Interventions in the House of Commons
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2018-12-12 15:08 [p.24808]
Mr. Speaker, that answer let the nation and a family down.
Canadians are subjected to unfair Internet data overcharges, restrictions when switching Internet providers and misleading aggressive telecom practices. The CRTC says it wants to establish a consumer Internet code of conduct, but has failed to provide sufficient time for consumer groups and the public. The result is a boycotted and broken system. Consumer groups have been clear. They want an extension so they can participate.
Why is the Prime Minister allowing the CRTC to make up a toothless code of conduct for consumers in Canada?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2018-12-12 15:09 [p.24808]
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the work we are doing with the CRTC to ensure that our digital programming and protection of our airwaves keep pace with the transformations of our economy. We recognize there is more and more need for data and for proper access to broadband. That is something we are continuing to invest in across the country and work with the CRTC on, although it is odd to see the NDP members complaining about this when they are the ones who want to impose extra taxes on Internet usage by Canadians.
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2018-12-11 13:25 [p.24748]
Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to speak after my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. Her work on the Canada-U.S. file and the border, in particular, has been very important.
I am also very happy to stand in this place. As many MPs have said this week, this is likely my last speech here. Many of my friends, including my friend from Winnipeg North, are probably happy about that. However, I can guarantee him that I will resume my speaking pace in the new chamber, as I know he will.
We all respect this institution, this chamber and the history it represents. Whether I agree with my friends on the other side or not, I respect their ability and freedom to make their case to Canadians, often a bad one, because this is their chamber. My constituents and Canadians who may be watching at home or online should know that we may disagree, but we try to do it without being disagreeable. Even though the member for Winnipeg North will ask me a question full of bombast after my remarks, I respect him, nonetheless.
This is a unique occasion, given the frequency of the Senate to send back amendments. This is probably the first time I have spoken to a bill for the third time. That is probably quite normal for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, but this is the third time I am speaking on Bill C-21, which was introduced in June of 2016, with its companion bill, Bill C-23, the pre-clearance act. I have spoken to both.
I worked on cross-border trade as a lawyer in the private sector and I was the public safety critic when this Parliament began. I have a raised a number of concerns with respect to the legislation, but have indicated that there is general support by the Conservatives of the entry and exit sharing of information with the U.S. that is represented in the Customs Act.
The amendment from the Senate, which brings us to debate this before the end of session, relates to something I raised in my September 2017 speech on Bill C-21. I was concerned about the information sharing and the storage of the information that would be collected about Canadians leaving and returning to the country and the implications of that vast amount of personal data. Therefore, I am quite happy the Senate has proposed more with respect to the retention of that data, limiting it to 15 years. This is why I support the Senate amendment and I am happy to speak to it today. It is an example of both Houses of Parliament working the way they can, making the bill better.
This is a rare occasion where I am supportive of both the original legislation and the amendment from the Senate.
I have been a representative in this chamber for six years. In fact, tomorrow marks six years to the day since I was escorted into this chamber as a by-election winner. I am getting the golf clap from a few of my Liberal friends, and I will take that over heckles any day. It is a very special day for me. I spoke about that on the radio last week.
On the 12th day of the 12th month of 2012, Prime Minister Harper and Jim Flaherty, a close friend of our family, led me into the House as a new by-election winner. I took my seat in the rump, and I have tried to make a difference ever since. To be true to form in my last speech, especially a 20-minute speech, in the chamber, and I am sorry to inform my Liberal friends of that fact, I would be remiss if I were not somewhat partisan and point to wider issues that should concern Canadians with respect to the Customs Act changes.
As I said, Bill C-21 and Bill C-23, its companion bill, have been with us since June 2016. The Liberals are rushing it through with time allocation on debate and pushing it through in the final days. We are almost in 2019. For almost two and a half years, this legislation has sort of languished in Ottawa. That shows there are efficiency problems with the government.
I will devote my remarks to what Canadians should ask when it comes to our border. Bill C-21 and Bill C-23 would make profound changes to the way Canada and the U.S. operate the borders.
