditor General further look into these matters?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are really wondering. One does not simply offer $90,000 cheques for no reason. The chief of staff must have told the Prime Minister why Mike Duffy was so special.
Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the $90,000 cheque had anything to do with Mike Duffy's role as one of the chief fundraisers for the Conservative Party of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wright has been very clear that he thought the taxpayers should be reimbursed, and he will be accountable for those matters. We have been very clear that the taxpayers should be reimbursed, obviously a very different position from that of the Liberal Party, which even today continues to resist the fact that the Senate wants to have the Auditor General look at all these expenses.
I know how dedicated the Liberals are to the status quo in the Senate, but this is a positive move by the Senate and Liberal senators, and the Liberal Party should support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, one does not just write $90,000 cheques without a good reason. Surely the Prime Minister must have asked Nigel Wright why he did what he did.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the $90,000 cheque had anything to do with Mike Duffy's role as one of the chief fundraisers for the Conservative Party of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wright's position is that taxpayers must be reimbursed for any inappropriate expenses. His position is clear. He is prepared to explain that position to the authorities.
The Leader of the Government in the Senate has asked the Auditor General to conduct an audit of all Senate expenses to ensure value for taxpayers. The Liberal senators are the ones who are resisting. It is time for the Liberal Party to support real change and real reforms in the Senate.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the scandal had been in the news for three months when the Prime Minister ordered the members of his caucus, including Mike Duffy, to reimburse their illegal expenses. Mike Duffy refused, but a week later he accepted. He changed his mind and said he was going to reimburse.
What did the Prime Minister's staff say to Mike Duffy to get him to change his mind and accept to reimburse?
Mr. Speaker, our position from the beginning has been very clear: any inappropriate expenses should be reimbursed. Obviously, in late February, Mr. Duffy said he would do that, and in the middle of April, he said he had done that. Of course, the facts of the matter are, as we learned later, not to that effect. When I learned those facts, I made them clear immediately.
We have been very clear on this, unlike the leader of the NDP, who continues to refuse. For 17 years, he has not been truthful with the Canadian people or the authorities on his knowledge of the affairs that are now before the Charbonneau commission.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister's Office confirmed that it was the Prime Minister himself who asked Mike Duffy to reimburse his expenses.
Who was present when the Prime Minister asked Mike Duffy to reimburse his expenses?
Mr. Speaker, I have been clear since the beginning: inappropriate expenses should be refunded to taxpayers. My statements have been clear and transparent. My responses have been consistent.
Again, the leader of the NDP refuses to tell us why he hid the truth about the goings on of the mayor of Laval for 15 years. It is high time that he answer the questions.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister' Office says that the Prime Minister himself spoke with Mike Duffy to ask him to reimburse the expenses.
Who was present during that conversation?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, once again, I have been very clear. My views were known to the entire caucus. Mr. Duffy approached me to seek some clarification. I was very adamant that any inappropriate expenses should be repaid. Those were the facts of the matter. I have been very clear and consistent on that.
Once again, we are waiting for some clarity and some consistency from the leader of the NDP on matters that are now before a major commission. Maybe if that individual had been clear with the public and with authorities some 17 years ago, the kinds of things that led to the Charbonneau commission would not be happening today.
Mr. Speaker, on May 17, the Prime Minister's director of communication said, “The prime minister has full confidence in Mr. Wright and Mr. Wright is staying on”. Who told Andrew MacDougall to say that?
Mr. Speaker, once again, Mr. Wright believed, as we all believe, that the taxpayers of Canada should be reimbursed for the inappropriate expenses. He decided to do that on his own without informing us. For that reason, upon reflection, I accepted his resignation. As soon as I learned other relevant information, on May 15, I made that public.
Once again, why does the leader of the NDP, when knowing about things like bribery, think it is not appropriate for 17 years to appropriately inform the police and the public about those kinds of things?
