Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 362
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-23 15:04 [p.9056]
Mr. Speaker, there is another major development in the Winnipeg lab story, once again about the individual who was fired and escorted out by the RCMP.
This morning, the National Post reported that this person had collaborated with the Chinese government on two inventions, noting that her name was listed as an inventor on two patents. Canadian law states that an individual collaborating with a foreign country must directly inform the government and seek authorization.
My question for the Prime Minister is very simple. Did his government authorize this researcher to collaborate with China, yes or no?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
View Leah Gazan Profile
2021-06-21 18:26 [p.8885]
Madam Speaker, my question to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot is about a video that he posted on his Facebook page on May 21, 2020 taken from the website “fixthedefinition.ca”. This video promotes petitions opposing the ban on conversion therapy proposed in Bill C-6 and features a prominant social Conservative activist repeating disinformation about the provisions of Bill C-6. This video purports to give voice to those in the LGBTQ community opposed to the bill, but if people watch to the end, they can see the notice “produced by the offices of” the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Cloverdale—Langley City.
First, was the member aware that this piece of disinformation and propaganda was produced by two of his colleagues? Second, does his reposting of the video mean that he thinks producing such a video is a proper use of House of Commons funds?
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
View Damien Kurek Profile
2021-06-21 18:27 [p.8885]
Madam Speaker, I do find it interesting that the member would be quoting from an article from a supposed “news site”. I say that with air quotes because it is funded by a wing of the NDP. It is this sort of divisiveness that is taking away from the very real concerns that have been brought forward about Bill C-6. For this member to hedge a premise of a question in a way that somehow alleges that there is nefarious intent behind the very real concerns that myself and other members of my party have brought forward regarding Bill C-6, is exactly why, and I wish the member would have listened more carefully to my speech. The need for respectful dialogue is paramount in this place so that we can all do our jobs as legislators to ensure that we are serving Canadians in the best way possible. Certainly, I endeavour to do that each and every day and I would encourage the member opposite to do so also.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, the member says “respectful dialogue”, but I thought the member for the NDP's intervention was extremely respectful. She asked a very simple, straightforward question and the member chose not to answer it.
I would like to give the member an opportunity to answer her question about that video that was produced.
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
View Damien Kurek Profile
2021-06-21 18:29 [p.8885]
Madam Speaker, my question to that member would be very simple: Has he had the opportunity to read some of the evidence that was submitted to the committee when Bill C-6 was studied? If so, he would see very clearly that there is a wide variety of perspectives on this matter that demonstrate that it is not as clear cut as the divisive nature that certain individuals in this House are trying to make it out to be.
I would say, with great respect to many members of this House who have encouraged that effective dialogue, it is unfortunate that there are some who would stoop to such a low level that they would discourage what would ultimately result in better outcomes for Canadians.
View Adam Vaughan Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Adam Vaughan Profile
2021-06-18 14:29 [p.8799]
Madam Speaker, that was an excellent impression of the horse's end that I think the member was speaking to.
At any rate, the issue I am talking about now is the issue of organ harvesting, which happens primarily because our own organ donation system is not working. In fact, the city of Toronto has the lowest enrolment of organ donors of any other municipality in the country. We have worked very hard as city councillors and as elected federal and provincial politicians to reverse that. It is a public education campaign; it is a change in the system by which people register; it is a whole series of processes that must be addressed to take away the demand for this unspeakable activity, which we hope to make illegal through this bill. We have to do better on organ donations in this country if we are going to contribute to the eradication of this horrible practice that sees people leaving the country to attain organs in a way that is unbelievably horrendous and hard to describe in simple terms.
Part of the bill also requires us, as politicians, to think about the public education campaign part of this and to relieve the anxiety and desperation of Canadians across the country who are seeking to achieve full health through the miracles of modern medicine. We also have to make sure that we remove barriers for people who do want to donate, and make sure that for those who have signed up to give the gift of life, the process becomes easier and is facilitated in a way that would alleviate the pressure on people to go looking in the dark corners of the globe to do what they have to do.
As well, the research and the work done by many community activists and leaders to highlight where some of these terrible practices emanate from have to be broadened. We tend to focus in, because of the work of a particular organization, on one particular part of the world, but this is a global phenomenon that requires us to understand it in a more complex way and to do the research and the public education so that Canadians do not unwittingly take part in what they think is a legitimate operation and end up contributing to the harm that is being done to so many people around the world. This is also part of the work that has to be done.
It is not addressed in the bill, but perhaps there are ways, through committee, that it can be enhanced and developed, and perhaps it can be tied [Technical difficulty—Editor] in this country and make them more efficient and more humane. I think that is part of the process and part of the reason many of us want to speak to the bill in a way that generates a much stronger and much more important piece of legislation.
However, if we pass the bill on to the other House, if it goes through the parliamentary process and gets voted on, and I believe all parties have indicated support for it, then we will also need those parties in this House that have caucus members who sit in the other place, because we need the other House to also prioritize the bill in the way that has been spoken to today by several opposition members. It is not good enough for political parties to just stand in one chamber and say they want speedy passage, if they know in the back of their mind that in the other chamber their colleagues, their caucus members, their political movement, will do everything they can to frustrate every other piece of legislation that is coming through the parliamentary process. We need some consistency out of the Conservatives on the bill and we need some co-operation, which is the last point I would like to bring to this debate today.
All the processes and all the legislative agendas that collide in the House of Commons, such as measures brought forward by the government, by private members and by political parties in this House [Technical difficulty—Editor] slowing down legislation, but how little they contribute to speeding up legislation. We have had some good examples when there has been consensus on some critical pieces of legislation. The situation around UNDRIP is a perfect example where, quite clearly, the tenor of the House changed. As people thought more deeply about the information and the circumstance, they realized that some of the good legislation proposed by our government required immediate passage, and I think we saw some progress on bills like that.
I also think back to last week, when an opposition motion designed to blow up the national housing strategy was presented, and all opposition parties sided against the government. I find it ironic that, as they sought to destroy the national housing strategy, including the rapid housing initiative, the right to housing, the work on the co-investment fund, and the work being done in building housing in every riding, in every part of this country from coast to coast to coast, no sooner had members of the opposition voted to destroy the national housing strategy that they called up the parliamentary secretary to the minister in charge of CMHC and asked if we could fast-track some of the projects in their ridings, because they want to get the work done and they know how critical the job is.
If members are going to talk out of both sides of their mouths, they should try to be consistent. They should not try to destroy the program and try to acquire access to the program simultaneously. They should be honest about their approach here. I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to do that, to find a co-operative way forward, to work across party lines to achieve on issues that need to be achieved on and not to play these sorts of games where they deflect and present false arguments, when things are clearly in need of speedy passage.
I look forward—
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-06-17 19:32 [p.8714]
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, whom I affectionately refer to as my favourite MP.
On June 9, the House adopted Motion No. 69, which was moved by my colleague from Montarville. The motion presents six concrete measures to help the government take more effective action against tax evasion and tax avoidance.
This evening, I would like to remind the House of those six measures. I expect the government to take action. I would also like to remind the House that our role as legislators involves guiding the government on such motions. Since the motion was adopted, I expect concrete action to be taken. I expect the government to follow through on this.
The first measure is as follows:
amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
Here, the motion calls for subsection 5907(1) of the income tax regulations to be repealed.
I would note that this subsection, which was adopted behind closed doors, allows Canadian corporations to repatriate money tax-free from their subsidiaries in one of the 23 tax havens with which Canada has a tax information exchange agreement.
This measure would change things so that any income repatriated by a Canadian corporation would be taxed. There is no need for a bill to do that. The motion was adopted in the House, and the order was sent to the government. All the minister had to do was delete it from the income tax regulations, thereby revolutionizing the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is what we are asking the government to do. We are in a pandemic, and spending levels are higher than ever. The motion proposes measures that will enable to government to bring in more revenue and increase tax fairness.
The second measure is as follows:
review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
When a company registers a subsidiary or a billionaire establishes a trust abroad, that subsidiary or trust is considered a foreign national, independent from the Canadian citizen or company that created it, and its income becomes non-taxable.
In taxation jargon, these subsidiaries or trusts are referred to as permanent establishments, in other words, they have a taxable fixed place of business independent of their owner. In many cases, they are shell companies with no real activity. There is no justification for treating them differently from any other bank account and exempting the income they generate from tax.
The Standing Committee on Finance is looking into shell companies set up on the Isle of Man by KPMG. Things need to change. The motion adopted by the House contains a measure to do that. We expect the government to take action with a view to collecting additional revenue in order to offset the additional expenses arising from the pandemic.
The third measure is as follows:
require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
This may surprise many people, but for years banks were required to include that in their annual reports. It used to be released and that requirement needs to be reinstated. Here, the House is calling on the government to require the banks to be transparent again. It would just take a simple directive from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The government can send this notification and this very simple measure could be applied very quickly because it does not require any international negotiations or any legislative or regulatory change.
In 2019, the six Bay Street banks made a record profit of $46 billion. That is a 50% increase over five years. In 2020, despite the pandemic, they made $41 billion in profits. Their profits rise, but they pay less tax because they report their most profitable activities in tax havens, where their assets keep growing.
Until the door to the use of tax havens is closed shut, consumers could at least be able to choose their financial institution in an informed manner, and taxpayers would be able to judge whether the banks deserve government assistance.
Some of the measures the government announced in its latest budget are consistent with the fourth measure, which reads as follows:
review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
We see this in rich countries. There are two pieces of good news in this budget. First, the government will finally start collecting the GST on services sold by digital multinationals as of July 1, so two weeks from now. This tax change was included in the notice of ways and means that the House voted on.
It is hard to understand why Ottawa waited so long, when Quebec has been doing it for two years and it is going great, but as they say, better late than never.
Also, still on the topic of this measure, the budget announces the government's plan to tax multinational Internet companies on their activities at a rate of 3% of their sales in Canada beginning on January 1, 2022. This commitment might be merely hot air, however, since there is talk of a possible implementation after the likely date of the next election. There is speculation that it will be called in mid-August, if the polls remain comfortable for the party in power, but still, this commitment is good news. It will be really good when it happens.
During the last election campaign, which was not so long ago, the Bloc Québécois proposed such a measure and the use of the revenue generated to compensate the victims of web giants, the creators. We are talking about the artists and the media who do not receive copyright fees from the web giants that use their content. The government is not going that far, but is instead reporting this GAFAM tax in the consolidated revenue fund. Nevertheless, we applaud this measure. It is a good start.
The fifth measure is as follows:
work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion;
This is an extremely important measure. This needs to happen. Experts told the committee that the problem was that the information was not accessible; we cannot see the information. The fifth measure adopted by the House changes that. In many cases, tax havens are opaque, and it is impossible to know who truly benefits from the companies and trusts that are set up. Often, we only know the name of the trustee that manages them or the legal or accounting firm that created them, but not the name of the person hiding behind them. Such a setup is a real boon for fraudsters who can hide their money with complete impunity.
This type of registry already exists in Luxembourg, but it is accessible only to financial institutions. These institutions do their own audits, but this type of registry must be made available to governments or tax agencies. Tax evasion and avoidance has gone on too long. We do not know who is hiding behind these companies. I am calling on the government to implement the fifth measure.
The sixth and final measure is a very important one
:use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
As members know, in response to the 2008-09 financial crisis, the OECD has been working hard to combat the use of tax havens. It was then that countries started to seriously go after tax havens within the OECD by launching a broad multilateral instrument on international taxation and tax base recovery called the framework on base erosion and profit shifting, better known as BEPS. Some progress has been made since the initiative was launched, but not much.
We are facing a global economic crisis, as countries took on record amounts of debt in an effort to provide income support and stabilize the economy. These efforts are absolutely warranted when they are well done and well used. However, this crisis is a reason to emphasize that everyone needs to pay their fair share and implement, once and for all, the recommendations proposed by the OECD. This is extremely important. It is a matter of justice and tax fairness.
In conclusion, I remind members that less than two weeks ago the House adopted a motion setting out these six actions. We are calling on the government to move forward. These are good solutions, and the current pandemic is the right time to implement them.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your generosity with regard to my time. By the way, I would like to offer you my congratulations. I had the privilege of witnessing your speech yesterday. It was a great lesson in democracy. I was pleased to hear it.
With Bill C-30, the federal government is demonstrating a flagrant lack of consideration for Quebec, its choices and the will of Quebeckers. I wish to remind members that the Bloc Québécois voted against budget 2021 because the federal government did not respond to our two main requests, namely to permanently and significantly increase the Canada health transfers by raising them from 22% to 35%, a demand shared by the National Assembly and unanimously supported by the provinces, and to increase old age security by $110 a month for people aged 65 and over.
Despite our reservations, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that budget 2021 is geared towards the post-COVID recovery. It will make it easier for Quebec's small businesses to access credit. It was essential that Bill C‑30 include an increase in credit-related funding for small businesses, especially start-ups, which have been struggling during the pandemic. Bill C‑30 encourages innovation and the potential for a greener economic recovery through its expanded lending against intellectual property.
However, access to credit is not the only way to help businesses recover, as credit often leads to debt, which can push businesses into bankruptcy. Credit becomes harmful when it is used to cover fixed and recurring business costs. In some cases, it merely postpones bankruptcy. What has the government done to revitalize businesses and reduce their administrative burden? Little or nothing.
The government could take action. It has no excuse not to. With a deficit of over $1 trillion, I think it has a some leeway. The federal government is not doing enough to help businesses take advantage of opportunities arising from international agreements. These agreements are so complicated and hard to understand, involving so many laws, regulations, measures, norms and provisions, that it is hard for business owners to properly assess them and see all of the possibilities. There needs to be communication. What is the federal government waiting for? When will it reduce this burden in order to better support businesses in getting their goods to market internationally and strengthen the ability of Quebec and Canadian industries and businesses to compete globally?
I care about Quebec businesses, particularly agricultural businesses, so I find it troubling that the government is doing so little to reduce the tax burden on agricultural business owners. What is more, one of the simplest solutions for reducing the administrative burden on businesses in Quebec is to implement a single tax return administered by Quebec. That is something that has been repeatedly called for by the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, and it reflects the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly.
I will point out that the Government of Quebec already collects the GST on Ottawa's behalf. That means the Government of Quebec has everything it needs to collect all taxes in Quebec. Direct access to foreign tax information would also give the Government of Quebec the power to fight tax havens. Ottawa has no credibility on that front. If Revenu Québec acquires that expertise, it will be in a better position to ensure tax fairness for all Quebec taxpayers.
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
2021-06-15 10:07 [p.8427]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Government’s Ability to Deliver Information and Services in Both Official Languages”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
2021-06-14 14:08 [p.8330]
Madam Speaker, I stand today to highlight a constituent and friend I have known for over 15 years who has served in the Canadian Army.
Major Alexander Tsang has served our country for 28 years and has deployed across the globe representing Canada. He served in Bosnia and Sudan to help peacekeeping efforts. He continued working with the UN to track down war criminals. This guy is nothing short of courageous.
After his time at the UN, he committed to help our veterans and increase awareness for our soldiers. I have had the honour of working with him on Edmonton Salutes to help recognize our troops.
Unfortunately, Alexander is in a battle of his own against cancer. I wanted to take this opportunity to wish this extraordinary Canadian the best treatment against this horrible disease. Alexander has this, and he has my support.
Get well soon, my friend.
View Jag Sahota Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jag Sahota Profile
2021-06-14 16:16 [p.8349]
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Privacy Act (prevention of violence against women).
She said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to introduce my very first private member's bill today, an act to amend the Privacy Act, prevention of violence against women. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, for all her hard work on this very important issue and for seconding the bill.
Gender-based violence is an epidemic that disproportionately affects women. Just recently we heard of another woman who was attacked and killed by her intimate partner. My private member's bill proposes to amend the Privacy Act to provide that personal information under the control of the government institution that relates to an individual who has been charged with or convicted of an offence involving intimate partner violence may, in certain circumstances, be disclosed without the consent of the individual.
I look forward to the debate on this bill, and I hope I can get the support of all members for this.
View Gerald Soroka Profile
CPC (AB)
View Gerald Soroka Profile
2021-06-14 23:52 [p.8413]
Madam Speaker, tonight I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.
On February 5, I spoke to Bill C-10 before it was referred to the heritage committee on February 16. Here I am speaking to Bill C-10 again, a few months later, now that the bill has returned from committee. Most times when a bill returns from committee, we see a couple of amendments here and there to fine-tune it before passing it along to the Senate, but with BIll C-10, it is not a vew changes here and there. This bill is completely different than its previous form.
What is even more abnormal about this is the fact that so many of the amendments came from the Liberals, the ones who introduced the bill in the first place. The government owes it to Canadians to explain why so many amendments were introduced after the fact and why it is pulling every trick in the book to try to push legislation through without proper debate and while ignoring legitimate concerns.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is using tactics to make people believe that Conservatives are anticulture and standing in the way of Bill C-10, when in fact, many experts who testified at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage agree this bill is flawed and needs further review.
Protecting Canadian content is important for Canadians, but what good do rules around Canadian content do, if Canadian content is not properly defined. The minister recently demonstrated in committee that even he does not know what classic Canadian movies actually count as protected Canadian content under this legislation.
Over the past month I have received countless emails and phone calls from constituents in fear of the government's legislation. They want to know what they can do to stop it. One man even said to me that this legislation embodies the same police-state-like control he emigrated to Canada to escape.
The question I get most often is, “Why?” Why does this legislation contain an amendment giving the CRTC this much power. Why is the government trying to push this through so quickly? Why does the government think it has a mandate to police the Internet?
Conservatives recognize that the Broadcasting Act is in need of updates. No one is arguing against that. When Conservatives raise legitimate questions about user-generated content being affected by this legislation, instead of providing answers, the minister diminishes our concern and proceeds with his carefully scripted paragraph about why the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated, even though we are already agreeing that it needs to be done.
