Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 101 - 200 of 295
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for everyone when I say that we all feel encouraged by the new development with the RCMP in British Columbia, which offered the hereditary chiefs an opportunity to sit down and work on a long-term plan that could involve a reduced presence in their territory, obviously.
As everyone knows, we are prepared to engage in a respectful dialogue, but we have a very clear plan to defuse the situation, which we are not going to disclose to the public for now, of course. We are again asking Canadians to be a little bit patient. I am confident that this will all get sorted out.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I think we can all be heartened by the development that has happened in B.C. that the RCMP has extended to hereditary chiefs. It is an opportunity to sit down and continue that dialogue. This is a positive development.
The move of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs in Tyendinaga is a positive development. I think everyone in this House is dedicated to a peaceful resolution to this.
There are clear steps to de-escalation. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and I stand ready to engage with the leadership in Tyendinaga. As early as tonight we will go and meet them and discuss this peaceful resolution.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, everyone pretends to know what the requests are. We cannot know what those requests are unless we actually ask the people. It is not a question of looking at the banners on the street. It is actually talking to the leadership in question, and that is precisely what we have done.
The entire cabinet is seized of this incredibly urgent issue. It is a situation that evolves minute by minute. I and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, as well as other ministers, stand ready to engage on a moment's notice and that is precisely what we will do.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that Wet'suwet'en hereditary leadership are on their way to Tyendinaga to discuss these important issues in the next few days. There is a clear plan of action for de-escalation, but that involves dialogue.
To all Canadians out there suffering, we understand that this is a very difficult period and we are working diligently. Indeed, the whole cabinet is seized of this, and we will work hour by hour, minute by minute to resolve this situation peacefully.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I want to share with this House something very personal, that I have not shared with anyone other than close friends and family, about an incident that occurred 30 years ago.
Thirty years ago, at the age of 16 turning 17, I decided to enrol in the Canadian Armed Forces. Along with my other brothers and sisters in arms who decided to sign on that dotted line of unlimited liability, I was prepared to lay my life down for the country that I love. I did the infantry basic training and did okay, and that summer I was deployed to Valcartier, along with another group of people in my platoon, to work and dedicate that summer to serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Why I did so was multifold. I wanted people to be proud of me. I wanted to serve my country. I wanted to learn some discipline that is not natural to me; it comes with difficulty and I still have not gotten there, but my effort and my heart was in it. I wanted to learn discipline and do things that I could not do outside the classroom.
That summer was a difficult summer for Canada. There were in my platoon four Mohawk brothers in arms. As everyone knows, 30 years ago the Oka crisis exploded. There was one night in Valcartier as we were all out, that word came down that the Royal 22e Régiment would deploy and put under siege their community. The next morning, they were no longer there. They were asked to make a difficult choice, choosing between the country that they would lay down their life for and their families. For them, the choice was clear.
It was a privilege for me not to have to make that choice myself. I have not thought about that day much, for a long time. However, we all know or should know what happened at Oka. We should know that no individuals should have to choose between their families, their nation and the country that they would readily lay their lives down for. We vowed that this would never happen again, and it should not happen again.
When we called on indigenous people in our hardest times, they served us. They defended us. They form statistically the highest percentage of people who serve in our armed forces. We should never forget that this relationship, for many communities, is based on alliance and loyalty.
I know that the recent events in B.C. and in various places across the country are deeply concerning to all Canadians. It is a very difficult situation for everyone, for those people who are non-indigenous but especially if they are indigenous. All of Canada is hurting and we are all hoping and working for a peaceful resolution. This is a challenging situation that is evolving by the hour, and the safety of all involved is of primary importance. We all want to get the same conclusion. There are some disagreements, some deep ones, as to the steps. We all want peace, we want to get rail traffic going again across this country and we want prosperity for all peoples of Canada.