Bill C-23 is the pre-clearance bill, which would allow American ICE officials, immigration and customs enforcement officers to search Canadians on Canadian soil. It probably would shock a lot of Canadians if they had to do a pre-clearance. That will work in a lot of cases to speed up time at the border, which is why we supported it.
Bill C-21 has entry and exit sharing of information, which is also something that is quite unparalleled. That is why data protection measures are bringing this debate back to the floor of the House of Commons. They are the most substantial additions to the relationship between the United States in a generation and a slight erosion of sovereignty. That can be a good thing if Canada is getting more in return in response to this, but it can also be something about which we pause.
Those elements were part of the beyond the border initiative, which I worked on in the former Harper government as the parliamentary secretary for international trade, so I support these measures. However, let us see how the Liberals have allowed the Canada-U.S. relationship to atrophy terribly in the three years of the Liberal government.
The Minister of Public Safety, then the MP for Regina—Wascana, in February 2011, with his appropriate degree of outrage, asked Prime Minister Harper, “Could the Prime Minister at least guarantee minimum gains for Canada? For example, will he get rid of U.S. country of origin labelling?” He went on to to ask if we would get softwood protections and have the Americans eliminate buy American. What was the minister of public safety demanding at that time? He wanted some clear wins for Canada if we were to give up the entry and exit information.
During debate on the exact elements of Bill C-21, when this was being contemplated by the Harper government, the Liberals said that before we acceded to the American request, they wanted to know what Canada would get in return. That is what their most senior member of the cabinet said.
Diplomatic relations even with our closest friend, trading partner and ally are a give and take. It is not just to take or give, give and nothing in return. At the time, the member for Regina—Wascana wanted to see Canada gain, whether it was with the unfair country of origin labelling or other elements of our complex trade relationship.
Bill C-21 and Bill C-23 would allow the Americans to inspect and search Canadians on our own soil. What have we gained? Absolutely nothing. In fact, under the Prime Minister's watch, our relationship with the U.S. has atrophied beyond all recognition. It is not just because of the current occupant of the White House.
Therefore, I will spend a few minutes exploring that and what the former public safety minister demanded. Where are the wins for Canada as we allow more and more American intrusion on decisions related to customs and the border?
In November 2015, President Obama, with a new Liberal Prime Minister in office, cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline was one of the reasons that former prime minister Harper was reticent to pass entry and exit information sharing. We wanted that quid pro quo. We wanted the Americans to approve a pipeline to once again try to get better market prices, more market access for our resources, which is something we are struggling with as a country right now.
We withheld that element of what was a priority for the U.S. in terms of foreign policy to try and secure a win. The prime minister caved within months. He said that he was disappointed. Later he introduced President Obama in this chamber as his “bromance” and he said it was a relationship of “dudeplomacy”. It was a one-way relationship. He did get a state dinner on March 11, 2016. At that dinner, the prime minister said they were closer than friends.
What else did our Prime Minister announce the same day in Washington? With zero consultation with indigenous and territorial leaders, he agreed to ban future development on 17% of Arctic lands and 10% of Arctic waters. It was pure surrender to what President Obama wanted to do in his final months in office. Once again, it was a one-way relationship.
Let us see what the longest-serving Inuk Liberal senator said about that. When I asked retired senator Charlie Watt about the Prime Minister's unilateral action, he said, “There have never been clear consultations.” He went on to say that the federal government said, “This is what's going to happen.”
Is that consultation when a respected Inuk leader and a former Senate colleague of some of the Liberal MPs is basically told by the government what is going to happen? Territorial premiers said they were given an hour or so heads-up on the announcement by Canada's Prime Minister in Washington.
Under President Obama, the Prime Minister was giving up the entry and exit priority which for years the Americans had been asking for and bringing in Bill C-23 on pre-clearance. We lost Keystone and we eroded our own sovereignty and that of our Inuit and Inuk people in our north, which are two huge losses under the first president's relationship with the Prime Minister.
