Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 228
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Madam Speaker, I pleased to present a series of petitions calling upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-439, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (products made with dog or cat fur), and ban products made with dog or cat fur from entering Canada.
This reflects a small portion of the representations made. We have had many thousands of postcards on this issue.
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-11 is the Conservative plan that would grant power to the Indian Affairs minister to impose drinking water systems on first nations bands. Bruce Carson was responsible in the PMO for aboriginal policy and, as legislative director, he helped develop Bill S-11.
Could the government confirm that the bill was key to his plan to skim off his $80 million share of the $1.6 billion pot of money that was destined to help desperate aboriginal communities?
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, this is about the Prime Minister's judgment.
How does a man like that get put in charge of drafting government legislation? How does a disbarred lawyer, who served time in jail and was being chased by Revenue Canada, get the highest security clearance? Why did all of those ministers or their officials meet with him when they knew Bruce Carson was banned from lobbying?
We now learn that his son, Craig Carson, was a senior ministerial adviser to Jim Prentice and even to the current House leader. Did he have any role in setting up these—
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge an issue that has not been discussed much in this House or by the current government: the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, not only the forgotten exodus but also the forced exodus.
Following the United Nations partition resolution of November 29, 1947, and over the following decades, approximately 850,000 Jews were uprooted and displaced from Arab countries.
In 1945, there were around 900,000 Jews living in the Arab world. Today, there are fewer than 8,000.
It has been documented that state-sanctioned repression and persecution in Arab countries targeted Jewish populations and led to the anti-Jewish pogroms. This is a story that must be acknowledged and must be repeated.
As my colleague from Mount Royal has said:
Where there is no remembrance, there is no truth; where there is no truth, there will be no justice; where there is no justice, there will be no reconciliation; and where there is no reconciliation, there will be no peace - which we all seek.
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-641, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (death benefit).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill today in the House and I thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso for seconding it.
The bill would eliminate income tax payable on a death benefit received under the Canada pension plan. I have heard from many constituents of the heavy burden that funeral costs place on their families and of their surprise when they find out that they must pay income tax on the $2,500 Canada pension plan death benefit.
In some cases, receiving this benefit can have disastrous financial implications, not only reducing the amount available to help with the funeral costs but pushing a beneficiary's income into a higher tax bracket or reducing eligibility for social assistance or the GST/HST tax credit. Making the CPP death benefit tax free is the right thing to do and the fair thing to do to support families as they mourn the loss of a loved one, and ensure that there is no financial penalty for receiving this payment.
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, today is the centenary of International Women's Day. What began as a struggle to achieve equality rights has become a celebration of the trail-blazing women who made our society more equal.
Today is no different. It is remarkable to see so many women pursuing non-traditional occupations, and to live in a time when young girls do not see barriers but only opportunities.
While we celebrate, let us also remember that the struggle for equality is not yet over. Over the past five years the fundamental human right to equal pay for work of equal value has been undermined. Federal support for advocacy and research into the status of women in Canada has been eliminated and the gender wage gap remains significant. The lack of access to quality, affordable early learning and child care services is a barrier to full equality.
I join my colleagues in the House in celebrating this anniversary but remain mindful of the challenges that remain.
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for Status of Women for her statement and for the opportunity to offer some words of my own on behalf of the Liberal Party.
2011 marks the 100th year of International Women's Day, an event that is being marked in communities and in schools across Canada.
Women in Canada and around the world have gained much over the last 100 years, the right to vote, to work, to equal participation in government.
It is a testament to the women who came before, in civil society, this House and in the Senate, that I rise today to reply to a statement by a female cabinet member responsible for the status of women.
International Women's Day is an opportunity to celebrate these achievements, but also to reflect on how far we have to go and must go to achieve full gender equality and eradicate gender discrimination in its entirety.
Here in Parliament, less than 25% of members are women. Increasing women's participation in this important role would have an impact on how young women perceive themselves as well as on their country and the world.
Women in Canada also continue to earn, on average, less than men. Despite high educational attainment, this wage gap remains a reminder that we must provide the range of supports necessary so that women can enjoy full participation in our political and economic life.
