Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 482
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-06-16 14:48 [p.8527]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent over $20 million fighting the Nuu-chah-nulth people in court, denying their fishing rights. Last month, the courts reaffirmed the rights of these nations for the third time. The government has until Friday to appeal the court's decision.
The last time I asked if the government would respect indigenous fishers' rights and let them get back on the water to support their families, the fisheries minister said that they were working with the Nuu-chah-nulth. Let me be clear that taking them to court is not the same as working with them.
Will the justice minister respect indigenous rights, call off the government lawyers and confirm that he will not appeal this ruling?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard to ensure that we are able to make sure that first nations are able to exercise their right to fish as well as sell fish. We are going to continue to work with the Nuu-chah-nulth first nation to ensure these rights are upheld.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2021-06-11 11:52 [p.8280]
Mr. Speaker, the fishing vessels in Grande‑Rivière in the Gaspé have been abandoned by the federal government. The Government of Quebec asked Ottawa to provide funding for the winter storage facility for those fishing vessels, but Ottawa refuses to broaden the scope of the Quebec fisheries fund, despite the fact that only $5 million of the $42 million provided for the fund have been disbursed over the past two years.
Grande‑Rivière and the RCM are taking action to help fishers. The Government of Quebec is taking action to help fishers. A total of 50% of landings occur in the Gaspé. The region's economic development is at stake. Where is the minister and member for Gaspésie-Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about leadership, I will certainly take no lessons from the Bloc Québécois, which completely drained the lifeblood of the Gaspé for 15 long years. What is the Bloc Québécois able to do in the region? It cannot do anything at all except complain. The Gaspé needs doers, not whiners.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2021-06-11 11:53 [p.8280]
Mr. Speaker, I hope the people of Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine will hear what the minister said.
Today, in Grande-Rivière, in the Gaspé, the federal government is abandoning fishers and hurting the economy. This spring—and we do not even know what will happen next year—port facilities are being abandoned in Cap-aux-Meules, in the Magdalen Islands, putting fishing seasons at risk.
The federal government is abdicating its responsibilities everywhere throughout the region, and that makes no sense whatsoever. If the federal government is not there to support fisheries in eastern Quebec, where is it? Is the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine doing anything at all? How is it that she has been incapable of understanding and saying to her fellow ministers that the fisheries—
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, while the Bloc Québécois is playing armchair critic, on this side of the House, we are producing tangible results for Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois prides itself on speaking on behalf of the people of Gaspé, but what have they accomplished for the economy? How many jobs have they created in the Gaspé? I can tell you that with friends like that, the people of Gaspé don't need enemies.
View Kody Blois Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Kody Blois Profile
2021-06-03 16:44
This past Sunday, I had the opportunity to join members of the community of Sipekne'katik as they gave prayers and a smudging ceremony to those who have been impacted by the legacy of the residential school system.
Many in indigenous communities of course knew that what was found in Kamloops was a likelihood, and indeed this will not be the only type of tremendous harm we will find. We need to prepare ourselves, as Canadians, that this is not an isolated incident. I say this recognizing that we have to continue the work in this domain.
I have asked myself over the last number of days how best I can be an advocate in this particular space. The member opposite last mentioned the $33 million the government had set aside in budget 2019 to be able to do the important work of finding these burial sites. For instance, my understanding is that in Kamloops it was the funding that helped find these individuals, and hopefully bring home even more children.
There is ongoing work right now in Shubenacadie, through The Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq, at the Shubenacadie site. It is a large area, 250 acres. Despite this being a national issue, I ask myself how best I can help in my community, in my riding. That is where I am going to turn my attention, in terms of working with indigenous leadership in Kings—Hants and indeed across Nova Scotia on how we can make sure that this particular site has the recognition it deserves.
For the members in this House who may not be familiar with the area, there is nothing there right now that actually gives credence to the horrors and the tragedy that happened in that place. Although it is not my place to say exactly how that should happen, as it has to be through the eyes of the survivors who had gone to this school, I do think it is important and it will be my focus in the days ahead.
There has been progress, and I say that hesitantly. We should not shy away from the fact that we have moved the yardsticks on reconciliation in the right direction. I am proud to be a member of a government and caucus that I believe have done more than any government in Canadian history in this particular work to reconcile with indigenous people. I say that recognizing and certainly making very clear that there is more work to be done, and that includes of course not only the work in Shubenacadie that I will undertake with my colleagues and indigenous leaders, but indeed a lot of the work that has to happen to be able to implement the TRC calls to action.
I want to highlight some of the work that I believe is important and is going to be fundamental for us, above and beyond the particular issue of the residential school system, to continue to build that relationship, because members and indigenous community members would say it is absolutely important that we recognize and we do right by the harm, but we also have to build on a better future.
I look at UNDRIP, the legislation that was passed in this House and is now before the Senate. It represents a historic opportunity for us, as a government, to continue to move and build partnerships nation to nation with indigenous communities. I look at Bill C-5 and take notice that all members of this House supported the fast-tracking of that particular legislation to establish a national day of truth and reconciliation in this country. Those, although alone they will not be enough, are important to being able to move the yardsticks in the right direction.
I look in my own community. Recently, I sat down with Chief Sack. We had a very important housing announcement through the rapid housing initiative, where we were able to make investments in the community for 20 units. Is there more work to be done? Absolutely, but this is an important investment I am proud our government has made to try to improve the lives of the indigenous communities I represent.
I look at Annapolis Valley First Nation and the ability for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to work with that community to make sure there is access through Canada Creek for their fisheries and their opportunities to exist in that domain.
I look at Glooscap Landing. Although it was a project that was advanced under my predecessor, Scott Brison, in partnership with the Glooscap community, it is a prime example of the opportunities that exist to be able to move and build commercial partnerships with the Glooscap community.
I have about 90 seconds left by my clock, so I will conclude by saying this.
My commitment to the members of my community, both indigenous and non-indigenous, will be to continue to advocate for and advance the priorities of indigenous communities in Kings—Hants, and of course beyond, with my colleagues in this House.
Reconciliation will not be an easy path. We know that. There will be remaining challenges and there will not always be agreement on the best pathway forward, but it is the spirit of being willing partners and working with each other that will be crucial.
To the survivors of the residential school system in my riding, and those who were impacted at Shubenacadie, I will do my utmost to ensure that this tragic legacy and the harms that have been done are known so we can all move collaboratively to reconcile and be able to advance and move forward from this darkest period of Canadian history.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2021-06-03 19:26 [p.7946]
Madam Speaker, I am dismayed that, despite it being six years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action had been tabled, the Liberal government has been exceedingly slow at implementing even the simplest of the calls to action.
According the CBC Beyond 94 tracker, it remains that there are still only 10 out of 94 TRC recommendations completed as of June 1, 2021. Bill C-8 is emblematic of the pace at which the Liberal government has been moving with reconciliation. The concerning rate at which the government has been addressing the calls to action leads me to question the government’s timeline and commitment to fully implement all the calls to action.
During the five-year anniversary on December 15, 2020, the commissioners of the TRC report issued a joint statement to indicate that the government’s process has been too slow. Former TRC commissioner Ms. Marie Wilson highlighted that revising the citizenship guidebook and updating the oath of citizenship to reflect a more inclusive history of indigenous peoples and recognition of their rights was low-hanging fruit among the TRC recommendations.
Yet, this is the third time it has been introduced. In the years that led up to it, of the official list of organizations consulted provided by IRCC, only four were indigenous organizations and the others were six organizations focusing on immigration, including a couple of Catholic organizations, demonstrating that the imprint of colonialism persists to this day.
While the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs heard from a number of witnesses that the wording could have been improved, they were ultimately in favour of passing it so that we could move on to focusing on some of the more major calls to action. Indeed, the Liberals and Conservatives voted down NDP amendments that would address the concerns raised by adding a recognition of inherent rights of first nations as well as aboriginal title rights in the citizenship oath. This is shameful.
The government cannot say it supports the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which explicitly speaks to free, prior and informed consent. Article 10 states:
Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.
Yet we continue to see ongoing violations of this very article. This is a clear example of the ongoing colonialism that persists today.
Let us look at what is happening with the Mi’kmaq fishers. DFO has decided that they cannot fish now even though this is a clear violation of their treaty rights to earn a moderate livelihood. UNDRIP stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, which is what indigenous fishers are trying to do, earn a living, feed their families and, in some cases, work their way out of poverty.
Now, as a result of the failures of the government to live up to its obligations, they are even afraid of violence from non-indigenous fishers. Their property has been burned, they have been threatened and assaulted, and the government has offered no plan to ensure their safety. This is not reconciliation. In fact, this is what systemic racism and discrimination looks like.
Why is the government not doing everything it can to protect the rights and safety of indigenous fishers? Former TRC commissioner Marie Wilson also pointed out that calls to action 53 and 56 call for the creation of a national council for reconciliation. One of its core functions would be to provide oversight and hold the government accountable to the progress on implementing other TRC calls to action.
The fact that these TRC recommendations are missing in action and have not been among the first that were implemented shows a lack of interest by the government in actually implementing these calls to action. It also does not want to be held accountable in an independent, transparent way.
On the five-year anniversary of the TRC report, Murray Sinclair was critical of the slow pace the government has been moving and said:
It is very concerning that the federal government still does not have a tangible plan for how they will work towards implementing the Calls to Action.
This is how the Liberals treat what they say is their most important relationship. The Liberals are abusing the goodwill of indigenous peoples. As they say with a straight face how much they respect indigenous rights, and cry crocodile tears about what indigenous people have always known in light of the findings of the mass grave of indigenous children at the Kamloops residential school site, they continue to take indigenous children to court.