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister confirmed that Nigel Wright would be receiving an executive severance package. Is that severance package greater than $90,000 or less than $90,000?
Mr. Speaker, first, I have been very clear. Mr. Wright will receive only the monies that are required absolutely under law Those amounts are obviously less than the amount in question. Let me be absolutely clear. Any suggestion that Mr. Write is being compensated by taxpayers, directly or indirectly, for his cheque to Mr. Duffy is absolutely and categorically false.
Mr. Speaker, once again, Mr. Wright decided to do this on his own, using his own funds. He has taken full responsibility and he will be accountable to the various authorities' inquiries for his actions in that regard.
It is time for the leader of the NDP to do the same thing. He sat in the cabinet of Quebec for years when the cabinet of Quebec was doing business with the mayor of Laval and others.
They are now matters of inquiry before the Charbonneau commission. Why did he think, as a minister of the Crown, it was not appropriate to inform the public and the authorities of his knowledge of the dealings of that particular individual.
Mr. Speaker, did Senator Marjory LeBreton recuse herself from any of the cabinet discussions involving the Senate expense scandal? Now we are not talking about the illegal payment from Nigel Wright to Mike Duffy. We are talking about whether or not she recused herself from cabinet. This is not a question of cabinet confidence. The Prime Minister has to answer.
Mr. Speaker, last week the member asked if this was ever a matter of cabinet business. I said it was not a matter of cabinet business, so why would someone recuse himself or herself from something that was not a matter of cabinet business?
The answer to that question is pretty obvious before he even asked it, which makes it pretty obvious why the leader of the NDP simply does not want to answer questions about his knowledge of potentially illegal activities in Quebec of which he was fully knowledgeable. Why not come clean on that subject?
[Translation]
Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, under our Constitution, the Senate is an independent entity. Obviously, we still have discussions with our Senate colleagues, as all parties have done.
Again, why did the leader of the NDP not tell the authorities and the public about his knowledge of the possible illegal activities of the mayor of Laval, knowledge that he had for more than 15 years?
Mr. Speaker, last week, we learned that Mike Duffy regularly billed the taxpayer for partisan political work that he did for and on behalf of the Conservative Party, including during the last election campaign.
Are there other senators who did the same thing: bill the taxpayer for partisan work for the Conservative Party?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has been clear that it pays its own campaign expenses.
[English]
In fact, those were reported. When we became aware that Mr. Duffy had possibly in effect double billed, that is why the Senate has now referred the matter to other authorities.
Once again, in this case, the Conservative Party acted immediately on the information it knew. Why, when knowing about envelopes stuffed full of cash, did the leader of the NDP not think it appropriate for 17 years to report these matters to the public and to the police?
Mr. Speaker, in December 2008, despite promises to the contrary, the Prime Minister appointed 18 senators. I would ask the Prime Minister to explain why he chose Mike Duffy to be a senator.
Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting question. For almost three years, I left the Senate vacancies unfilled. What happened in that period when we were trying to get those filled by elected people? The Liberal Party and other parties got together and tried to fill those Senate vacancies with their own people. That is why, as I said at the time, I acted to ensure that if the Senate was not going to be elected, it would at least support the government that Canadians did elect.
Mr. Speaker, apparently the Prime Minister does not quite know why he appointed Mike Duffy to the Senate either.
Pursuant to another appointment made, I would like to hear from the Prime Minister why he appointed Pamela Wallin to sit in Canada's Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose for the same reason the previous government made Ms. Wallin Canada's consul general for New York.
None of these things answers why the Liberal Party has tried to resist making Senate expenses transparent and why it is now resisting the Auditor General looking—
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Wallin did not do any fundraising for us when she was consul general for New York.
[Translation]
In December 2008, the Prime Minister appointed 18 senators.
Can the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why he chose Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin to sit in the Senate?
Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question.
[English]
We have just seen why the leader of a party should have some idea of what an answer is before he asks the question.
