Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 31 - 45 of 70
View Eric Melillo Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Melillo Profile
2020-12-09 15:07 [p.3211]
Mr. Speaker, that was a classic non-answer from the Prime Minister. I asked a question about the community investment initiative through FedNor. The Prime Minister did not respond using the words “FedNor”, “the community investment initiative”, “economic development” or "northern Ontario”, so I will give him the opportunity to answer the question again.
When can northern Ontario municipalities expect to have a clear answer on the status of their funding applications?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-12-09 15:08 [p.3211]
Mr. Speaker, I think if the member opposite checks the blues he will see that I actually said the applications are being looked at as rapidly as possible, and that we will work with them for any extra funds that they need.
In the meantime, speaking of regional development agencies, I was extremely pleased to highlight that in the fall economic statement we recognized the need for a specific regional development agency for British Columbia. Now, in addition to the tremendous amount of support we give through western diversification, we will be able to give more support directly to B.C. to ensure that regional development agencies have the tools to best support people on the ground right across the country. This is a good day for regional development across the country and will continue to be.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-11-23 12:05 [p.2220]
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to speak today on Bill C-8 from the traditional unceded territory of the Snuneymuxw people. I want to acknowledge that the riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith lies within the territories of the Snuneymuxw, the Snaw-naw-as, the Stz'uminus and the Lyackson first nations.
Huy’chka siem.
I would like the thank the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria for sharing this time with me today so that I could speak to this important bill.
Bill C-8 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. The bill would change the oath of citizenship so that newcomers to Canada, in addition to pledging allegiance to the Queen, will also faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
The Snuneymuxw people, whose territory I am from speaking today, signed a treaty in 1854. This was the 14th and the last of the so-called Douglas treaties, and it was ignored for over 100 years. It was not until the landmark White and Bob Supreme Court case in 1965 that this treaty was finally recognized by the Government of Canada. This historic case marked the beginning of the modern era of treaty and aboriginal rights and title, advocacy and activism across Canada.
I learned about this treaty while working on a film about the Nanaimo River, entitled Voices of the River. In my interviews with Snuneymuxw elder Ellen White and with her grandson Doug White, who was the chief of Snuneymuxw First Nation at the time, they both emphasized the importance of this treaty and the rights and title that it enshrines. Most residents of Nanaimo would have no knowledge of this treaty and what it means. It is a constant struggle for the Snuneymuxw people to have their treaty rights recognized.
This is true for first nations across Canada, as we have seen with the Mi'kmaq fishery in Nova Scotia and the Haudenosaunee dispute in Caledonia, Ontario. We are all treaty people in Canada. We have historical treaties that need to be respected, and for those first nations that have never signed treaties, it is incumbent upon the government to go through the modern-day treaty process in a respectful way.
It is important for newcomers to Canada to understand the indigenous and first nations rights enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All Canadians, including new Canadians, need to understand these legal documents. They should understand that if they are not in a region that is covered by a treaty, then they are in a region that has never surrendered and is still legally indigenous territory.
The bill would complete number 94 of the 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That does not mean that the current Parliament has finally gotten to the end of the list and has implemented the previous 93 calls to action, far from it. We have a very poor record of implementing these calls to action. Earlier this year my colleague, the hon. member for Fredericton, presented a scorecard in her speech on this issue. Out of the 52 broader reconciliation recommendations, seven have been completed. Under justice, it is one out of 18; language and culture, one out of five; health, zero; education, zero; and child welfare, zero.
In the first year, five recommendations were completed, and just four since 2016. At the current rate, it will take approximately 38 more years before all of the calls to action are implemented. This is not reconciliation in action.
Call to action number 94 is important, but there are far more urgent calls to action that we need to turn our attention to. Call to action number one calls upon federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal governments to commit to reducing the number of aboriginal children in care. Right now there are more indigenous children in the child welfare system in this country than there were children in the residential schools at the height of the residential school system. This is an ongoing abuse of human rights and a violation of fundamental social justice.
When I talk to local leaders from first nations and urban indigenous communities in my riding, they tell me the same thing: Children are being apprehended by provincial child welfare agencies, and it is not because the parents have neglected to provide their children with love, care or attention. The majority of child welfare apprehensions are a direct result of poverty and inadequate housing. The Government of Canada could deal with this immediately with a poverty reduction strategy and rapid housing program for first nations and urban indigenous populations.