The Liberals cannot claim to honour the spirits of children who died in residential schools while they continue to take indigenous kids to court. The Liberals cannot claim to take their role in reconciliation seriously when they force survivors of residential schools to wage legal battles for recognition and compensation. I am calling for real action, real justice and real reconciliation, not just more words and symbolic gestures. I am calling on the federal government to stop its legal battles against indigenous kids and survivors of residential schools: battles that have cost millions of taxpayer dollars.
In 2020, Dr. Cindy Blackstock stated that the government had spent at least $9 million fighting against first nations children at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These children do not get a second childhood. As we are sitting here, the government is still fighting survivors of St. Anne's residential school. This cannot be acceptable to anyone who says they want to honour the lives of indigenous children who were ripped away from their loved ones and were subjected to untold abuse and horror. Too many died alone, too many went missing and too many are still suffering from the effects of colonization.
Make no mistake: Genocide was committed against indigenous peoples, and successive Liberal and Conservative governments have continued a genocide against first nations, Métis and Inuit across the country. These are crimes against humanity and it is time for Canada to take full responsibility. I am calling on the Liberals to end their court challenges, to work with survivors, and to ensure that all resources needed are made available to survivors and their communities.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada's discrimination to be “wilful and reckless” and “a worst-case scenario” resulting in unnecessary family separations for thousands of children, and serious harm and even death for other children. These are facts that the government must accept. In addition, the federal government must work with first nations to fund further investigation into the deaths and disappearances of children at residential schools.
The Harper Conservatives denied the TRC the $1.5 million it requested to get an accurate representation of how many unmarked graves there are. The TRC heard from countless witnesses of their existence, but no national effort was made to identify them. This must be addressed.
As stated by Murray Sinclair, retired senator and chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:
We know there are lots of sites similar to Kamloops that are going to come to light in the future. We need to begin to prepare ourselves for that. Those that are survivors and intergenerational survivors need to understand that this information is important for all of Canada to understand the magnitude of the truth of this experience.
I am also calling for full funding of the healing resources that survivors need. The federal government must accelerate its progress to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and announce a timeline and an independent, publicly accountable mechanism for the fulfillment of the calls to action. We cannot continue to say that we support reconciliation without doing real, meaningful work.
To close, the NDP wants to see the TRC recommendation realized. We want to see this bill come to reality, but we also want to see the new citizenship guidebook, which has been in the making for five years, and we have no information of when it will be available. We want the guidebook to also incorporate that history, and clearly outline that genocide has been committed against indigenous peoples and continues to be. Every newcomer needs to know this history and take it to heart. As indicated, this is not an aboriginal issue: It is an issue for all of Canada. It is a Canadian issue and we need to own up to it. We need to—
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, Mi'kmaq fishers from the Sipekne'katik First Nation have been abandoned by the government. DFO has decided that they cannot fish now even though this is a clear violation of their treaty rights to earn a moderate livelihood, which is what indigenous fishers are trying to do: earn a living, feed their families and, in some cases, work their way out of poverty.
They are also afraid of violence from non-indigenous fishers, with good reason. Their property has been burned, they have been threatened and assaulted, and the government has offered no plan to ensure their safety. This is not reconciliation.
What is the government doing to protect the rights and safety of indigenous fishers?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that first nations have an absolute right to fish for a moderate livelihood. We have put in place a plan this year that allows them to fish for that moderate livelihood as we work toward long-term agreements. The plan we put in place for this year is flexible, it allows first nations to sell their catch and it ensures they are the ones who develop their fishing plans.
We will continue to negotiate for longer-term agreements, because we know how important this is to first nations.
View Michael Chong Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, as the minister knows, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is a binational commission overseen by the governments of Canada and the United States. The commission has become somewhat of a bilateral irritant due to insufficient funding by the Government of Canada.
Is the minister aware of a letter sent by eight U.S. senators to the Canadian government on April 21 of last month voicing their displeasure about insufficient funding by the Government of Canada?
View Marc Garneau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, I am aware of that. Because the hon. colleague has spoken to me about this situation, it is something we are looking at. At the moment, it comes under Fisheries and Oceans.
View Michael Chong Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, I have another brief question about this.
The funding shortfall the U.S. senators and Canadian stakeholders have been talking about is some $9 million. When one sees the government not taking care of what is a minor issue in the much larger bilateral relationship, the most important one we have, it raises questions about what other files are being neglected.
Eighteen members of the ministerial party wrote to the minister asking him to address this funding shortfall. His colleague, the member for Malpeque, tabled a finance committee report in the House recommending the government address this shortfall.
Therefore, my question is simple. When will the government address this funding shortfall?
View Marc Garneau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, there are many issues on which Canada deals with the United States. It is a very vast relationship. There are always a number of issues that are in the works. We are looking at the situation that has been brought up by my hon. colleague.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2021-05-27 15:03 [p.7504]
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks back, I sent a letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asking for details on the possible indigenous fishery beginning June 1 and how she and her department would respond. The minister's statement about regulations and seasons in March was what coastal communities had been waiting for since tensions blew up back in September. Nobody wants a repeat of that.
Will the minister allow tensions to blow up once again, or have there been meaningful negotiations with all sides to avoid another fisheries crisis in St. Marys Bay?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the ongoing situation concerning moderate livelihood, we are continuing to have negotiations with first nations, as well as making sure that industry is well communicated with. We have put a plan in place for this year where fishers are able to get out on the water with the moderate livelihood fishery. It is a flexible plan. It is a plan that allows them to develop their own fishery plans.
We are committed to finding a path forward. I look forward to working with the hon. member opposite to make sure that we do that.
View Jaime Battiste Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Jaime Battiste Profile
2021-05-13 10:11 [p.7150]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Implementation of the Mi'kmaw and Maliseet Treaty Right to Fish in Pursuit of a Moderate Livelihood”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I thank all the witnesses and all the people who put a lot of hard work into this.
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
View Richard Bragdon Profile
2021-05-13 10:11 [p.7150]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the communities across Canada that feel that the government has left them behind.
After extensive work at committee, we have issued a dissenting report here today in response to a report that perpetuates the neglect and indifference faced by communities across Canada by the current government and the fisheries minister. After nearly half a decade of mismanagement, fisheries in southwestern Nova Scotia are at a tipping point. As a committee and as elected representatives of these communities, we will not stand idly by.
Rather than inviting all parties to one table to build a common understanding of interests, rights and laws, the minister has failed to respond to escalating tensions and uncertainty that have developed under her leadership. The government's continued failures are eroding decades of relationship-building established with the Marshall decision and, to this day, are failing to maintain the important dialogue with everyone involved.
As the official opposition, we will continue to call on the minister to fulfill her duties and responsibilities as laid out in Marshall and take immediate action to resolve the current situation. From coast to coast, our communities are at stake, and we will not stop fighting for them.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2021-05-13 10:41 [p.7154]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this opposition day about Bill C-19 and the government's firm desire to have it passed under a gag order, without the agreement of any of the parties. At least, that is its desire at the moment, but it was not the case a few weeks or months ago.
Personally, I would call this move selfish, irresponsible and even arrogant, and I would like to explain why. Obviously, there are several reasons. My colleague from La Prairie mentioned some earlier, and I agree with what he said, but I would like to build on his remarks.
The first thing is the issue of democracy. I am having flashbacks to the prorogation of Parliament last summer. The same explanation was offered, that it was a matter of principle. The government is doing this on the pretext of exercising its democratic duty to ensure that Canadians can vote if necessary.
The absurd thing is that, ironically, what they are doing actually goes against democracy. They are imposing a gag order for a bill about holding elections during a pandemic, a bill that concerns all Quebeckers and Canadians. The government says that it wants people to be able to exercise their democratic rights, yet when it comes time to represent the people and reach an agreement with all of the members of the House of Commons and all parties, that is another story.
I think the government is being totally inconsistent. I am not necessarily surprised, because there has been a lot of inconsistency to date. In this case, however, the inconsistency is so blatant that it raises valid questions about why the government is eager to pass a bill so quickly this spring, when the bill was not even on its legislative agenda. It was forgotten for months and now, all of a sudden, it is urgent.
I think this is only a pretext. If a majority of members currently support the bill, they are supporting it despite themselves. We saw that with the gag order. My colleagues in the NDP previously said that they were not in favour of an election and that they did not want one.
We can work on a bill, because that is why we are here, but no one wants an election. If the Liberals want to pass a bill, let them do it properly and hear what all the parties have to say. Earlier, my colleague mentioned that they did not even take into account the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Once again, the government is refusing to do the job properly because it wants to pass this bill quickly.
We are not quarrelling or refusing to collaborate. On the contrary, we are talking about consensus and working together to come up with a solution that represents everyone. I think that that is a responsible and transparent way of doing things that leaves out any disgraceful partisan considerations.
Yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois proposed a solution for Bill C-19 that would avoid the imposition of a gag order. His idea is very simple. He proposed that the Prime Minister meet with, for example, the leaders of the different parties behind closed doors. They could then talk it over and arrive at a consensus. Of course, there would be compromises, because that is what a consensus is. All parties must take something away from the process. Then the members of the House would continue to work to pass the bill. That would be the only right way of doing it.
We did not hear the Prime Minister agree to the proposal. However, when the rules of democracy are changed, they are changed for everyone. It is not up to a single party to make these rules. While I am at it, I should add that Quebec is leading the way in this area, since that is how it operates. When Quebec changes the Election Act, it does so with the participation of everyone, because it wants to represent all Quebeckers. It is a transparent process.
I will say it again: there is no emergency. I know that the government is saying two different things at once. On the one hand, it is proposing this bill to trigger an election, but on the other, it is saying that it does not want an election and that it is the opposition that is pushing it in that direction.