There is time for all parties to engage in open and respectful dialogue to ensure this situation is resolved peacefully. To that end, I want to acknowledge the leaders of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party for their support and partnership in seeking a peaceful resolution. This work is not easy and it will require all of us working together in the immediate future and in the long term. We cannot move forward without honest and respectful dialogue, and that is why I am happy to take the opportunity to share my thoughts this evening and to take questions from members of this House.
Seeking an honest, open and respectful dialogue is essential for renewing the relationship and building a strong future for indigenous peoples and Canadians alike. The untold story that should be told today is that despite years of tarnished relationships, we all want to see peace and our relationship renewed, and to have a relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.
It is in this spirit of peace and co-operation that I went this past Saturday and gathered with members of the Mohawk nation along the rail tracks in Tyendinaga to discuss peace and friendship with a nation that has not felt part of this country. We pursued an open dialogue and made concerted efforts to move toward a peaceful resolution.
Modest but important progress was made through this dialogue. Parts of this conversation were very difficult, very painful and very personal. Upsetting stories were shared about this country's troubling treatment of indigenous peoples. There was an immense amount of suspicion toward my presence; fear that it was a ruse and that the police would move in. It is not every day that people are surrounded by police, and the reactions are normal. They are a peaceful people, and they reiterated it time and time again. We shared laughs, and as tradition dictates, we had a meal before the discussion. We listened to one another with openness and with a shared goal of finding a path forward.
I made a commitment to share our conversation with the Prime Minister and my colleagues, and I did so that night. Yesterday we had a more fulsome conversation at a meeting of the incident response group, which was convened by the Prime Minister in response to the urgent and considerable need to further open the dialogue and continue the dialogue we started in Tyendinaga on Saturday morning.
My colleague, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, also remains in communication with the Province of B.C. and hereditary leadership, with the hopes of meeting in person soon. She also had a very productive conversation with the leadership to open up that path to de-escalation. It will not be an easy one. There are many demands, many historical grievances, but there is a clear sense that there is a protocol to be observed and a pathway toward de-escalation.
We are a country built on the values of peace, order and good government. We hear it all the time. We need to make sure we remain focused on those ideals. One of the steps necessary to achieve peaceful progress in an unreconciled country is to continue that open dialogue at the very highest levels of government based on a nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationship, and that is exactly what has guided and underlined our actions over the past few days.
Unfortunately, in the case of indigenous peoples, we have too often discarded the first pillar, which is peace, for the sake of order and good government. I am someone who spent a long time in private practice. I have two law degrees and am accredited to practise in two jurisdictions. Let me say that the rule of law is very dear to me. I have spent my life and career upholding it.
I hear from the indigenous communities I serve, to which I have a fiduciary obligation that goes back before Canada to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, to uphold the honour of the Crown. Those people say too me too often that rule of law has been invoked to perpetrate historical injustices. We need only look at the examples of Louis Riel, Big Bear and Poundmaker to have some of the more poignant examples, as well as those perpetrated on a daily basis.
People have said to lock them up. Guess what, that has been tried. The level of incarceration is six times higher for the indigenous population of Canada, and in some provinces, much worse. These are very serious issues that demand our attention and have demanded it for hundreds of years, and there is no place in this discussion for rhetoric and vitriol.
The question I find myself asking time and time again as I look at my children is whether we are going to do things the way we have always done them, which has brought us to this point in our relationship, or whether we are going to take a new approach that prioritizes open dialogue built on respect, one that engages us in a true government-to-government relationship. The conversations we started on Saturday, and those my colleagues have offered to have across the country at the highest level, will help us find a more collaborative and therefore constructive way forward.
It is only through meaningful engagement with those who have felt ignored and disrespected for too long that we can find a way forward that builds peace and prosperity for all.
For almost 500 years, indigenous peoples have faced discrimination in every aspect of their lives. The Crown, at times, has prevented a true equal partnership from developing with indigenous peoples imposing, instead, a relationship based on colonial, paternalistic ways of thinking and doing.