While various Canadians have been appointed to the Senate, whatever their background, we expect them to follow the rules on expenses, and if those rules are not followed, we expect appropriate action to be taken to ensure accountability. That is what is happening here.
The majority in the Senate have indicated they want to have the Auditor General come and look at those expenses. Why is the Liberal Party in the Senate resisting having the Auditor General look at Senate expenses?
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, 67 countries have signed the global arms trade treaty, including Australia, Brazil, Italy, France, Germany, Mexico and the United Kingdom. They all signed it as soon as it was possible, which was yesterday. At the same time, when questioned by the NDP, the Minister of Foreign Affairs went into a pitiful tirade instead of saying whether or not Canada will sign.
Why will Canada not immediately commit to signing this treaty?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday was that we would consult Canadians, firearms owners, provinces and territories and industry before the government would act, and that is exactly what we intend to do.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is the only countries to oppose this treaty are Iran, Syria and North Korea. The United Kingdom signed the treaty yesterday. It understands it will protect legitimate arms trade while reducing “unfettered proliferation of weapons”.
With its closest allies signing now, why is the government dragging its feet? This is about saving lives and stopping the illegal transfer of weapons. Will the government sign this treaty, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NDP's foreign affairs critic was suggesting that if the arms trade treaty had been in place, we would not have a civil war going on in Syria. That is quite ridiculous.
We work constructively with the arms trade treaty negotiations. We are now taking the opportunity to consult with Canadians, with industry, with the provinces and the territories and with non-governmental organizations and we will listen before we act.
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that the defence minister used the independent National Investigative Service to probe an alleged leak that turned out to be from a U.S. Navy press release. Now we learn the military's elite police force has also been used to investigate the release of embarrassing information on the country's top general.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell us if the NIS is being used as it should be, or is it being used by the minister as a tool to go after those who embarrass him or his department in the media?
Mr. Speaker, the military releases information to Canadians through access to information, proactive disclosure and public communications, while protecting classified and sensitive information. When unauthorized information is leaked, we expect the necessary assessments to take place to determine the source.
To be clear, it is the source of an unauthorized leak, not the media, that is investigated.
What is not clear is why the leader of the opposition hid his direct knowledge of corruption for so many years.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange that embarrassing information is all of a sudden confidential.
At the direction of the Minister of National Defence's office, five investigations targeted a journalist who has been bothering the minister. Another investigation was carried out when a different journalist released embarrassing information about the former chief of the defence staff.
Why is the minister using the military policy to go after those who have been trying to shed some light on embarrassing events in his department?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, when information is leaked inappropriately or illegally at the Department of National Defence, it is expected that such incidents will be looked into by an appropriate authority.
The Canadian Forces Military Police is mandated to assess allegations of inappropriate or illegal release of information within the Department of National Defence. The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service has no mandate or jurisdiction to investigate any individual or group external to National Defence and conducts only assessments related to defence activities, not media.
Human Rights
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Quebec Soccer Federation decided to ban those wearing turbans and other religious headwear from playing soccer. This means that those children and youth will not be allowed to play soccer in Quebec even if they want to.
Can the Minister of State for Sport update this House on our position on this ban?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for a great question.
We believe that amateur sports like soccer should encourage the participation of children rather than exclude them. We see no valid reason why kids should be banned from playing soccer because of their religion.
I encourage the Quebec Soccer Federation to follow the lead of soccer leagues across Canada and around the world and not create barriers for children who want to play the sport they love.
Furthermore, the leader of the NDP and the leader of the Liberal Party should be ashamed of their silence on this matter.
41st General Election
Mr. Speaker, the members for Saint Boniface and Selkirk—Interlake have been caught failing to comply with election laws. They have not filed documents from the 2011 campaign over two years ago. They failed to account for the money their campaigns spent and they failed to co-operate with authorities. Elections Canada has therefore advised the Speaker that these MPs not continue to sit or vote as members of this House.