The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry recommendations called for a guaranteed livable income to ensure no Canadian needs to live in poverty. A guaranteed livable income would remove the bias inherent in our social welfare programs and would be a step toward ending systemic racism in this country. Indigenous people are overrepresented in our prison system and in our homeless population. This is also a direct result of poverty and the disproportionate number of children pulled from their families and communities by the child welfare system.
We have a long way to go toward true reconciliation with indigenous people in Canada. Under the reconciliation section of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action, the first call to action, number 43, calls upon federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation. This is important and we need to get this done right away. Why are we not debating this right now?
It is a national shame indigenous communities have boil water advisories that go on for years and even decades, that indigenous communities deal with serious and persistent poverty, that indigenous people are overrepresented in our criminal justice system and in our homeless population, that we have such high levels of suicide among indigenous youth and that health outcomes for indigenous people are comparable to those of residents of low-income countries.
It is an international black eye for Canadians that we have encroaching developments and industrial projects forced upon indigenous communities after sham consultations and then have those developments and projects rammed through with enforcement actions by highly armed militarized police forces.
We need economic reconciliation to improve the conditions for economic development and economic sovereignty for first nations. The connection to land is key to the culture of indigenous people in Canada, but as colonizers we have broken that link. The reserve system forced indigenous people off the land and took away those key connections to their culture. Industrialization has destroyed many traditional territories with resource extraction, including excessive logging, mining and oil and gas production, destroying biodiversity and leaving behind toxic messes.
In my riding of Nanaimo Ladysmith, the traditional lands of the Hul'qumi’num-speaking people were stolen out from under them with the E&N land grant 150 years ago. Coal baron and B.C. cabinet minister Robert Dunsmuir was given 8,000 square kilometres of land, or 20% of Vancouver Island, to build the E&N railway from Esquimalt to Nanaimo as part of the deal for B.C. to join Confederation. This corrupt deal and historic wrong need to be corrected. We cannot celebrate 150 years of B.C. joining Confederation next year without reparation for this theft. Reconciliation must be more than words, it must include reparation for historic wrongs.
There is a long list of things we need to do to make things right in our relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people in this country. If this is indeed our most important relationship, as the Prime Minister has often repeated, then let us get on with it.
I have had the honour and privilege of working with many newcomers to Canada and I know they are keen to be good citizens and become part of our communities. Many of the newcomers arrive from difficult situations and have faced war, poverty, environmental degradation and human rights abuses. Once they learn about our history and fully understand the circumstances many indigenous people live with in Canada, these newcomers are shocked.
Bill C-8 is an acknowledgement of the responsibilities of all Canadians, including new Canadians. It is an important piece of legislation. The Green Party supports this legislation. We support all the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we support the recommendations of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry and we support the full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I hope to debate much more legislation implementing urgent calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation report soon. I hope this happens in the very near future.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, it is great to be here in the House with so many friends to address this important debate, and to follow my friend, the member for Markham—Unionville, who gave an excellent speech. He said he came to Canada in 1974. I came to Canada in 1987, actually, so he has been here longer than I have.
I want to first set off my debate by talking a bit about the content of the bill. I also want to talk a bit about some of the context around the government's agenda and proposals with respect to indigenous issues.
The bill would amend the citizenship oath to read as follows:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
The reference to first nations, Inuit and Métis people, and the references to aboriginal and treat rights, would be new references the bill proposes to add to the legislation.
The genesis for this discussion of amending the citizenship oath is a recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically call to action number 94. As members have observed, the bill seems to have support from all parties and will pass second reading and go to committee. However, there is an issue we will need to hear about more at committee, which is important to note. We will need to hear from witnesses about the difference between the formulation of the oath in the legislation and the proposal that was in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation 94.
The proposed oath, which I looked up before speaking, from the commission report was as follows:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.
The formula is slightly different between the proposal in recommendation number 94 and the proposal in the bill. The bill references first nations, Inuit and Métis, and is a bit longer. Regardless, it is important to ensure that as we proceed down this road in the spirit of reconciliation, we hear from indigenous leaders along the way. Again, it will be important to elucidate at committee whether the relevant stakeholders and communities that are particularly invested in this have been consulted with respect to the difference in wording between the TRC recommendation and the bill. That will be an important point for us to follow up on.
Before I reflect on some of the specifics regarding changing the oath, I want to say that the Conservatives support the bill moving forward. We think the aspirations behind it and the substance of it are reasonable and valuable, and we look forward to further discussion and debate.