The same day I questioned retired Senator Watt, there was an aboriginal law expert at committee. I asked her if the Prime Minister had violated the country's duty to consult indigenous Canadians as dictated by the Supreme Court of Canada. Robin Campbell's answer was, “The simple answer is yes.” He also breached this duty to consult when he cancelled the northern gateway pipeline.
There are many instances when the Prime Minister's posturing and kind words on reconciliation are not matched by his actions. I would like to see more accountability for that. In fact, I invite Canadians to look at at Chief Fox's column in yesterday's Globe and Mail which says on Bill C-69, the anti-pipeline bill, that there have been no consultations.
There is really nice language but bad actions. Those are the first two elements of the declining Canada–U.S. relationship under President Obama.
What has it been since? We now have the legalization of cannabis, which really is the only promise the Liberals have kept from their 2015 election platform. The Prime Minister, despite the state dinner and despite acceding to many Canadian demands, could not even get the Americans to remove one question, the marijuana question, from the pre-clearance screening on that side of the border. A lot of Canadians should be concerned. If they are asked that question, they could lose the ability to travel to the United States. This could impact people's economic ability to pursue a job or go to the United States because of work. It could impair their freedom of movement. All we needed to do was to get assurance from the U.S. federal government that immigration and custom enforcement, ICE, would not ask that question. We could not even get the U.S. to remove one question from a list.
With Bill C-23, the companion bill, we are allowing Americans to search Canadians on Canadian soil. It is a one-way relationship that Canadians should be concerned about. That issue was under both President Obama and now under President Trump because it took some time for the Liberals to complete their legalization of cannabis. That was one of the concerns the Conservatives held out from day one: Make sure the border issue is resolved with the Americans. We could not get that assurance.
Let us look at NORAD. The Conservatives urged the Liberals to complete our full NORAD security partnership making sure that we are a partner on ballistic missile defence. Had we started talking about security at the time there was missile testing by North Korea, that would have, in the early days of President Trump's time in the White House, shown Canada as the only trade and security partner with the United States, period. Through NORAD, we have a North American defence and have had since the 1950s. Since the 1965 Auto Pact, only Canada has had a trade and integrated security relationship with the United States, which is why we could have been able to avoid section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, which I will get into later. However, we missed an opportunity to actually show partnership to the United States at a time that was critical.
What did we do instead? The Liberals postured in front of the new U.S. president, putting up non-binding criteria for the negotiation of NAFTA, the progressive agenda, to play politics rather than to get down to business with the Americans. With the border, the cannabis question and NORAD are issues three and four where the relationship has declined.
I would also mention the safe third country agreement. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill talked about the 40,000 people who have illegally crossed the border in Manitoba and Quebec claiming asylum when the government knows that the vast majority of them have no substantive asylum claim. They actually have status in the United States. The minister did not even, for the first year or more, talk to the U.S. about amendments to close the loophole in the safe third country agreement, which is an agreement that was negotiated by the previous Liberal government of Jean Chrétien. Once again, the Liberals did not want to interfere with the Prime Minister's tweet rather than fix the system.
It is interesting, because the current Minister of Public Safety in February 2011 called the entry and exit system with the Americans a surrender of sovereignty. He said, “If we have a common entry and exit system, does it not follow that Canada no longer has sovereign Canadian control over immigration and refugees?” This is a Liberal, now a minister, who was saying that when the Conservative government was considering entry and exit visas.
The Liberal government's inaction and incompetence at the border has surrendered our sovereign control at a time when the Liberals are also going around the world saying that their model should be a best practice used by the world. Canadian confidence in their handling of our system has eroded terribly. That is probably the worst of their failures in our time, and it is allowing Canadian confidence to go down through the Liberals' own inaction.
Finally, with respect to tariffs and NAFTA in general, we were given a one-way, take-it-or-leave-it deal. For two months, the United States and Mexico were at the negotiation table and Canada was not. Mexico played the relationship and the negotiation much more strategically than we did. There was too much politics by the Prime Minister and his minister, and we were given a take-it-or-leave-it deal where we lost on all fronts. There is no win in NAFTA.