The Prime Minister once said, “Bend the rules, you will be punished”, so why do the Conservatives and the Prime Minister continue to act as if they are above the law?
Mr. Speaker, the preface of the member's question is completely false. These members acted in good faith. Due to legitimate differences of opinion, Election Canada's interpretation of the rules is now before the courts. That is the members' right to pursue, and we support their right to pursue it.
That said, the hon. member would do well, if he believes in a higher standard of ethics, to have his leader explain why he kept secret for 17 years his knowledge of an illegal bribe offer.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, for three years the Conservatives have known about inadequate equipment for oil spills and have done nothing.
Our Coast Guard does not have the capacity to clean up even a single supertanker spill, yet Conservatives want British Columbians to accept a massive increase in tanker traffic. “Just trust us” clearly is not good enough.
Why has the minister failed to act when we have such a shoddy oil response capacity, and why is he forcing British Columbians to pay the huge price when things go wrong?
Mr. Speaker, industry is the first responder to its own oil spills under the polluter pay principle. The Coast Guard, of course, is the lead agency for ensuring appropriate response to ship-source spills in Canadian waters.
On March 18, 2013, the government announced the world-class tanker safety initiative, which included an investment in the incident command system for the Coast Guard. This responds directly to the recommendations from the 2010 CESD audit.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, from oil spills to firearms, the current Conservative government has put public safety at risk again and again through its inaction.
The Minister of Public Safety was warned by the RCMP in 2012 that his failure to update classification of firearms “...poses a risk to public safety.” His failure to act is allowing military and paramilitary firearms to be treated as though they were ordinary hunting rifles.
Did the minister see this warning, and if he did, does he think it is okay to ignore RCMP advice to modernize a list that has not been updated since 1988?
Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. Our measures to keep Canadians safe are working. Firearms-related homicides are at their lowest point in 50 years. Homicides committed with handguns are down by 30% since 2008.
Thanks to the strong measures this government has brought in with mandatory prison sentences for that type of firearm, this success is continuing. Unfortunately, that member and his party failed to support the measures that are turning around the issue of gun crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what I hear is that the minister thinks that this failure to update the classification is acceptable and that he is not bothered by the fact that paramilitary groups could take advantage of this situation.
The consequences of the minister's inaction are very real. A firearm that the RCMP recommended banning in 2010 was used in the fatal shooting that took place the night of the most recent Quebec provincial election.
How many more tragedies must there be for the minister to take action?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that is the precise question that I would ask that member.
In fact, firearms-related homicides are at their lowest point in 50 years, and homicides committed with handguns are down by 30% since 2008.
We have asked the NDP to co-operate and work with us to impose mandatory prison sentences for those who possess firearms illegally. The NDP has refused.
Search and Rescue
Mr. Speaker, my apologies, and my thanks for your tolerance today.
On May 8, there was an emergency at Park Lake, near Happy Valley-Goose Bay. However, none of the three Griffin helicopters based at 5 Wing Goose Bay were available. All were out of service for maintenance.
This was days after the Minister of National Defence made a campaign stop in town to reassure people that adequate search and rescue was in place.
Why does the government continue to ignore the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are crying out for help with search and rescue?
Mr. Speaker, the new hon. member's question gives me the opportunity to state that our government remains committed to fulfilling our commitment to establish a clear sovereignty protection mission for CFB Goose Bay.
Since 2006, we have committed investments to the base totalling nearly $407 million.
Our government will continue to support Canada's men and women in uniform, along with supporting long-term growth and prosperity through prudent planning and investments in CFB Goose Bay. We take our search and rescue responsibilities seriously across the nation, including in Goose Bay.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government, and it knows this, has really gutted front-line search and rescue services.
The Minister of National Defence made a fly-through announcement in response to the Auditor General's report and did little to address any of the deficiencies.