Right now we have before Parliament, at various stages, three pieces of legislation that in some sense deal with or touch directly on the relationship between the government and indigenous peoples in Canada. We have Bill C-5, Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. We are discussing Bill C-8, which amends the citizenship oath. We have Bill C-10, which is a larger, broader bill with many issues in it that would make changes to the Broadcasting Act, some of which put into the Broadcasting Act the expectation that broadcasters have diverse content reflecting different communities, including indigenous communities. Then we have Bill C-5, which deals with a statutory holiday for recognizing and remembering what happened in the context of indigenous residential schools.
All three of these bills contain important elements. The Conservatives have supported Bill C-5 and Bill C-8. We have some concerns about Bill C-10, although they are not related to the objectives, but are related to other aspects of the bill, as it is a broader bill. Regardless, in the context of the legislative agenda of the government right now, we have these three different bills.
If the Liberals are deciding what kinds of bills they are going to put forward with respect to indigenous issues, members might say they have a few different options in front of them. In considering those options, we can divide the bills they are putting forward into two broad categories. There would be bills that represent acts of recognition and then there would be bills that represent actions that target quality of life improvements.
This is an important distinction to make. Acts of recognition are things like putting in place a statutory holiday, changing wording, changing language, the legislature making statements, expressing its acknowledgement of certain facts and its will for reconciliation. These kinds of acts of recognition are things we do often as a legislature. They are important and have a place, which is why we are supporting this bill.
Other examples of acts of recognition this legislature has taken include motions where we express our appreciation for a certain community or the work done. In the last Parliament, we passed many bills that create heritage months, for example. Heritage months are a way of collectively commemorating and recognizing the contribution of certain communities. These acts of recognition and pieces of legislation that call for wider community recognition are important.
Why are they important? They create opportunities for us to call to mind, recognize and appreciate the valuable contributions made by certain communities. We are shaped by our history. As a legislature, we have a role in encouraging a recognition and awareness of that history. That is important and valuable. We can do those things and there is a legitimate place for us to do those things.
Another category of legislation we have are actions that specifically target quality of life improvements, which seek to make changes to practical circumstances in order to make peoples' lives concretely better.
These actions of recognition, whether changing an oath, commemorative day, representation in broadcasting or heritage month, are important. However, legislation that touches peoples' direct quality of life and deals with their ability to access justice with the recognition of their rights, the delivery of concrete services, whether it is health care or other supports, that deals with economic development, I would think are on balance more important.
To me, it is striking when I look at all the recommendations that have been made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I look at all of the options in front of the government in terms of prioritizing its response. We see more or less exclusively acts of recognition, as opposed to actions that are aimed at concrete quality of life improvements.
If we saw a mix of both, that would be fine. However, we need to start to be critical and ask that question when we are seeing a focus exclusively on the acts of recognition, as opposed to on those kinds of quality of life improvements I talked about earlier.
What are the areas we are missing? Where has the government failed when it comes to making quality of life improvements? There are many areas we need to look at in terms of concrete quality of life improvements. We can talk about justice and health, and many other things.
I want to start by talking about economic development. Talking to indigenous Canadians in my area and across the country, I know there is a real desire for economic development and for people to have jobs and opportunities in their own communities.
There is also a recognition that when there is economic development in different communities, it gives those communities control and ability to invest in programs that reflect the priorities of those communities. We hear calls from communities for funding from the government for programs around health, around language, around infrastructure and these sorts of things, but to the extent that communities are able to have economic development themselves, they are also able to prioritize, and invest in those priority areas without needing to come and ask the government for funding in that specific area. It is not an either-or. It is not as if communities have to choose between accessing government funding and economic development, but when communities are developing economically it gives them a greater degree of autonomy and control and it gives them the opportunity to invest in those priorities right away.
Many indigenous communities have been benefiting from being part of the energy economy, developing natural resources and pursuing other opportunities. In the course of this debate, the parliamentary secretary responded to my question about concrete actions by talking about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. It is important to address this directly. If we want to give indigenous communities the opportunity to develop economically, they have to be able to do so in a framework that involves reasonable consultation, but ultimately gives them the opportunity to move forward. If they have, for example, an energy development project where the indigenous communities in an area are actually the proponents of that project and there is a minority that is opposing those projects, in a case where there is overwhelming support within local indigenous communities, there has to be a consultation framework that allows that project to move forward.