I have to point out the irony in the fact that we are being censored here in the House of Commons on a debate regarding censorship. Instead of allowing Bill C-10 to go through full and proper review, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion to shut down debate on Bill C-10 early, and effectively censored our debate on censorship.
Here we are, around midnight, mid-June, speaking for the last time to a bill that would have the power to limit our freedoms and could change the way Canadians are able to use the Internet. The government imposing time allocation on this bill, which is fundamentally flawed, is wrong because it attacks freedom of expression. The minister is attacking our freedom of expression as parliamentarians, who are just trying to do their jobs. Instead of telling us Conservatives that we are preventing work from moving forward and that we are anticulture, the government members should be explaining to Canadians how they can possibly justify this time allocation motion, when the committee still has many amendments to review. This is deeply concerning to not only me, but also to many Canadians.
I also want to talk about the precedent legislation like this could create for the future. In a society that values freedom of speech and freedom of expression, Bill C-10 would leave the door open to a massive abuse of power concerning the rights of Canadians.
It is not enough for the minister to stand in the House of Commons and claim this bill is not meant to target ordinary Canadians. Words spoken by the minister mean nothing if they do not coincide with the wording of the actual legislation.
The amendment regarding user-generated content aside, Bill C-10 creates a regulatory mess of a streaming and broadcasting industry in Canada. There are real harms that could come with this legislation as it currently stands. This bill is far broader than many Canadians realize, and certainly broader than the minister has claimed. This has led to a lack of understanding of the consequences of the bill as it relates to the general public.
With so many amendments being brought forward in such a short timeframe, it is hard for the public to keep up and stay informed. One thing we must always remember as parliamentarians is that we work for the people. It is our duty to keep our constituents informed and to seek their input on legislative matters. With this amendment being added, and this legislation being rushed through the legislative process so quickly, I fear many members will not have adequate time to properly inform and consult their constituents on this issue.
It is with extreme disappointment that I am speaking on this legislation tonight, knowing that so many voices have been silenced and important dialogue on this bill will not be heard. The government claims that limitations are integrated into this bill, so that it is not too overreaching.
The minister said in the House of Commons, “user-generated content, news content and video games would not be subject to the new regulations. Furthermore, entities would need to reach a significant economic threshold before any regulation could be imposed.”
This claim made by the minister is false, as there is no specific economic threshold that is established by the bill, which means that all Internet streaming services carried in Canada, whether domestic or foreign owned, are subject to Canadian regulation. That would mean if someone has Canadian subscribers, this law would, regardless of where the service provider is located, apply to them.
The limitations the minister is referring to are that the bill gives the CRTC the power to exempt services from regulation. It also leaves it entirely up to the CRTC to establish thresholds for regulations once the bill is enacted. This is dangerous, and while I have confidence in the work that the good people working for the CRTC do, it is our duty to legislate, not the CRTC's, and that means properly defining the term “significant economic threshold”.
Bill C-10 now has over 120 amendments, of which about a quarter were put forward by the government itself, even though it wrote the bill. My Conservative colleagues at the heritage committee did everything they could to fix the problems with Bill C-10 in the time they had. My colleagues say that in review stage, the work at committee was going well and progress was being made. That is until the Liberals decided to bring forward an amendment to include social media.
This amendment was so large it changed the scope of the bill entirely. It was at that point people, including experts, former CRTC commissioners and thousands of Canadians across the country, starting raising objections.
As I wrap up my speech, I am thinking of all the flaws contained in this bill and worry for the future of freedom of expression. While I do not suspect this bill was brought forward with malicious intentions, the wording in this legislation could set a terrible precedent.
It is okay for the government to admit when it is wrong and when it has gone too far. Now is the time for the government to acknowledge that it needs to take a step back, re-evaluate and correct the course.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-07 13:32 [p.8009]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am following up on an order made by the House last Wednesday as a result of the opposition motion brought forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Allow me, if you will, to read the relevant sections of the motion:
That an order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of all documents produced by the Public Health Agency of Canada in response to the March 31, 2021, and May 10, 2021, orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, respecting the transfer of Ebola and Henipah viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in March 2019, and the subsequent revocation of security clearances for, and termination of the employment of, Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and Dr. Keding Cheng, provided that:
(a) these documents shall be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, within 48 hours of the adoption of this order;
(b) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly thereafter notify the Speaker, who shall forthwith inform the House, whether he is satisfied the documents were produced as ordered....
The motion goes on from there, but I want to focus on those two points. Part (a) stipulates that the documents shall be deposited with the law clerk within 48 hours. The order was adopted on Wednesday, June 2, 2021, at approximately 4:25 p.m., which means the documents were due to be delivered by Friday, June 4 at 4:25 p.m., after the House had adjourned for the week. Part (b) stipulates that the law clerk shall notify the Speaker, who will “forthwith inform the House, whether he is satisfied the documents were produced as ordered”.
My simple question to you is this: When do you plan to inform the House as to whether the law clerk and parliamentary counsel is satisfied that the government has produced the documents, as ordered by the House?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I want to thank the hon. member for his intervention.
I do not have any information at this point, but I will endeavour to look into what has come of the information and return to the House as soon as I have something.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, this is pride month, and I am sure that this member celebrates pride in his community, as we have been trying to do in my community.
One of the things we did was send out pride posters throughout our community to some 1,500 people who wanted to hang them in their windows. I got an email this morning, which I will read. It says:
MP [for Kingston and the Islands],
Thank you SO MUCH for the Pride poster! One of my teenagers is a member of the LGBTQ+ community. I ordered one of your Pride posters without thinking too much about it. I didn't realize it would be so moving for my daughter. It wasn't just that we hung a Pride poster, it was that her own MP provided it and is promoting Pride in our community. She felt seen and valued, by her family and by her government. It provoked a really beautiful conversation and we ended up ordering some additional Pride-related flags. My girl hugged me with tears in her eyes and thanked me for being so supportive.
This bill is about so much more than just banning a harmful practice. It is about changing the attitude and the way that Canadians engage, in particular, with the LGBTQ community.
Can the member provide some insight into why he thinks that having these conversations is so important to changing awful stereotypes that were, unfortunately, more predominant a few decades ago?
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his words and I share his sentiments.
At my constituency office here in Smithers we are proud to have an ally sticker on the front door of our office to show our allyship and our support for the fundamental rights of LGBTQ people in our community.
This bill has created a very important conversation in our communities about what inclusion, acceptance and the rights that people have really mean. I think that is a very positive thing and I look forward to building on that as we move forward together.
View Lianne Rood Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the government consultation period for the Canada Grain Act ended on April 30. My colleagues and I have heard from many stakeholders who participated in the consultations. On May 13, I sent the Minister of Agriculture a letter explaining that stakeholders are frustrated because of the lack of information available to them regarding the government's next steps.
When will the government tell the stakeholders what the plan is and offer a timeline for releasing the results of the consultation?
View Marie-Claude Bibeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that we conducted in-depth consultations with stakeholders across the country and we had a great response.
Departmental officials are drafting a report summarizing all of these consultations. We will then have to conduct further studies, because we want to make evidence-based recommendations. Reviewing the Canada Grain Act is a priority for us.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, June 2, 2021, I wish to table, in both official languages, a letter I have received from the law clerk and parliamentary counsel regarding documents relating to the transfer of Ebola and Henipah viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 623--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to contracts entered into between the Leaders’ Debates Commission and the GreenPAC Future Fund since January 1, 2019: (a) what are the details of all contracts including (i) the date signed, (ii) the original contract value, (iii) the final contract value, if different than the original value, (iv) the start and end date, (v) the specific goods or services provided, (vi) whether the contract was sole-sourced or competitively bid; and (b) in the interest of neutrality, does the Leader’s Debates Commission have a policy against entering into contracts with registered third parties, and, if so, why was such a policy not applied when awarding the contracts in (a)?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to contracts entered into between the Leaders’ Debates Commission, or LDC, and the GreenPAC Future Fund since January 1, 2019, the response from LDC is as follows. The response to (a) is as follows: (i) October 3, 2019; (ii) $26,500; (iii) $26,500; (iv) October 3, 2019 – March 31, 2020; (v) The contractor provided services to contribute to the LDC’s evaluation of the leaders’ debates organized by the commission, and to the commission’s report to Parliament. In particular, the contractor was mandated to design, implement and distribute surveys for local debate organizers and for local debate attendees. These surveys included questions relating to respondents' views on the local debates, as well as the national leaders' debates; (vi) sole-sourced.
In response to (b), the commission does not have a policy against entering into contracts with registered third parties. The fact that an organization has a contractual arrangement with the commission for specific deliverables does not impede its ability to register under the Canada Elections Act. The contractor was required to adhere to the Government of Canada’s definition of non-partisan communications in the carrying out of the contract deliverables.
The commission’s decision-making is guided by the pursuit of public interest and by the principles of independence, impartiality, transparency, creditability, democratic citizenship, civic education, inclusion and cost-effectiveness.

Question No. 626--
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to the implementation of amendments to the Canada Labour Code adopted by the adoption of Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) has an harassment policy compliant with the Canada Labour Code, as it applied on January 1, 2021, and the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations been developed and, if so, on what date; and (b) if the response in (a) is negative, or if the date in (a) is after January 1, 2021, why was the deadline not met?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, TBS released the new “Directive on the Prevention and Resolution of Workplace Harassment and Violence”, available at https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32671, in December 2020 in line with recent changes to the Canada Labour Code that apply to all federally regulated workplaces. The comprehensive directive requires organizations to better prevent and respond to harassment, and to provide support to those affected by harassment and violence in the federal public service. It also requires organizations to investigate, record and report all complaints of harassment and violence within their organizations.
As heads of their organizations, deputy ministers are responsible for the safety and well-being of their employees, including developing targeted policies on workplace harassment and violence that meet the standards set out in the Treasury Board directive, and that respond to Canada Labour Code regulations. Deputy ministers also implement these policies within their organizations, in line with their operational contexts.
TBS has been working with organizations to support the updating of each organization’s policies on workplace harassment and violence to meet those requirements outlined in the new Treasury Board directive and to respond to recent changes to the Canada Labour Code. Many organizations are reporting that they have implemented key elements of this new directive in their organizations, including updating their departmental policies and processes to receive new complaints and identifying new training for employees.

Question No. 627--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to consultations by the Department of Canadian Heritage and reports that the government refused to give media outlets copies of consultation reports related to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) why did the government refuse to give media outlets copies of the consultation reports; (b) who made the decision in (a), and how is that in keeping with the Prime Minister's promise of an "open and transparent" government; and (c) what are the details of all consultations the government made with stakeholders or the public related to the proposals in Bill C-10, including the (i) date, (ii) type of consultation (phone, request for written feedback, etc.), (iii) individual or organization consulted, (iv) summary of comments or feedback?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), as of April 16, 2021, Canadian Heritage has not received any media requests for consultation reports.
With regard to part (b), as of April 16, 2021, Canadian Heritage has not received any media requests for consultation reports.
With regard to part (c), Canadian Heritage consults with a wide range of stakeholders when developing policies and legislation. With respect to Bill C-10, the government completed broad consultations to inform the development of the proposed bill.
In the autumn of 2016, Canadian Heritage consulted with stakeholders across the country on supporting Canadian content in the digital era. The results from those consultations can be found at www.canada.ca/en/services/culture/consultations.html
In October of 2017, the Governor in Council requested that the CRTC create a report on the future of distribution models for broadcasting. The CRTC’s notice of consultation can be found at https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2017/2017-359.htm and the final report titled “Harnessing Change” can be found at https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/s15/
In 2018, the government appointed the broadcasting and telecommunications legislative review panel to study Canada’s communications legislation. The panel extensively consulted Canadians and over 2,000 parties submitted their views. Further information on the panel and its final report can be found at www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/110.nsf/eng/home
Following the publication of the panel’s report in January 2020, the minister and the department engaged with many stakeholders on the panel’s recommendations through various mechanisms, such as individual stakeholder meetings and roundtables.
Stakeholder engagement included creative industry associations, such as the Canadian Media Producers Association, CMPA, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, AQPM, Writers Guild of Canada, Coalition pour la diversité des expressions culturelles and the Motion Picture Association of Canada. It included large Canadian broadcasters and media groups, such as Quebecor, Bell Media, Rogers Media, Corus, Shaw and CBC/Radio-Canada. It included independent Canadian radio and television broadcasters, such as OutTV, Knowledge Network, Zoomer Media and CHEK TV. It included indigenous media organizations, such as APTN and Indigenous Screen Office. It included global media and technology companies, such as Netflix, Google/YouTube, Facebook and Amazon. It included funding organizations, such as Canada Media Fund and Creative BC. It included provinces and territories, and the Government of the United States of America.

Question No. 628--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the official position of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada that 37 percent of rural households in Canada have access to 50/10 megabits per second (Mbps) internet speeds: what is the actual proportion of rural households that do not have access to the 50/10 Mbps speeds that are claimed to be provided?
Response
Ms. Gudie Hutchings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is making significant investments to ensure that all Canadians have access to the Internet speeds they need, no matter where they live in Canada.
In the past, broadband funding programs have targeted Internet speeds of 5/1 Mbps, which are the speeds necessary for single users and basic Internet usage. In 2019, 91.7% of rural residents had access to these speeds. However, demand for data and speeds has changed over time, especially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s, CRTC, current definition of broadband Internet is 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload as this is the speed that allows multiple users to undertake more data-intensive applications, such as streaming, at the same time. In 2019, only 37% of rural households had access to 50/10 Mbps unlimited. However by 2020, 50/10 Mbps was available to 45.6% of the population in rural areas. This was an improvement of nearly 10% in one year. This was achieved through a commitment to improve broadband from the federal government as well as the provinces, territories, Internet service providers and other partners.
The government recognizes that there is more work to be done to bridge the digital divide between urban and rural areas. Budget 2021 provides an additional $1 billion over six years, starting in 2021-22, to the universal broadband fund, UBF, bringing the fund to $2.75 billion to support a more rapid rollout of broadband projects. This is the largest investment in broadband in Canada’s history. The government’s investments will connect 98% of Canadians across the country to high-speed Internet by 2026, with the goal of connecting all Canadians by 2030. Recognizing the need for accelerated connectivity as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UBF also accepted applications under a rapid response stream, RRS. RRS allocates $150 million to shovel-ready projects that will connect many rural and remote Canadians by the end of 2021. Announcements of successful recipients for the rapid response stream of the UBF are already under way. As of May 20, 2021, nearly $47 million in funding has been announced to connect over 30,000 households through RRS. The government has also announced an agreement with the province of Quebec to connect up to 150,000 households by the end of 2022. This agreement, known as Operation High Speed, is made possible through a shared investment of $826 million.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, and CRTC work collaboratively to actively maintain coverage maps and databases that provide a comprehensive understanding of the availability of telecommunications networks across Canada. In recent years, ISED and the CRTC have made significant improvements in the granularity of the broadband coverage information that is made available to the public. For example, household coverage data is now displayed along 250-metre road segments. These searchable maps and the underlying data for download can be found online at the National Broadband Internet Service Availability Map. Should discrepancies be noted, users should first contact the Internet service provider in question for initial verification. Once done, and if the information does appear to be inadequate, users can contact ISED for more information on next steps.
In addition, there are various tools available to Canadians that provide the ability to test their home Internet connections to ensure that they are getting what they are paying for. However, certain factors such as distance to the test server and strength of the in-home Wi-Fi signal, if connecting wirelessly, can impact these test results. The CRTC is currently undertaking a study on the performance of broadband sold to Canadians. More information is available at https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/rp200601/rp200601.htm.
Canadians who are concerned that they are not getting the Internet speeds that they pay for can bring their concerns to the attention of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services, CCTS. This independent organization has been established to provide consumers and small businesses with recourse when they are unable to resolve disagreements with their telecommunications service providers. For more information concerning the CCTS, including how to file a complaint, Canadians can visit the CCTS website at www.ccts-cprst.ca or call toll-free at 1-888-221-1687.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.
Kwe. Unusakut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Indigenous communities, families and friends are hurting. Emotions are high, and the pain is real. For indigenous people, the events this week may not be a surprise. It does not make it less of a shock or less painful. There is not a single community that is not grieving today. The news that came from Kamloops last week has opened up wounds that were not closed, even if people thought they were closed.
Our thoughts and actions at this time must support the communities and families in recovering the truth, so that they could continue to heal. We cannot heal without the truth, as painful as it is. It is on the hearts and minds of all Canadians, and frankly, if it is not, it should be.
Over the past week, people have shared piercing and atrocious anecdotes that really show what kind of places those facilities were, and indeed the testimonials today from members in the House certainly reinforces that. I thank them for their testimonials.
I was reminded by a faith healer friend who I rely heavily upon that, for example, the Mohawk Institute in Six Nations had an orchard and had apples, but the kids could not eat them. They were punished if they did. There were chickens, but the kids could not take the eggs because the eggs were sent to market. The only time they would get one was at Easter. Calling those places schools is to use a euphemism. They were labour camps, and people starved.
I know people are eager to get answers as to what the federal government will do, what we will do nationally and what Canada will do. Let me say this clearly, we will be there for indigenous communities that want to continue the search for the truth.
The reality is that this is something that will be dictated to us by the communities that are affected, as set forth notably in call to action 76 in the body of the Truth and Reconciliation Report. We will be there for communities. We do have to respect the privacy, space and mourning period of those communities that are collecting their thoughts and putting together their protocols as to how to honour these children. They have asked us specifically for that. We will do that, and Canadians must respect that.
Yesterday, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations announced $27 million in funding to support the ongoing NCTR and to implement calls to action 74 to 76. This will fund support for survivors, their families and communities across Canada to locate and memorialize children who died or went missing while attending residential schools.