In May, a local 5 Wing Goose Bay official said that search and rescue for Labradorians is not their first or their second priority.
Why does the Conservative government not fix search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador before more lives are lost?
Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of our search and rescue teams that work with federal, provincial and municipal partners to respond as quickly as possible. They risk their own lives so that others may live.
Each search and rescue operation is complex, and the victims' survival depends on many factors. Our government constantly assesses our search and rescue capabilities. Our search and rescue area of responsibility covers 18 million square kilometres of land and sea, an area greater than the size of continental Europe.
We are committed to every region of Canada.
Pensions
Mr. Speaker, the CPP and QPP are the backbone of our pension system.
Every working Canadian pays into the plan, and we all benefit. Experts agree that increasing CPP benefits can help all Canadians retire with dignity and security.
After years of delay, the Minister of Finance promised he would call together provincial ministers in June to take action on improving CPP.
When will the Minister of Finance meet with the provinces, and where is his plan for increasing CPP?
Mr. Speaker, it raises the question of why the NDP will not actually come and show some support for those Canadians who do not have a retirement income available to them. The workplace contains an incredible number of Canadians who actually do not have a workplace pension at this time.
We have come to the opposition and asked for its support. We have the support of many of the provinces. The three western provinces have actually tabled legislation to move forward on the pooled registered pension plan, and all of the provinces have initiated the response that they will tabling legislation in the very near future. Quebec has done that.
We would suggest that the opposition should actually get on board and help Canadians with their retirement.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been dragging his feet on this issue for far too long. Meanwhile, many Canadians are still not receiving enough pension benefits.
The pension issue will not magically disappear just because the Conservatives do not know what to do about it. The minister committed to addressing this issue with the provincial ministers in June. Surprise. It is now June.
When can we expect this meeting to happen? What will the government propose at this meeting?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, sitting in the House, that jurisdiction is shared with the provinces. The Canada pension plan is a shared jurisdiction with the provinces. We cannot arbitrarily make a decision on that.
We have consulted with the provinces on increases to the Canada pension plan, and there was not consensus among all of the provinces to increase the cost to businesses. However, there was consensus and unanimous support to move forward with the pooled registered pension plan.
It is shocking that despite that, the NDP actually voted against it in the House.
Consumer Protection
Mr. Speaker, the new mandatory wireless code is a step in the right direction and addresses such key consumer concerns as contract length and roaming charges. Canadians want a fair deal, and our government is always looking for ways to improve customer protection and foster more competition.
Can the Minister of Industry please update the House on what the government will do to ensure progress toward competition and more players?
Mr. Speaker, today I announced that any proposed wireless transfer resulting in undue spectrum concentration and therefore less competition will not be approved. Spectrum set aside for new entrants was never intended to be transferred to incumbents and as such will not be approved now, nor will it likely be in the future.
Our Conservative government will not hesitate to use any and every tool at its disposal to support greater competition in the market and protect Canadian consumers.
Let me quote at this point the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which said this morning that “This government stood up for wireless consumers...”.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Mr. Speaker, for months I have been meeting with RCMP officers who have endured sexual assault, harassment and workplace bullying and who shared their stories directly with Commissioner Paulson.
Sadly, rather than fixing the problems, the commissioner went on the attack, saying that victims who complain may be showing ambition beyond ability.
The commissioner's shameful comments demand a public apology at least. Given the fact that Commissioner Paulson clearly crossed the line in attacking the victims, can the minister please tell me if he has full confidence in Commissioner Paulson today?
Mr. Speaker, our government has taken strong action to restore pride in Canada's national police force. Harassment in the RCMP, especially harassment that is sexual in nature, is a problem.
Canadians and the commissioner find it totally unacceptable, and our government agrees. That is why we introduced the enhancing RCMP accountability act.
What I do not understand is why the NDP would have voted against that very necessary legislation.