This is where Conservatives have parted company with other parties, especially around issues like Bill C-262, because if they put in place a framework that effectively means that one community could have a veto over the desire for the economic development of all surrounding communities, that is a problem. There needs to be a meaningful consultation process in which communities are listened to, but there also has to be an opportunity for communities to develop their own resources and the standard for consultation has to stop somewhere short of unanimity. One cannot expect that every person has to agree before we see any kind of economic development.
It has been something that maybe we have discussed less since, because COVID-19 took up all the attention in terms of discussion, but early in the year we were dealing with a situation where all of the elected community leaders wanted a particular project, the Coastal GasLink project, and a minority of hereditary chiefs were against that project going forward. That was the context, and it was debated extensively. Some members of this House behaved as if a case in which a minority within a community objected, that, in and of itself, was sufficient basis for stopping economic development from going forward. We took the view that when there is strong support within indigenous communities for a project to go forward, then that project has to be able to go forward. The consultation has to happen and if people say yes, they have to be able to develop those resources and benefit from them.
We see cases across this country where indigenous people are seeking the opportunity to pursue economic development, to develop resources. There can be debate, there can be tensions, and those debates happen within communities as well as between different communities, but the opportunity for people to pursue economic development is important.
The government members talk about the discussion we are hearing today, separate from the debate on Bill C-8 but about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. That is concerning for a lot of indigenous Canadians who want to have this opportunity to develop their own resources, to benefit from the opportunities that flow from them, and to use those resources to invest in things like language preservation, health improvement, infrastructure improvements and so forth. They want to be able to use the benefits that flow from economic development for those things.
I want to also just add, in terms of economic development, one of the exciting and interesting opportunities when it comes to the development of things like pipeline infrastructure is that the expansion of infrastructure could also bring in things like better Internet connectivity into some of these communities.
It is not just about opportunities directly in the natural resource sector, it is about the fact that, when we have benefit agreements, we have the building of infrastructure into and around different communities, which gives people the opportunity to have better connectivity, to access different resources and education, or to work in online businesses. There is so much more opportunity that flows from these kinds of developments, which we are just on the cusp of.
This country has so much potential, and a lot of that potential is around resource development. Those who are most likely to benefit to the greatest extent from that development are those who are more likely to be living proximate to those resources.
We could talk about some of the significant issues around justice, around working to ensure our justice system is fair to all people. We are identifying the reasons there may be disproportionate impacts on certain communities and working seriously to counter those impacts. That is the kind of thing that takes hard work.
The government has made statements to recognize the problems that have existed in the way indigenous people have been treated by our justice system. It is one thing to affirm there is an issue here, again, an act of recognition, and is another thing to say we are going to take concrete action and go from that active recognition and really target those quality of life improvements.
As I said earlier during questions and comments, so often when I hear from government members when we are having debates about indigenous issues, there is a tone in the their speeches as if they are still in opposition. They will say that there have been all these problems and that we need to do better and do more.
I look across the way and think that the government has been here for five years, and it is still constantly blaming Stephen Harper and constantly talking about the failures of history that have held it back. Do I think it is possible to change everything and make everything perfect within five years? No, I do not. Do I think it could be focusing on real concrete progress as part of its agenda? Yes, I do.
I hope we do not have the current government for another five years or another 10 years, but I suspect if we did, we would still hear the same speeches. We would still hear the same members saying that we have failed for too long and we need to do better. At what point does this recognition that we need to do better come back on them and lead them to say maybe not just “we” in the abstract, somebody else needs to do better sense, but “we” as in “we as a government” need to do better?
The government here does need to do much better. The Conservative caucus is supportive of Bill C-8. We are going to be supporting it through to committee. We look forward to the committee's study on it, especially delving into some of these questions I mentioned about the distinction between the version in the legislation and the TRC recommendation. However, we want to see the government take seriously the need to advance legislation and policy that concretely improves the quality of life for indigenous Canadians.
Yes, recognition is important, but if we see bill after bill on the issue of recognition but not targeting concrete quality of life improvements, it looks increasingly like the government is trying to avoid delving into these complex policy areas that would really make a difference. If it recognizes there is a need for more resources and need for economic development, when are we going to see the legislation that is going to really support economic development within indigenous communities and make it easier to grab those opportunities? When are we going to see the legislation that seeks to address those long-standing justice issues?
The government talks about doing better. It is time for it to do better so we can see some of these concrete improvements.