We also have to look one another right in the eyes and face the fact that the general public either misunderstands or is ignorant of certain chapters of our history, especially the most painful ones. This truth is hard to bear, particularly for the indigenous communities affected and for the individuals and families who are reliving very painful parts of their own history or that of their parents, cousins, uncles and aunts.
As leaders, politicians and members of Parliament, it is also our role to educate and contribute to that education. In light of what we have learned this week, it is once again clear that many more truths remain to be uncovered. Explanations are needed. Too often, that explanation comes from indigenous peoples themselves. Too often, the job of educating Canadians has fallen to them, and, too often, we do not transmit that knowledge to our children. Fortunately, children are now learning about this in school, and they are telling us the harsh truth about what happened. Placing this burden on indigenous peoples is not fair. It should not be their burden to carry.
I repeat: We will be there for indigenous communities and families. We will support the search for truth and we will implement calls to action 72 to 76, among others, with an initial investment of $27 million. This funding will be distributed according to the priorities and requests of the communities themselves.
The government's role is to financially support communities in their grieving and healing process, as the wounds are still very fresh in this case. The communities will decide themselves whether they want to proceed with more extensive searches or not.
In this particular case, we spoke directly with indigenous leaders in Kamloops and the surrounding communities to offer mental health and security services, because emotions are running high, but we will respect the space they asked us to respect.
Obviously, this is painful for families who may have had uncles, aunts or cousins who disappeared and were never heard from again, but the key point here is that the Government of Canada will be there with the necessary support and funding for the communities that need it.
One of the many things being highlighted and underscored this week, in the midst of the heartache in Kamloops, is that indigenous children belong with their families and communities. Kids belong at home, where they can be with their relatives and elders; where they can learn their nation's culture, language and traditions; and where they can be given back all that was taken from, their parents and their grandparents. Bill C-92 affirms this inherent right. I would note that this basic right is one that the rest of us take for granted.
All of us share the responsibility to ensure this happens. The number of indigenous children who have been taken away in care in recent years far exceeds the number who attended residential schools. That should set in. In 2016, more than 52% of children in foster care in Canada were indigenous, and they account for 7% of the child population. The truth is that for children taken away from their community, their connections to their cultures and traditions were impacted too.
Fixing a broken system requires long-term reforms. The Government of Canada is determined to eliminate and continues to eliminate these discriminatory policies and practices against indigenous children, and we are doing it hand-in-hand with indigenous partners. The Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which responds to calls to action, is a new way forward. Indigenous governments and communities have always been empowered to decide what is best for their children, their families and their communities, and the act provides a path for them to fully exercise and lift up that jurisdiction.
As a result of this work, led by indigenous communities, two indigenous laws are now enforced: the Wabaseemoong Independent Nations law in Ontario and the Miyo Pimatisowin Act of the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan. In each of these communities, children will have greater opportunity to grow up immersed in their culture and surrounded by loved ones. They will be welcomed home.
We are moving closer to achieving our shared ultimate goal of reducing the number of indigenous children in care. Systemic reform of the child and family services system is one important step. Compensation for past harms is another.
Since the CHRT issued its first order for Canada to cease its discriminatory practices in 2016, we have been working with first nations leaders and partners to implement the tribunal's orders.
We have the same goal of fair and equitable compensation. Let me be clear that no first nations children will be denied fair and equitable compensation. Children should not be denied the products or services they need because governments cannot agree on who will pay for them. It is why, via Jordan's principle, we have funded approximately $2 billion in services, speech therapy, educational supports, medical equipment, mental health services and so much more. This is transformative and the right thing to do.
The government is not questioning or challenging the notion that first nations children who were removed from their homes, families and communities should be compensated. We are committed to providing first nations children with access to the necessary supports and services, but it is important to obtain clarity on certain limited issues, which is why we brought the judicial review forward. We need to focus on what is really important, ensuring fair and equitable compensation of first nations children affected by the child and family services program and that first nations children have access to the supports they need when they need them.
I would remind the House that there are also two competing class actions that deal essentially with the same group of children. We are, nevertheless, in discussions with the parties to the various cases, but those discussions must remain confidential out of respect.
Finally, no court case can achieve the transformative change that we need to achieve as a country.
As the recent discovery in Kamloops reminds us once again, every child in this country should have the support and services they need to thrive.
Removing a child from their family or community must be an absolute last resort. We need to do the work to change the system and ensure that every person is treated equally and fairly, without prejudice or injustice, and with respect and dignity. It is our responsibility as a government and as Canadians who want to make Canada a better place for everyone.
We cannot change the past, but we can learn from it and find ways to right some historic wrongs, to acknowledge what never should have happened and do everything we can to ensure a better future.
Meegwetch. Nakurmik. Masi cho.
View Peter Schiefke Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Peter Schiefke Profile
2021-06-03 18:40 [p.7939]
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am addressing the House today from my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, situated on land that has a shared history among the Huron-Wendat nation, the Mohawk, the Anishinabe Nation and the Six Nations. I feel it is also important and essential to acknowledge the long-standing heritage of the Métis in my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
I have the privilege today of speaking to Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94).
If this bill is passed, it would change Canada's oath of citizenship to put the presence of indigenous people on this land at the heart of the solemn oath taken by newcomers when they become part of the Canadian family.
June is National Indigenous History Month. It is a time for all Canadians to learn about the history of indigenous peoples in Canada, to recognize and acknowledge past mistakes, and to move towards reconciliation.
However, this month our hearts are heavier than they normally are. Locating the remains of 215 children near the former Kamloops Indian Residential School is a painful reminder of a dark and shameful chapter of our country's recent history. Our hearts are with the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation, as well as with all indigenous communities across the country.
It is our collective responsibility to acknowledge the legacy of residential schools and the devastating effects they have had, and continue to have, on indigenous peoples and their communities. As Canadians, we must commit to understanding the atrocities of residential schools and what we can do to address their legacy, and continue to move towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.
The government is committed to fighting all forms of systemic racism. We have started a dialogue with racialized communities and indigenous people to hear their stories. We recognize that these conversations must inspire laws, policies and collaborative solutions to protect indigenous languages, traditions and institutions.
It is in this spirit that we put forward this bill to help new Canadians at the culmination of their journey to citizenship understand the fundamental, historical truths of their new country, beginning not with Confederation, but with the presence of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
Bill C-8 is one part of the government's comprehensive and ongoing commitment to implement all of the recommendations and calls to action contained in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which marked it sixth anniversary yesterday.
Bill C-8 is a direct response to call to action 94, a call to amend the oath of citizenship. While there is so much more to be done, we hope that Bill C-8 can serve as a unanimous gesture of reconciliation by virtue of an all-party agreement to implement the proposed changes to the oath of citizenship.
While the changes proposed to the oath of citizenship may only amount to a small fragment of text, that text is enormously potent and rich in meaning. If adopted, the new oath of citizenship would read as follows:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
This wording reflects the input received from national indigenous organizations including the Assembly of First Nations, ITK and the Métis National Council. I want to thank them sincerely on behalf of the House for their contributions.
Thanks to the major contributions of these organizations, we have worked together to ensure that the proposed new oath of citizenship is even more inclusive and represents the rich history of indigenous, Inuit and Métis peoples across Canada.
Thanks to their important contributions, the government believes that the wording put forth in the bill is inclusive of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples' input and experiences. It is, we believe, an authentic response to call to action 94.
The wording proposed in Bill C-8 invites new Canadians to faithfully observe the laws of Canada including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
This is a very important change because it emphasizes the fact that ancestral rights are collective rights that are protected by the Constitution under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. These rights are based on indigenous people's historic occupation and use of the lands now known as Canada.
Furthermore, this reference informs newcomers that these rights predate the Constitution and are reinforced and upheld by the highest law in the land. Henceforth a new Canadian's life as a citizen begins with affirming the principle of reconciliation with Canada's most ancient residents.
While the pandemic has temporarily put a stop to in-person ceremonies, we continue to hold ceremonies virtually. It is truly moving and joyful to know that virtual ceremonies can now be witnessed by families and friends outside of Canada. This means an even wider audience learning about the history of Canada, while putting a spotlight on the important history of indigenous peoples in Canada on the global stage.
Furthermore, the participation of indigenous elders enriches these ceremonies. It is truly remarkable to see the coming together of this land's oldest and newest communities celebrating what it means to live together in equality and harmony. At the very centre of that occasion is indeed the oath of citizenship, a pledge to uphold the values for which we strive as a nation: equality, diversity and respect within an open and free society. This bill ensures that new Canadians now embrace and affirm the rights and treaties of indigenous peoples and know that they are an integral part of Canada's history and future.
While we are also working in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis nations on many other components of the calls to action, we are also working on call to action 93, which is a new citizenship guide and supporting educational tools that will include more information on indigenous history, something that has been called for now for quite some time.
Once completed, the revised citizenship study guide, the new citizenship test and the oath will be mutually supportive of these lessons. Furthermore, educational resources will be provided to classrooms across Canada so all students can learn these lessons. I hope all members will join us in these steps on the path to reconciliation. We call on all parties to support the historic and symbolic meaning of the new oath of citizenship.
I want to take a moment to thank all parties for agreeing to move this forward as quickly as possible and ensure that we are able to deliver on yet another call to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations.
It is one more step toward transforming a relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, one of many more important steps to come. We must continue in steadfast determination to move forward in mutual respect and co-operation. This means listening to and learning from indigenous partners, communities and youth, and acting decisively on what we have heard to continue building trust and bring about healing.
I look forward to working with all members in support of this bill.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2021-06-03 18:53 [p.7941]
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spoke about the importance of newcomers knowing about our history. He referenced the new citizenship guidebook that has been under development for five years now. Of course, one of the important components of this history is the fact that Canada committed genocide against indigenous peoples and, in fact, continues to do so under the UN convention's definition of genocide.
Does the member agree that Canada needs to incorporate the fact that it committed genocide against indigenous peoples and continues to do so in the new Canadian citizenship study guide?
View Peter Schiefke Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Peter Schiefke Profile
2021-06-03 18:54 [p.7941]
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague not only for her question but for her wonderful work on the immigration committee. I have had the pleasure of working with her for quite some time now on that committee and she is doing some really great work there.
With respect to the hon. member's question, many more consultations need to take place over the summer. As she knows, we take very seriously our consultations and our work directly with indigenous partners across the country's provinces and territories to make sure we get this right. It may take a little longer, but at the end of the day we want to make sure that we do not—
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 Jenica Atwin Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Jenica Atwin Profile
2021-06-03 19:41 [p.7948]
Madam Speaker, it is important for me today to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-8 from the unceded territory of the Wolastoqiyik.
What is a nation, and what does it mean to be a Canadian citizen? Bill C-8 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. The bill would change the oath of citizenship for newcomers to Canada to include recognition and affirmation of the treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
As I have proudly mentioned many times in this House, before I joined federal politics I was a teacher. When I think about this bill and the oath of citizenship, I think about what it teaches us about who we are and who we want to be.
In my time at Fredericton High School as a cultural transition coordinator for indigenous youth, I helped to run a native education centre. My role was to ensure that students were welcomed, supported, empowered and that they had access to the materials and resources they needed for success, often a tall order in a large institution.
I had the pleasure of working closely with the English as a second language department for newcomer students, who were in the same wing. My goal was to facilitate learning about indigenous culture and heritage with my students, but also with the wider school population and staff. I would create bulletin boards with information; spotlight incredible indigenous leaders, actors, artists, language keepers; visit classes or host professional development seminars.
It was not long before the ESL department requested that I come in and speak with their students, who were very curious about my role. I noticed that the “welcome to Canada” curriculum that the ESL teachers had been given represented indigenous peoples with a totem pole, a teepee and an inukshuk. Beyond these superficial symbolic images, there was no substance, no discussion of rights, of the peace and friendship treaties in our territory, of the different Wabanaki nations on the east coast, no highlight of the 15 communities in New Brunswick, nine Mi’kmaq and six Wolastoqiyik.
We started to hold group potlucks with traditional foods, sometimes in our space and sometimes in theirs. Beyond the cultural exchange, I noticed the bonds that the youth were making with one another and I noticed the pride in being a part of Canada's mosaic. We are strengthened by our diversity and it was beautiful to witness an exercise in community building. These students had more in common than they first believed. Many were subjected to prejudice, discrimination and racism. I also noticed that newcomer students began to open up more about their homelands or refugee experiences. They identified with the history of colonialism they were learning and they were excited by the indigenous cultural resurgence happening in local nations because of the hope it offered.
It is a rare opportunity to connect our desire to welcome newcomers with honesty about the sovereignty of indigenous nations. This is important work that we are undertaking.
We cannot ignore the reason why we are here tonight. It is to discuss Bill C-8 and to expedite its passage into Canadian law. However, this urgency comes from the horrific discovery of the remains of 215 children at the former Kamloops residential school. It should not have taken this latest revelation of wrongdoing to prompt action. We have known the impact of residential schools in this country for decades, at least those of us who bothered to listen. The children have pushed the truth to the surface. No one can say they did not know. Newcomers to Canada will have to come to terms with these realizations as well, out of respect to the original inhabitants of this land, the ones who are still here and the ones who never came home.
The oath in call to action 94 is as follows:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.
Upholding this oath requires a further in-depth conversation about colonialism, the British Crown and its role in the atrocities of residential schools and ongoing oppression, about monies and Crown lands held in trust by Her Majesty the Queen on behalf of indigenous peoples.
As for the faithful observation of laws in Canada, including treaties, we have much work to do. Canadians have very little understanding of our treaty relationship. This became painfully obvious during the Mi’kmaq fishery dispute.
While we stand here today to hopefully unanimously pass Bill C-8, implementing call to action 94 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, call to action 93 has been stalled since June 2018, when the federal government said changes to the information kit for newcomers were close to completion. Can we have an update on this? Can we have a status report on all calls to action? This is what the survivors, those who are descendants of settlers, and certainly newcomers need from the government.
The Liberal government has completed an average of only two TRC calls to action per year since 2015. At this rate, it will take until 2062 to complete all 94. My children will likely have their own children by then. These are steps in the right direction, but I would like to share the reflections of a person from my riding.
This is what they said: “I'm hopeful that people will finally read the recommendations. Maybe finding more human bodies will wake people up to the notion that each of these recommendations addresses a specific concern. The onus should be on our government to explain why they are not adopting specific recommendations versus our current system of applauding them when they pick and choose off the list like it is.”
I appreciate this wisdom. The calls to action represent a package of reforms that create a road map for reconciliation. We must walk that road step by step, recommendation by recommendation. Rather than applause for hand-selecting the 11th and 12th recommendations to enshrine over a six-year period, we need to be seeing status reports on the implementation, demanding more accountability from the government when it falls short, when we all fall short.
I would like to read recommendations 71 to 76 today, as they relate so directly to the lost children in Kamloops and those across the nation who remain invisible. Under “Missing Children and Burial Information”, the calls to action are as follows:
71. We call upon all chief coroners and provincial vital statistics agencies that have not provided to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada their records on the deaths of Aboriginal children in the care of residential school authorities to make these documents available to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.
72. We call upon the federal government to allocate sufficient resources to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation to allow it to develop and maintain the National Residential School Student Death Register established by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
73. We call upon the federal government to work with churches, Aboriginal communities, and former residential school students to establish and maintain an online registry of residential school cemeteries, including, where possible, plot maps showing the location of deceased residential school children.
74. We call upon the federal government to work with the churches and Aboriginal community leaders to inform the families of children who died at residential schools of the child’s burial location, and to respond to families’ wishes for appropriate commemoration ceremonies and markers, and reburial in home communities where requested.
75. We call upon the federal government to work with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, churches, Aboriginal communities, former residential school students, and current landowners to develop and implement strategies and procedures for the ongoing identification, documentation, maintenance, commemoration, and protection of residential school cemeteries or other sites at which residential school children were buried. This is to include the provision of appropriate memorial ceremonies and commemorative markers to honour the deceased children.
76. We call upon the parties engaged in the work of documenting, maintaining, commemorating, and protecting residential school cemeteries to adopt strategies in accordance with the following principles:
i. The Aboriginal community most affected shall lead the development of such strategies.
ii. Information shall be sought from residential school Survivors and other Knowledge Keepers in the development of such strategies.
iii. Aboriginal protocols shall be respected before any potentially invasive technical inspection and investigation of a cemetery site.
We also need to provide the space to grieve. There was a collective sadness being felt across this country. This is the truth that comes before the reconciliation. We had to come to this point of reckoning to wake up those who were still sleeping. Now that we know, we cannot unknow. Enshrining acknowledgement of indigenous peoples into the newcomer citizenship oath asks us to never forget.
I support Bill C-8 and ask my colleagues in the Senate to agree. Let us get this done.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I am often in the same boat at home, juggling family and my work in the House of Commons. For those of us who are young parents, we all have to confront this challenge of how we talk to our children about Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples and how we explain the pride we feel in Canada and yet the shame we feel about things that were done in the name of our country and perhaps in the name of communities we are a part of.
I wonder if the member would share how she tries to engage in these conversations, in particular with the next generation, and how we should explain what happened and what we plan to do going forward.
View Jenica Atwin Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Jenica Atwin Profile
2021-06-03 19:50 [p.7950]
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his recognition of the tough balance between work and life sometimes. My two children are with me in the office tonight. My oldest is in grade 3 and the revelation hit him pretty hard. It hit his classmates and community members hard too. Oromocto First Nation is where he is a band member. Members put children's shoes in the shape of a heart and lit it up at night. It is difficult to drive by, and it is difficult to have those conversations with our children.
My son has had an introduction to residential schools before, because his mom is very passionate about having him be proud of his heritage and having him learn the difficult road that his ancestors had to take. This is very much a sensitive issue for me. It hits close to home, and I do all I can to have these tough conversations. There are storybooks we can read that are appropriate for children, and if anyone would like to reach out, I have lots of recommendations that I can pass on.