As my colleague from La Prairie so eloquently put it, when we vote against a bill, it is because it is a bad bill. I think that the opposition still has the right to vote against bad bills.
Next, I would like to talk about the government's ivory tower and the reasons it wants to call an election. Due to the pandemic, it has spent money all over the place. The government looks so generous. It gave money to everyone, and it seems like it was doing something extraordinary. I would like to point out that even though help is needed, the money it is throwing around belongs to the taxpayers. Some of my colleagues will agree with me. The government also has a responsibility. It is important to remember that it is the taxpayers who are giving themselves money during the pandemic.
The government is trying to make itself look generous by stamping its flag on the cheques. If it is being generous, it is only towards itself, so it can propose a bill like this one and trigger an election, hoping that the numbers are good enough to give it a majority government. I think that demonstrates that it is incapable of governing, because if it were, it could govern in a minority situation, or at least I hope it could. The problem is its lack of collaboration. That is why quarrels break out.
I would like to talk about my own situation. Yes, we are the middle of a pandemic, but we also have a job to do. I must be present in the House to represent my constituents on the North Shore and all Quebeckers. I must continue to work, and we should be working twice as hard.
As it showed when it prorogued Parliament, the government would rather disappear in the middle of a pandemic. It would rather call an election and prorogue the House than do its job, by which I mean not only what it needs to do during a pandemic, but its regular work as well.
I would like to give some real-life examples of what is happening in my riding right now. A person from Baie-Comeau called my office because they needed help. This person's application for the Canada recovery benefit, or CRB, was rejected simply because they had mistakenly applied for employment insurance. They are now forced to seek help from an organization that works with homeless people because they cannot pay the rent and buy food. The government should be working on glaring problems like this one, especially during a pandemic, instead of taking a break.
There is also a CEGEP student who was scammed and was asked to give back what she received. She is from outside my region. She cannot buy food. We are talking about essential needs as defined in Maslow's hierarchy. She needs to eat, and her life plan and study plan are in jeopardy. That is what is happening right now, and the Minister of National Revenue is not doing anything about it. Our region has not been spared by the pandemic, either. These are real cases.
I could tell you about Cap-aux-Meules, where some fishers no longer have a wharf, which is putting their safety and their lives at risk. The government is not really working on that either, and it wants to call an election. The fishers do not even know if they will be able to fish next year. They did not even know if they would be able to this year. It makes no sense. There are other things to do than impose gag orders and say that there will most probably be an election. Seriously, if they did not want to call an election in August, they could take the time to work on the bill rather than impose a gag order.
There is a lot I could talk about. I could talk about the forest back home on the North Shore that is dying. We could work on that.
If the government really wanted to work for Canadians, it could have done two things in the last budget without having to wait for an election. I said two, but there are many. First of all, we need to look at health transfers. It did not mention them and is not talking about them. Second, there is Bill C-19. Third, there is the issue of seniors. The government is creating two classes of seniors: those 65 and over and those 75 and over. Not all of them are entitled to the same things. That is discrimination.
I fail to understand where the government is going, but it is certainly not working for Quebeckers or people on the North Shore. It is simply working for itself. What the Liberals want is to call an election and be totally irresponsible. I cannot think of a more accurate word than “irresponsible” to qualify the government.
I would simply remind the people I represent, the people of the North Shore, as well as all Quebeckers, that I would like to stay in the House during the pandemic and work twice or even three times harder than necessary to help them, and not work for partisan interests like the government.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
moved that Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (prohibition — deposit of raw sewage), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to introduce my third private member's bill as the member of Parliament for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
The environment, like so many issues, is a subject on which the Liberals are all talk and no real substance. This Prime Minister has become world famous for this. In 2015, he ran on a very thin environmental platform. It was just a few paragraphs long with very few details and no modelling or costing, and was, of course, centred around a carbon tax. We now know that the carbon tax is not revenue neutral and is not actually working. Emissions pre-pandemic went up every year the government was in office.
It is not just on greenhouse gas emissions that the government has failed. The environment goes far beyond climate change. That is why in the last election, the Conservatives ran on a platform that included real action on a whole host of issues, including a very important plank that focused on cleaning up our lakes and rivers.
What do I mean by that? When it comes to the environment, the very first thing the Prime Minister did after taking office was to grant permission to the City of Montreal to dump billions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. The hypocrisy was astounding. The Prime Minister was very successful at portraying himself as someone who was serious about the environment. However, at the very first opportunity, he literally flushed that down the toilet by allowing Montreal, instead of treating that waste water and protecting our precious natural environment, to dump it, untreated and full of all the dangerous substances that were contained within it, into a vital water artery. The current infrastructure minister was the environment minister at the time, and she was directly involved in granting that permission as well. While she was trying to create the illusion that she was some kind of real-life captain planet, she was signing off on one of the biggest dumps of raw sewage in Canadian history.
That is a bit of background on why I have brought forward this bill today. This is a very simple bill, and I probably do not even need my full 15 minutes today to explain it and to talk about the details of it.
Under current legislation, there are various regulatory frameworks and laws that protect our water systems and fish habitat. My bill would amend the Fisheries Act to define raw sewage as what is called, under the act, a deleterious substance. Basically, any kind of substance that would harm fish habitats is prohibited from being emitted into our waterways. Given the background I have just gone over, that legislation also empowers the government to grant exemptions to authorize or issue permits, so to speak, to municipalities that need to emit those types of substances into our rivers, lakes and oceans.
My bill does things. First, it defines raw sewage as a certain type of deleterious substance. Second, it would amend the section that authorizes the government to issue these kinds of permissions and would exclude raw sewage from the list of exemptions. In essence, that means future governments would not be allowed to grant that permission. The bill is basically saying that of all the substances that one municipality or another may seek approval for, untreated waste water would not be allowed to be emitted.
It is a very simple fix. It is a very short bill, and it is very straightforward. I am hoping I can get all parties to support it, especially members of the Liberal Party in the back benches, who are probably frustrated at their own party's record on the environment.
We just have to look at a few examples where the Prime Minister has been all talk and no action. Do they remember the famous billion trees promise in the last election? Here we are, over a year and a half from the 2019 election, and not a single tree has been planted. I know that members of Parliament who come from municipalities where towns and cities have been forced, or feel like they have no choice, to emit these types of substances into the waterways are frustrated not only that municipalities are being allowed to do it but that the federal government has not been responding to the infrastructure needs of those communities. That is something else I would like to talk about for a few moments here.
I recognize that many towns and cities are dealing with an incredible challenge when it comes to their existing infrastructure needs. This new bill would obviously impose a requirement that municipalities have the capacity to deal with unexpected events, whether it is a weather event that adds a tremendous amount of unexpected water flowing through the system or aging and decaying infrastructure that needs to be replaced. This bill, by preventing future dumps of untreated waste water into our water systems, would impose a burden on municipalities.
We have done two things with the bill: One thing is in the bill and one is a future commitment. I have written in a five-year coming-into-force date. That means once the bill receives royal assent, towns and cities across the country would have five years to plan, invest and upgrade their water systems. This timeline is long enough that they would have time to do the necessary work, and is short enough that we can take real action on protecting the environment in the here and now, not just punt the ball years and years down the field.
There is a recent media report indicating that the current environment minister has given a 20-year timeline to municipalities before they even start talking about ending this practice. Of course, a lot of damage can be done to our natural environment in 20 years. That is why the five-year timeline that I have suggested in this bill is much more realistic and effective.
I probably do not need to go into a tremendous amount of detail as to why this bill is necessary and why it is necessary that we stop the practice of dumping untreated water into our water systems. I could cite numerous studies in which scientists and researchers have studied the impact on fish habitat, the depletion of stocks and the types of dangerous trace elements that have been discovered in fish whose habitat is near where the water is emitted.
This happens all across Canada; it is not just unique to the city of Montreal. There was a study done in Toronto in 2018 by an advocacy group called Swim Drink Fish. It had this to say about the state of Toronto waste water back in 2018: Regardless of rainfall, “there isn’t a day that we’ve gone to the harbour that we haven’t been able to find some evidence of sewage contamination.” Also, there were instances in Vancouver in 2016 where over 45 million cubic metres of raw sewage was leaked or otherwise dumped into nearby waterways.
We can all appreciate the importance of protecting our fish habitat. Canadians love our natural environment. It is part of our culture, part of our history and part of our social fabric. Taking all my kids fishing whenever I get the chance is something we really enjoy as a family. My daughters are probably better than I am and my two boys are asking for fishing gear for Christmas and birthdays.
I am very fortunate to represent the Qu'Appelle lakes in my riding, a wonderful area in the Qu'Appelle Valley, but unfortunately in recent years, incidents in Regina have led to the emission of waste water into the Qu'Appelle system. That has had a negative effect on the water quality in the Qu'Appelle Valley. Some of the best moments I have had with my family have been from taking the them to the Qu'Appelle lakes and going out for the day fishing.
I do not need to tell members who represent coastal communities how important the fishing industry is economically and culturally for indigenous populations as well. I missed out on having the benefits of being taken salmon fishing in British Columbia. The timing just did not work out, but of course my British Columbia colleagues in the Conservative caucus are passionate advocates for doing more to protect fish habitat and helping the stocks throughout British Columbia grow again. We all know the importance that the salmon fishing industry has recreationally, for tourism and of course commercially.
The same is true in literally every corner of the country. The ability to fish for fun, for sport, for food or for our livelihoods is incredibly important for all Canadians in every single province and every single community. It is something the government promised to take action on, but like so many promises during the last election, it has completely failed to do it. That is why this private member's bill is necessary.