View Kenny Chiu Profile
CPC (BC)
View Kenny Chiu Profile
2020-11-23 18:36 [p.2276]
Madam Speaker, it is yet another substantive virtue signal by the Liberal government. Canadians are growing tired of this cliché. The government consistently fumbles through crisis after crisis, desperate to take attention away from its failings when it comes to Canada. While the government takes pride in this as a form of reconciliation, Canadian indigenous people are still dealing with drinking water and boil water advisories. The government should be putting more time and energy into steps to ensure such advisories are not necessary in the future, that the safety of drinking water is sustainable and that access to basic priorities like clean water is no longer a concern.
For a government to place such emphasis on reconciliation as a core priority, it must be willing to do what is necessary to provide equality of opportunity for all Canadian communities. Like every Canadian hurt throughout the pandemic, first nations people want to work and do what is best. They have had both opportunities denied under the Liberal government. Before the pandemic, Canada's first nations showed that they wanted to work and contribute to Canada. They sought opportunities by supporting the jobs and benefits to the economy that pipeline construction creates.
As the year has progressed, on the opposite side of the country we have seen first nations continue to seek economic advantage by fighting for their moderate livelihood fisheries. In 2020, jobs have been lost and the deficit is skyrocketing. Canada cannot afford more indecision and meaningless gestures. Canadians need to see meaningful actions taken. Canada has a long and complicated relationship with its indigenous peoples, and I readily agree that further steps are required to strengthen our relationship.
Changing the oath of citizenship does not accomplish this great task. Work done should add to strengthening relations within the Canadian social fabric. For failing to act on this, the government will be held to account by the people. Canadians deserve better than another empty promise of sunny ways made by politicians wishing to cater sympathetic favour to reduce proud citizens of this country to tokens cynically used to curry political favour.
As a Conservative member of Parliament, I stand for the improvement of Canada. My party stands for the improvement of this country. We represent many Canadians who want better than a government that consistently failed in its mandates by changing the rules and not providing urgent or transparent actions to address the concerns. No matter the gravity of the issue facing Canada or the concerns of indigenous inhabitants, the government has served the House unappealing word salads in its responses.
Similarly, the bill is but another response devoid of any substance. Perhaps Bill C-6 is something that should be delayed until such time as call to action 93 or more meaningful action, such as ending all boil water advisories and making real, meaningful progress on reconciliation, is accomplished.
View Eric Melillo Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Melillo Profile
2020-11-02 18:42 [p.1564]
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise today as the member of Parliament for the Kenora riding, rejoin this debate and speak to Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in accordance with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 94.
I must mention that I am very glad to be sharing my time today with the great member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley. I will add that I appreciate that Elections Canada gave me such an easy riding name compared to that.
This legislation we are debating today will add a new line to the Canadian citizenship oath, where new Canadians will be explicitly noting and making mention of indigenous and treaty rights. I must say this is something I am very happy to see moving forward. It is a topic I have been having many conversations about in my riding. I have spoken with chiefs, community leaders and residents of first nations in my riding to get their thoughts on this. More specifically, I have been asking a lot about what true and meaningful reconciliation should look like and I have been doing a lot of listening.
The Kenora riding is home to many indigenous peoples. There are 42 first nations in my riding. There are many Métis and indigenous people living within the nine municipalities or the rural unincorporated areas of my riding. My riding also encompasses three distinct treaty territories, so reconciliation is definitely an issue that is top of mind for many in my riding, but over and over I hear the same things. People are not looking for platitudes and empty gestures; they are looking for real action. There are obviously a lot of different opinions on what that looks like, but I think it is important to note that each and every one of us in this House all know and should recognize that every party, every government has taken some very positive steps to address the gaps that exist between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. Likewise, every party has had some missteps and frankly some failures on this file.
Under the last Conservative government, the official residential school apology was issued and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was launched. All these years later, I believe it is time that we can all work together to deliver on the intent of that commission. Too often reconciliation is used as a buzzword by politicians for political purposes. Many very serious issues that need to be addressed fall by the wayside in exchange for these platitudes and empty gestures that have no meaningful impact on the everyday lives of indigenous peoples. I note this because it is important we make sure the intent of this bill, which I believe wholeheartedly is positive, is not lost and that we continue to make tangible differences in the lives of indigenous people across the north and across Canada.