[Translation]
41st General Election
Mr. Speaker, I gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to tell us why the members for Saint Boniface and Selkirk—Interlake are still part of the Conservative caucus when the Chief Electoral Officer has recommended that they be suspended.
The members had two years to work with Elections Canada and straighten out the situation, yet they failed to do so.
Why does the Prime Minister think that these members are above the law?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the reason these two members are in the House of Commons is that they were democratically elected by their constituents. They acted in good faith. Due to legitimate differences of opinion with Elections Canada, the agency's interpretation is now before the court. That is the right of these members, and they are exercising it accordingly.
The real question is, speaking of members sitting in caucuses, why there are two members sitting in the NDP caucus who refuse to pay their taxes.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, natural resources are an integral part of Canada's economy that creates opportunities for Canadians and communities all across Canada. Our government has a plan to spur resource development while ensuring the environment is protected through our responsible resource development plan. Every sector of the Canadian economy is poised to benefit from this growth, from service companies to manufacturers supplying much-needed equipment, to the local grocer.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources share with the House the latest report on resource development?
Mr. Speaker, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute just published “Six Myths Surrounding the Development of Canada's Natural Resources”. Granted, economics is not required reading in the New Democrats' book club, and while it may be somewhat traumatic for them, I would recommend they read about the economic importance of Canada's natural resources. They would learn their cherished Dutch disease theory is a myth, and while the NDP oppose resource development and the Liberals stay silent, our government stands up for Canadian jobs.
[Translation]
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada paid more than $6.7 million over six years to private auditing companies for information that is already being provided through existing reporting mechanisms.
The Conservatives ignore these basic government reporting mechanisms and force taxpayers to pay twice as much to ensure that aboriginal peoples are accountable. There is one set of rules for the government and another for aboriginal peoples.
Can the minister explain why he hires private auditing firms to duplicate the work that his department is responsible for doing?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberals and the NDP, we believe in accounting for taxpayers' money.
That is why we have a solid audit system to respond to complaints from members of aboriginal communities about the use of funds by their chiefs and councils. That is also exactly why we kept our promise and passed the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.
Once again, despite their fine rhetoric, they voted against this bill.
[English]
Rail Transportation
Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail announced service cuts a year ago and tooted about how ridership and revenues would be boosted, but VIA's plan has gone off the rails. Its annual report shows operating expenses up and ridership down. There are fewer trains and they are emptier and later. Clearly, VIA intends to abandon Canada, except for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.
Will the minister show leadership with a national strategy to put VIA Rail back on the right track?
Mr. Speaker, the member has correctly pointed out that people do not take the train as much as they did in the 1950s or 1940s. I am glad that is evident to him. I also hoped he would have supported the $1-billion of investment we put into VIA, but he did not.
Ridership continues to go down because there are alternative methods of transportation, like automobile, bus and airplane. We are making the best possible rail service, but we are not going to have taxpayers wasting money on trains that do not have people in them.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
[English]
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1
The House resumed from June 3 consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-60.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 1.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 712)
YEAS
Members
Allen (Welland)Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeman
Fry
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Karygiannis
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote
Total: -- 132
NAYS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Trottier
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 156
PAIRED
Nil (The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 713)
YEAS
Members
Allen (Welland)Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeman
Fry
Garneau
Garrison
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Karygiannis
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote
Total: -- 131
NAYS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Trottier
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 156
PAIRED
Nil
I declare the Motion No. 2 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 7 to 11.