I am proud to have the support of my Conservative colleagues. This is one more concrete example of where Conservatives take real, tangible and achievable action on the environment. If members look back throughout the history of our party, they will see John Diefenbaker's work on establishing parks and the amount of work the previous Conservative government put into the Clean Air Act, which is legislation that put in meaningful reduction targets. We can also look at the Conservative government in the 1980s, under former prime minister Mulroney, and its work on the acid rain issues. In all the work that Conservative governments have done, we take real, practical action on the environment.
The Liberals say a lot of things during elections, but when they have the opportunity to act, they never seem to do so. That is why this bill is necessary, and I am hoping that all parties will give it quick passage so that it can get to committee and we can take real action on protecting our rivers, lakes and oceans.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
2021-05-10 11:20 [p.6932]
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with a few questions, especially about Conservatives taking real, practical actions.
First of all, why now? Why did the Conservatives not propose this in, say, 2012, when they were drafting and gazetting the waste-water systems effluent regulations? Were they guilty of an oversight at that time? Second, why did the member not introduce his private member's bill in 2015, after he was no longer Speaker. Third, why, four years later, when the member was leader of his party, did he not include this proposal in the 2019 Conservative election platform?
The Fisheries Act already prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances, including sewage, into fish-bearing waters, unless expressly allowed by regulation. The fact is that the Harper government's waste-water regulations gave a de facto exemption to municipalities under the Fisheries Act to deposit a deleterious substance, namely waste water, into fish-bearing waters. This exemption was not carte blanche, however. It came with limits on how much of a regulated substance can be released into the environment. The waste-water regulations also impose deadlines on municipalities for building and upgrading their systems to meet the standards of secondary treatment, a biological process that can remove up to 95% of contaminants.
By way of background, six billion cubic metres of waste water are discharged into marine and freshwater ecosystems in Canada every year. Of this amount, approximately 72% is treated to the level of at least secondary treatment, 25% is under-treated and the remaining 3% is untreated, coming from continuous discharges in communities without a waste-water plant, from releases from combined sewer systems where waste water and storm water flow together in the same pipe and can overflow during heavy rainfalls, from spills due to equipment failure and negligence, and finally, from occasional planned releases deemed necessary to allow for system construction or maintenance.
I would be remiss if I did not point out the Harper government's bungling of the 2015 waste-water release in Montreal, which caught the government off guard in the middle of an election campaign. The planned release was needed to allow maintenance on a key interceptor in the city's waste-water system. It should be noted that Montreal has a single massive waste-water plant, the largest in North America and the third largest in the world, providing primary and secondary waste-water treatment. The city is introducing ozonation, which will allow it to achieve tertiary treatment by 2023, at which time the city will have the largest ozone waste-water plant in the world.
A belt of sewers runs around the island. The whole system is on a slope from west to east, with the treatment plant located at the eastern tip of the island. Gravity draws sewage from all around the island to the plant, reducing the need for energy-consuming pumping stations along the route. There are no alternative waste-water plants on the island, no safety valves, as it were. If the plant gets damaged, that's a huge problem for the city and communities downstream.
In 2015, the city applied to the province for a permit for a planned release and obtained Quebec's authorization to do so. The city also contacted Environment Canada twice, in September 2014 and September 2015, but, as I understand it, was met with radio silence. The Conservative government only realized there was an issue when the story hit the headlines, in Canada and internationally, at which point it cleverly punted the matter until after the election.
On November 9, 2015, the new Liberal government issued a ministerial order under section 37 of the Fisheries Act to require Montreal to make adjustments to its initial release plan. These adjustments were based on the recommendations of an expert panel. It should be noted that the Liberal government did not authorize the release, even though the province had. Section 37 of the act, while not giving the federal government the power to authorize a release like Montreal's, allows the minister to “require any modifications or additions to the work, undertaking or activity or any modifications to any plans, specifications, procedures or schedules relating to it that the Minister considers necessary in the circumstances”. That is what the new minister, the member for Ottawa Centre, did. She ordered changes to the plan to minimize impacts based on the recommendations of an expert panel.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is holding consultations with a view to making improvements to the temporary bypass provisions in sections 43 to 49 of the waste-water systems effluent regulations. Currently under the regulations, a bypass authorization for a release of untreated waste water can only be given for maintenance work that is being done at a waste-water plant, that is, at a final point of discharge, not at other points along the system.
The objective of upcoming amendments to the regulations is to allow the government to provide bypass authorizations for work being done beyond the plant itself, thereby creating a regulatory framework that would encourage better planning of emergency releases such as the one that occurred in Montreal.
Enter Bill C-269, which seeks to make it an offence to proceed with any releases of raw sewage into fish-bearing waters. It sounds great, but as is often the case with private members' bills, they are not drafted with the benefit of appropriate expertise and are often designed more for political effect than to achieve a constructive objective.
If passed, Bill C-269 could have serious unintended consequences for the environment.
First, the proposed prohibition would apply to waste water that is already treated to a high standard. This is because even effluents that are subject to advanced levels of treatment still contain contaminants from raw sewage that have not been separated and removed, as required by the bill. Therefore, all communities across Canada would be in potential violation of the proposed law, notwithstanding their high degree of waste-water treatment in most cases. In effect, they would have to shut down their waste-water plants.
Second, the definition of raw sewage in Bill C-269 is ambiguous and likely to include more than just effluent from human or domestic sources. The bill's definition could include industrial, commercial and institutional effluents that contain low or manageable levels of such sewage. The bill could therefore interfere with the development and implementation of regulations to control industrial effluents. For example, the bill could impede the ongoing process of updating the pulp and paper regulations, a process aimed at, among other things, capturing facilities producing non-traditional products from wood and other plant material, and also aimed at lowering current effluent limits as well as adding limits for additional substances.
Third, the bill would exempt the north, where, to all intents and purposes, the Fisheries Act prohibition against depositing deleterious substances into fish-bearing waters applies wholesale, absent the existence of a bilateral agreement with the federal government for creating an equivalent regulatory framework to the waste-water systems effluent regulations. This means that whatever pollution safeguards and monitoring mechanisms exist today in the north by virtue of a bilateral agreement with the federal government would be thrown into question if this bill passes.
There are many examples of how proposed measures like those in Bill C-269 that are intuitively appealing at first glance are, upon deeper reflection, clearly not the best way forward for either the environment or human health. As a case in point, I would like to refer to the late Dr. David Schindler's work at the Experimental Lakes Area, a real-life freshwater laboratory that garnered a great deal of national attention a few years back when the Harper government tried to close it down.
The conventional wisdom at one point was that nitrogen from waste water was likely causing algal blooms in lakes, suggesting the need for multi-billion dollar investments to alter waste-water treatment plants. However, a 37-year real-time, real-life experiment at the Experimental Lakes Area found that this was not the case and that the culprit was rather phosphorous. This subsequently led to the elimination of phosphates in detergents and avoided massively expensive yet futile investments to upgrade waste-water treatment plants across the country to deal with nitrogen.
In the end, I regret to say that, in reality, this bill may well be more a public relations exercise on a subject that deserves much more serious and well-informed attention.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-05-10 11:39 [p.6934]
Madam Speaker, I wish you and all the mothers right across Canada a belated happy Mother's Day. It is an honour today to rise on Bill C-269, tabled by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and I am joining you today from the home of the Nuu-chah-nulth people on the unceded traditional territory of the Hupacasath and Tseshaht people, who have a long history as protectors of coastal communities in my riding, which guides my decisions as a member of Parliament every day while I sit in the House of Commons.
We in the New Democratic Party strongly support stopping the flow of raw sewage into our oceans and waterways. We all want to see an end to the dumping of raw sewage and as I stated, we are strong supporters of initiatives that would stop this practice.
However, the bill penalizes those communities that cannot afford to upgrade their systems. We absolutely support the intent of the bill, but it is deeply flawed in its approach. We cannot abandon communities like the Harper government did for a decade and the Liberal government is falling far short.
We know, according to the FCM, that it would cost over $18 billion for communities right across Canada to improve their waste-water systems to stop raw sewage dumping, but the bill does not do anything positive to help get them there. It is in this spirit that I rise to speak to Bill C-269 and express my deep reservations about supporting this legislation. It is not simply a matter of banning raw sewage dumping, but rather how we as communities and as a country support one another in keeping our oceans clean for this generation and for generations to come.
I think about the implications in my riding, because people across my riding are rightfully concerned about our coastal waters and want to take measures to support them. It goes without saying that whether they are environmentalists or people who care about the health of fish or the health of coastal ecosystems, they want to make sure that there are no dangers to the water that surrounds their communities and our communities.
The water in Courtenay—Alberni is not just a source of food, whether it be wild salmon or other fish, but also a refuge for swimmers, boaters and recreation. Ensuring it is clean is critical and crucial to our local economy, our way of life and our food security. It attracts recreation fishers and boaters who invest their money into our restaurants and shops, so it is part of tourism. It draws tourists to stay in our hotels and bed and breakfasts. It grounds us every day and reminds us as residents that we are part of an ecosystem that depends on us to make the decisions that we need to to protect our families, the species and the biodiversity where we live and that surround us.
I think about the bill's impacts not only on the cleanliness of the water, but also on the communities that will be affected. I think about the municipalities that need to have clean water systems, but do not have the resources to build them as well. I think about the boaters and their families who would be impacted by its sweeping generalizations. I think about the decision-making processes we have in place when enforcing environmental regulations and some of the better options we have to make real impacts on the health and safety of our waterways.
I sat in local government in Tofino, British Columbia, so I am very familiar with the challenges in dealing with waste water. The bill literally pits the federal government against these small communities and it shows again that the Conservatives are out of touch with municipalities. I wonder how much consultation the member and the Conservatives have done with these communities that are lacking support to get their waste-water infrastructure in place. Everyone wants that.