As I have noted, I have spoken with many chiefs in my riding about this bill. They are supportive of the bill and of the government fulfilling this aspect of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, they have noted to me that if we just simply change the citizenship oath without taking action to improve the social and economic well-being of indigenous peoples it will lose its power and in many ways lose its meaning. That is why we must support economic growth in northern communities, equitable health care options, improved infrastructure and education, and of course we must ensure that clean drinking water is available to each and every person living in Canada.
Right now in my riding the community of Neskantaga has had to evacuate after its water system shut down completely leaving the community without any water. It has been under a drinking water advisory for 25 years. There are people living in that community who have lived their entire lives without any access to clean drinking water. It is something that is unimaginable to most Canadians, yet it is a reality for far too many in the north and across Canada, particularly many in my riding who have been living under drinking water advisories for far too long. I want to note something. I was having a conversation with someone in my riding about the stark differences between some of the communities I represent and being here in this magnificent place.
All we have to do is wave our hands and someone brings us water, or we can go to the lobby behind me and we have our choice between flat or bubbly, a little lime or lemon, and jazz it up however we want, but there are people in the communities I represent who have never had access to clean drinking water. It is important that we all take time to acknowledge that and reflect on the two faces of Canada, if I can use that term.
That is why I was incredibly disappointed that the government walked back from its promise to end all long-term drinking water advisories on reserve by next year. There are recent reports from CBC saying that the government may miss this mark by years. It is unacceptable that people in our country do not have access to clean drinking water and it is unacceptable for the government to push this down the road.
There is a broader lack of infrastructure in many northern communities across my riding, across the territories and across Canada, whether it is housing, road improvements or the Internet. As we have experienced in the debate today, there are problems with the Internet. I make note of all of these because these tremendous gaps exist in my riding and in many others. In communities like Cat Lake, there is a housing shortage, there is overcrowding and many of the homes that are available have structural problems, mould or other long-standing issues.
On the Internet aspect of it, many communities do not have access to the Internet. These residents are not able to potentially attend school or access government services. This pandemic has shown us that Internet access is not a luxury but a necessity. Unfortunately, many indigenous peoples in many indigenous communities have some of the worst Internet connections or lack of connection of anyone else across Canada. These are important things that we must work on as well.
I already mentioned health care gaps. Given the remoteness of many communities in my riding, which are accessible only by flying in or by winter road, there has been chronic underfunding or poorly prioritized funding and mismanagement by the federal government, which has left many with poor health care service options. We must do more to ensure that each and every person living in Canada has access to equitable health care and, of course, that must include the north.
I believe in the importance of economic support as well and the role that economic development and economic diversification of the north can play in providing many opportunities to northern and indigenous communities. By working together to create good jobs and ensuring that revenues stay in the north, everyone can benefit from this responsible development. It is something I have seen in my riding with Grand Council Treaty #3, which signed a historic resource revenue-sharing agreement with the Province of Ontario. We must do more of that collaboration and ensure that economic growth is part of our reconciliation discussion and the process, as I believe it can help us reach many of our other aspirations.
All that being said, I do believe in the spirit of this proposal and that this is a very positive step, so long as concrete actions on the many issues that I have outlined can be addressed. It is important for new Canadians to understand the value of treaty rights and indigenous rights. Perhaps, as many community leaders in my riding have pointed out, this could be an opportunity for further education on the history of Canada, the good and the bad, so that every Canadian, whether new to our country or with a family that has been here for generations, can understand why reconciliation and upholding treaty rights are so vital.
I definitely want to acknowledge that this is one of the most important things. It cannot get lost in this discussion. I urge my colleagues, especially those in government, to work with the opposition and all parties to ensure we do not let politics get in the way of taking true, meaningful actions and bringing forward tangible items that will improve the lives of indigenous peoples across Canada.
View Colin Carrie Profile
CPC (ON)
View Colin Carrie Profile
2020-11-02 18:56 [p.1566]
Madam Speaker, when my colleague from Kenora started his speech, he made a comment about the name of his riding. As members know, I come from Oshawa, which in Ojibwa means the crossing place. It comes from the term aazhaway. That fact that the bill moves forward so new Canadians understand the importance of our history is extremely important, and I think everybody agrees on that.
My colleague has a great perspective. He comes from the north, with many indigenous people in his community. I wonder if he could comment on what he hears are the greatest priorities of indigenous people in his community; and, specifically, if he could comment on resource development and how the current government's policies affect that. It is important for our future as Canada.