View Michael Chong Profile
CPC (ON)
moved:
That an order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of all documents produced by the Public Health Agency of Canada in response to the March 31, 2021, and May 10, 2021, orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, respecting the transfer of Ebola and Henipah viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in March 2019, and the subsequent revocation of security clearances for, and termination of the employment of, Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and Dr. Keding Cheng, provided that:
(a) these documents shall be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, within 48 hours of the adoption of this order;
(b) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly thereafter notify the Speaker, who shall forthwith inform the House, whether he is satisfied the documents were produced as ordered;
(c) the Minister of Health shall be ordered to appear before the special committee, for at least three hours, at a televised meeting, to be held within two weeks of the adoption of this order, to discuss the documents and the matters referred to in them;
(d) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall confidentially review the documents with a view to redacting information which, in his opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise national security or reveal details of an ongoing criminal investigation, other than the existence of an investigation;
(e) the Speaker shall cause the documents, as redacted pursuant to paragraph (d), to be laid upon the table at the next earliest opportunity and, after being tabled, they shall stand referred to the special committee;
(f) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall discuss with the special committee, at an in camera meeting, to be held within two weeks of the documents being tabled pursuant to paragraph (e), what information he redacted pursuant to paragraph (d); and
(g) the special committee may, after hearing from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel pursuant to paragraph (f), decide to make public any of the information which was redacted, as well as, in lieu of making such information public, rely on such information for the purpose of making findings and recommendations in any subsequent report to the House, provided that, for the purpose of this paragraph, the documents deposited pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be deemed to have been referred to the special committee.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing his motion and I will say at the outset that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of it.
That being said, one small part of it bothers us a bit. This motion would give a lot of power to the committee, including the power to make public information that would have been redacted and would not necessarily be of interest to the public. We are obviously not against disseminating information that is of interest to the public, far from it, because it is important in terms of transparency, but giving this power to committee members to act solely on their good judgment, is that not going a bit too far?
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
View Michael Chong Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, we put a requirement in the motion to have the Clerk of the House review the documents before discussing them with the special committee in order to ensure that no information regarding national security or a criminal investigation is made public.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and the motion he has put before the House today.
I would simply like him to tell us more specifically what criteria he thinks should be used for the disclosure or publication of official documents concerning public health or public safety.
What criteria does he want to put forward to ensure that these documents are published, made public and accessible to the people of Canada?
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his very pertinent question.
Yes, we want access to the documents, but we do not want to jeopardize national security or the lives of people involved in this matter.
That is why my colleague, who moved the motion, mentioned earlier that Speaker Milliken ruled in 2010 to allow the committee and parliamentarians to have access to certain documents. At that time, the Conservative Party was in power, and we said that we needed to be careful, because if we went as far as was requested, we would have jeopardized the lives of Afghan citizens and of Canadian soldiers involved in that operation.
We want to get to the bottom of this situation without jeopardizing national security and Canadians' lives.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in this debate today. I think it is an extremely important debate, having to do, principally, with the powers of the members of Parliament to do their duty to hold the government to account and to be, as has been determined, the ultimate arbiter of democracy in this country, once having been elected. I say this after listening to some very fulsome speeches, particularly by senior, experienced members of Parliament like the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the member for Montarville discussing these important matters.
I share with the member for Montarville a question, I suppose, as to why we are doing this as an opposition day motion, as there was not an order of reference to the House from the parliamentary committee, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. I think it could have been dealt with that way. Perhaps it has something to do with why the government seems to have politicized this, as opposed to treating it as a serious motion with respect to the duties of parliamentarians, which is how I wish to treat it. I think this is something that should be treated that way by the House.
After all, we are dealing with the result of a unanimous decision of the Canada-China committee, after much deliberation, consideration and various amendments to the motion to ensure that it would be unanimous. We were unanimously of the view that the committee needed and was entitled to the documents in their unredacted form, so that we could carry out the committee's duty of due diligence with respect to whether the government, through PHAC, was withholding documents that we needed in order to do our job.
We have to put it into the context of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. The committee was formed for a very good reason, given the circumstances we were facing in the fall of 2019 with the situation with China. A number of things had come up that were of great concern, particularly the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, as well as relationships of concern and matters that had been raised. For example, there were concerns about the co-operation between the People's Liberation Army and the Canadian Armed Forces for a training exercise, which was subsequently cancelled due to security concerns being raised by some of our allies.
We heard testimony at the Canada-China committee regarding foreign influence within Canada and intimidation of Canadians, Chinese students and other Chinese nationals in Canada, which raised concerns. We had concerns about whether this had been dealt with properly by government agencies, police forces and others. We had concerns regarding the influence of China, through its agencies and other efforts, on research and intellectual property capture at our universities and other institutions.
This matter came up with respect to the Public Health Agency of Canada. The committee was concerned about the level of collaboration with Chinese researchers, in particular with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, and then the indications of co-operation with researchers who were associated with the People's Liberation Army, as well, and its other lab in China, which is engaged in research with a military point of view.
These concerns were serious. They were legitimate. They were relevant to the relationship between Canada and China, what measures Canada was taking to protect itself and whether it was doing a proper job doing so. These are matters of great concern, and the committee, under its obligation to carry out this task assigned to it by Parliament, was doing this work. As it happened, we all know what the Public Health Agency of Canada decided when we asked for documentation behind the notorious incident, in the sense of being well known and concerning, of the two individuals, researchers, being escorted out of the laboratory in Winnipeg and the subsequent termination of their services by the Public Health Agency of Canada.
This was something we were looking into in good faith to attempt to discover the factual basis and to see whether the concerns that were raised were dealt with appropriately and whether there were other concerns Canada might have with respect to this matter that were not being properly looked after. In fact, as was pointed out by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, our job, in part, is to ensure that if there is something wrong, and there clearly was something wrong, this kind of activity would not occur again.
This is a normal carrying out of the function of Parliament that is supported by law, by our Constitution and by our rules of procedure. As has been pointed out, it is very well established, but it was not very well established for a long time. It was established by Parliament in the classic and seminal ruling of Speaker Peter Milliken in April 2010, on a case involving the necessity of a parliamentary committee, another special committee, seeking documentation in support of an inquiry into Canada's activities in Afghanistan in relation to its obligations toward prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.
This was of a much higher level of concern and evaluation, and the refusal of the government of the day to make those documents available to the special committee on Afghanistan ultimately resulted in orders of the House and subsequent activities, which I will not go into in detail. However, the importance of the ruling of Speaker Milliken was that, under the Constitution, particularly section 18 of the Constitution, under the Parliament of Canada Act and under the rules and procedures of our House, this was something that very clearly needed to be delineated and was delineated by the Speaker.
This information, of course, was available to our committee and the rulings of our committee. When we made the inquiries that have been outlined by the member for Montarville and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, we did not receive the documents, and the reasons we were given had to do with statutes such as the Privacy Act and some reference to the context of national security. Well, that does not necessarily give rise to concerns about national security, but we were deprived of these documents.
In the ordinary course of the law, the decisions that were made by the Public Health Agency in refusing to make these documents available were, in fact, already determined by parliamentary procedure and by our own procedural rules: that the Privacy Act does not, in fact, relate to a reason for members of Parliament not having access to these documents.
In its report “Access to Information Requests and Parliamentary Privilege”, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs reported, back in 1991, as early as then, that “[s]ince parliamentary privileges form part of the Constitution, laws must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with them, and where there is a conflict between privileges and statutory provisions, the statutory provisions are 'of no force and effect'”. Therefore, assertions by the Public Health Agency of Canada, and by Mr. Stewart on its behalf, that it could not make documents available to members of Parliament on a parliamentary committee have already, in fact, been overruled, ruled to be of no force or effect.
The specific ruling set out in our Constitution Act, 1982, in section 52, says, “The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of that inconsistency, of no force or effect”. What was being presented to our committee by the Public Health Agency of Canada, on behalf of the Government of Canada, was that it was bound by the Privacy Act not to make available documents to us, as members of Parliament, yet our own Constitution clearly says that such laws are of no force or effect.
That is what we were faced with as a committee, which is why it is not a surprise that the members of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, including, as has been pointed out by me, experienced members such as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, the member for Montarville and of course the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was on the committee as well, another senior member of Parliament, and the other members of Parliament unanimously supported a motion to not accept the rationale and reasons given by the Public Health Agency of Canada to refuse to make available documents in a non-redacted form.
We do not often see such definitive statements about legal matters, but it is pretty clear that the ruling of Speaker Milliken, a very seminal ruling that probably stands ahead of all others in the annals of parliamentary democracies under the Westminster model, is important. In the quotations provided to us in the rulings given by Speaker Milliken and other authorities, there are no limits on the powers of committees to require the production of papers by private bodies or individuals, provided the papers are relevant to the work of the committee as defined by reference. When select committees ordered papers to be produced by national industry, private solicitors all provided and produced papers related to a client. Statutory regulators have been ordered to produce papers whose release was otherwise subject to a statutory restriction.
It is clear that Parliament is not bound by this legislation and, as has been ruled, there are no limits on the powers of Parliament to get access to documents. Precautions need to be taken, and I think our committee, in making its motion, and the motion before us today, provide for some provision to ensure that documents will not be made public unless the committee, having had the opportunity to review the documents, is satisfied that they can be made public.
It is clear the motion before the House today indicates that the committee, although it may have the power to make documents public, does not have to do so in order to make recommendations or findings. That would sufficiently protect any national security issue of revealing details of an ongoing investigation. In lieu of making any information public, the committee may still rely on it for the purpose of making findings and recommendations in any subsequent report to the House. I think that is there for a purpose. It is there to ensure the committee can carry out its due diligence under its duty to do so and also hold government to account, and that if this measure needs to be brought to the attention of the House, it can do so without making any information public that should not be made public.
I think we have made it very clear that, under the committee's jurisdiction and under the powers that are granted to it by the constitution, our rulings of Speaker Milliken and the privileges of Parliament, this is within our purview as members of Parliament to carry out this function.
There are some who may not agree with that. I think we have seen arguments made in the past about that, but it is up to the House itself or members of the House to determine the appropriate way to safeguard the national interests in these questions. We have a situation where the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations has the means to do that through the experience of senior members of this House, as well as the advice of the parliamentary law clerk, who is Parliament's lawyer.
The Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel is giving legal advice to members of Parliament. Members of Parliament in this circumstance, represented by four parties in the House that have party status, are all present and have made a unanimous motion calling for these papers to be available to them in fulfilment of their parliamentary duty. It seems to me this is a matter of constitutional and parliamentary concern, as well as an important matter in dealing with Canada's relationship with China. The committee ought to be able to carry out its work and do so in a proper manner.
I regret that certain members of the Liberal Party who have spoken, in particular the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, have sought to turn it into a partisan issue. That is regrettable. We have to recognize there are serious moments in this House when we have to look at the privileges of members of Parliament, take them seriously and put aside partisan differences in the pursuit of ensuring that we have a Parliament that can operate under the rules based on precedents and recognize that in our parliamentary system, Parliament is supreme. It is Parliament that has the ultimate power and control over whether a government is in office or not. This is not a motion of confidence obviously, but it is a question of whether the House ought to support the motion of a committee asking for documents to be made available to it in the ordinary course of conducting its business.
It is clearly a matter properly before the committee. It is one that is of great importance and important enough for a unanimous decision of the committee to pursue this question by having access to the proper documentation that is necessary for it to conduct its study.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the official opposition's motion.
However, we are somewhat concerned about the section that would give committee members the power to decide whether any of the redacted information should be made public. We think that is a problem and would set a dangerous precedent.
Can my colleague reassure us in that regard?
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Under the motion that we moved today, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations would take steps to make absolutely sure that only information that does not jeopardize our national security is shared with the public.
Until now, we have asked the clerk of the committee to verify what is sent over. In the future, committee members would have a discussion to ensure that Canada's interests are protected.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
As my colleagues have said, the Bloc Québécois is mostly in favour of this motion. However, we have a bit of a problem with part (g) because information could be disclosed and could compromise national security if it is made public.
Does my colleague believe that, if members of the special committee release this information, it could set a dangerous precedent?
View Nelly Shin Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, at all times I believe that it is dutiful and responsible in terms of any committee or member disclosing public testimony, but it should be only information that will help the cause. As we know with committee work, it is not a one-man show or a one-woman show. It is a collaborative process. These issues may be raised in that collaborative process.
I believe that the spirit of this motion really is about drawing the line. It is about coming to a place where we can draw the line to finally say that we are tired of the lack of transparency and accountability. Our security could be and is probably at stake to a certain degree, as I shared in my speech. It is a matter of our future and resetting a pathway to more transparency and accountability in our Parliament.
View Gary Vidal Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Chair, I thank the minister for his very thoughtful comments today and for the work he has been doing in the last week on this.
My conversations with indigenous leaders in my riding have identified for me the need for further education and the need to inform people of all ages about the history of Canada and residential schools.
Can the minister inform this House of the specific plans and commitments the government will make to further educate people of all ages about the reality of the history of our country and residential schools?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Chair, it is key to whatever we are doing as a country that it is not just politicians talking about it. Everyone needs to talk about it.
My daughter, on Monday, chased me out with her computer as I was leaving and started telling me about what they were talking about just then, which was the drama and the find in Kamloops. It is what inspired me to say those words. I certainly did not learn it in school. There is so much work to be done in this country.
The member for Cape Breton—Canso spent a good part of his career, as a Mi'kmaq man, fighting for treaty education. We do not do enough of it. The federal government has a role to play in this.
Obviously, education is in the purview of the provincial governments, and there has been some great progress made, but it needs to continue. This search for the truth, this path on reconciliation, which is long and painful, not linear or obvious, is one that has to go through continued efforts to educate and make investments in education.
It should be a very important reflection again as to how far we need to go when it is indigenous people, and it is not on their shoulders to have to educate us. That knowledge is welcome, but we should be educating ourselves and the burden should not be on their shoulders. It is up to everyone. I said that with some hope at the end of my words that we do need to listen to our children, because I have realized in the last few days they know a little more than us.
View Jasraj Singh Hallan Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, Ben Mansoura, a permanent resident who is a senior IT manager from Toronto, had to file an access to information request about himself just to find out if he passed an online citizenship test back in December, and he is not the only one. This is a prime example of a system that is ineffective and inefficient. Frankly, it is harming the mental health of immigrants and Canadians, and also our nation's economy.
Why does the minister continue delaying addressing this inefficient system, causing applicants more hardships?
View Peter Schiefke Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Peter Schiefke Profile
2021-05-28 11:40 [p.7558]
Madam Speaker, openness and transparency in government are essential, and our government takes the protection of Canadians' privacy very seriously.
We have made progress in support of access to information and have backed that with investments that are strengthening our system. Our officials have proactively reached out to the Information Commissioner in order to address any questions they may have.
We are going to continue to ensure access and transparency, and ensure that all of the integrity and privacy that is part of our immigration system stays in place.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
moved that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation), be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are all, whether physically or virtually, present today on the ancestral lands of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
This is not just something we say. The land acknowledgement speaks to the context we are living today, and to the new relationship that we are trying to build through our everyday actions. Like many, I am still in shock about the horrors that have been uncovered at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in B.C. Having the remains of 215 children be at the residential school is horrifying.
The residential school system caused harm to generations of indigenous children and communities. For that, the government has apologized, first in 2008 to former students of residential schools, and in 2017 to former students of Newfoundland and Labrador residential schools, for example. As we are all acutely aware, Canadians continue to witness tragedies perpetuated against indigenous peoples. Racism in Canada is an undeniable reality and reconciliation must be more than apologies.
Reconciliation must be about big legislative actions and smaller gestures. It must be about both everyday actions and bold moves. Reconciliation is a long-term commitment that requires the engagement of all. It is made up of many actions, apologies, commissions, family conversations, school assemblies, community collaborations, conversations with colleagues, friendships, distinction-based policy changes, infrastructure support and commemorations.
There are many opportunities that could be seized for real change. We must act now.
In budget 2019, our government invested $7 million over two years to help non-governmental and community organizations recognize and commemorate the history and legacy of residential schools.
Thanks to this investment, over 200 communities and organizations across the country are receiving funds this year for projects to raise awareness and educate Canadians about this dark chapter of Canada's history.
Budget 2021 also proposes to provide $13.4 million over five years, with $2.4 million ongoing, to Canadian Heritage for events to commemorate the history and legacy of residential schools and to honour survivors, their families and communities, as well as to support celebrations and commemoration events during the proposed national day for truth and reconciliation.
These numbers show that despite the pandemic, the need and interest of communities to be able to honour and commemorate as they see fit are high. People want to tell their stories and they want to stand witness so new stories can be told. They want to honour the survivors. They need to heal and they want to learn so they can act for change.
This kind of groundswell of interest shows that indigenous and non-indigenous people alike recognize the importance of commemorating this history.
This commemoration funding and the creation of a national day for truth and reconciliation reflect the recognition that all histories and cultures are important. These actions speak to our capacity to expose the wrongs of the past so we can face this history and commit to do better.
I think we can all agree that it is important to recognize the profound impact residential schools had on first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
In fact, the Indian Act legislated government control over almost every aspect of indigenous peoples' lives, including mandatory attendance at residential schools. Governments throughout Canada's history continued to uphold legislation and follow policies that perpetuated systemic racism in our society.
With the social upheaval occurring globally, we must harness the generational potential to reduce racism in our world. Residential schools targeted the children. We can turn that on its head and aim to educate the next generation to uphold inclusive values and to prioritize respect above all in communities, in schools, in families and in digital spaces.