We know costs are soaring. We need mechanics, electronics and specialized crews to build waste-water treatment. Obviously we have to pay for work camps in rural or remote communities and inflation is skyrocketing. We know that there is new risk in pricing due to COVID. Again, modern waste-water treatment depends on very modern producers and these producers are highly specialized and they are very expensive.
I talked to the former mayor of Tofino, who is now the minister of municipal affairs in British Columbia. She sat as the mayor for seven years and her number one priority each year in council was getting waste-water treatment in place. They still have not broken ground. It was a deep commitment by their local government.
In fact, in the early 2000s, it was projected that it would be a $12-million cost to build waste-water treatment. When I sat on council in 2008, it was $18 million. When the City applied for funding, it was for $40 million. It rejigged that plan and the figure came back at $57 million. The City put it out for tender and the bids came back at $82 million. It would take a tax increase of $1,000 a household every year for literally over a decade to pay for that.
I think about a small community of 500 people in Newfoundland that has really good staff but is very unlikely to have the capacity to develop an $18-million or $20-million waste-water treatment centre. I know the member who just spoke said the lack of coordination cannot be the problem, but it actually is the problem. We need the government and all parties, not just the Conservative Party because it has tabled this bill, to coordinate and commit to filling the gaps so these communities can get there.
We have heard that people are considering not even running for office in Newfoundland and small communities because they are concerned about the liability around the legislation that is in place currently. We know that in big cities such as Toronto and Montreal, a lot of the infrastructure is old. They would literally need to rip up a lot of their infrastructure to meet the goal of this bill, because the sewer and stormwater systems are integrated. Without understanding the costs and obstacles to meet the goals set out in this bill and the way they are going to meet them, it is actually a big gap and a big problem.
We talked about municipalities. This legislation would immediately punish those communities that have no choice but to dump raw sewage right now. Instead of helping to build the water treatment systems they need, this bill directs sparse municipal resources away from water treatment toward paying the inevitable fines it would create.
We know that between 2013 and 2017, approximately 96% of municipal waste water underwent some form of treatment before it was discharged. This means that around 4% of municipal waste water was discharged untreated, which is still significant, but it is worth examining the reasons this amount of money is dumped into our water waste, such as leaks or dumps of water, which occur for a number of reasons.
For example, in Toronto, more than 7.1 billion litres of raw sewage leaked into Lake Ontario because of the capacity of the city's waste-water system. Much of this occurred because of rainwater amounts, something that even big cities like Toronto are not capable of controlling right now. The systems need serious investments. It would be almost impossible, the cities have cited, even if funding came from the federal and provincial governments, to get facilities up and running by 2030 and to complete those upgrades.
This bill comes into effect within five years of its passing. It is unreasonable to expect communities such as these, which have said they cannot meet its targets, to get there. Small communities that do not have the same resources as bigger cities would incur fines that would be absolutely devastating, and would seriously hamper the work they are doing.
I think about the concerns we have talked about around recreational boaters and commercial boaters. There is a huge concern with this bill's impact on these vessels and the economy. My colleague, the member for St. John's East, is a lawyer. He looked over this legislation and pointed out that every single commercial and recreational vessel that has a waste-disposal system built in would be impacted by this bill. The way it is written, this bill leaves open the possibility of imposing fines on commercial and recreational vessels that dump waste while they are on the water doing any form of business.
At best, this bill conflicts with regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. At worst, it would severely hurt these vessels and the economy. This really has not been looked at closely. We have serious reservations about this regarding the hundreds of thousands of commercial and recreational fishers who would all have to update their vessels, buy new boats or significantly change their operations in order to comply with this bill.
I will touch again on what we want. My friend and former colleague, Tracey Ramsey, introduced a private member's bill to develop a national freshwater strategy. Her bill would have ensured that the federal government consulted and worked with the provinces, municipalities, indigenous peoples and stakeholders. This is what we are asking for. I hope the member takes into consideration what we are offering today. Again, the member missed out on banning toxic substances, which are going into waste-water stream catchment areas, capturing plastics as I have talked about in the past, and ensuring that these systems are upgraded.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-04-30 11:16 [p.6463]
Mr. Speaker, my statement today was to wish all lobster fishermen safety and success as they sail out from the shores of Prince Edward Island on this scheduled opening day for the spring lobster fishery. The traps have been on the wharves for days, the boats well-tuned and now loaded to the brim with buoys, traps and gear as fishermen and their crews expected to head out before dawn on what is known as “setting day”.
However, in the two lobster fishing zones adjacent to the island, mother nature had a different idea, and in the interest of safety, DFO delayed the season until Monday.
By Monday, may the seas be calm with but a gentle breeze, and as fishermen set their traps on that day, may the catches be abundant and the prices strong as they arrive back to safe harbour. Islanders and those beyond are awaiting their first delicious feed of lobster from the clean, cool waters around our island shores.
Again, we wish our fishermen a safe and prosperous fishing season.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2021-04-30 11:36 [p.6467]
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has jeopardized the fishing season in the Magdalen Islands by closing 37% of the port in Cap-aux-Meules.
This week marks the start of the lobster season. There has been absolutely no change, as 37% of the port is still closed, there is no work going on, no plan, no compensation and especially no leadership for Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands.
When will the federal government take action on the port of Cap-aux-Meules to deal with the situation for the sake of the entire fishing industry?
View Terry Beech Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Terry Beech Profile
2021-04-30 11:36 [p.6467]
Mr. Speaker, we understand how important access to wharfs and fishing facilities are for fishers. This is a top priority for us. We want to make sure that the issues at Cap-aux-Meules are taken care of. We are working with our colleagues at Transport Canada to do just that, and I am happy to work with the member directly to bring her up to date on all the good work that is happening.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2021-04-30 11:37 [p.6467]
Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. The fishing industry has been waiting decades for action, and it wants it now.
Right now, not only is the industry worried about the 2021 season, but it is also worried that the port will deteriorate to the point of jeopardizing the 2022 season. The Magdalen Islanders want the studies on the condition of the port to be made public. They want a second independent assessment, they want the federal government to compensate them for their losses and they want a federal administrator on site. In short, they want a plan, but there is none.
What will Ottawa do to solve the problem, and what is it doing for the people of the Magdalen Islands?
View Terry Beech Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Terry Beech Profile
2021-04-30 11:37 [p.6467]
Mr. Speaker, we have been working diligently to make sure there are alternative facilities available, so fishers can have access to facilities in order to continue to fish and have access. We understand how important fishing facilities are for coastal communities, especially in this case.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is working diligently and directly with Transport Canada to resolve this issue. I look forward to providing continued updates to the member and to all the fishers who are affected in the region.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-04-29 18:35 [p.6454]
Mr. Speaker, it has never been more clear to me that there must be a culture shift within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, especially when it comes to its relationship with indigenous fishers. In fact, for months now, we have seen the government fail Mi’kmaq fishers in Nova Scotia, failing to protect Sipekne'katik fishers, despite knowing they were at immediate risk to their safety and failing to recognize their treaty and constitutional right to fish for a moderate livelihood.
In deciding to impose this year's fishing seasons on the Sipekne'katik, this minister has just failed to provide any justification that Mi’kmaq fishers cannot fish based on conservation reasons. She has not justified it. The minister has said, “Seasons ensure that stocks are harvested sustainably and they are necessary for an orderly, predictable, and well-managed fishery.”
There has been no justification for this decision; no science, no data, nothing that says the small-scale fishery operated by the Sipekne'katik fishers would have a demonstrable harm on the lobster stocks. This is a court-ordered decision; the minister must provide this justification under the Badger test. The burden of proof to deny a treaty right or aboriginal right falls on the Crown, and the government cannot just say it is for conservation; it actually has to prove it.
Not only does this decision go against the Constitution, but it also goes against the minister's mandate letter to remain committed to evidence-based decision-making; and, of course, the Liberals cite their most important relationship is with Canada's indigenous people. We do not see that here.
We know that conservation is of course the most important priority. Chief Mike Sack has said that his band actually intends to undertake a conservation study with Dalhousie University's marine affairs program, to monitor impacts as they carry out their season. We understand that the minister is concerned about conservation, as am I, as are the NDP; but let us not give the impression that first nations fishers are not. In fact, if anything, first nations have been guardians of conservation for generations before ours.
To impose this decision while discussions are ongoing with Mi’kmaq fishers across Atlantic Canada and indicating that there will be an increased presence of federal government officials on the water to enforce is an inherently violent act. The minister's words and actions run in direct opposition to the government's commitment to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Instead of instilling confidence that Mi’kmaq fishers will be able to fish safely, the government has chosen to raise tensions and threaten fishers. In fact, Chief Sack has indicated that he is willing to reach out the United Nations for help, to bring in peacekeepers to ensure his peoples are safe.
If the current government is incapable of keeping people safe on the water, that is indeed a national shame on all of us. When indigenous fishers are able to have their boats on the water fishing, they are helping their communities, they are providing economic opportunities to their families, they are sharing tradition and culture, and they are meaningfully connecting to their territories and the land in which they live.
However, the Government of Canada would rather have indigenous fishers in the courts instead of in their boats, and indigenous people keep winning in court. In the last two weeks, the Nuu-chah-nulth won a B.C. Court of Appeal case, the third time in the upper courts, asserting their right to fish, including wild salmon, despite the government spending over $19 million on government lawyers to suppress that right.
Once again, we call on the minister to back down from this decision, work with Mi’kmaq fishers to keep them safe, and uphold and affirm their right to a moderate livelihood instead of fighting them at every opportunity.