View Eric Melillo Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Melillo Profile
2020-11-02 18:57 [p.1566]
Madam Speaker, there are so many things we could touch on. As I mentioned in my speech, my riding has the historic resource revenue sharing agreement between Grand Council Treaty No. 3 and the Province of Ontario. I know that resource development is very important to many first nations communities across my riding and across the north. It is a catalyst for us to be able to improve the way of life for many people across the north.
View Eric Melillo Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Melillo Profile
2020-11-02 19:33 [p.1571]
Madam Speaker, in June 2019, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, the parliamentary secretary responsible for the economic development initiative for northern Ontario, announced $800,000 of FedNor funding for the tech company Skritswap. It is nearly a year and a half later and Sault Ste. Marie has seen very little, if any, benefit to its economy as a result of that.
When this company applied for FedNor funding, the applicants listed the Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre as their corporate address, but the director of the innovation centre has said publicly that Skritswap does not use their facilities; perhaps they use it for forwarding their mail to their more permanent address and occasionally they will borrow a desk, from time to time.
The director actually contacted FedNor after Skritswap's funding was announced and was concerned that the company was not actively trying to hire local workers. We know that the vast majority of this company's labour force is based out of southern Ontario and it has job listings and job postings across B.C. and in California as well, so there really is no sign that Skritswap managers have used their FedNor funding to create a single job in Sault Ste. Marie, or in northern Ontario for that matter.
As our party's shadow minister for the FedNor file, I was contacted by constituents from Sault Ste. Marie who were wondering how economic development funding that has been earmarked for northern Ontario can possibly end up going to a company that operates largely, if not entirely, out of the south. The purpose of FedNor, if I am not mistaken, is to help support the economy and create opportunities for businesses and workers in northern Ontario.
My constituents raised this issue with me after I raised it in question period. There are many deserving businesses in Sault Ste. Marie, but also in Sudbury, Timmins, Thunder Bay and across my riding of Kenora and potentially in Dryden or Sioux Lookout or many of the communities I represent. I wonder how many of these companies were passed over for funding in favour of this company, which appears to have nothing more than a PO box in the region. It does not seem fair to many people across northern Ontario.
As I mentioned, I raised this question for the minister in question period. Unfortunately she avoided the question and went on to talk about the government's pandemic relief, seemingly unaware of what question I was asking. Therefore, I would like to give the opportunity for the government to address this once again.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell me, tell members of this House and tell all Canadians, particularly those in his riding, how many jobs were created in Sault Ste. Marie as a result of this FedNor funding?
View Terry Sheehan Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Terry Sheehan Profile
2020-11-02 19:37 [p.1572]
Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made earlier by the member for Kenora regarding repayable funding provided to Skritswap in 2019 by the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario.
Right from the get-go, let me make one thing very clear to set the mind of the member opposite at ease.
View Terry Sheehan Profile
Lib. (ON)
This federal contribution is a loan, not a “no strings attached” grant. Whatever money has gone to Skritswap, it has been with the very clear condition that if a company fails to meet its goal of growing business in northern Ontario, it will need to pay back the funds in full.
We invested in Skritswap because our government understands the importance of investing in northern Ontario to create good jobs and grow the economy. FedNor has long been a key partner for entrepreneurs in northern Ontario, and they work with businesses and entrepreneurs to build stronger communities.
We have seen this, loud and clear, throughout the COVID pandemic. Through our regional recovery and relief fund, RRF, FedNor has supported more than 130 organizations with more than $23 million. Through this funding, we have directly supported more than 1,800 jobs. Further, these grants have gone to organizations that show the diversity of our region.
As of October 15, 33 RRF recipients are women-owned or -operated, 16 are indigenous businesses, 43 are tourism businesses and 112 are located in rural areas. The same goes for FedNor-funded Community Futures organizations. To date, we have provided more than $22 million to nearly 650 organizations, and directly supported more than 1,500 jobs here. Of these Community Futures clients, 247 are women-owned and -operated, 44 are indigenous business, 224 are tourism businesses and all 645 are in rural areas.
These are important numbers, because they show, time and again, that our government is there for businesses in northern Ontario, in all these ridings, when those businesses have needed help.
I will also note that it is strange that the Conservative Party is focused on this in particular. For whatever reason, Conservatives have decided to dust off a story that was initially reported in the summer of 2019 and to which we have consistently said that the money will be repaid if the company fails to meet its goal of creating jobs in northern Ontario. They may not be proud of the work that FedNor does and they may want to discourage other women entrepreneurs from entering the tech field in northern Ontario, but we are proud to be helping entrepreneurs create jobs in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie and across northern Ontario.