While I share the minister's enthusiasm for the great potential of our young women and girls, I believe that this potential will never be fully realized and the wage gap never fully closed if these supports do not exist. The need for affordable, accessible child care remains great, and Canada has yet to adequately meet this challenge. The need for a national housing strategy is also urgent.
I would encourage the government to respond to the unanimous will of this House and implement a national violence against women prevention strategy. There is also an urgent need for a national action plan on human trafficking so that Canada's efforts in this area are comprehensive, coordinated and effective.
I recently attended the 55th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. While there I heard a vision of a world “where women and men have equal rights and opportunities, and the principles of gender equality and women's empowerment are firmly integrated into the development, human rights, and peace and security agendas”.
We have already done much in Canada to promote these rights and provide these opportunities for women at home and abroad, but much remains to be done.
We in this House have both the mandate and the enormous responsibility to ensure that gender equality and equality of opportunity are real, so that women's potential and women's creativity can be fully embraced for a better future for all of us.
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister officially asked for over three billion taxpayer dollars in spending for CIDA in the next fiscal year, but we see no real evidence that she is even in charge of this agency.
Will the minister commit now in this House to come before committee to at least answer questions somewhere about her job, or is she just a minister in name only?
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
At last, Mr. Speaker. Now that she is finally on her feet, finally willing to be heard and not just seen, will the minister simply explain herself? Who told her to cut KAIROS' funding? We know it was not CIDA. And why did the funding request sit ignored on her desk for months?
Will she stand up again, assert her independence from the Prime Minister's control and finally do what is right; tell the truth?
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.
My colleague opposite very effectively chairs the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, but I was very surprised at his remarks. I know him to have an understanding of first nations issues. I know he has an understanding of the importance of the duty to consult. I know he understands the importance of collaboration and consultation. I know he understands the real meaning of transparency. He used words such as to “compel all first nations governments”. When I heard him say that, I thought to myself that with respect to transparency for Canadians and for parliamentarians to do their work, we cannot compel the Conservative government to provide documents, so why is one group singled out? I am quite struck by the irony of it.
I want to make clear at the outset that Liberals stand for transparency. We certainly stand for accountability in all governments, including first nations governments. We will fight for accountability and transparency with respect, with collaboration and in consultation with those affected. We will do it by being critical of this bill and asking the tough questions that need to be asked. There is nothing wrong with affirming and standing up for the principles of accountability and transparency.
I want to compare this bill with the Kelowna accord which, as members of the House know, was not honoured by the Conservative government.
The Kelowna accord represented 18 months of negotiation, collaboration and consultation. It was a high-water mark for the Government of Canada and aboriginal people, not just first nations, but Métis, aboriginal women and Inuit.
The process was as important as the outcome. Under the Kelowna accord, there was an elaborate, wholesome accountability for a results framework. It was broad based and comprehensive. It was not simply about reporting a number, but about how to deliver results for a community and for the people who live in that community. The most important aspect of the Kelowna accord was that it was mutual. It was not one-sided at the federal government level and it did not compel. It included a real collaboration between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike.
The recommendations coming out of the Kelowna accord included the establishment of a first nations auditor general and an independent body funded to oversee the accountability framework. The accountability framework was there. It was arrived at by aboriginal people working together with government through a process to determine how it would be done.
What I find extraordinary about this bill is that the paternalistic and maternalistic attitude of members opposite has come forward once again. There seems to be no respect for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the government belatedly agreed to. The bill defies the principles of reconciliation that we heard the government speak to in the House many months ago.
As the sponsor of the bill has stated, much of what is in the bill is already being done. A financial statement approved by a chartered accountant is being done with a contribution by INAC. Generally accepted accounting principles are applied and there is an auditor.
Regarding transparency, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has the power, and did in 2005, to make sure that disclosure is there for first nations and anyone else.
It is not fair to imply that none of that is being done or that it cannot be done even under the existing protocol program.
Therefore, the question is: why has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development not been compelled to have this done under his own authority under the act? Why is it a private member's bill and not a government bill? Why is this being done through the back door and not the front door?