When it comes to tariffs, when I spoke to the bill for the second time in May 2018, I warned the Prime Minister that tariffs were on the way. In fact, when Canada was granted a temporary reprieve from steel and aluminum tariffs, on March 11, the Prime Minister said when he was touring steel communities, “as long as there is a free trade deal in North America there won't be tariffs”. Well, I guess he broke that one. He went on to say, “We had your backs last week and we always will.” That was in March.
In May, in debate on Bill C-21, I warned the Prime Minister that tariffs were coming, because the Americans did not take our security considerations over supply of steel from China seriously. Sadly, in June, the U.S. unfairly applied tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, sending our economy into a tailspin in manufacturing in southern Ontario, leading eventually to what we saw with GM and a crisis of confidence in manufacturing. In part, it is because the retaliatory tariffs we brought in were not hurting the Americans but they are hurting many of our suppliers. As I said, Bill C-21 and Bill C-23 were a wholesale surrender to U.S. demands with respect to customs and pre-clearance.
The current Minister of Public Safety demanded in 2011 that Canada, for giving up these elements, should gain something. We have not gained. I will review this for Canadians: Keystone, the Arctic ban, the cannabis question for the border, NORAD partnerships, the safe third country loophole, steel and aluminum tariffs and a take-it-or-leave-it NAFTA.
As I said at the outset, while I support Bill C-21 and the amendment, Canadians need to know that the Canada-U.S. relationship which is critical is not a one-way street where the Americans get what they want and we get nothing. It is about time we see the Prime Minister and his minister stand up for Canadian interests in return for Bill C-21.
View Kyle Peterson Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Kyle Peterson Profile
2018-12-11 17:08 [p.24783]
moved:
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the level of fitness and physical activity of youth in Canada and provide recommendations and report on: (a) strategies to increase the level of fitness and physical activity for youth; (b) the economic, social, cultural, and physical and mental health benefits associated with increased fitness and physical activity among youth; (c) the impact of increased fitness and physical activity in relation to anti-bullying; and (d) that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than June 2019.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to rise in the House of Commons, and it is especially honourable today as this may be the last hour of Private Members' Business before this glorious chamber is shuttered for 10 to 15 years while it receives much-needed renovations. Very soon, it will be shut down for that long.
In my opinion, it is fitting that such an important subject as the physical activity of youth could be the last topic for Private Members' Business. It is my sincere hope that when this magnificent building reopens in 10 to 15 years, we would have in place a solid federal framework for promoting Canadian youth to be physically active.
Mr. Speaker, you have read my motion. It seeks to do three things. One is to develop strategies to raise the level of physical activity of youth. The advantages of doing so are economic, social, cultural, physical and mental. Improving the mental health of children also helps make them more resilient in the face of bullying.
This motion, for me, comes from a personal place. I am the father of two young children. I am also the son of a phys. ed. teacher. My father, unfortunately, passed away the year I was elected to the chamber and did not get to see me as a member of Parliament. In part, this motion is a tribute to his memory and the fact he always taught me to be a good sport, to take part in physical activity and to make sports part of my childhood, and for that I will be forever grateful.
Physically active youth have always been known to be healthy, but only recently have we realized that the health benefits of physical activity go beyond strong muscles and strong bones. The social benefits are innumerable. New evidence shows that the mental health benefits are almost as great. Children who are active are more resilient to bullying, less prone to bouts of depression and have fewer suicidal thoughts in adolescence and adulthood. Those are all noble goals that the House should pursue.
My motion directs the health committee to study the benefits of physical activity in youth. There is a large amount of evidence out there and it continues to grow. This evidence needs to be brought together by the committee. The committee, in my assessment and opinion, should then make recommendations to the House to indicate what role the federal government should play in making sure there is an adequate federal framework to encourage health promotion in our children.