As I mentioned in introduction, many of our relationships were based on military alliances to ensure our own sovereignty. Let me say, they stepped up when we needed them. A little over a year ago, this whole House rose to celebrate Levi Oakes and the untold story of the last Mohawk code talker. Sadly, a few months later after this lifting up that was long overdue, he passed away. He was born in Snye, Akwesasne, part of Quebec. He served in the U.S. Armed Forces.
A story that has not been told is why he did not serve Canada. He did not serve Canada because his brother was beaten up by a policeman, and he vowed never to serve in our forces. We need to think about that, when we think about the people who serve us best. Those who came back from having served overseas, arm in arm, brothers in arms, sisters in arms were not treated that way. They were discriminated against. They could not get their pensions or medical benefits. The list is long and it is painful.
Here we are today. It has been mentioned by members of the opposition and it needs to keep being mentioned that we face a historic challenge, an injustice that we keep perpetrating towards the most important things in our life, children, in this case, for indigenous peoples, their children. There is a broken child and family system where indigenous children up to the age of 14 make up 52% of kids in foster care and care, even though they represent 7.7% of all Canadian children. There are shocking rates of suicide among indigenous youth causing untold pain and hurt that will plague families and communities for generations to come. There are untenable housing conditions, where water that is unsafe to drink or even bathe in comes out of the taps.
In Lac Seul where we lifted a boil water advisory for the first time in 17 years, the kids in the room had never had clean water from their system. One of the elders I spoke to giggled with a sense of humour that we see in, and is almost unique to, indigenous communities. She said to me that now it would not itch after she took her bath.
There are communities where overcrowding and mould are far too common. There are communities that do not have reliable access to roads or health centres or even schools. That approach has left a legacy of devastation, pain and suffering, and it is unacceptable and untenable.
For hundreds of years indigenous peoples have been calling on the Canadian government to recognize and affirm their jurisdiction over their affairs, to have control and agency over their land, housing, education, governance systems, and child and family services. We have undeniable proof that self-determination is a better path to take. For example, look at the Mi’kmaq communities in Nova Scotia. In 1997, the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia signed a historic agreement with nine Mi'kmaq communities, restoring their control over their education system. The result is that now more than 90% of Mi’kmaq students graduate. It is higher than the average in most provinces.
That is what comes when Canada steps out of the way and accepts the necessity of self-governance and self-determination. This is what has to happen in every sector. This is what communities are asking for now, and have been asking for for far too long. It is what is at stake when we speak about self-determination. Self-governing indigenous peoples have better socio-economic outcomes because they know best what to do with their resources. More children finish high school. Fewer people are unemployed. Health outcomes are better. Self-determination improves the well-being and prosperity of indigenous communities, and that is something all Canadians should strive to support.
When we formed government, we took a different approach founded on partnership and co-development, built from a place of listening to indigenous leaders, elders, youth and community, working with members, and working to support the attainment of their goals based on their priorities.
It is important to highlight this while the events gripping the nation are on the front page of the newspapers. The progress, while slow, has been determined, forceful and backed up with historic amounts. Since 2016 we have invested $21 billion into the priorities of indigenous partners, and together we have made some progress. Sixty-nine schools were built or renovated. Some 265 water and waste-water infrastructure projects were completed and 88 long-term drinking water advisories were lifted. We are contributing toward the establishment of a wellness centre in Nunavut in partnership with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. We are supporting the national Inuit suicide prevention strategy and ensuring that Inuit children have access to the health, social and educational supports they need. We are working with the Métis nation to advance shared priorities such as health, post-secondary education and economic development.
However, we still have a long way to go to close the unacceptable socio-economic gaps that still exist between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Our government is committed to working in partnership on improving the lives of first nations children, and our track record of the past four years shows this. We have almost doubled funding to first nations child and family services agencies, from close to $677 million in 2016 to $1.2 billion in 2018-19. That funding is based on actual needs and with an emphasis on prevention.
There have been 508,000 requests for Jordan's principle approved, which ensures first nations children have the health, education and social supports they need, when and where they need them. I was in Whitefish River First Nation about three days ago, and I saw the work that Jordan's principle does for children who need it, and we are striving to ensure they get substantive equality.