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
2021-04-29 18:39 [p.6455]
Mr. Speaker, last fall was an extremely challenging time, but particularly so for some indigenous communities, such as the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia. It was very disturbing for all of us to hear about and see on the news the events whereby indigenous people were physically attacked, had their property damaged and vandalized or destroyed, and had insults directed toward them for trying to exercise their affirmed treaty right. Let me clear. We condemn these acts.
As we move forward, we know that work is still ongoing to implement the right of first nations to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.
That is why the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard recently announced a new path forward, a path that will further enable first nations to pursue their affirmed treaty right in a safe and predictable way in the short term.
This new approach focuses on the transparent and stable management of the fishery, which will ensure its sustainability and productivity for all fishers. It is also based on what we have heard from first nations and on the need for an interim solution while more long-term negotiations are under way.
To emphasize, this path is an option for interested first nations to fish this season, in season, based on the needs of their community or aggregate.
The minister continues to have negotiations with first nations on other long-term agreements, including rights reconciliation agreements. The department is working to move to a relationship with indigenous peoples that recognizes and respects indigenous rights and interests.
We know that awareness of indigenous realities and an understanding of their history will take time, as will education. However, that is no excuse for not taking action now. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and our government are working to do better.
One example of this is the amendments to the Fisheries Act that enable the consideration of indigenous knowledge, collaborative management, and recognition of equivalency of indigenous laws. In addition, the department has developed a reconciliation strategy, an internal culture change tool that includes concrete actions across the whole department and guidance for staff as they build relationships with indigenous partners.
Our government knows that we can and must do much more to help Canada's first nations communities.
This is why our government has made reconciliation and rebuilding relations with Canada's first nations people a top priority. We remain firmly committed to advancing reconciliation and working collaboratively with first nations to implement their constitutionally protected treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-04-29 18:43 [p.6455]
Mr. Speaker, it alarms me that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is here to answer this question. It should be concerning to the indigenous fishers, given the fact that they have not had the protection they need. Otherwise, it is the government not taking this seriously. It has not talked about how it is going to meet the Badger test. It has not delivered a mandate. The government knows that it must uphold the rights of indigenous people but chooses to fight them at every turn.
What we are seeing in Nova Scotia is no different from what Canada has been doing to indigenous fishers for over 150 years. We have heard from the minister a repeated but empty commitment to reconciliation. The government said it never stopped working to implement a solution, but the solution it has chosen is not one that follows the government's treaty and constitutional obligations.
Despite its pretty words and promises, the government is once again denying the rights of indigenous people and doing it in front of all of our eyes to see. People across Canada are demanding and want better.
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
2021-04-29 18:44 [p.6456]
Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening in the capacity of stepping in for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
It goes without saying that last fall's events were very disturbing for all of us to hear about and see on the news, whereby indigenous peoples were attacked exercising their affirmed treaty right.
Like the rest of the government, Labour Canada went from a relationship with indigenous peoples founded on colonialism and, by definition, systemic racism, to a relationship that recognizes and respects the rights and interests of indigenous peoples.
As noted in the minister's statement of March 3, we are proposing a short-term solution that continues the implementation of the treaty right for interested first nations to fish this season in advance of longer term agreements, but we are ever mindful of the safety of all fish harvesters and the public.
That remains an essential priority in preventing the dispute we saw last fall from repeating itself, as we move forward on this new path.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2021-04-22 10:59 [p.6005]
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the House from beautiful southwest Nova Scotia, where it is a little rainy. We do not have a whole lot of COVID-19 floating around, but it seems that here in Nova Scotia we are having a resurgence of variants. Due to a lack of vaccines, we are going to see a bit of the third wave the rest of Canada has seen over the last number of weeks and months.
Because it has been a year and a half since many of us were elected, and we have not had the opportunity to speak to a budget, I would like to start my first response to it as a new MP with something a little more Nova Scotian. I will talk about something that is a bit more positive in the budget, which is important to my area and extremely important to me and my family. It is the national framework for diabetes. This is something in the budget that I support.
This year is the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin here in Canada, something Banting and Best were able to do at the University of Toronto. We as Canadians continue to celebrate being a part of this historic change in the lives of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The budget provides $25 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, to Health Canada for additional investments into research in diabetes, including juvenile diabetes, and surveillance and prevention, to work toward the development of that national framework.
That is extremely important to me and my family because I am the dad of a type 1 diabetic. My son just recently, for lack of a better description, celebrated his fifth anniversary of being a diabetic. I can see from what he has had to go through, and what other diabetics across this country have had to go through, that there is no real standard of care for those individuals.
It is good to see Canadians get together. We need to work with our provinces to make sure that is going to happen. These are very positive developments for JDRF and Diabetes Canada. I hope this continues and that more emphasis will be put on some of the chronic diseases that Canadians continue to suffer from.
I wish the rest of the budget were as positive, but unfortunately, it is not. On the health care side of things, this budget is very lax in how it is going to help with COVID-19 and respond to the needs of the provinces for extra help, especially when it comes to the deferred health care that has happened over the last number of months.
I am a member of the health committee, and a couple of weeks ago we had radiologists in to present before the committee. They estimated that 380,000 Canadians have had their tests delayed, whether it was a test for cancer, a colonoscopy, or the like. If we start to delay health care, greater issues might happen. For people who are diagnosed with cancer, it might be a different level of cancer. They could be at stage three or four, which is much more difficult to treat.
The provinces have been asking for a top-up in their health transfers over the last number of years. That does not show up in this budget, yet we saw the Prime Minister go out the next day and say the government was going to do that after the pandemic is done.
The way things are going right now, the pandemic is going to be with us for quite some time. I wonder when that extra investment is going to be in the Canada health transfers. I believe they are asking for about $4 billion. In the scope of the $100 billion of extra, I would call, election funding the government has put forward, the $4 billion they are asking for seems like quite a bargain.
Let us move on from health care and talk about something that is important for the coastal communities here in southwest Nova Scotia. Quite honestly, this area is based on the fishery and access to that fishery. I want to talk about small craft harbours. Small craft harbours might not be important to many people across Canada. However, those of us who use them, and people who have their families in the fishing industry, want to see investments in wharves. They are part of our highway system. They are part of our business park, so to speak.
We see an investment of $300 million over two years in small craft harbours. That is a drop in the bucket of what is required to improve the safety of our ports and wharves and to adjust to the changes in vessel sizes and vessel safety over the last number of years. There is not enough room in a lot of these ports.
I was on beautiful Brier Island the other day meeting with the port authority of Westport. They have a fabled wharf in the Bay of Fundy that sees some of the highest tides in the world, but they have not had an expansion or an adjustment to their port in well over 50 years. They have had little projects along the way. There has been a bit of a breakwater and maybe a change to one of the wharves, but nothing has actually happened for them in that amount of time. The $300 million is going to be very difficult to sell, because we could spend way more than that just on the 27 wharves that require it here in West Nova. A number of wharves on our list are condemned. Fishers are still using them, but they have been condemned by small craft harbours because they do not have the dollars to do the work.
While I am on the topic of the fishery, I want to talk about the safety of our fishers and a couple of experiences we have had in the last few months. The Chief William Saulis, a scallop dragger out of Digby, basically out of Yarmouth, was lost and seven men were lost with it. It took a lot of time to find. There was not enough money in the budget for the Coast Guard to go out to recover the bodies of the men who were lost. We need to do more to make sure that our vessels are safe and that we have the systems to go out and actually help them.
In another example, the scallop dragger Atlantic Destiny went down off of Georges Bank and 32 souls were saved, but we learned a number of things that I do not see in this budget. The fuel for search and rescue is not available at the airport that is closest to the port. The great people at CFB Greenwood need to change a few of their processes to adjust to these kinds of situations, sending helicopters 100 kilometres offshore. The nearest airport needs to have the capability to do it.