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the vote on the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 714)
YEAS
Members
Allen (Welland)Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeman
Fry
Garneau
Garrison
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Karygiannis
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote
Total: -- 131
NAYS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Trottier
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 156
PAIRED
Nil[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 715)
YEAS
Members
BellavanceFortin
Hyer
May
Mourani
Patry
Plamondon
Total: -- 7
NAYS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Welland)
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Angus
Armstrong
Ashfield
Ashton
Aspin
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Baird
Bateman
Bélanger
Bennett
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Blaney
Block
Borg
Boughen
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brosseau
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Byrne
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Caron
Carrie
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Chisu
Chong
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Clarke
Cleary
Clement
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crockatt
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dreeshen
Dubé
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Dykstra
Easter
Eyking
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Flaherty
Fletcher
Foote
Freeman
Fry
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Gill
Glover
Godin
Goguen
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Gravelle
Grewal
Groguhé
Harper
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
Hsu
Hughes
Jacob
James
Jean
Jones
Julian
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kellway
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Lauzon
Laverdière
Lebel
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leitch
Lemieux
Leslie
Leung
Liu
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKenzie
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Michaud
Miller
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nicholson
Norlock
Nunez-Melo
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Pacetti
Papillon
Paradis
Payne
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Poilievre
Preston
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Raitt
Rajotte
Rankin
Rathgeber
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Scott
Seeback
Sellah
Sgro
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Storseth
Strahl
Sullivan
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Toone
Tremblay
Trost
Trottier
Trudeau
Truppe
Turmel
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 282
PAIRED
Nil
I declare Motion No. 12 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 13 to 15 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 716)
YEAS
Members
Allen (Welland)Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bellavance
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Caron
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Fortin
Freeman
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Julian
Kellway
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scott
Sellah
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Turmel
Total: -- 99
NAYS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bélanger
Bennett
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Byrne
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Casey
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cotler
Crockatt
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dion
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dykstra
Easter
Eyking
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Flaherty
Fletcher
Foote
Fry
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
Hsu
James
Jean
Jones
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lamoureux
Lauzon
Lebel
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKenzie
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Pacetti
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Rae
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Seeback
Sgro
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
St-Denis
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Trottier
Trudeau
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 190
PAIRED
Nil
I declare Motion No. 16 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 17. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 18 and 19.
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 717)
YEAS
Members
Allen (Welland)Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bellavance
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Caron
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Fortin
Freeman
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Julian
Kellway
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scott
Sellah
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Turmel
Total: -- 99
NAYS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bélanger
Bennett
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Byrne
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Casey
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cotler
Crockatt
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dion
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dykstra
Easter
Eyking
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Flaherty
Fletcher
Foote
Fry
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
Hsu
James
Jean
Jones
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lamoureux
Lauzon
Lebel
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKenzie
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Pacetti
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Rae
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Seeback
Sgro
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
St-Denis
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Trottier
Trudeau
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 190
PAIRED
Nil (The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 718)
YEAS
Members
Allen (Welland)Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bellavance
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Caron
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Fortin
Freeman
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Julian
Kellway
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scott
Sellah
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Turmel
Total: -- 99
NAYS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bélanger
Bennett
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Byrne
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Casey
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cotler
Crockatt
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dion
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dykstra
Easter
Eyking
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Flaherty
Fletcher
Foote
Fry
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
Hsu
James
Jean
Jones
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lamoureux
Lauzon
Lebel
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKenzie
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Pacetti
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Rae
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Seeback
Sgro
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
St-Denis
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Trottier
Trudeau
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 190
PAIRED
Nil
I declare Motion No. 20 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 24, 26, 27 and 29 to 36 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 37. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 38 to 40.
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the result of the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
The House divided on Motion No. 37, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 719)
YEAS
Members
Allen (Welland)Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeman
Fry
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Karygiannis
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote
Total: -- 133
NAYS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Trottier
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 156
PAIRED
Nil
I declare Motion No. 37 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 38 to 40 defeated.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 41. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 42 and 43.
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 41, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 720)
YEAS
Members
Allen (Welland)Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeman
Fry
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Karygiannis
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote
Total: -- 133
NAYS
Members
AdamsAdler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Trottier
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 156
PAIRED
Nil
I declare Motion No. 41 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 42 and 43 defeated.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 47. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 48 to 59.
The hon. government whip.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.
[Translation]
[English]