We are providing predictable funding to education that is provincially comparable. We know this is essential to strengthen first nations education and improve outcomes, because indigenous peoples must have control over first nations education systems. We know when that is done indigenous graduation rates are the same, if not better, than non-indigenous graduation rates. We have launched a new funding formula for kindergarten to grade 12 education that has resulted in regional funding increases of almost 40%. The number of first nations schools offering elementary full-day kindergarten, for example, has increased by over 50%.
We have a tough road ahead of us. As I mentioned, this road will be demanding on all of us. We will have to work together very hard and listen even when the truth is hard to hear. We will have to continue discussions even when we do not agree. We will have to keep working together, looking for creative ways to move forward and finding new paths towards healing and true understanding.
We have all seen what happens when we do not work together and engage in dialogue. We end up with mistrust and confusion over who should speak on behalf of rights holders on issues like consent, as well as the rights and titles of indigenous peoples. This confusion can lead to conflict, as we are seeing now, and prevents us from moving forward together.
I realize that the challenges we face are many, but I know that the difficult road ahead of us is worthwhile. It is worthwhile for the youth in the next generation and for those who will follow. It is worthwhile for all those who will grow up knowing that together, the Crown and indigenous peoples are working hard to create a future, to improve their quality of life and to heal. We will not fail another generation of indigenous children.
I have spoken about a lot of the difficulties, a lot of the pain and a lot of the successes that are progressive, yet slow, that we have done as a government. We have a lot more to do, and we cannot discount mistakes, but we do it in good faith and in good partnership with indigenous communities.
I ask everyone in this House as they contemplate the next few days to look at their children or those that are young and are dear to them and ask themselves what they will tell them when this conflict resolves. We cannot repeat the errors of the past, and there are many to base ourselves on.
[Member spoke in Mohawk]
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, too often in this country we have taken the approach that we would pick whatever indigenous view suits our thoughts and our process. That is not self-determination. That is not respect. We need to understand the decisions that are made by communities and not take a simplistic view as to what is or what is not, or presume the outcome in an indigenous community.
There is no question that the Coastal GasLink project was widely consulted. A process was undertaken by Coastal GasLink and respected, but we cannot then turn around and presume that there is no complexity in community, that there is no complexity in decision-making, that there is not a challenge towards elected leadership and community, or that there is not a tension between hereditary and elected leadership. That is not the same for every community, and I think we need to open our minds to what the differences are.
The challenge we face today is that before us we have a number of people who are fighting for their rights, and they are looking for a peaceful solution. We need to work with those people and start to listen to them in a way that we have not listened before, and that is what I am asking.
There is no question that communities want economic development. I met last week with people from the Treaty 8 first nations, and they have great projects that they are working on. They want economic development; there is absolutely no question about it. However, we cannot simply say that because that particular point of view suits our political end we are going to take that indigenous community and serve our purpose. We need to respect decisions when they are good and we need to respect decisions when they are bad. Moreover, we need to sit down and listen, and come to a co-operative model of how we move together as a country.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite and his party for their support during this difficult time. This is a situation that is evolving hour by hour. Two hours ago, I had the chance to brief the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on the status of discussions.
There are some positive paths. Out of respect for the Wet'suwet'en leadership, I am loath to discuss the challenges and the path that we are undertaking, but clearly we see there is a path forward. We see there is modest and positive progress in the right direction, and we would all like to get to a peaceful resolution.
I think there is a presumption that the Prime Minister can sweep in and fix everything. That is not the case. He has a confident cabinet that he trusts and has trust in those indigenous communities. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is available and had discussions earlier on today with precisely that leadership.
Out of respect for those discussions and the urgency of the ongoing situation that is evolving hour by hour, I will not discuss those steps. Canadians should know that we are seizing the situation at the very highest level of government to work toward a peaceful resolution.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
Like that of the NDP, I appreciate his party's support during these very difficult circumstances.