I grew up many years ago and I was always involved in sports, as I mentioned. However, I always also played outside with my friends. The norm was that we left the house as soon as we could, either on our bikes or running to our friend's house, and as long as we were home when the street lights were on, everything was good. We had lunch at whoever's house was closest to us while we were playing road hockey or baseball in an open field or soccer, or some other game that we invented.
It is these activities that help a young child's brain develop, and not just develop to play sports but also with other motor skills. It helps them deal with social situations. It helps them develop conflict skills. As members know, all of these things are important when people move from childhood to adolescence and adulthood. The evidence, as I said, is copious. It needs to be harnessed and it needs a federal push.
We have done some good work federally in this field. We recently funded Participaction to do some research and promote these activities. Also, just recently provincial-territorial and federal leaders and their ministers of sport came together and came up with a great report entitled “Let's Get Moving”, which has a great number of suggestions and a framework in which the federal government has a role to play. I suggest this type of evidence should be before the health committee when it decides what recommendations to make to the House.
Although, in my humble opinion, the benefits are indisputable, we just are not getting to where we need to be, for whatever reason. The health committee could help get us over that hump. Participaction recently came out with a report card grading many countries around the world. In overall physical activity, Canada scored a D+. Active play was a D, active transportation was a D-, sedentary behaviour was a D+ and physical fitness was a D. Schools graded well at B-. Community and environment scored a B+ and family and peers scored a C+. The average was C-. I think everyone in the House would agree we need to do better.
The importance of health, activity in youth and this subject comes home doubly when we see throughout Canada issues around mental health. We are starting to acknowledge the issues of mental health and the destigmatization of mental health issues. Mental health is a serious issue in this country. I think everyone in the House would agree. It is also particularly serious among our youth. A recent study from the Toronto District School Board compared stress levels of students in the last five years. They have increased significantly, so much so that some are unable to cope with the environment of being in school.
There is a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not think I will get much disagreement on that. However, the evidence is also starting to clearly show that physical activity in young people equips them well to deal with stress, mental health issues and even PTSD. An American study from a few years ago came to the same conclusion. The doctor of that study, Dr. Sibbold, said:
Given the substantial current focus on antibullying campaigns, it seemed to us that safe, cheap, and efficacious options are sorely needed to mitigate this growing problem. If we can prevent even one child from depression or self-harm, this is worth it, hands down.
I could not agree more with those sentiments. Bullying is a problem in our schools, as Dr. Sibbold alluded to. In my area we have a group that is very active against bullying, and it does a lot. Bully Free Community Alliance in York region does great work. It knows that physically active youth are less bullied, and just as importantly, are more able to cope when they are bullied. I think everyone agrees this is important.
As I said, there is much evidence out there. I had the opportunity to speak to a lot of stakeholders as I was going through this motion and before our first reading debate here today. A very active group in my riding, Activate Aurora, provided a lot of information. I spoke with people from the Nova Scotia fitness centre, Active for Life, Participaction and Recreation Canada.
Also, I had the pleasure just last Sunday of meeting Lisa Bowes, who is now a children's author. Some may remember her days as a sports reporter on TSN. She has come out with a new line of books entitled “Lucy Tries... ” and whatever sport it might be. It may be hockey or luge. There are a number of books out in the series. These books encourage youth to get involved in sports and to try new sports, which I think is key.
All of these people are working hard toward the same goal. Unfortunately, as is the case in many organizations in a country as big as Canada, they are not necessarily working together. The phrase “they are working in silos” applies.
If we seize this matter as a federal government, direct the health committee to do a study, then it can break down some of these barriers between these groups, share evidence and best practices and make some great recommendations that will make Canadians and Canadian children healthier.
Canadians love organized sports, and there are many great sports associations in all our ridings. I encourage all students, all children to get involved. However, it does not have to be organized sports. There needs to be a cultural shift in the country, where students play all day, like I did many years ago as a young child growing up in Queensville, Ontario just north of the riding I represent now, Newmarket—Aurora. They play without rules, without organizations and without structure. Some have used the phrase “free range children” in today's nomenclature, but it was the norm back then.