The words from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report bear repeating:
All Canadian children and youth deserve to know Canada's honest history, including what happened in the residential schools, and to appreciate the rich history and knowledge of Indigenous nations who continue to make such a strong contribution to Canada, including our very name and collective identity as a country. For Canadians from all walks of life, reconciliation offers a new way of living together.
This statutory holiday helps to build that new way of living together, particularly in the global context of calls for social justice. This day is part of how we build back stronger together. People might ask how one day will make a difference. How will one day that establishes a statutory holiday for a limited number of people make a difference? It is telling that people do not ask these questions about Remembrance Day. Recognizing the selfless sacrifices that veterans made to a global effort against oppression is appropriate and right. Shining a light on a dark history of oppression of our own making is also right. It is uncomfortable, but perhaps it is because it is uncomfortable that we should commit to it.
Dr. Marie Wilson, one of the three commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, spoke to the importance of a national statutory holiday. She said that reconciliation is “very tied to issues of law and public policy”. That signals the importance of reconciliation to those who work on these issues, and that it is valuable.
As we have said before, a national day reveals our priorities. It says that this issue is important and we should be paying attention to it not just on this day, but throughout the year. Just as Remembrance Day is not only for veterans, a national day for truth and reconciliation is not only for first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Just as we honour veterans and highlight our values as a nation on Remembrance Day, we would honour survivors and those lost on the national day for truth and reconciliation, but also reflect on our path as a nation, on our values, on how our values have shifted and on how we can chart a new path for Canada: one that includes everyone who calls these lands home.
In so many ways, our lives and our world have witnessed loss and our realities have been forever changed. There is no doubt that these are complex, difficult times right now, but Canadians do not shy away from the tough issues. Reconciliation is tough, but we can make progress on a just journey together with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The establishment of a national day for truth and reconciliation fulfills call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report. It is an important action to take, and we must act immediately so that this day becomes part of our reality this year.
View Jamie Schmale Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code, a the national day for truth and reconciliation.
Before I begin, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to speak to the very horrible discovery made yesterday afternoon in Kamloops. The news yesterday of the remains of 215 children found buried at a former residential school in Kamloops is tragic beyond words. We, on all sides of the House, wish to express our deepest sympathies to the residents of that first nation and surrounding indigenous communities who are sharing in this trauma.
We also want to acknowledge the deep sorrow and mourning that all indigenous peoples and survivors of residential schools are experiencing at this time. While communities and families grapple with this unthinkable revelation, we must come together in support and provide whatever assistance is necessary to aid in the healing process and to provide whatever resources are needed to protect, honour and identify those children.
Residential schools are a national shame that has had a profoundly lasting and damaging impact on indigenous culture, heritage and language. In the words of former prime minister Stephen Harper:
The Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes, often taken far from their communities. Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed. All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities. First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home.
We have been reminded that more work needs to be done to address the devastating and hurtful effects that residential schools had and still have on many survivors today. I want to echo the words heard earlier this morning in the House, that those who love those children should know the whole of Canada mourns with them and that their loss will never be forgotten.
With that in mind, I would like to turn our attention to the matter at hand, Bill C-5.
This legislation would establish a national day for truth and reconciliation for federally regulated private sector and federal public sector workers that would be observed as a statutory holiday on September 30. Call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls upon the federal government, in collaboration with indigenous peoples, to establish, as a statutory holiday, a national day for truth and reconciliation.
The choice of September 30 builds on the grassroots momentum of Orange Shirt Day, which is already known as a day to remember the legacy of residential schools and move forward with reconciliation. The Conservatives proudly observe National Indigenous Peoples Day every year and encourage Canadians to participate in local gatherings.
Canada is one of only a few countries in the world where indigenous and treaty rights are entrenched in our constitution. Educating Canadians about their rights is an important part of the path to reconciliation. Unfortunately, at times, the Liberals seem to have no plan to develop a reconciliation education strategy to provide Canadians with learning opportunities about indigenous Canadians and the horrific dark chapter in Canada's history of residential schools. We hope that will be quickly remedied.
Other federal holidays, like Remembrance Day, commemorate through educational campaigns. While this bill does not include such a plan, we hope that one will be forthcoming very soon, and I offer my sincere assistance to the minister in helping get that done.
While the Conservative Party supports and has promoted National Indigenous Peoples Day, we believe more needs to be done to advance the rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit people. Encouraging indigenous businesses, building strong economies in indigenous communities, developing indigenous supply chains and giving indigenous kids hope for a brighter future are essential to the future of Canada.
The Conservative Party supports treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with indigenous peoples living in Canada. As mentioned earlier, in 2008, then prime minister Stephen Harper delivered a historic apology to former residential school students, their families and communities for Canada's role in the operation of the schools.
Our former Conservative government also created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as part of the 2007 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which recognized that the Indian residential school system had a profoundly lasting and damaging impact on indigenous culture, language and heritage.
The commission's report reflected the hard work and dedication to building public awareness about resident schools and fostering reconciliation, understanding and respect. The final report of the TRC helped to explain this dark chapter in Canadian history and the calls to action addressed the legacy of the residential schools and advanced the process of reconciliation.
As mentioned, more needs to be done to address the outstanding recommendations in that report. They need to be addressed and addressed quickly so we can get on to doing the hard work of tackling issues that will actually improve the lives of indigenous peoples right across Canada.
There is a lot of support for the bill.
Carlon Big Snake and his wife Lisa, descendants and survivors of the residential school system from Siksika Nation and former member of its chief in council, spoke in support, stating:
We were raised with negative impacts of history... adopting the bill would show the government’s sincerity and commitment of the federal governments to address truth and reconciliation for Indigenous people. “Together we can begin to heal the past and look forward to a united, prosperous future.”
Stacy Allison-Cassin, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto and chair at the Canadian Federation of Library Associations, Indigenous Matters Committee, also spoke in favour of the bill, stating:
Creating a national day of truth and reconciliation will create further weight and impetus for a day of remembering and learning for all Canadians.
My colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, reminded us in his speech at second reading that:
While we say every child matters, we need to remember that all children matter even if they are now adults. We have so many people who are still locked in that time when they were in that program.
On a tragic day when we are reminded of the horrific, shameful history of the resident school system, on a day when we must honour and do what we can to make amends to those children whose lives were tragically cut short, we must also remember that there are many survivors of that system who are now still with us today. We must honour their memories and ensure that the racist, colonial practices of the past are never, ever repeated again.
View Jaime Battiste Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Jaime Battiste Profile
2021-05-28 13:03 [p.7574]
Mr. Speaker, I would like thank the member for his work at INAN.
I am glad the member brought up the need for education to be part of reconciliation moving forward. We all know that provincial governments are in control of their own curriculum.
However, could the member speak to the important education and awareness that we need to create around the indigenous residential schools and how the government can help, working with the provinces, to reflect the changes and the need for more awareness around residential schools?
View Jamie Schmale Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, as a reminder, I am the member's next-door neighbour in the riding. I thank my friend from Nova Scotia for his comments. He does great work on the committee, and it is always a pleasure listening to his experiences and knowledge. I really appreciate the education that all members on the committee continue to receive from him and others.
I agree with the member that we all need to work together. The government needs to work with the provinces to continue to ensure that people of all ages do recognize and acknowledge what happened with the residential school system and what a stain it is in Canadian history. I do not think that is something any Canadian is proud of, and we all need to work harder to ensure that these tragedies are remembered—
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2021-05-28 13:23 [p.7577]
Madam Speaker, I am speaking today from the unceded Coast Salish territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.
Today is a dark, dark day and the dark clouds that hang in the air as we learn of the news in B.C. at the Kamloops residential school just shake us to the core. I cannot imagine what the families and friends of the children must be going through.
We can say we mourn with them, and we send our strength and support as they are confronted with this horrific news and forced to relive the trauma of colonization and the egregious impact of residential schools. These are, of course, words and they are not our family members who have lost loved ones.
However, I do want to say with all my heart, I know that I and all my colleagues, the New Democrats, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc members and the Greens, stand with them. We share their mourning and we take in deeply what this means.
The finding is a reminder that the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation has estimated that more than 150,000 indigenous children attended residential school. The centre also estimates that 4,100 children died at the schools. They are identified in death records, some by name and some not. Let us just imagine, for one minute, if that were our child. The exact number of children who died is not known, as many were taken to residential schools and many never returned.
We must remember this and never forget the generational impact of Canada's shameful history. For us to say these words, we must then redouble our efforts in every single action we do to address this shameful history. Reconciliation cannot just be words. It must be action.
We must also never forget that this is not an indigenous people's problem. It is a Canadian problem. I ask members to remember these words each and every day. That is what I ask for all members of the House. I also ask all Canadians to remember those words and act on those words.
Today, we are speaking to Bill C-5, a bill that would honour indigenous people and set the national day for truth and reconciliation as a statutory holiday. It is a recognition of the call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report states, “Reconciliation is not an [indigenous] problem; it is a Canadian one. Virtually all aspects of Canadian society may need to be reconsidered.”
We, as non-indigenous peoples, must carry these profound words with us each and every day in everything that we do, and, as mentioned, this is particularly significant with the news of what has happened at the Kamloops residential school.
What does it mean for us? There is no question that we need to get this bill passed. I want to honour former MP Georgina Jolibois, who brought forward her own private member's bill in the last Parliament. It went through all three stages in the House, and then, when it went to the Senate, the Senate blocked it. The unelected Senate blocked it and it never became law.
I hope that this does not happen again. I call on the government, the Conservatives and all members of the House to do everything they can to ensure that Bill C-5 becomes law. The NDP is in full support of seeing this expedited through the House of Commons so we can honour indigenous peoples, their history and their culture, and remember the trauma and generational impact of colonization.
However, it is equally important that we truly honour and celebrate them, make a statutory holiday not as a day off, but as a day to learn about indigenous peoples, their culture and their history, and take to heart what it means to show the respect they deserve and that was robbed of them so many years ago.
The call for collective action across Canada in recognition of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and the history of their rights, cultures and languages must be at the heart of our work. They are the first peoples of this land and we must never forget that, whether we are talking about the conflicts going on now, Land Back or issues around rights. We must remember this not only in the face of news about the Kamloops residential school, but as a guide in the work that we do. When we talk about the voices of indigenous peoples, we cannot just say that we consult with them. It must be in the context of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and honouring their inherited rights, acknowledging these and acting on them.
This bill does not address socio-economic challenges faced by indigenous communities, but it is a reflection on colonial history and its current effects on the rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit communities across the country, and that is an important step. Equally important, though, is the question I asked the minister: Why on earth is the Canadian government taking indigenous children to court? His answer was that this was a complex issue. I say that it is not that complex. The government should step up, own up and stop taking indigenous children to court, period. This is something the Canadian government can and must do. That is how to show reconciliation in action and not just in words.
We talk about water safety. Water is sacred. Our lives depend on it, so why are we still dealing with water advisories? The government will say we are making progress. How about that? We are making progress. How is it acceptable that people do not have access to clean, safe drinking water? How is it acceptable that this is happening to indigenous people? How is it acceptable that we are taking this incremental approach to get there?
View Luc Desilets Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Desilets Profile
2021-05-26 18:12 [p.7404]
Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening to discuss Bill C-237, otherwise known as an act to establish a national framework for diabetes.
The purpose of this legislation is to promote and improve access to diabetes prevention and treatment. It is sponsored by my colleague from Brampton South and is going into the third stage, in other words, third reading.
To summarize Bill C-237, it seeks to explain what diabetes and prediabetes are; identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to the prevention and treatment of diabetes; promote research and improve data collection in order to enhance the knowledge and information sharing required to conduct research; and ensure that the Canada Revenue Agency is administering the disability tax credit fairly so that it can help as many persons with diabetes as possible.
The legislation gives the government one year to develop the policy framework, and within five years the government must evaluate its effectiveness and revise it, of course, if necessary.
It should be noted that since 2016 Health Canada's Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control has been managing the diabetes strategy. This plan is very general and contains more policy statements than meaningful measures.
Key aspects are essentially the same as the previous plan. That is why countless organizations are calling for a national plan or framework.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of developing a national framework for diabetes. To oppose it in light of the medical catastrophe that this chronic disease represents would be just wrong.
However, it is imperative that this framework be developed with the demands of Quebec and the provinces in mind and, again, that the division of powers be respected.
In a way, health is a competitive jurisdiction since it involves some overlap between the provincial and federal governments. In the area of health, Quebec must have maximum authority and control. That is what we want and that is what we will have.
The federal government does have a role to play in prevention, and that includes working to stop the rampant obesity rates in this country. Obesity significantly increases a person's chance of becoming diabetic. Although Quebec is doing well compared to the other Canadian provinces and many major countries in the world, one in four Quebeckers is obese and will be obese in the coming years.
Diabetes Canada, the most influential diabetes organization in Canada, does not operate in Quebec. Instead, Quebec is fortunate to have Diabetes Québec, which provides information and support to its members and contributes to research. In 1994, the organization even founded Entraide diabétique du Québec, a separate organization that collects donations to help people with diabetes.
There are three main types of diabetes: type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes. In all three types, the disease is characterized by chronic hyperglycemia, or high blood sugar, which means that the person's glucose levels are too high.
Insulin abnormalities mean that sugar does not enter the body's cells to provide energy, but remains in the bloodstream anyway. This condition, which is lethal if left untreated, has a strong impact on susceptibility to cardiovascular disease, blindness and kidney failure, among others. Obviously, this type of disease can lead to limb amputations due to the factors listed previously.
With 442 million adults affected worldwide, diabetes truly is a global scourge, and Quebec is not spared. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, one in 10 Quebeckers has diabetes or pre-diabetes. The financial burden of diabetes is naturally staggering. According to Quebec's public health department, we are talking about $3 billion a year.
The good news is that almost 90% of type 2 diabetes cases can be prevented or even cured by adopting healthy lifestyle habits. This is why it is imperative to take preventive action by educating people about healthy lifestyle habits, including good nutrition and exercise.
However, we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that the ball is entirely in our court. The sugar lobbies are obviously working hard to slow down, dilute or nip in the bud any form of legislation that might seek to reduce refined sugars.
Legislating for a tax on products containing refined sugar, honest labelling or a restriction on the advertising of these products would prove to be a difficult but necessary task.
Conversely, we must also point out that the diabetes epidemic is a boon for pharmaceutical companies. In 2016, global profits from sales of insulin reached almost $50 billion. It is extremely difficult to conduct an effective prevention campaign when going up against powerful pharmaceutical companies, which boast that they can help people with diabetes live a normal life, even though that may be stretching the truth.
While waiting to win this battle, it is vital that we continue and even redouble our efforts to provide adequate services. Medical research is making great strides, but it is not enough. We also know which communities are the most vulnerable to diabetes. In Quebec and Canada, it is first nations. The rate of diabetes in these communities is five times greater than that in Quebec and Canada.
To address this problem, Health Canada has invested approximately $50 million per year since 1989, mainly through the aboriginal diabetes initiative. Organizations are tasked with working with indigenous peoples to reduce health inequalities. At this time, much more still has to be done, and the federal government will have to invest far more than $50 million a year to reverse the current trend. That, however, is a debate for another day.
It was exactly 100 years ago in Ontario, in the magnificent country of Canada, that insulin was discovered by a team of medical researchers. For their work, Frederick Banting and John Macleod were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine two years later, in 1923.
As a pioneer in diabetes research and its treatment, Canada must have a clear and ambitious national framework. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois's support is contingent on the federal government respecting input from the provinces and Quebec and on the division of powers, which is what the Bloc Québécois wants. We will vote in favour of the bill as is because it does meet all the necessary criteria so far. Bill C-237 does not promise to eradicate the scourge of diabetes within the next few years, but it is a very acceptable solution even so.
Before I wrap up, I want to highlight the work of an organization in my riding, the Association du diabète Laval, Laurentides, which has been working tirelessly since 1984 to educate people about diabetes and share knowledge through presentations and workshops.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank hospitals and clinics in my riding and the rest of Quebec for the work they do every day to fight diabetes.
I applaud the medical professionals responsible for diagnosing and supporting patients with diabetes and improving their quality of life.
Lastly, I want to thank the researchers—
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2021-05-26 18:51 [p.7410]
Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to speak to Bill C-237 on a national framework for diabetes, which was introduced by the member for Brampton South.
I think it is worth pointing out that we are talking about a bill and not a national strategy, even though we have had a lot of discussions about this in the past. The advantage of a bill is that the legal framework makes it possible to ensure better enforcement and better follow-up.
The bill states that the government has one year to establish the strategic framework and that it must assess the effectiveness of this national strategy five years after the report is tabled. That means that the bill already sets out a schedule and includes it in a legal framework, which is a positive step forward.
I am saying that because I am referring to the work that the Standing Committee on Health did after second reading and because my colleague from Montcalm asked the sponsor of Bill C-237, the member for Brampton South, some questions about the difference between what is happening now with the legal framework and the discussions that took place in the past with regard to national strategies. There have been discussions since 2005, and there have been debates about Diabetes 360° since 2018, so we wanted to know why we now need a legislative framework for all of this.
We were told that having a legislative framework is ultimately a good thing. It ensures that these intentions are not just wishful thinking and that there is follow-through.
Ms. Hanson of Diabetes Canada was asked about Diabetes 360°, the strategy that was recommended three times in a row and is also included in budget 2021. She was asked if the government had backed the strategy with funding. She answered that it had not yet done so.
After conducting a study on a national strategy, the Standing Committee on Health issued its recommendations. We tried to determine if these recommendations had been implemented by the government. It was not clear.
Thanks to the work of members, we now have a legislative framework and we can expect, or at least hope for, further outcomes and concrete action to fight diabetes.
I want to talk about Bill C-237 sponsored by the member for Brampton South by quoting from subclause 2(2) and speaking about the concerns that the bill addresses. Paragraph 2(2)(a) states that the national framework must include measures to “explain what diabetes and prediabetes are”. It is important to know this and, as MPs, the bill informs us.