I will present a quick personal issue from southwest Nova Scotia. A young gentleman who is a fisher just had a terrible accident: 24-year-old Andrew Saulnier was caught up in the engine room. He lost one leg and could possibly lose the other. He is a young guy with a few children. I am going to share this on my Facebook page, not that we should be presenting Facebook page issues here in the House of Commons, but if people want to help out families, a family like Andrew Saulnier's is one that we all should be supporting, and this budget does not.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 452--
Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen:
With regard to Old Age Security, Employment Insurance, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and all programs designed to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) was a gender-based analysis plus carried out prior to the implementation of the program, and, if not, has one been carried out since, and if so, when was it carried out; and (b) for each program, what were the conclusions of this analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 453--
Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen:
With regard to the Safe Return to Class Fund: (a) what is the total amount that each province or territory (i) has received, (ii) will be receiving; (b) of the funds in (a), broken down by province or territory, how much has been used to purchase (i) masks and face shields, (ii) high efficiency particulate air filters, (iii) heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, (iv) liters of hand and surface sanitizers; (c) broken down by province or territory, how many (i) new teachers and education workers have been hired, (ii) new cleaners and janitors have been hired; (d) broken down by province or territory, how many (i) new sinks have been installed, (ii) barriers and screens have been installed; and (e) broken down by province or territory, how many alternative teaching spaces have been rented?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 454--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to moderate livelihood fisheries: has the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard made a decision, and, if so, when will it be communicated to Indigenous and commercial fishers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 459--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the delays in processing spousal sponsorship applications since the announcement by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on September 25, 2020: (a) what is the percentage increase in the number of decision-makers reviewing the sponsorship applications that were added; (b) how many sponsorship applications were reviewed in October, November and December 2020; and (c) how many applications in total were processed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 464--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to government contracts since March 13, 2020, and broken down by registered lobbyists and their affiliated firms: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to registered lobbyists; and (b) what are the details of contracts awarded, including (i) the date of the contract, (ii) the initial and final value of the contract, (iii) the name of the supplier, (iv) the reference number, (v) the description of the services rendered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 465--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to claimed stock option deductions, between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2020-21 inclusively, broken down by each fiscal year: (a) what is the number of individuals who claimed the stock option deduction whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; (b) what is the average amount claimed by an individual whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; (c) what is the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; and (d) what is the percentage of the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is more than $1 million?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 467--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion (OHRFI): (a) in the last five years, what programs in other countries have been funded by the OHRFI related specifically to the advancement of religious freedom or the protection of the rights of religious minorities; (b) what has been the impact of each of these programs; (c) how does the government measure the impact of these programs; and (d) which of those programs specifically advanced the rights of minority communities that are (i) Hindu, (ii) Jewish, (iii) Buddhist, (iv) Christian, (v) Muslim, (vi) Sikh, (vii) Baha’i?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 468--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to contracts entered into between the government and Abacus Data since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of the contracts; (b) what are the details of each contract, including (i) the initial amount, (ii) the amended amount, if applicable, (iii) the start and end date; (iv) the description of goods or services, (v) the specific topics Abacus provided data or research on related to the contract, if applicable, (vi) whether contract was sole-sourced or competitive; (c) what are the details of all polling, surveys, or focus group research provided to the government from Abacus including the (i) date provided to the government, (ii) topics, (iii) specific questions asked to respondents, (iv) type of research (online poll, focus group, etc.), (v) number of respondents, (vi) responses received, including the number and percentage of each type of response, (vii) summary of the findings provided to the government; and (d) what are the details of all communication assistance or advice provided by Abacus, including the (i) start and end date, (ii) topics, (iii) value of related contract, (iv) summary of advice provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 469--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the government’s hiring policies: (a) is the government currently hiring for any positions wherein the successful applicant must be a member of a particular underrepresented group; (b) what are the particular positions for which the requirement in (a) has been implemented; (c) what are the underrepresented group or groups with which an applicant must identify in order to be eligible, broken down by each position; (d) what is the process for determining if an applicant has made a false claim in relation to the requirement in (a); and (e) what process does the government follow for determining which positions will be reserved for underrepresented groups?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 470--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the acquisition of freezers required to transport and store the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: (a) how many freezers were purchased; (b) what is the total cost of purchasing the freezers; (c) what is the cost per unit of freezers purchased, broken down by type of unit; (d) how many of each type of unit were purchased; (e) how many of each type of unit purchased are in each (i) province or territory, (ii) local health unit district; (f) how many of each type of unit were purchased for the purpose of transporting the vaccine; (g) how many freezers were rented; (h) what is the total cost of renting the freezers; (i) what is cost per unit of freezers rented, broken down by type of unit; (j) what are the estimated costs of (i) transporting, (ii) maintaining the freezers, broken down by type of expense; and (k) what are the details of all contracts over $1,000 related to the purchase, acquisition, maintenance, or transportation of the freezers including, (i) the vendor, (ii) the amount, (iii) the description of goods or services, including the quantity, (iv) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive biding process?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 471--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the international and large business sector of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), since November 2015, and broken down by year: (a) how many audits were completed; (b) what is the number of auditors, broken down by category of auditors; (c) how many new files were opened; (d) how many files were closed; (e) of the files in (d), what was the average time it took to process the file before it was closed; (f) of the files in (d), what was the risk level of each file; (g) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (h) of the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the initial and final value of each contract; (i) among the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the description of each service contract; (j) how many reassessments were issued; (k) what is the total amount recovered; (l) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (m) of the files in (l), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (n) of the files in (m), how many resulted in convictions?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2021-04-16 11:14 [p.5740]
Madam Speaker, today I am proud to take a moment to say a few words about a woman who is the pride of the North Shore.
Originally from Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam, Anouk St-Onge recently became a certified ship's captain, making her the first female Innu fishing boat captain.
It was with her family and children in mind—and in her heart—that she decided to pursue her studies on the other side of the river, in the Gaspé. She chose a traditionally male occupation and she is a model of perseverance. She has also become a pioneer for women who might want to follow in her footsteps by working in the fishing industry. Anouk St-Onge was not afraid to forge ahead and was determined to live her lifelong dream. Inspiring people like her prove that having ambition pays off.
Congratulations, Captain St-Onge, on your certification. I wish you much success.
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House today to speak to Bill C-15. I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
This is important legislation and is an opportunity to have a debate in the House about our relationship in Canada with the first nations community. I always try to start off my speeches by providing a local context or ensure at some point I cover the local context of my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
I am fortunate to represent not only the city of Cornwall, the united counties of most of SDG, but also the residents and people of Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, 14,000 people strong. This is probably, from a federal issue, one of the more difficult geographic first nations communities we have in the country. It is located right along the Canada-U.S. border, there is a port of entry there. The geographic set-up that goes back a long time certainly makes it difficult to navigate through and work with them on many issues.
I am grateful for a good and respectful working relationship with Grand Chief Abram Benedict. I also want to acknowledge some of the meetings I have had to date with members of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. We had two, I think, pre-COVID, and unfortunately everything else needed to be put on the back burner. I made a commitment in our community, as a new member of Parliament, to ensure I would reach out just as much to members in Akwesasne as I would to every other part of the riding. There certainly are a lot of federal issues, federal files, on which we need to work with them.
The debate today is not about whether Canada needs better reconciliation with first nations communities. That is a given. I know there is not a party nor a member in the House and very few Canadians who do not know we need to do better and build a better relationship.
What I want to speak about in my comments today is a theme I built on in several of my speeches since I have had the honour of being in the House, which is the difference between an announcement and an intention, a theme, respectfully, in the actual delivery and follow-through in getting things done.
With Bill C-15, the details do matter. There is no issue with anybody with an overwhelming part of the declaration. In Canada, we are proud to say that we have already implemented many of those measures for which the declaration calls. That is progress. It is a positive and a strength of our country to show the progress we have made.
I listened to my colleague before me. I have respect for all colleagues in the House as well as the questions and comments even going back with my friend from the NDP from Vancouver Island. I do not think the concerns being raised, including from first nations communities, representatives and allies, are racist, stereotypical or laughable. They are very valid concerns.
I speak about my concerns on certain parts of Bill C-15 not because I do not believe in reconciliation, not because I do not believe we need a better relationship with first nations but actually the opposite. By not better defining and laying these things out, making them more clear, more and black and white, I worry we take steps back when it comes to reconciliation.
I will use the example in the Maritimes of the fisheries disputes in the province of Nova Scotia and some of the vague definitions, such as moderate livelihood, that are subject to court interpretations and DFO interpretations. We are seeing serious tensions between first nations people in Nova Scotia, residents of the province, lobster fishermen, fishermen, the government, provincial government and local law enforcement. We have even seen violence happen. Nobody wants that to happen. The reason, I believe, is the definitions. It takes time. It is not easy. I am not pretending it is simple to do. However, we need to have more clear timelines and more clear wording when it comes to certain aspects, not the overall intent of UNDRIP but rather certain parts.
I can say quite a few things, but I want to listen, as I mentioned, to some of the stakeholders who have spoken at committee and who have the interests of first nations communities across the country at heart, first and foremost, as we do in the House.
I want to quote Stephen Buffalo, president of the Indian Resource Council. Just a couple weeks ago in committee, he said, “It would be much better if this committee could define 'free, prior and informed consent' in the legislation and determine who can represent and make decisions on behalf of indigenous peoples for the purpose of project approvals. Better yet, this committee can engage indigenous people across Canada to come to a consensus on what 'consent' means before passing this legislation, because you know as well as I do that some people think it's a veto, and if the committee doesn't think it's a veto, then they should make that clear.”
We have heard numerous other stakeholders. I know of a comment from Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs, who said “However well intentioned Bill C-15 is, my discussions with legal experts, industry representatives and investment bankers have persuaded me that it is introducing another layer of uncertainty and risk to development in indigenous territories.”
People, like myself, our caucus and all Parliament want to get this right. We want to move forward on reconciliation and do better. However, what I worry about, and this is from a passion of mine, is that words, actions and themes and good intent are important, but so are the details in legislation like this. The frank reality is that we will need to take the time, whether it is before the legislation or after, through courts and legal battles that will go on for years over certain projects, certain wording and what it is or what it is not.
If we pretend that we will just pass this, that there will be no problems and that it will be all tickety-boo, that will not the case. If we can take the time and get those clarifications through consultations, close, passionate deliberations with first nations communities, we can make the legislation and the process more clear for everybody. That does not hurt reconciliation; that makes it smoother.
We have seen in Nova Scotia what has happened. We are seeing some of the concerns of potential investment. This is not big corporations versus first nations communities; these are people with a vested first-person connection to the well-being of our indigenous people and with a better, smoother future that involves economic development that does all these things.
This debate is not about whether we are racist, or whether it is laughable and stereotypical or how awful anybody is. These are valid concerns. I know members who support this know that if we pass the bill in this form, there will be serious legal challenges. We will be in courts and litigated, and there will be gray areas for years to come. That will challenge our path to reconciliation. That will challenge better economic development opportunities for communities like Akwesasne in my riding.
I thankful for the time to give my voice and my perspective. I am always trying to be positive and constructive, if I can. We can do better and we must do better. As a country and as a Parliament, we will be better off with much clearer black-and-white definitions on some of these things to move our reconciliation process forward in the country.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Speaker, we have another east coast lobster dispute. The fisheries minister has said that moderate livelihood lobster fishing by indigenous communities will follow existing DFO seasons, regulations and enforcement rules. However, the Liberal MP for Sydney—Victoria has said that this is wrong, that the minister's announcement is only for this year, an interim measure, and that first nations will be allowed to set their own seasons and rules.