Clearly, I was nervous. A lot of people told me not to go, not to listen and to leave it to the officials, but when you begin a process of trust with a group where trust is absent, it is very difficult to make that approach. People feel vulnerable. That said, I had the trust of some people I knew in the community.
The untold story in this whole situation is that this was only possible with the help of many of the women in the community. They facilitated these conversations. There was mistrust and they did not want me to come. They thought it was a ruse. I did not understand it at all, but as I talked with them throughout the day, I could see that they had every reason to be suspicious. There is quite a history to consider. They had felt cheated and tricked by the police, and they saw history repeating itself.
It is hard to build trust behind a blockade, so we absolutely needed to go there and start talking. I described the progress as “modest” overall, but we built some trust.
I have confidence. What we tried to find is a path to de-escalation. I remain confident and hopeful that this will happen.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, it was simplistic. Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite should speak. I think he is qualifying his own leader in a better way than I can.
The reality is that every—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, every time we hear members opposite cry for law and order, it triggers a number of communities and it triggers bad memories.
I am loath to understand the perspective of the Leader of the Opposition from the comfort of his residence in Stornoway, when there are people on the line whose lives are at risk and he should appreciate that. In fact, the next time I go down there, I would welcome him to come with me.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we agree that we must compensate first nations children who were harmed as a result of government policies related to child and family services in the past. We want a solution that is both comprehensive and fair.
As my colleague knows very well, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the Government of Canada to begin discussions on a process for compensating victims of federal discrimination against first nations children, and that is what we are doing. Our target date for presenting an initial compensation model is February 21. That is what we are doing.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, to put it clearly, no first nation child will go without funding. This is about advancing first nations control of first nations education.
Stoney Nakoda and the Stoney Education Authority expressed an interest in taking over the administration of their own funding agreement with the Canadian Rockies Public Schools division from my department, and we did so. Funding will continue to be provided by my department to the schools, based on actual costs of educational programming, until a new education agreement is negotiated and finalized with the first nation.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, our commitment to compensate first nation children harmed by past child and family services policy is firm and remains firm.
Canada has named senior officials from my department and the Department of Justice to conduct discussions. Those discussions are ongoing and will be kept on a strictly confidential basis to build trust between the parties, which heretofore has not been the case. No party will be speaking publicly about this. Because we want to make progress specifically focused on children who have been harmed by past policies, the CHRT has asked our parties to sit down and determine what the compensation process might look like. That is exactly what we are going to do.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we need to compensate the first nations children who were harmed by past government policies. We are seeking a comprehensive, fair and equitable solution. That is why I asked the assistant deputy minister to work with those involved in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, or CHRT, and those involved in the Moushoom class action suit to find the best possible solution for all of the children affected.
Our commitment to implement other CHRT orders and reform child and family services has not changed in any way. That work will continue.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, today we are in full compliance with all of the CHRT's orders to address the overrepresentation of first nation children in care. We have almost doubled funding to child and family services, with over 483,000 Jordan's principle requests that have been approved.
We agree that the most recent orders for compensation for first nation children harmed by government policies must be respected. What the CHRT has asked parties to do is to sit down and work out what exactly the compensation will look like, and that is exactly what we are doing.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, today we are in full compliance with all of the tribunal's orders to address the overrepresentation of first nation children in care. We have almost doubled funding to child and family services, and close to 500,000 Jordan's principle requests have been approved.
We agree that the most recent orders for compensation for first nation children harmed by government policies must be respected. What the tribunal has asked parties to do is to sit down and work out what exactly the compensation for victims will look like, and that is what we are doing.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we agree that we must compensate first nations children harmed by past government policies. We are seeking a solution that is at the same time comprehensive, fair and equitable. That is why I have instructed my assistant deputy minister to work with those involved with the CHRT and those involved in the Moushoom class action to develop the best possible method that includes all affected children.
Nothing about our commitment to implement other orders from the CHRT, or reforming child and family services for that matter, changes. This work will continue.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
[Member spoke in Mi’kmaq and provided the following text:]
Wela’lin ta’n telpi panigasin.