I would like to provide some statistics. Diabetes affects 11 million Canadians. Diabetes Quebec estimates that in Quebec alone, roughly 880,000 people have diabetes, and a quarter of a million do not even realize it. They are living with diabetes without knowing it.
Every day, about 20 Canadians die of complications from diabetes. Diabetes is responsible for roughly 25% of heart operations, 40% of kidney failure, and 50% of non-traumatic limb amputations, even today.
For Canadians with diabetes, the risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 is twice as high, and the risk of dying is three times higher than normal. It is often harder to treat people with diabetes for viral infections because of the blood sugar fluctuations this can cause.
This is also about the people affected by diabetes. One in five adolescents with type 1 diabetes also suffers from depression, which is twice as high as the average. This affects people differently than the illness itself. Diabetes is also the primary cause of blindness in adults under 65. Diabetes has a major impact.
Paragraph 2(2)(b) of the bill states that there must be measures to “identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to the prevention and treatment of diabetes, including clinical practice guidelines”.
The Bloc Québécois position on this is that Bill C-237 must not have an impact on Quebec's jurisdictions. However, we are not against virtue, and I will refer to the principle of the bill, which states that everything must be done in collaboration with the other levels of government, but also with the different stakeholders on the ground.
We hope that this means there will be a better distribution of tasks related not only to diabetes prevention and research, but also to caring for individuals with diabetes.
Paragraph 2(2)(c) of Bill C-237 states that the bill aims to “promote research and improve data collection on diabetes prevention and treatment”. Just today, we adopted Motion No. 38, which calls for the creation of a standing committee on science and research. We expect that this issue will be of interest to the committee and that it can look into diabetes.
Data collection can be done through the Public Health Agency of Canada, which is a federal entity. It is important to do it because Ms. Hanso of Diabetes Canada mentioned in committee that currently, in Canada, it is difficult to say how many of the people who have been diagnosed with diabetes have type 1 and how many have type 2. Apparently that is not yet clear.
Prevention is especially important, because over 50% of cases of type 2 diabetes are preventable. The importance of prevention in this context is vital.
Paragraph 2(2)(d) of Bill C-237 requires measures to “promote information and knowledge sharing in relation to diabetes prevention and treatment”. In terms of prevention, some things fall specifically under federal jurisdiction, like the labelling of less healthy, sugary products. That is part of disease prevention, and it falls under federal jurisdiction.
As I mentioned earlier, regarding the importance of coordination, that has to be done with the provincial governments or health officials, indigenous groups and other stakeholders, to be sure to avoid any duplication in the services offered and in terms of responsibilities. We have to make sure no one falls through the proverbial cracks.
Paragraph 2(2)(e) of Bill C-237 requires measures to “take into consideration any existing diabetes prevention and treatment frameworks, strategies and best practices, including those that focus on addressing health inequalities”. It is worth taking a moment to discuss the situation of indigenous people. For various reasons, in some communities, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is four to five times higher than in the general population.
Investments have been made in the past to try to correct this situation, but we can expect a national framework to be more effective, particularly in three areas. In terms of prevention, we must ensure that awareness campaigns on healthy living are conducted in the communities. We also need better screening to ensure that residents of indigenous communities who have diabetes without realizing it can receive treatment quickly and avoid complications. It is also important to ensure that the treatments adhere to the guidelines and that a consistent approach is taken in order to reduce mortality and comorbidity, since this is a matter that may fall under federal jurisdiction.
Paragraph 2(2)(f) of Bill C-237 reads as follows:
ensure that the Canada Revenue Agency is administering the disability tax credit fairly and that the credit, in order to achieve its purposes, is designed to help as many persons with diabetes as possible.
As we know, the expenses associated with diabetes are very high. It can cost people with diabetes more than $1,500 per year. It has been reported that 30% of Canadians with diabetes cannot follow prescribed treatments because of the cost. These aspects speak to the relevance of Bill C-237.
Bills like this remind us that it is important for members to work together. It is nice to see something other than what happens during question period, to remind us that we can achieve a great deal when we work together. It also gives us the opportunity to learn more about one another. For instance, I learned that the member for Brampton South is a trained cardiology technologist and worked in health care for 18 years. I saw how much she cares about this issue.
In closing, I want to emphasize the wonderful collaboration we have seen on this issue with a quotation from my colleague from Repentigny, who is a member of the all-party diabetes caucus. She often says this in another context, but I think it really applies here: “If you want to go fast, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together”.
I hope that we will be able to go a lot further to tackle diabetes, for we will have done it by working together as parliamentarians.
View Todd Doherty Profile
CPC (BC)
View Todd Doherty Profile
2021-05-14 12:12 [p.7246]
Madam Speaker, federal leadership on this pandemic has been confusing and chaotic every step of the way. The risk is low, the risk is high; do not wear masks, wear masks; we are not closing the borders, we are closing the borders. Canadians just want their lives back.
Yesterday, the CDC issued guidance that fully vaccinated Americans could ditch the mask if they were outdoors or indoors. That is how we combat vaccine hesitancy. In Canada, we are just not that fortunate.
How do the lives of half-vaccinated Canadians change? Does anything change? Is there any guidance on this or is that too much to ask?
View Todd Doherty Profile
CPC (BC)
View Todd Doherty Profile
2021-05-14 12:14 [p.7246]
Madam Speaker, federal leadership on this pandemic has been confusing and chaotic every step of the way. The risk is low, the risk is high; do not wear masks, wear masks; we are not closing the borders, we are closing the borders. Canadians just want their lives back.
Yesterday, the CDC issued guidance that fully vaccinated Americans could ditch the mask if they were outdoors or indoors. That is how we combat vaccine hesitancy. In Canada, we are just not that fortunate.
How do the lives of half-vaccinated Canadians change? Does anything change? Is there any guidance on this or is that just too much to ask?
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, every country around the world is looking at life post-COVID, and Canada is no exception. We all want to return to normal.
Our government has been working hard with provinces and territories to provide the best science and evidence-based guidance. In fact, we will have more to say on this later today.
However, I want to remind Canadians that the best way to get through this pandemic is to keep signing up for vaccinations and to follow local public health measures.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the federal government approved an unprecedented four-month delay between doses of vaccine due to supply, meaning that few Canadians are fully vaccinated against COVID. The federal government has not issued any clear advice for half-vaccinated Canadians about their level of protection, their risk of transmitting COVID and what restrictions do or do not apply to them.
Given the Prime Minister's announcement of a half-vaccinated summer, what official public health advice does the federal government have for half-vaccinated Canadians regarding what they can or cannot do?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure where to start with that mixed bag of half-truths and falsehoods, but I will start with this.
Here is what we do know: Vaccines save lives and they stop the spread of COVID. They are a critical tool in getting our lives back to normal.
I want to thank all of the immunizers across the country who are working so hard to get vaccines into Canadians' arms. In fact, we are doing a phenomenal job. We see that we are one of the fastest immunizers in the G7. We see Canadians stepping up in unprecedented ways to take a vaccination when it is offered to them.
I would encourage Canadians to continue to get vaccinated. It will save their own lives, it will help stop the spread in their community, and we will have a much better summer and fall.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, thank you for that advice to the health minister.
Even though only 3% of Canadians are fully vaccinated, by now Canadians should have advice from the federal government on what they can look forward to once fully vaccinated. This also applies to half-vaccinated Canadians, given the proclamation of a half-vaccinated summer. Countries around the world are doing this. This type of hope will incent people to get the vaccines.
What advice does the federal government have for half-vaccinated Canadians, or fully vaccinated Canadians, regarding what they can or cannot do?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that vaccines save lives and they stop the spread of disease. I think Canadians know that we need to get to the finish line together. Canadians have made extraordinary sacrifices for each other. Now they are stepping up to the plate and getting vaccinated when it is their turn. That is how we will see a light at the end of this tunnel.
I am so proud of all the immunizers around the country who are working so hard to get immunization to Canadians, no matter where they live. We are going to reach that finish line, and we will get there together.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Quebec and Ontario have suspended the first dose of AstraZeneca, and four other provinces are preparing to follow suit. Canadians who got the first dose are worried. They want to know if they will have to get a second AstraZeneca shot, if they can get Pfizer or Moderna for their second shot, or if they have to start all over and get two doses of another vaccine.
Can the government give us a clear and simple answer?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, the Canadian response has been guided by health, evidence and science. This is no different. We know that many provinces are pausing the delivery of AstraZeneca.
I will say this. It is important for Canadians to get vaccinated as soon as they are offered a vaccine. This is how we will save lives, stop the spread and get our lives back. I am certain that provinces will do their absolute best to make sure that no doses go unused.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, is it normal for me to have to ask the Minister of Health how it works? From the beginning, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have often contradicted the National Advisory Committee on Immunization and Theresa Tam.
I will ask my question again. What should people who got the first dose of AstraZeneca do? Will they have to take a second dose of AstraZeneca? Can they get Pfizer or Moderna for their second dose? Do they have to start over and get two doses of another vaccine? Can the minister answer me? Does she know, yes or no?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, we see a pattern from the Conservative Party of politicians wanting to interfere with the work of scientists, regulators and researchers.
I will tell my colleagues that every vaccine that is authorized for use in Canada is safe. Canadians are stepping up in unprecedented ways. I myself have been immunized with AstraZeneca. I look forward to getting a second dose as soon as I am eligible. That is what Canadians are doing. They are stepping up to help each other, help themselves and stop the spread of COVID-19.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
View Raquel Dancho Profile
2021-05-12 14:38 [p.7107]
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has presided over the delivery of unclear and changing advice on the AstraZeneca vaccine. There have been supply problems with the company that the federal government has not addressed, and now some provinces have stopped using this vaccine altogether.
What happens now for Canadians who have received one dose of AstraZeneca? Should they be getting a second dose of AstraZeneca, or will they be able to? Should they be getting two doses of Pfizer or Moderna, or will there be some sort of mix or combination of vaccines? It has been really unclear from the Liberal government what the steps forward are for AstraZeneca, so I would ask for clarity on this from the Prime Minister.
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-12 14:38 [p.7108]
Mr. Speaker, for absolute clarity, every vaccine approved by Health Canada is safe and effective. Canadians who got any dose of any vaccine have been doing their part to reduce cases. It is a good thing, moving forward.
Scientists and health officials are leaning in carefully on what the next steps are and what the best recommendations are, going forward. We will ensure that they work closely with provincial health officers on delivering the doses that are needed for Canadians in the coming months.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
View Raquel Dancho Profile
2021-05-12 14:39 [p.7108]
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Prime Minister is refuting the announcements by the Provinces of Alberta and Ontario on AstraZeneca, but it is really not clear. I am going to ask him again for clarity concerning a provincial response, what he said and what his advisers have told Canadians.
Again, will folks who have received the first dose of AstraZeneca, as he has, be able to receive a second dose of AstraZeneca, or will they be receiving two doses of Pfizer or Moderna? Are they going to be getting some combination? It has been very unclear from the get-go on this vaccine, so I am just asking the Prime Minister for some clarity on the AstraZeneca vaccine.
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-12 14:40 [p.7108]
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that politicians should be delivering health advice, but the best advice that I have heard from my doctor and others is that people who have received one dose of AstraZeneca can very well, and should very well, get a second dose of AstraZeneca. As recommendations change and as people look at different courses and options around the world, we will have more data and continue to update people on the recommended path. I can assure everyone that those who got the AstraZeneca vaccine, as I did and as did the Leader of the Opposition and other party leaders, did the right thing and will continue to be well cared for in the way forward.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to carry on with the line of questions my colleague just asked.
As the Prime Minister has received his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, will he be getting a second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, two doses of Pfizer or Moderna, or one dose of Pfizer or Moderna in the future? Which one will it be?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-12 14:44 [p.7109]
Mr. Speaker, I will assure the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill that I talked to my doctor just last week, and he recommended that I get a second dose of AstraZeneca in the coming weeks or months when it becomes available and when my turn comes up in the province of Ontario. That is what I am focused on doing.
I know questions are being asked around the world about the data that involves mixing and matching doses. There are no recommendations around that yet, but I know scientists are leaning in carefully to see if it may be the right option for many people.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister and the government recommending that people who received the first dose of AstraZeneca get a second dose of AstraZeneca, with that comment he just made, or is he advising them to contact their doctor?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-12 14:44 [p.7109]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government do not make health recommendations. That is not my job. I shared what the member asked for, which was what advice I personally got from my doctor. I certainly encourage all Canadians to talk to their doctors, who will then be informed by experts and doctors in their jurisdictions, in their provinces and territories, and by the national guidance from NACI and from Health Canada. That is the best way to move forward.
People should not take recommendations from politicians, particularly not Conservatives. They should take recommendations from their doctors and the experts.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the experts are the regulators at Health Canada and NACI, which both report into the government or the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister just stood in the House and said that he would be getting a second dose of AstraZeneca based on his doctor's advice.
Based on the experts at Health Canada and NACI who report into him, would he stand by that advice?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-12 14:45 [p.7109]
Mr. Speaker, I highlighted that I spoke with my doctor and he said that he expected that in the coming weeks, whenever that comes up, I would get a second dose of AstraZeneca. We will, he will and others will of course be following the updated guidance that I am sure will continue to evolve from recommendations by experts on what the right path forward is. However, Canadians need to be reassured that every step of the way their health and safety is at the forefront of all recommendations. Every vaccine distributed in Canada is approved by Health Canada, because it is safe and effective.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, again, Health Canada and NACI report into the government and the Prime Minister. He would have access to their advice. He has access to a family physician's advice, which many Canadians do not.
Therefore, I am wonder if he can tell Canadians who, like him, received the first dose of AstraZeneca two things: if they should be waiting for supply to get a second dose of AstraZeneca based on what Health Canada and NACI said; and whether AstraZeneca ever plans to deliver a dose of vaccine to Canada, but particularly whether they should be waiting to get their first dose of AstraZeneca, as his family physician advised.
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-12 14:47 [p.7109]
Mr. Speaker, vaccines are rolling out across the country right now. We will have received 50 million doses of vaccine by the end of June. We will continue to make recommendations. We will continue to see Health Canada, NACI and provincial deciders making recommendations about how and when all Canadians can get vaccinated.
However, I will take this moment to thank everyone who has stepped up and gotten a first dose of vaccine, congratulate the many who have already received their two doses of vaccine and encourage everyone else to get vaccinated as soon as possible, so we can have a much better summer.
View Tim Louis Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Tim Louis Profile
2021-05-11 14:17 [p.7056]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to recognize a campaign launched by the Canadian Live Music Association and one that holds a special place in my heart. I have been a professional musician my entire adult life and understand that making a living as an artist is challenging at the best of times. The pandemic has had a devastating impact on live events, with every stage in the world going dark.
The Canadian Live Music Association launched the awareness campaign #ForTheLoveOfLive, which is focused on the impacts felt by our artists, festival and concert employees, venues, promoters, talent agencies, production crews and many others.
Everyone associated with the live events industry has our support and respect for the resilience they are demonstrating. We all have cherished memories connected with live music and events. Let us show our support by posting messages with #ForTheLoveOfLive. We look forward to the day when live performances return and all the world is a stage once again.
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
2021-05-10 15:04 [p.6961]
Mr. Speaker, the vaccine rollout is in full swing, with millions of vaccines arriving in Canada every week.
Starting Friday, residents of Quebec aged 18 and up can receive their first dose. As more and more Canadians become eligible to receive a vaccine, it is important that we continue to encourage them to get vaccinated when it is their turn.
Would the hon. Minister of Health tell the House what the government is doing to combat vaccine hesitancy?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. The vaccines are an important tool in the fight against COVID-19.
In February, we announced $64 million to help Canadians get reliable information about vaccines. All of the vaccines are approved by Health Canada as safe and effective against COVID-19.
I encourage all Canadians to get vaccinated because the vaccine protects them and their loved ones.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, we are a year in and many people are struggling with COVID. They rely on expert advice. I will quote just one person's frustration regarding vaccine messaging: “I am so tired. I was excited to get my first vaccine and suddenly I am told it is not the preferred dose. Now I’m questioning why I was told to take the first dose available. In the meantime, my 92-year-old father can’t get his second shot as advised.”
When will the minister take responsibility for these failures in communication and delivery?
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, Canadians can rest assured that the approval and authorization of vaccine use in this country is left up to the world-renowned regulators at Health Canada. All vaccines that are authorized go through a rigorous testing process for safety and effectiveness, and that review continues even as vaccines are distributed.
Vaccines are an important tool for getting through this virus, and we encourage all Canadians to get a vaccine as soon as it is their turn.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2021-05-07 13:32 [p.6920]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-210 at third reading. I have already spoken to this bill in the past, last November.
This bill seeks to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act to allow the CRA to enter into agreements with the provinces and territories to collect, via income tax returns, any information that Quebec and the provinces require to establish or maintain an organ donor registry. The second part of the bill would allow the CRA to disclose this information to the provinces and territories with which it has entered into an agreement.
I will discuss three different aspects of this bill. First, I will lay out our party's position on this matter. Then I will describe the state of organ donation in Quebec, Canada and the world, and share some examples of cases. Finally, I will talk a little about the ongoing difficulties caused by the pandemic for organ donation.
I will start by stating the Bloc Québécois's position even though this bill will not affect Quebec at all. Let me explain. We still want Quebec to administer its own single tax return. That is no secret. Even though we have not yet made that happen, Quebec can get all the information it needs to have its own income tax return. The Bloc Québécois therefore has no problem with this bill, but Quebec is unlikely to want to enter into an agreement with the Canada Revenue Agency because Quebec, as I said, already has its own tax return.