Too often today we have moved away from that to a norm of children not leaving the house, children needing to stay at home where they are safe and protected. We hear of incidents where children are walking down the sidewalk, perhaps going to the local park, and neighbours call the police to say that a nine or 10-year-old old girl is walking down street without her parents, as if that were some kind of an emergency.
I am not necessarily faulting the caller, but we need to have a cultural shift where that is the norm, where it is great, where it should be encouraged and where the person who sees that child walking down the street does not phone 911, but calls the parents to thank them for having an active child. If people are concerned about the child's safety, perhaps they could watch her for the 80 metres to ensure she gets to the park safely. That kind of culture engenders physical activity in students.
We can look at countries like Japan. Japan does not build schools any further than four kilometres apart from the students who go there. Every student in Japan walks to school. In Canada, I believe it is less than 20%. We have geographical limits that Japan may not. However, in areas where a school is less than three or four kilometres away, children should be encouraged to walk to school, or to bike to school and do it in groups. There is this concept of walking buses, where a group stops at everyone's house and picks another child up as it walks to the school.
We need to make this more of the norm and less of the exception. As I said, it is not just because we need children to be physically active, it is not just because we want children to be healthy physically; it is because we want them to be well-rounded adults. We want them to be able to cope with the stresses of real life.
A big issue that exists even now that did not five, 10 or 15 years ago, and I deal with it every day, especially with my seven year old, is screen time. Getting those tablets out of children's hands is almost impossible without strict discipline. Those who have children, especially seven year olds, will know how stubborn they can be. My sons Kolton and Kash can both be a little stubborn when it comes to this. However, we have to set the guidelines. I am not here to lecture people on parenting skills. I do not profess to be an expert in that field by any stretch of the imagination.
However, I can see first-hand that the problem is real. There is more distractions for children now than there was when I was a child. I think I had four or five channels to choose from, and I might have watched TV on Saturday mornings when Scooby-Doo was on, and it was not black and white TV; it was colour.
These are the types of real-life issues children are facing today. When we are replacing it with screen time, instead being physically active, then it makes that problem worse.
My request is a simple one. I truly do hope the House can rally around it. It is a completely non-partisan one in my humble opinion. However, we need the health committee to study this, bring the evidence together and come up with recommendations to ensure the federal government plays its role in ensuring our children are healthy, mentally, emotionally, socially, and they are getting to have a fulfilling life.
We as a federal government should set that framework to make that as likely as possible. I look forward to debate on this matter. I am hoping to have support across parties. If my motion is successful, I will look forward to the great work the health committee will do.
View Sonia Sidhu Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Sonia Sidhu Profile
2018-12-10 14:07 [p.24646]
Mr. Speaker, our seniors have earned the right to live their retirement years in dignity and deserve our respect and appreciation.
In my riding of Brampton South, there are nearly 16,000 seniors, who account for 14% of the population. Over the weekend, we hosted a town hall on seniors issues, together with my colleagues from Brampton North and Brampton Centre, where we were joined by the hon. Minister of Seniors. I thank the over 100 residents, representing nearly 30 of Brampton's senior organizations, who came out to share their ideas, interests and concerns with us and to hear directly from the minister how important it is for our government to make progress on pensions, housing, health care, poverty and many other issues that affect them.
Our seniors deserve a better life.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2018-12-07 11:53 [p.24602]
Madam Speaker, the CRTC has launched proceedings to create an Internet code of conduct to protect consumers.
The problem is that without warning and little notice, it has put the public and experts on an impossible timeline to contribute meaningful input. Even worse, the CRTC is withholding crucial information to allow experts to do their job. The CRTC's irrational approach has become a debacle.
Are the Liberals really serious about consumer protection, or is this process smoke and mirrors? Will the minister extend the deadline to allow the public and experts reasonable time to make submissions to the CRTC and ensure that a code of conduct is done properly?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
View David Lametti Profile
2018-12-07 11:53 [p.24602]
Madam Speaker, the CRTC has a long track record of consulting Canadians and working well within the areas of its jurisdiction, including telecommunications and consumer protection.