Are Liberals mistaking voters for lobsters heading to the traps and the dinner tables?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-04-14 15:08 [p.5565]
Mr. Speaker, reconciliation is about recognizing rights that are not to be granted by governments but that are recognized as having been decided, in many cases, decades ago.
We are working closely both with commercial fishermen and with Mi'kmaq fishers to ensure that we are moving forward in a way that is both scientifically sustainable and respects the existing rights that Mi'kmaq have towards a moderate livelihood.
We know there is a path forward, and we look forward to continuing to work in constructive ways to resolve this challenge in the spirit of reconciliation and for a better future for everyone.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Speaker, in fact, no one is disputing those rights at all. What we are questioning here are the various stories we are getting from the government. I have discovered that the fisheries minister flip-flopped and admitted to CBC Radio that the Liberal government's lobster announcement for fishing is “the plan for this season, or for this year”. The lobster is out of the pot. This is not what maritime Liberal MPs are telling voters down east.
Would the PM like to confirm his government is not being straight with maritime fishing families?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-04-14 15:10 [p.5565]
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we have worked to respect people's rights, to respect people's livelihoods and to move forward in a way that ensures a strong and growing economy with opportunities for everyone, in the spirit of reconciliation. It is not an easy thing, but it is an important thing. That is why we are taking it seriously and working step by step to advance in a way that is acceptable to everyone. We will continue to do the right work the right way to move this country forward.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister are not being clear with Canadians. It sounds like this is nothing but a pre-election campaign gimmick to protect Liberal candidates with a policy of deception to secure votes, and the fisheries minister's plan will change the day after the next election, if the government is re-elected.
Does voting Liberal down east mean a vote to allow separate indigenous lobster fisheries outside existing DFO seasons, regulations and enforcement rules? Can the Prime Minister confirm which message is correct: what the fisheries minister tells Ottawa, or what the fisheries minister is telling voters down east?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-04-14 15:11 [p.5565]
Mr. Speaker, we have been clear every step of the way, both about ongoing negotiations and also about our values and our understanding of how important it is to move forward in true reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples, in ways that support families that have been fishing in that region for generations.
We know this is an extremely important issue. We are going to continue those discussions and negotiations in good faith to make sure that we find the right solution for everyone: indigenous fishers, commercial fishers and everyone who lives in the Atlantic provinces and, indeed, across the country.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister has told Maritime fishing families that lobster fishing by indigenous communities under the moderate livelihood will follow existing seasons, regulations and enforcement rules, all set by DFO. The Liberal MP for Sydney—Victoria has said that this is wrong, that the fisheries minister's announcement is only an interim measure for this one year and that first nations will eventually be allowed, by the Liberal government, to set their own seasons and rules.
Who is right?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that first nations have a right to a moderate livelihood fishery. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The measures that we have put in place for this year are flexible and allow fishers to get out on the water right now, as we work toward longer term agreements.
These are ongoing negotiations with first nations communities. I look forward to having agreements in place.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2021-04-13 15:03 [p.5518]
Mr. Speaker, let me be sure that Canadians understand this. The Liberal MP for Sydney—Victoria was correct when he said that the minister's pronouncement was only an interim measure. Clarity is extremely important here.
Is the minister telling us that flexible, moderate livelihood plans will be established by each first nation outside existing lobster seasons and will not be enforced by DFO after this interim plan is done?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleagues to please stop spreading malicious rumours, basically.
These are ongoing negotiations we are having with first nations communities so we can get to a long-term agreement. First nations have a Supreme Court-affirmed right to a moderate livelihood fishery. We are working with them to make sure they are able to exercise that right.
In the interim, we have put measures in place that allow the moderate livelihood fishery to take place this year.
View Mike Kelloway Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Mike Kelloway Profile
2021-04-12 15:01 [p.5414]
Mr. Speaker, the inshore fisheries of Canada's east coast are often family-run businesses that drive rural, local, regional and national economies. The fisheries in Cape Breton—Canso are the pride of our communities. I would like to know how our government is helping these family-run businesses prosper during these difficult times.
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his hard work, working with harvesters, as well as the seafood sector in his riding.
I am pleased to announce that our government put in place new measures to strengthen the independence of our hard-working interim licence-holders in Quebec and Atlantic Canada to ensure that economic benefits stay with them and within their communities. By enshrining the policies of owner-operator and fleet separation into law, we will be able to ensure that the revenue from the fisheries stays in our coastal rural communities.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, thanks to federal cuts, the harbour in Cap-aux-Meules is down to 40% capacity, which is affecting the fishing season in the Magdalen Islands. To put it simply, no wharf, no crab.
We asked the minister and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine what she was going to do to fix this problem, and she had the gall to blame Transport Canada.
This is a huge problem. The Liberal ministers need to stop playing hot potato and find a solution. How are they going to fix the harbour crisis in the Magdalen Islands?
View Soraya Martinez Ferrada Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Soraya Martinez Ferrada Profile
2021-03-26 11:54 [p.5362]
Madam Speaker, the minister understands how significant this situation is for Magdalen Islanders. He has discussed it with the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the mayor of Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine and various local stakeholders.
The decision to make improvements to the wharf in Cap-aux-Meules was made for safety reasons, and we are actively working on solutions. We are in close communication with our partners on the islands and in the fishing industry to keep them apprised of the situation.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, this is not just about safety. This is about the economic vitality of the Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
It is the federal government's responsibility to make sure ports and wharves are in good shape. The Liberals did not step up, so the Cap-aux-Meules infrastructure is degrading. Now it is the Liberals' responsibility to find a solution.
Officials have to be on site at the port to monitor the situation. Urgent repairs must be carried out immediately if it has in fact gotten to that point. If the federal government cannot make that happen, it has to promise fishers and companies that they will not lose a penny because of Liberal ministers' negligence.
What are they going to do?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague that the Îles-de-la-Madeleine fishing season is not being compromised in any way.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2021-03-26 12:01 [p.5363]
Madam Speaker, on February 23rd, I wrote the minister of DFO and the CRA regarding the new fisheries regulations that go into force on April 1, just a few days away. There are conflicting rules between DFO and the CRA that need to be addressed.
Many fishing enterprises utilize spousal income splitting to help spread the tax burden, which is allowed under CRA rules, but now disallowed under DFO's new owner-operator policy. This situation is another example of how this government is not taking the fisheries seriously.
Will the minister fix it before the April 1 deadline?
View Terry Beech Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Terry Beech Profile
2021-03-26 12:02 [p.5363]
Madam Speaker, that is an important question. It is important to know that we respect the tradition of having families participate in fisheries. These new regulations being implemented on April 1 mean that a captain's log will have to record every individual who is active in fishing. It does not have to record individual family members who are not active in fishing.
If the member requires any further clarification for anybody else in their riding, I would be happy to follow up with him.
View Yves-François Blanchet Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the crab fishing season starts in a few days, but around 40% of the port in Cap-aux-Meules is no longer accessible to fishers. It is one crisis after another, and the people of the Magdalen Islands are often the ones who suffer.
I would like a yes or no response from the Prime Minister. These people will be listening. Will the government either immediately repair the equipment or financially compensate the Magdalen Island fishers for their losses?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-03-24 14:30 [p.5176]
Mr. Speaker, we were concerned to learn about the issues at the port facilities in Cap-aux-Meules.
We are in touch with local authorities. We are looking into what we can do not only to make sure that fishers and everyone who uses these facilities are safe but also to ensure that the fishing season can proceed.
I know how important the fisheries are to the people of the Magdalen Islands. They can count on the federal government.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2021-03-22 14:41 [p.5039]
Mr. Speaker, for once I agree with the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Even a Liberal government minister is admitting that it is her own government's fault if the fishing season in the Magdalen Islands is jeopardized. Ottawa is endangering the region's entire economy by eliminating 37% of the port's capacity. The federal government is responsible for the port's condition, and therefore it is responsible for maintaining it.
Ottawa must accept its responsibilities. Will the Liberal government promise to immediately compensate fishers and businesses for the losses incurred due to the Liberal government's negligence?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with our stakeholders and with our fishers to make sure we are doing everything possible to mitigate any challenges we are seeing with the port.
We will continue to work with all parties engaged. We will follow up with the member on this issue.
View Richard Martel Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Martel Profile
2021-03-12 11:32 [p.4975]
Madam Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced that, from now on, indigenous fishers would have to keep to the same fishing seasons as traditional fishers in the Maritimes and Quebec. There was a public outcry to this announcement in all of the coastal communities affected, both indigenous and non-indigenous, which were upset that they had never been consulted.
Now that the government has made this unexpected statement, what does it plan to do to ensure the survival of all of the coastal communities that depend on the same resource?
View Marie-Claude Bibeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, our government is committed to an approach that recognizes first nations treaty rights, that focuses on conserving and ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks, and that allows for stable and transparent fisheries management.
Fisheries officers are responsible for enforcing the Fisheries Act for all fishers, and anyone fishing without a licence is subject to sanction. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is committed to working with all parties to ensure a safe, orderly and sustainable fishery for everyone.
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
View Richard Bragdon Profile
2021-03-12 11:33 [p.4976]
Madam Speaker, on March 3, DFO tweeted a statement from the fisheries minister that was supposed to be “a new path for First Nations who want to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood this season.” Indigenous and non-indigenous harvesters have rejected the minister's statement, and now she is the only one on her new path.
No Canadian wants to see a repeat of the chaos that the minister's mismanagement created last fall, but her inability to provide any clarity is only increasing uncertainty and tensions. We know that where there is uncertainty, there will be instability.
When will the minister provide a clear and full plan for implementing treaty rights for the sake of all harvesters?
Results: 1 - 60 of 482 | Page: 1 of 9

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

For more data options, please see Open Data