[Member provided the following translation:]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
[English]
We are implementing the indigenous languages act in collaboration with those who know best how to revitalize their languages, indigenous peoples and teachers, and we are doing so by providing $337 million over the next five years for indigenous languages and $1,500 per year for each kindergarten to grade 12 first nation student as part of the new co-developed education funding policy.
This government is firm in its resolve to support indigenous languages.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, departmental health teams continue to work closely with our partners in Manitoba to coordinate augmented crisis response and mental wellness supports to mitigate any gaps in coverage during this time. We are in regular contact with the community of Gods Lake Narrows and departmental officials will be meeting with the community leadership in Gods Lake Narrows on December 11, 2019.
We will continue working with the leadership to support their needs as a community-led approach is the best approach, especially when it comes to mental health wellness.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member opposite on his election and, importantly, his advocacy in this matter.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to have met with Chief Turtle last week. We had a good, productive conversation. In the meeting, I reiterated my commitment and that of the Prime Minister's to building a mercury treatment facility, and that funding is not an obstacle.
We share a will to move forward, and I look forward to working with Chief Turtle and the community to get this facility built. I will have an update for the House in short order.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a number of documents: the annual report on the implementation of the Labrador Inuit land claim agreement for the period April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016; the annual report of the Déline self-government agreement for the period April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017; the annual report on the Déline self-government agreement for the period ranging from April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018; and finally, the annual report on the implementation of the Sahtu Dene and Métis comprehensive land claim agreement for the period April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I know our friends to the south consider us to be the north, but it is a real pleasure today to speak about the actual north. That said, We, the North.
I am thankful for this opportunity to speak once again before the House on Bill C-88.
To begin, I want to acknowledge that we meet here today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
I am appearing before this House on behalf of my hon. colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade. Our thoughts and well wishes are with him during this difficult time. I know we all wish him a speedy recovery and look forward to having him back in the role that he did so well, advocating for northerners and northern issues.
Bill C-88 proposes to amend both the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.
In terms of the MVRMA, the bill was focused on repealing the previous government's decision, through Bill C-15, to arbitrarily merge four land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley into one superboard. This decision violated constitutionally protected indigenous land claim and self-government agreements. The bill also seeks to reintroduce a number of positive changes introduced by the previous government through Bill C-15, which have not been implemented because of a court-imposed injunction focused on stopping the imposition of this so-called superboard.
The MVRMA includes four land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley, which are central to comprehensive land claim and self-government agreements of several local indigenous governments and organizations. It creates an integrated co-management regime for lands and waters in the Mackenzie Valley and provides legal certainty for resource development investors in the area.
As this House will recall, Bill C-15 was passed by the previous government in 2014. Among other changes, it merged the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one single entity. The legislation was immediately challenged in court, alleging among other things that it violated indigenous land claim and self-government agreements.
In early 2015, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories granted an injunction that suspended the proposed board restructuring, along with other positive regulatory amendments included in Bill C-15. Rather than improving the regulatory process for the Mackenzie Valley and enhancing legal certainty for proponents and investors, among others, the previous government's approach landed these MVRMA regulatory reforms in Bill C-15 into court.
Our government believes that a sustainably developed resource sector is essential to the success of the Canadian economy and, if we get it right, will serve as an important foundation and example for future economic and job growth. Unlocking this economic potential must be contingent on environmental sustainability and on impacted indigenous communities being engaged as equal partners. The current situation is untenable as it creates legal uncertainty, and the positive regulatory changes are now tied up in court.
In November 2015, discussions with indigenous organizations and governments in the Northwest Territories began about the government moving forward with legislative amendments to resolve this matter. Bill C-88 has been developed through consultation with indigenous governments and organizations, most notably the Government of the Northwest Territories, industry and resource co-management boards. This bill will resolve the litigation regarding the restructuring of the boards and reintroduces the positive policy elements of Bill C-15 that are currently prevented from coming into force by the said injunction. It will re-establish trust with indigenous partners in the Northwest Territories, respect their constitutionally protected land claim and self-government agreements and restore legal certainty for responsible resource development.