We have every confidence that it will continue to do so. The minister is aware of this process, and we will continue to watch it.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that their relationship with indigenous peoples is their most important relationship, but they are doing nothing to prove it.
The Federal Court of Appeal was very clear on the subject of Trans Mountain: the consultation process was unacceptable, and the government had to go back to the drawing board.
Consultation is a huge responsibility that must not be ignored the way Stephen Harper ignored it with respect to Northern Gateway and the way the Prime Minister is ignoring it with respect to Trans Mountain.
When will this government finally keep its promises to indigenous people?
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2018-12-06 14:27 [p.24547]
Mr. Speaker, we take, very seriously, our obligations for meaningful and two-way consultation with indigenous communities.
I have personally met with close to 40 indigenous communities that were impacted by the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. We are responding to the court's decision and making sure that, moving forward, we engage with them, listen to their concerns and find accommodation where possible, because that is the only way to move forward on resource development projects such as pipelines.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, we have what the minister says, and on the other, we have what the Prime Minister does.
The Prime Minister calls himself progressive and feminist. He says he listens to first nations, but with one single answer yesterday afternoon, he put the lie to all three claims. His condescending attitude toward Neskonlith Chief Judy Wilson was deeply disrespectful and unacceptable.
In this era of reconciliation, when consultation with first nations is a sensitive issue, such a cavalier rejection of the chief's comments needlessly inflames the situation.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge what he did wrong and publicly apologize for his inappropriate remarks?
View Jane Philpott Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Jane Philpott Profile
2018-12-06 14:28 [p.24547]
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be at the Assembly of First Nations' special chiefs assembly yesterday when the Prime Minister spoke.
This is in fact the fourth time our Prime Minister has spoken at these meetings. There was a very good atmosphere in the room. I joined several other ministers in speaking at the special chiefs assembly. We are building a renewed relationship based on respect, co-operation and partnership.
We are moving forward and seeing real change for our first nations in this country.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
View Rachel Blaney Profile
2018-12-06 14:29 [p.24547]
Mr. Speaker, the government does not seem to understand what free, prior and informed consent means.
Indigenous leaders have been clear. The Trans Mountain expansion cannot go ahead without the consent of the impacted communities. The courts have been clear: The Prime Minister failed to adequately consult with indigenous people.
How can the Prime Minister say he is consulting when he has already made up his mind? Perhaps the Prime Minister needs to look up the definition of “prior” in the Oxford Dictionary. I have one here for him.
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2018-12-06 14:29 [p.24547]
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court of Appeal has been very clear that in order to move forward on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, we need to re-engage with indigenous communities in our efforts to do a better job on the phase three consultations. That is exactly what we are focused on.
We are putting our teams together. We are reaching out to indigenous communities to engage them, listen to their concerns and respond to their concerns. We will make sure that we have the right process in place, that we are moving forward on this project by responding to the Federal Court's decision.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
View Rachel Blaney Profile
2018-12-06 14:30 [p.24547]
Prior means before, Mr. Speaker.
When Chief Judy Wilson asked the Prime Minister a question about indigenous consultation, the Prime Minister not only failed to refer to her as chief, but completely minimized her concerns. The British Columbia chiefs said his response was "an overtly sexist approach that attempted to normalize [his] dismissiveness". Then a male chief asked a very similar question and the Prime Minister responded with respect and an apology.
When will the feminist Prime Minister stand up in the House and apologize?
View Jane Philpott Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Jane Philpott Profile
2018-12-06 14:31 [p.24547]
Mr. Speaker, prior to our government starting in 2015, the previous prime minister did not go to special chief assemblies, did not go to general meetings of the Assembly of First Nations.
Our Prime Minister goes to those meetings. He interacts. He accepts questions from the floor. We are building a new relationship where we are interacting in positive ways with first nations leaders and communities. We are proud of the work that we are doing together.
Results: 1 - 15 of 3390 | Page: 1 of 226

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|