I would also like to take a moment to talk about the company, Skritswap, because it is clear the Conservatives would like to muddy the waters. Since 2015, the company has received attention for its work on artificial intelligence. It has attracted venture capital, not just from FedNor but from angel investors in Canada and the United States. It has done this while headquartering in Sault Ste. Marie.
Contrary to what the Conservatives claim, Skritswap reports having no employees located outside of Canada, let alone in California. It has four permanent employees, two in northern Ontario and two located in southern Ontario. On top of that, it has created 16 temporary skilled contract jobs across Canada since the pandemic began. The company understands that any jobs created from the FedNor funding need to be created in northern Ontario, or else the company will have to repay it all in full.
Of course, Skritswap faces the challenges of how to recruit and retain talent in northern Ontario. We understand that many entrepreneurs across northern Canada face the same challenges. That is why our government is supporting immigration to rural Canada through programs like the rural and northern immigration pilot, which is helping entrepreneurs and employers find the talent they need to compete and which will help our rural communities prosper.
The reality is that these companies are exactly the type of business that northern Ontario and Canada need. These are the jobs of the future. To support these job creators, we must continue to work to address the skills gap in the region and to invest in entrepreneurs. We are proud of how FedNor is working with the Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre, Algoma University and Sault College to identify good opportunities. We are proud to be a government—
View Eric Melillo Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Melillo Profile
2020-11-02 19:41 [p.1573]
Madam Speaker, to address the comments of the parliamentary secretary, the reason I am bringing this forward in the House of Commons now is because the constituents in his riding asked me to, because he was refusing to listen to them.
For good reason, they asked me to investigate this. The answer of how many jobs this company has created in northern Ontario seems to be zero. I asked the minister a direct question, and throughout the five minutes that the parliamentary secretary had to respond, he was not able to address it.
I would advise the parliamentary secretary that if the government wants to grow the economy in northwestern Ontario, it could provide support to businesses in northern Ontario.
I would like to know, under what criteria was the company deemed eligible to receive FedNor funding, and in what ways is FedNor going to monitor the success or lack thereof of this funding, particularly as it pertains to Skritswap?
View Terry Sheehan Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Terry Sheehan Profile
2020-11-02 19:42 [p.1573]
Madam Speaker, again, we thank the member opposite for his concern.
However, we need to remember the facts. As we have said consistently, this money came with the condition that if the promised jobs are not created in northern Ontario, then the loan needs to be repaid. We have made that clear to the company, and the company has informed FedNor on several occasions that it understands this condition.
We made this money available because we are committed to supporting entrepreneurs in northern Ontario. We do that by continuing to invest in Canadian entrepreneurs and business to ensure they have the funding they need to benefit from cutting-edge opportunities and to help them provide opportunities in northern Ontario, to forge rewarding, high-paying careers in emerging high-tech fields.
This funding was available even before COVID-19, and we have continued to support these vital sectors of the economy since the pandemic began.
I can assure the member that we will continue to be there, to grow northern Ontario's economy and create good jobs in the region after the pandemic is over.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2020-10-23 11:50 [p.1165]
Mr. Speaker, in the last five years, Liberal policies have been an assault on Alberta and the west. They made resource extraction more difficult, less profitable and highly uncertain. Liberals have outright cancelled already approved projects that would have provided much-needed market diversification and access.
They have done nothing for our farmers and producers at a time of tremendous need and difficulty. Liberals have attacked our plastics manufacturers and are even getting in the way of Alberta becoming a plastic recycling hub.
Why does the Prime Minister not just show the west what he truly thinks of us, just like his father did?
View Paul Lefebvre Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Paul Lefebvre Profile
2020-10-23 11:50 [p.1166]
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there are right now 5,600 workers building the TMX pipeline. This is because of the time we took to do the hard work necessary to meaningfully consult with indigenous partners. Now there will be thousands of more workers going to work because we approved NGTL 2021.
The House knows very well that skipping steps and rushing through projects do not get them done. Taking the time to do the hard work to meet our duty to consult does get them done. We work with partners. We want to be sure that good projects are able to move forward and will create good jobs for the people of Alberta and western Canada.
Results: 31 - 45 of 70 | Page: 3 of 5

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data