The government and members opposite know full well that the government has a legal duty to consult with aboriginal people on issues that affect their rights and treaties. It is clear this consultation has not happened. Again we have heard the word “compel”. We have heard that it is mandatory for transparency.
I would reiterate that what is mandatory for transparency is also mandatory for transparency in this House. Again, is this bill compliant with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? I think not. Does the government truly believe in the right of self-government? I think not.
This appears to be an attempt to brand all first nations chiefs and councillors as somewhat corrupt. It is making an insinuation about the nature of first nations leadership and governance. It perpetuates myths and stereotypes that communities right across this country have been working hard to overcome.
There needs to be a different approach, one of collaboration and consultation. There should be a need to support substantive issues surrounding transparency, issues related to housing, water, education and health in first nations communities.
Many groups have commented on this bill. The Quebec native women's association stated in a press release that Bill C-575 “seems to be motivated by a prejudicial and racist view of aboriginal peoples as 'living off society', by implying that the federal funds coming from 'good taxpayers' money' granted to aboriginal chiefs and councillors are ill spent.
The association went on to say that the minister's support for the bill is a violation of his duty to consult and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Auditor General has spoken about fiscally responsible aboriginal organizations and communities. She has spoken about the onerous reporting requirements of first nations communities and says that there is in fact 98% compliance with all of the reporting requirements for first nations people.
Fiscal relationships between first nation governments and the federal government ought to be akin to intergovernmental transfers rather than typical grants and contributions as depicted in Bill C-575.
Transparency and accountability are necessary, there is no question. They are necessary in this House as well as outside the House. They are necessary in all levels of government. However, compelling a mandatory accountability and compelling mandatory disclosure is not the way to deal with Canada's first nations people.
The Liberals support transparency and accountability, but I reiterate that it must be done in collaboration and in consultation. Members opposite know that.
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a very strange definition of trust. Every time a Conservative rises in the House, we have been asked to believe the unbelievable. They do not just say it is okay to doctor documents; they say it is the right thing to do. They do not just say that it is okay to lie to the House and to Canadians; they say it is the right thing to do.
The Prime Minister is using the minister as a shield to protect himself from blame. Why is he hiding behind the minister and why will he not let her resign?
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, that is another response that is unbelievable.
The actions of the Minister of International Cooperation show nothing but contempt for our democracy and for the integrity of CIDA officials. KAIROS was funded for 35 straight years, even by the Progressive Conservatives. It should not have been cut.
When will the Prime Minister let the minister resign? When will he show the young people who come to the House that he knows the difference between right and wrong, the difference between the truth and a lie?
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-439, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (products made with dog or cat fur).
Members in the House may be surprised to know that there are currently no measures in place to ban the sale of products made with dog or cat fur in Canada, which makes Canada an international laggard.
In January 2009, the European Union passed an act prohibiting the trade of all dog and cat fur. More recently, U.S. President Obama signed into law the truth and fair labelling act which, along with the dog and cat protection act of 2000, ends the legal sale of dog and cat fur in the United States.
The over 2,200 Winnipeggers who signed this petition want Canada to take action to stop the sale of dog and cat fur in this country. It is time for us to update our animal welfare laws and pass Bill C-439.
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must apologize to the Métis people of Canada for failing to consult with them on a government effort to standardize Métis registration.
It is an insult that the government signed a sole-source contract with the Canadian Standards Council to help determine Métis registration without consultation and without assessing the registration data and processes of the Métis themselves.
How can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development explain this grave insult to the Métis of Canada on a matter so integral to their collective future?
View Anita Neville Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, Sisters in Spirit is a groundbreaking program that has brought together the families of 600 missing and murdered aboriginal women across the country, all victims of crime.
Despite the importance of Sisters in Spirit and the quality and depth of its research, the Conservatives cancelled its funding. Now the government is advising that an unelected senator is the government's spokesperson on this file, not the part-time minister for the Status of Women.
How many more women need to die before this matter becomes a priority for the government?
Results: 1 - 15 of 228 | Page: 1 of 16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data