Let me reiterate that what the Bloc Québécois wants is to implement a single tax return—I am giving a shout-out to my colleague from Joliette—that is administered by Quebec, which means that this bill would not affect Quebec at all. Even if Quebec wanted to enter into an agreement, we would have no problem with the idea of sharing this information. Quebec is free to enter into an agreement or not. This bill does not commit Quebec to anything or limit it in any way. Allowing the Canada Revenue Agency to collect information as part of an agreement with a participating province and sharing that information with the provinces is not a problem. It actually makes sense because the CRA handles all the tax returns outside Quebec.
I will give a few examples where that has already been put in place in Canada. Nova Scotia recently passed a law to reverse consent for organ donation. Nova Scotians are now deemed to be consenting unless they state otherwise. Nova Scotia's decision to adopt this policy of presumed consent to organ donation has pushed some provinces to consider whether that is the best solution to increase the number of donors. Survivors and loved ones think that it is, but the answer is not that simple for some experts.
Nova Scotia adopting legislation that assumes all citizens are organ donors has given the rest of the country something to think about. The Premier of Nova Scotia, Stephen McNeil, hopes that his initiative will snowball, but for now, nothing is certain. While New Brunswick is looking at the idea closely, the governments of Quebec and British Columbia will be closely monitoring what happens in Nova Scotia, and Ontario says it is happy with its system.
Some European countries like France and Spain adopted presumed consent several years ago. At this time, the data do not show a clear correlation between presumed consent and an increase in the number of donors. Marie-Chantal Fortin, a nephrologist and bioethicist at CHUM, said that it is a simple solution to a complex problem. She pointed out that countries with presumed consent like Spain have excellent organ donation rates, yet the United States, which does not have presumed consent, also has a similarly high organ donation rate.
What experts do agree on is that better training is needed for medical teams and, above all, people need to talk about organ donation with their friends and family. This is yet another argument for improving funding for the health care system.
This debate is gaining momentum in Quebec. I once had the opportunity to witness a heated debate on this topic at a policy convention. Quebeckers are supposed to indicate on their health card whether they consent to organ donation in the event of death. Quebec has all the information it needs to improve the situation.
According to experts, increasing the supply of organs would be very helpful, but we need more doctors who specialize in organ and tissue retrieval and transplants. This brings us back to the subject that the Bloc Québécois is still advocating for, which is the importance of increasing health transfers to Quebec and the provinces. It is only logical. Without additional funding, it would be difficult for Quebec and the provinces to have these medical specialists. The federal government had a chance to increase these transfers in the latest budget, but all we heard was radio silence.
In addition, the number of potential donors is relatively limited, which further complicates things. Statistics drawn from current events speak for themselves. There is not enough supply to meet the demand. Even though the number of transplants has increased by 33% over the past 10 years, there is still a shortage of organs in Canada, according to the latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, or CIHI.
In 2008, 4,351 Canadians were on a transplant waiting list according to CIHI figures. In the same year, 2,782 organ transplants were performed in Canada, and 223 people died while waiting for transplants.
The increased need for organ transplantation is in part being driven by the rising number of Canadians diagnosed with end-stage kidney disease, which went up 32% over the 10 years studied. One of the reasons for the increased number of transplants is that many countries have expanded deceased organ donation practices beyond brain death cases to include donation after cardiac death, meaning the heart has permanently stopped beating.
This has led to an increase of almost 430% in the number of donation-after-cardiac-death organs used for transplantation, from 42 in 2009 to 222 in 2018. The number of donors after brain death also increased by 21% between 2009 and 2018. That is an encouraging trend, given that a deceased donor can provide up to eight organs.
Data published by CIHI also reveal that there were 555 living donors in Canada in 2018. These are people who donated a kidney or a lobe of liver. There were also 762 deceased donors in Canada. The number of deceased donors increased by 56% between 2009 and 2018, whereas the number of living donors remained stable.
I will now talk about a few cases. I was recently very touched by the testimony of a mother who spoke about her son, Justin Lefebvre, who drowned at a party. He unfortunately died far too young. As we can read on the website, Justin, who was eight years old, became a superhero because, by donating his organs, he saved the lives of four children and helped them regain their health. One of his friends and his family had the idea of creating a foundation to honour his memory, but especially to promote organ donation, increase awareness and raise money for research. I therefore invite members to visit the Fondation Justin Lefebvre website to find out more about this touching story. His mother also wrote a book about his story, which I recommend reading.
I also already talked about Sammy, a young boy from Montreal who was diagnosed four years ago with Kawasaki syndrome, a childhood illness that leads to heart complications. He has been living with a new heart for three years now. He is in good health and obviously believes in mandatory organ donation.
Linda Paradis's life was turned upside down at age 60, more than two years ago, when her lungs started to deteriorate. This active businesswoman from Quebec suddenly learned she had a few weeks to live. She ended up getting a double lung transplant. She believes in presumed consent, but knows that no doctor can remove organs without the family's consent.
I would like to add that the pandemic has exacerbated problems with organ donation. According to an article published in July 2020, the organ donation rate is the lowest it has been in five years because of COVID-19. The provincial organization responsible for organ management counted only two people who donated organs to save five patients in April 2020, while the number of donors was already low. Despite the resumption of activities in April, Transplant Québec noticed a 50% drop in the number of organ donors and a 60% drop in transplants for the second quarter of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.
In closing, I hope that we can come up with better solutions in this debate so that we can save lives without feeling uncomfortable talking about the signature on the back of the card. I invite people to visit the Facebook page “Le Don d'organes parlons-en, parlez-en”. Beyond just talking about it, however, I would suggest that we do something about it.
View Doug Shipley Profile
CPC (ON)
Currently, 4,600 Canadian are awaiting a life-saving organ transplant. Polls have shown that 90% of Canadians approve of organ and tissue donation, but the reality is about only 25% of Canadians have registered their consent with the province or territorial registry where they live. This creates numerous issues that I will address shortly, but Bill C-210 is simple. The legislation asks Canadians when filing their taxes if they consent to having the provincial or territorial government informed of their desire to be added to the organ and tissue donor registry in the province or territory.
One hurdle to this is that currently the Canada Revenue Agency forbids the use of the income tax form for any purpose other than tax administration. For this simple change to be implemented, asking a simple question regarding organ and tissue donation, a legal exemption needs to be created. This has been done before to allow Elections Canada to ask Canadians for updated contact information, so it is not out of context.
Making a simple line addition to the tax form would have little to no cost implications and it would not infringe on any provincial jurisdictional concerns or create any privacy concerns. The legislation would allow for the use of established protocols for information sharing between the federal government and provinces as they currently use an encrypted method to share sensitive information. Another reason that this simple addition to the tax form makes sense is that we see the current voluntary method of registering is not proactive or effective.
Another unfortunate complicating factor with donation, particularly when someone passes away, is a grey area that exists for hospitals and families. Sometimes there is confusion between family and what exactly the wishes of the deceased are with respect to organ and tissue donation.
In the Standing Committee on Health report on organ donation in Canada, Dr. Levy, vice-president of Medical Affairs and Innovation at Canadian Blood Services, says, “it behooves us not to miss the opportunity...to use that donation of an organ or set of organs.”
In 2016, 260 Canadians died while waiting for a transplant. While Canada has seen an uptake in living and deceased organ donations, Canada ranks among the top 20% of countries in the world when it comes to deceased donor rates. It was also noted that those rates were half the rate of some other high-performing countries in the world, for example, Spain.
Dr. Levy noted to the committee “Our living donation rate, on the other hand, compares quite favourably internationally...Canada ranked 14th internationally for living donors in 2016”, even with the rates declining or staying stagnant. We can do better; we need to do better. If we do not make changes now, the issue is only going to get worse.
Currently, donation rates are not meeting the needs of patients' needs. There is a fragmented approach across the country with respect to donation programs and some areas are considered the gold standard while others are facing challenges. It is incumbent upon us in the House to ensure that provinces have the tools to deliver for those in need. Supporting the private member's bill of my colleague from Calgary Confederation is the smartest and most effective way of doing that right now.
Several issues with respect to organ donation in Canada were highlighted to the committee in testimony. Some gaps in the systems and reporting and classification of the need and type of donation needed are a couple.
A couple of things jumped out to me as I was researching for this topic. The total annual costs of dialysis range from $56,000 to $107,000 per patient, where the cost of a transplant is about $65,000 in year one and $23,000 in subsequent years. It is estimated the health care system would save up to $84,000 per patient per transplant annually.
The National Transplant Research Program explained to the committee that organ transplantation was not only a treatment option for people facing organ failure, it was becoming the preferred treatment for ailments such as type I diabetes, kidney disease, cystic fibrosis, heart failure and congenital heart disease, lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia.
Giving the provinces the ability to obtain accurate and up-to-date information on donation intentions allows them to ensure their wait-lists are accurate. Knowing who intends to donate through a legally binding declaration would further address consistency for provinces when it comes to measuring and reporting those willing to donate so that they can better prepare. The member for Calgary Confederation's private member's bill would address all of these. This is not a political issue. As my colleague said in his original speech in the previous session, this is a human issue.
Anyone in this House, family or friends, could need donor organs or tissue at any time. Adding a simple line item to the tax form could save hundreds of lives. If we couple that with increased public education and awareness, we could see even more registrations. We saw in the fall of 2018, in the tragic accident with the Humboldt hockey team, that one of the victims, young Logan Boulet, had registered for a donation. That donation saved six lives, as Ms. Ronnie Gavsie, President and Chief Executive Officer, Trillium Gift of Life Network noted at committee when testifying.
The time has come for this legislation to pass this House and the Senate. My colleague from Calgary Confederation has spoken eloquently and dedicated his efforts to his friend, Robert Sallows. The legislation has received support from all parties in this House and stakeholders have been universally supportive of the bill. Families who have loved ones awaiting this are welcoming this legislation. It is now up to everyone in this House to make sure that we do not delay this much-needed legislation any further. We owe it to the hundreds of people who pass away every year on the wait-list. We owe it to the organizations on the front lines and we owe it to the provinces to give them the tools they need to adequately support and deliver their donation programs.
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
Madam Speaker, May is Skin Cancer Awareness Month, and with summer just around the corner, the Save Your Skin Foundation is focusing on increasing awareness and promoting treatment for skin cancer. My wife Kelly is a melanoma skin cancer survivor. While she was fortunate enough to beat it, many others have lost their battle to the stealthy disease, and many others continue fighting.
It was estimated that in 2020 approximately 8,000 Canadians would be diagnosed with melanoma and 1,300 would die from it. Sadly, these numbers rise every year. Skin cancer is caused by overexposure to UV radiation, with the sun and artificial tanning beds being the main culprits. In the past, I tabled a private member's bill that prohibited youth under 18 from using tanning beds and strengthened warning labels on artificial tanning equipment as carcinogenic. This was enacted by our previous Conservative government.
The good news is that prevention is easy. This summer, I encourage all Canadians to enjoy the great outdoors and be skin safe: Wear sun screen, cover up, seek shade, avoid tanning beds and, of course, have lots and lots of fun.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, given the need for clear, transparent and effective communications on advice regarding vaccine efficacy and safety, what concrete action has the Minister of Health undertaken this week to correct deficiencies and better coordinate public communications between NACI, PHAC, Health Canada, her office and cabinet?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I think we have been extremely clear throughout this vaccination process that vaccines do indeed save lives and stop the spread. I want to thank Public Health Ontario for its recent reporting, which demonstrated exactly that. I will continue to say that in this House. Certainly, public health leaders are saying that.
We know Canadians are stepping up to the plate. They are getting vaccinated. We will continue to deliver the vaccines to the provinces and territories. We will continue to be partners in getting those vaccines into arms. We can see the finish line, and we need to get there together.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, no, the advice on vaccines from the federal government this week has not been clear. The confusing communications regarding vaccines the federal government has presided over cannot be allowed to continue, and the person who has the responsibility to make sure this happens is the Minister of Health.
Can she acknowledge there is a problem and tell us what action she has taken, or will be taking, to correct deficiencies and better coordinate public communications between NACI, PHAC, Health Canada, her and her office, and cabinet?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I will be perfectly clear. Vaccines are indeed saving lives and stopping the spread of COVID-19. That is the goal that I think every member in this House would agree is an important one and that we are all striving for.
I will repeat this again: It is important that Canadians accept the first vaccine that is offered to them. If Canadians are questioning if vaccination is right for them, the best place to get credible information is from their health care provider or from a government website at the provincial, federal or municipal level. There are many players working to vaccinate Canadians. I would encourage all members in this House to get vaccinated when it is their turn and to encourage their constituents to do so as well.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it really sort of stinks to be interrupted in the middle of that, because that is the key message here: My community cannot afford lockdown. Everybody wants to do their part, everybody wants to stop the spread of COVID, everybody understands how serious it is, but we need a durable solution, which has not been delivered to us, and the federal government has a major role in that.
What does the federal government need to do from a solutions perspective?
First, the government needs a stable supply of vaccines. The provincial government, every provincial government in the country, has seen supplies, like Lucy and the football from the Charlie Brown cartoon series, where vaccines are coming, but then they are not. We have not had a single dose of AstraZeneca delivered from the actual contract with the manufacturer. It has only been raided from COVAX, or charity from the Americans, or from the Serum Institute of India. We need to provide more details to the provinces about the future of vaccine rollouts. There needs to be stability. Again, every week, the numbers seem to change, and that is not going to provide a durable solution.
Having the public be able to look at the details of contracts so that Parliament can understand whether or not the government is doing its job in holding manufacturers to account on recourse could have been part of it as well. However, the federal government has not been transparent on that, and Parliament has not been able to do its job because of it.
I implore the health minister, and I know she may not like me, but she needs to talk to Health Canada, PHAC and NACI and get their act together on the confusing messaging that is coming out on vaccine efficacy and safety. It is her job. She needs to pull those people in together, knock their heads together a little bit and say, “What happened this week can never happen again.” It has happened numerous times now, and she needs to take a leadership role so that Canadians can have trust in public health institutions, and so that the debacle that happened this week does not happen again.
The government also needs to come up with some better use or national strategy for rapid testing. I think the federal government has really kind of wiped its hands of that. It could be providing advice and support for advice on that, but that has not happened. Even things like using rapid tests in airports for domestic travel are something that the government has not looked into. There could be more approval of over-the-counter rapid tests or home-purchased rapid tests. We have not seen that happen. Again, I understand that the regulator has to do due diligence on that, but certainly we can have diligence and a good review process to give more tools to people to stop the spread.
We could remove the hotel quarantine policy. It has been such an unmitigated disaster. We are hearing reports of COVID spreading in these facilities. I mean, I could litigate all the failures around the border, but how do we move forward from this, given the failures? There will be a time for inquiry, but moving forward the government could immediately cut down on the list of those who are exempted from quarantine until more vaccines can be deployed. It could limit those who are exempted to a very small number of critical workers, like truck drivers, and prioritize access to vaccines for those persons. It could put in place measures to ensure that every person entering Canada is required to be tested upon arrival, including at land and sea borders, with exemptions only for critical workers who are fully vaccinated.
The government could develop a clear set of parameters for identifying risks presented by emerging variants and present this to the public in an easy-to-understand format. I do not understand why we do not have a Defcon level ranking system for when variants are emerging, and why that is not being communicated to the public in terms of travel or even around essential travel. It is like, “The risk is low, but it is not.” The confusing messaging that the Auditor General rightly criticized the Public Health Agency of Canada for issuing at the front end of the pandemic could be fixed.
Also, we could provide a data-driven plan to provinces and Canadians on how and when lockdown measures will be lifted. The federal government still has not provided any benchmarking for what fully vaccinated persons could do. If we start telling the public what fully vaccinated persons can do, there will be more uptake of vaccines. For those who are having mental health challenges, there will be some hope in knowing that, “Okay, when I get both of my doses, I can do this.”
However, we know that is not coming forward, I would surmise, because the federal government does not have a line of sight on when everybody will be fully vaccinated, because of the shortage and because of concerns about what the dosing delay is going to mean for long-term efficacy. That needs to be solved.
I cannot stress enough how critical this is for the people in my community in Alberta, who have long-sufferingly provided support to the rest of the country through hundreds of billions of dollars in payments to the federal government and have not received a lot in return. We get forgotten by the federal government all the time. In these instances, at these times, casting aspersions or finger pointing or playing politics between the NDP and the provincial government is not going to cut it. What we need is a plan.
I wish I had three hours to talk about all the things that we could be doing right now that the federal government and the provincial government are not, but I do not. Suffice it to say, there are things that could be done that we are not doing, and I implore the federal government, I implore the health minister to put these things aside and start understanding that everything is not fine. It is not okay. We are not in a position of success federally in this country, and more must be done. That is why I needle the government every day. That is why I prep for committee, and that is why I hold the government to account, because we can and must do better.
Instead of casting aspersions that somehow Alberta is to blame, that the spread that is happening is the fault of the people of my province, legislators and leaders in this country need to start standing up and doing their job: being stricter on the border, doing better on vaccines, having better data, supporting people more effectively and giving them hope for when this is going to be over. I cannot say enough how hard it is to be in one of the hardest-hit communities in the country right now. It breaks my heart. It is the place from which I get up in the House of Commons every day and ask questions and demand better.
I implore the federal government to do this on behalf of every single Albertan who is listening to this tonight. We need more vaccines. We need a clear line of sight. We need clear communications, and we need the federal government to stop patronizing us in its response. When we are holding it to account and demanding better, that is its job, and hopefully there will be a solution for Albertans because of the work of everybody in Parliament who is doing their job here tonight.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the member opposite did not support a motion to provide support and benchmarks for a clear path out of the pandemic and out of lockdown, such as what vaccinated persons can do or deploying more rapid tests. This is what we need.
I fully and deeply support ensuring that front-line workers have the resources they need to ensure that they can isolate. Often they do not have that right now, but we are a year and a half into this and we are talking about more programs to keep people at home. We should be talking about how we are getting them back to work safely through vaccination.
I am worried at this point. I think one of the cabinet ministers was talking about what would happen if there was a fourth wave. What? People need hope. They need to know when we are getting out of this. They need to understand what the path forward is and when they are getting those tools. That is what we need the federal government to be working on right now collaboratively with our provincial partners.
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
Then we see the members opposite trying to pivot the blame. They say that Conservatives spread the misinformation. I have dozens of pages of clear examples, numerous examples of inconsistent messaging and changing direction. The fact is that even the member for Kingston and the Islands said very clearly that had we gotten more vaccines, we would not be having this debate. A number of the Liberal members opposite have said things like “Well, we only want to talk about vaccines.” Well, it seems like the Liberals only wanted to stop talking about vaccines when their failures on the procurement of those vaccines became widespread. Then, all of a sudden, Canadians were seeing the consequences of that, and we see that now. This truly is the Prime Minister's third wave.
I think back to the beginning of the pandemic, when I, among many other Conservatives, started asking questions about securing our borders. They were valid questions about what was happening with this virus, which we did not know very much about, and we started asking about measures being taken. I remember the public safety minister stood up and said that the government had put in enhanced border measures, yet I would talk to constituents who had just returned home who said that they did not see any border measures. I talked to some constituents who saw those border measures, and literally, and I wish this was a joke, the enhanced border measure was a check mark on the immigration form. As the old saying goes, “An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”, and I think that is the reality we are facing, with tens of thousands of lives lost and other significant challenges that we face.
I say often that the government is all style and very little substance. Unfortunately, that has been the case throughout this pandemic, and I would suggest the last five and a half or so years as well, as has been highlighted through the many other failures and tragedies of what this Liberal government has done.
I was speaking to somebody who closely follows the National Research Council, and even some of the regulatory changes that the Liberals brought in right after they were elected actually put Canada further back in terms of being set up to succeed in the case of needing to see rapid investment in emerging health technologies, like vaccines. This was a number of years before the word “COVID-19” was even known to the world, and that really comes back to the issue of good governance.
The Liberals will say, “Well, it is easy to be an armchair quarterback and speak from hindsight.” This is what the Liberals like to talk about to try to pivot away from their failures. However, we see time and again with the current government that truly it has been a failure of good governance. We see things like ministerial responsibility, which, in some cases, appears to have been abandoned. The Liberals simply use it as a way to cover up their scandals but then do not provide the oversight. I have filed hundreds of ATIPs since getting elected, and some of the things I see and do not see are astounding.
I have a couple of minutes left here to talk about some of the things that my constituents have brought up over the last number of months, such as the border issue that the government brought in. Conservatives were critical of the border hotels, especially when the minister himself said that there was no evidence that would work. There could have been other measures that were more effective.
On mental health, we have seen the government support a Conservative motion for a 988 number, yet it has done virtually nothing since. It has made some announcements in terms of dollars in its yearly budget, which was released a couple of weeks ago. Again, it is promising dollars but no action.
A great example is the Service Canada office that is located down the street from my constituency office, where I am currently giving this speech. A sign was put on the door saying that it was closed, and there was a website on it. Hundreds of people sought help from my office, because constituents could not be served by the government. Again, on good governance there was a lack of responsibility.
As I have mentioned, we see businesses falling through the cracks. We see mixed messaging on vaccines. This has been a big challenge. I have had phone calls this week, and people are asking what to believe and who to believe.
There is certainly much more I could say, but it has been good to participate in this debate. Hopefully I highlighted some of the issues that my constituents have brought forward to me over the last number of weeks and months, and in the last year.
View Jag Sahota Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jag Sahota Profile
2021-05-05 23:39 [p.6752]
Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to rise tonight to discuss the current COVID-19 situation in my home province of Alberta and in Canada, but I am actually sad that there is a third wave in my home province of Alberta and in Canada.
We have seen a record number of COVID cases. We have seen new lockdown measures in an effort to flatten the curve, yet our hospitalization numbers continue to rise and our ICU admissions continue to soar. I am also disappointed that we are here tonight because this Liberal government failed to protect Canadians and Albertans, both their physical and mental well-being.
We are in the middle of this third wave of the COVID pandemic. Many Canadians across Canada are struggling to cope with the rise of cases, harsh lockdowns and mental health struggles. This is very worrisome.
While our neighbours to the south are seeing their hospitalization numbers go down, businesses reopening, restaurant patios opening again just in time for summer and fans returning to in-person sporting games, Albertans are facing yet another summer of restrictive lockdowns. I cannot help but know that, if our Prime Minister and his Minister of Health took different actions at the beginning, we would now be getting ready to attend in-person sporting events and having brunch with family and friends on patios.
Make no mistake, this third wave and the damage it is doing to our mental health and the economy rests solely with the Prime Minister. Under this Prime Minister's leadership, the Minister of Health allowed our early pandemic warning system to be shut down just months before COVID-19 hit.
This Prime Minister sent hundreds of thousands of masks, gloves and gowns from the government's own reserve to China. A month later, health care professionals and first responders here at home were being asked to ration the use of personal protective equipment, recycle masks and limit their use of hand sanitizer, and in some cases they were using garbage bags as PPE.
The government refused to close our borders at the onset, letting the virus spread across the country. It flip-flopped on whether or not Canadians should wear masks. The Minister of Health repeatedly told Canadians that the risk of getting COVID was low. The Prime Minister was slow to roll out federal aid programs and wrong not to fix them when Conservatives raised concerns and offered productive solutions to help Canadians.
Protecting Canadians is one of the most important responsibilities of the government. We cannot continue with lockdowns and social distancing. Canadians are getting fed up. They want to be able to do what our neighbours to the south are able to do. Therefore, here are some of the things that the government can do to put Canadians first.
The government can develop a clear set of parameters for identifying risks presented by emerging variants and present this to the public in an easy-to-understand format. Canadians should have information on where the virus is spreading, emerging variants and vaccination levels.
The government can provide real-time warnings to the Canadian public when new variants are detected around the world as well as when hot spots for this spread are revealed. This applies to locations here in Canada as well as abroad.
The double variant first detected in India was detected in October 2020. The government could require anyone who has been in the variant hot spot to undergo enhanced screening, quarantine measures or a combination of both depending on the risk evaluated by public health officials. It could require immediate rapid tests at airports for all domestic airline travel.
We have lost so much during this third wave, but how long this third wave lasts is completely dependent on how quickly this Liberal government responds and acts to protect Albertans and Canadians. Albertans can take some assurance that it was the Conservatives who stood up and called for a real plan to protect Canadians from this pandemic.
In October 2020, the House passed a sweeping opposition motion to direct the health committee to study the COVID-19 pandemic and ordered the government to produce needed documents for the committee. This included information on the government's vaccine rollout and key related documents.
In November 2020, the member for Calgary Nose Hill penned an op-ed in the National Post calling for a better COVID-19 strategy from the government entitled “It's time for a better COVID strategy”. This included discussion of the government's inaction on vaccines.
Additionally, members were able to question the Minister of Health in a four-hour session in the House of Commons committee of the whole regarding the government's failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In December 2020, the House passed a motion calling on the government to be transparent on key information related to the COVID vaccine rollout.
In January 2021, we were able to secure an emergency debate in the House of Commons on the vaccine shortage in Canada.
In February 2021, we demanded that the chair of the health committee call an emergency meeting to discuss the COVID-19 variants and called on the Liberal MPs to stop the filibuster and to finally pass the motion to release the government's vaccine contracts.
The Conservatives' motion ended up passing, meaning the government will need to come clean on the details of the contract that it tried to hide. In March 2021, my colleagues at the health committee were able to hear from experts of the government ignoring the National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations to not administer AstraZeneca to the 65-plus age group.
It has never ended. Every proper and correct thing the government could have done to address this pandemic and help Canadians get back to some sort of normalcy, it did not do. Instead, the Liberals did the complete opposite. It is shameful that the Prime Minister has allowed Canada to fall so far behind our allies. We need the Prime Minister to do better. We need vaccines to be delivered, not the ones that our allies are sending us, but the ones under our own contracts.
Canadians want to return to normal life. They want to have barbeques with their friends and neighbours. They want to be able to go to the movies and watch the latest blockbusters. Most importantly, they want to be able to see their family members who they have not seen in over a year, give them a big hug and socialize with them.
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2021-05-04 14:19 [p.6620]
Mr. Speaker, vaccination, rapid testing and accurate information are three tools to fight this pandemic. For months, we have been telling Canadians to get vaccinated.
The Canadian Pharmacists Association is worried that the government's inaccurate messaging will stoke vaccine hesitancy. Why are we getting a different message every week from the government?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-04 14:20 [p.6620]
Mr. Speaker, we always rely on the science, which is of course evolving all the time. We will always stress that people should get vaccinated as quickly as possible. Health Canada has approved all the vaccines we use in Canada and has deemed them to be safe and effective.
I continue to encourage everyone to get vaccinated because it is only by vaccinating the entire population, or as much of it as possible, that we can leave the COVID-19 pandemic behind us.
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2021-05-04 14:20 [p.6620]
Mr. Speaker, there are three tools we need to fight a pandemic: vaccines, rapid tests and information. The government has been failing on all three, and the Prime Minister is causing confusion again this week.
For months, Canadians have been told to get the first vaccine available to them. Today, the Prime Minister refused to confirm that advice on 10 different occasions. Canadians deserve clarity from the government. Is there a preferred type of vaccine?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-04 14:21 [p.6620]
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that Canadians get the facts. That is why we continue to update them on scientific recommendations and the recommendations of doctors. However, the reality is, and I will say it again, as I have said it many times this morning and as I have been saying for months, that the most important thing is for Canadians to get vaccinated with the first vaccine offered to them. That is how we will get through this.
Every vaccine for use in Canada has been judged safe and effective by Health Canada. We all need to get vaccinated to get through this pandemic.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, at a press conference today, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada said that further advice would be forthcoming regarding second doses for people who had received one dose of AstraZeneca.
Will this new advice mean that Canadians who have received one dose of AstraZeneca may have to obtain one or more doses of Pfizer or Moderna to achieve full immunity?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has a hard time understanding this, but this is a brand new pandemic, a brand new virus, and certainly the science continues to evolve and provide us advice and evidence on how best to protect Canadians.
It is important that Canadians accept the first vaccination that is offered to them. All vaccines that are in use in Canada are approved as safe and effective. We can be part of the solution. We can protect lives and we can stop the spread.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, when the minister patronizes me, she patronizes every Canadian who has the same question.
The concept of vaccine mixing will be confusing to some Canadians, and the chief public health officer opened this front this morning.
Therefore, I will ask her again. For Canadians who have already received one dose of AstraZeneca, should they wait for another dose of AstraZeneca no matter what the time delay or does the health minister expect Canadians might be told they can or should have one or more doses of Pfizer or Moderna to achieve full immunity?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, first, I will reiterate for Canadians that all vaccines that are approved for use in Canada are safe and effective. In fact, I was so excited to receive my first dose of AstraZeneca just over a week ago. I certainly encourage my friends, my family and all the people in my community to accept the first vaccination that is offered.
We know that vaccines save lives, and they also contribute to stopping the spread. We can see the finish line. We can see the finish line here and across the world. Vaccination is important, and we will continue to provide Canadians with the best science as it evolves.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the vaccine rollout in Canada is a perfect example of the Prime Minister's lack of leadership. He boasted about having the best portfolio of vaccines in the world, but that was never true.
Yesterday, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization confirmed that Canadians should wait for one of the two preferred vaccines, if they can. Canadians are hearing two messages: get vaccinated and wait to get vaccinated.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister is dragging his feet. When will he demonstrate the leadership expected of him and tell Canadians the truth?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, our government has been very clear. All vaccines approved for use in Canada are safe and effective, both for stopping the spread of COVID and for saving lives.
It is very unfortunate to hear the member opposite try to incite fear in Canadians. I would encourage Canadians who have questions about vaccinations to speak to their health care professionals, to speak to the pharmacists, to speak to the vaccinators across the country who are taking such great care and working so quickly. In fact, 14 million Canadians have received their first dose.
Vaccination is our path forward, and I am so thrilled and honoured to be vaccinated myself.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2021-05-03 11:16 [p.6497]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-237, the national framework for diabetes act.
I would like to thank the member for Brampton South for bringing it forward and for all her advocacy. From the time we were both elected in 2015, I have participated alongside her. We were both on the health committee when it came up with recommendations to the government on what it should do about diabetes. It is a serious issue for 11 million Canadians who have diabetes or prediabetes. That report was important.
The hon. member has also done numerous other things to raise awareness of diabetes on the Hill. I can remember an event for all the MPs to get tested, to understand how they could see the risk factors for diabetes and find out whether or not they actually had prediabetes or diabetes. That was great. There was another time when we brought in a mobile unit that had the ability to test and treat. These mobile units are very important here in Canada, especially in rural and remote places where, in many cases, it is very difficult to get access to a physician and the medical care that is so important to people who are living with diabetes.
For that, I congratulate the member. I am happy to see this bill being supported unanimously at committee, along with the support for the amendment that the Conservatives brought forward.
For those who are not aware of the different types of diabetes, 11 million Canadians have diabetes or prediabetes. Type 1 diabetics are people who cannot produce insulin, and there are 1.1 million of them. In order to get the insulin they need, they need to either inject it or use insulin pumps, a new technology that has really upgraded the quality of life for individuals. However, those pumps are $7,000 or $8,000, so affordability is a key issue there.
The most common type of diabetes is type 2. These individuals cannot use the insulin they are producing, or they are not producing enough insulin, and there are 9.9 million Canadians in this category. There are things that can lessen the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, including healthy eating and regular exercise. However, once people have this condition, they are going to require insulin therapy, medications and sometimes glucose monitoring. There have been good advances in the technology of glucose monitoring that have really improved the quality of life. Again, there is an affordability issue for some.
Canada began this 100 years ago, with Banting and Best and insulin, and we have continued to excel in technology in this area.
The bill itself is a national framework, and as part of that it is going to bring prevention and treatment. There will be training and an emphasis on educational needs, which I think is important. The more people know about diabetes, the risks and how they can prevent or minimize the impact, the better. There is also an important part on research and data collection. The government, over decades, has done excellent work to support diabetes research in Canada, and that needs to continue, along with the data collection.
The other part of the bill is information and knowledge sharing, related to preventing and treating diabetes. This will be important because this is a disease that can develop into other complicated conditions. Kidney disease is a common outcome for those who are at risk and who cannot control their insulin levels. Many have foot and leg problems that can result in amputation. There are eye diseases, and increase in heart attack and stroke. All of these issues are not just tragic for the individual, but also a cost to the health care system.
The parliamentary secretary previously made a comment that bringing in this national framework is not just the right thing to do, but it is also a cost-benefit. We know that if diabetes is not adequately controlled in an individual, an emergency room call is $1,500 and an amputation is $90,000. All of these things are incredibly costly to the health care system.
Although some concerns have been raised about whether or not the bill will be a problem with provincial jurisdiction, I would say that the provinces absolutely are open to receiving more federal funding to cover things and to do the right thing to prevent more expensive conditions from developing.
In fact, my own national framework on palliative care is a great example of how the federal government can work alongside the provinces to provide the supplemental things that do not exist at the provincial level and to have the provinces use their funding to accelerate the plan. With the palliative care framework, many things related to education, research and data collection, as in this bill, were put in place, but then the provinces also came alongside with money for hospice and for training paramedics and extending all kinds of things that have resulted in more people having access. My hope is that we will see the same thing with this bill. It is important.
The amendment that the Conservatives brought had to do with the disability tax credit. Members may remember that a few years ago there was a change made by CRA and 80% of people who previously were approved for the disability tax credit, which helps people pay for the medications and supplies they need as people living with diabetes, now became 80% rejected, and it was a long period of time of outcry from the opposition parties before the government set that right.
To be fair, the intent of the government was that if people were not eligible for the tax credit, they also were not eligible for the disability pension plan. That plan had been in effect for 10 years, and each individual who qualified had about $150,000 in the account, so there was a bit of a nefarious attempt to try to take that money away, which fortunately we were able to correct and get that in place.
Our amendment was to make sure that the CRA is administering the disability tax credit fairly and that the disability tax credit is designed to help as many persons with diabetes as possible and is achieving its objectives. This will provide a bit of oversight to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again, and that will be very important.
What the bill does not do is provide some of the other funding that will be needed, and some of it has been talked about already. Diabetes Canada does an amazing job of making people aware, helping people living with diabetes, and providing tools and training, but it has a 360° initiative, calling on the federal government for quite a number of years, from the time I was the shadow health minister, and it has not been funded at any point. We need to see the government seriously consider, with 11 million Canadians living with this condition, that we have to be preventive in nature.
There are a lot of initiatives that also could be supported, like Participaction, getting people more fit. If we can get children more fit and eating more nutritiously, this is a key factor in preventing people from having type 2 diabetes, so that is an action that the government could take.
When it comes to pharmacare, the Liberals have been talking about this since 1992. Many provinces have plans already in place, and there is a very small number of Canadians who do not have coverage, but in particular there are people with diabetes who are not able to afford their medications. It is a larger cost to the system overall and something that should be addressed and could be quickly addressed through organizations like Diabetes Canada.
In terms of this framework, obviously I am a passionate advocate as well for eliminating diabetes and doing everything we can to help those individuals. I, as well as the Conservative Party, will be supporting this private member's bill. The member is to be commended for her continued advocacy and for her persistence in bringing more and more good ideas to the table. We can see from the reaction of the various parties that everyone wants to work together, alongside the provinces and territories and our indigenous organizations, to make sure that all people living with diabetes receive the help they need.
Results: 1 - 100 of 362 | Page: 1 of 4

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

For more data options, please see Open Data