As David Wright, legal council for the Gwich'in Tribal Council, stated before the indigenous and northern affairs committee:
[T]he consultation process on Bill C-88 has actually helped restore some of the trust between Canada and the [Gwich'in Tribal Council]. That trust would be eroded by any further delay, or at worst, failure to pass this bill in a timely manner.
The Tlicho government and the Government of the Northwest Territories have also clearly expressed their support for the passage of this bill, stating that the negative implications of the status quo are significant.
In terms of the CPRA, Bill C-88 proposes to provide new criteria for the Governor in Council to prohibit existing exploration licence-holders and significant discovery licence-holders from carrying out any oil and gas activities in the case of the national interest. It would also freeze the terms of the existing licences in the Arctic offshore for the duration of any such prohibition. This is exceedingly important for industry.
The term “national interest” refers to a country's national goals and ambitions, whether economic, military or cultural, and it is not a new legislative concept. There are numerous references to the national interest in Canadian legislation and specifically in this case in northern legislation. For example, the term appears in section 51 of the Yukon Act and in section 57 of the Northwest Territories Act. The decision to move forward with a moratorium on new Arctic offshore oil and gas licences in federal waters was a risk-based decision in light of the potential devastating effects of a spill and limited current science about drilling in that area.
It is important to remember that at that time there was no active drilling occurring in the Beaufort Sea and no realistic plans to initiate drilling in the short or medium term. It was announced in conjunction with a five-year science-based review as well as a consultation on the details of that review. Territories, indigenous and northern communities, our partners in the science-based review process and others, including industry, are being actively consulted. The outcome of the review process will inform next steps in the Arctic offshore.
Freezing the terms of the impacted existing licences in the Arctic offshore was a key priority expressed by industry. We heard that in our discussions regarding the implementation of the moratorium. The proposed amendments to both the MVRMA and the CPRA are essential to ensuring the responsible, sustainable and fair development regime in the Northwest Territories and the Arctic. That is why I urge this House to pass Bill C-88. I look forward to questions from the members.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, it is no small irony that the Conservative Party is now the champion of consultations. However, I understand the good faith of the question being posed.
What we need to understand and what Canadians, particularly northerners, appreciate is that the area is exceedingly fragile. People knew it, and we needed to take swift and prompt action. We know this on the west coast as well, where we have heard from proponents that there need to be bans. There are shenanigans in the Senate looking to overturn a number of laws that are key to our environmental legislation. I will leave that aside for now, but it is important for this House to note it, since the members who are blocking it are members of the Conservative caucus.
We have consulted. Northerners, particularly indigenous groups, are overwhelmingly supportive of this new process, which includes moving forward on more regional boards that were consulted on development and which impact our review and our feedback. We will listen to them. Some of the reports we heard previously were manufactured by the previous government, and it torqued its own conclusions.
We aim to do meaningful—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the support of the member opposite for moving this forward in a timely fashion. We did take the time to consult and get the important review that made it such that the prior bill that was introduced in the House by the previous government was messed up. The superboards were a disaster and caused court cases and injunctions that prevented some positive aspects of it to move forward.
Yes, the business of this House does take time, particularly when it touches indigenous issues where we need to do that consultation prior to putting the bill in place. That is what we have done. We have done it in a conscientious and timely fashion. Again, as I mentioned in closing proposals to this House, I do urge this House to move quickly on it.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I will make this a quick answer because, hopefully, the member for the Northwest Territories will also ask a question. He has been indispensable in ensuring this is moved forward in a timely fashion.
We do these things in the national interest to protect not only an essential part of Canada but indeed the entire world. We do so in consultation with the people who are up there, whether it is the Government of the Northwest Territories, industry or indigenous partners, but we need to take the time to listen to them. Once we listen to them, get their expertise and implement that into a package of laws that make sense, even ones that were proposed by the previous government, then these are things that allow industry to have what they expect, which is predictability in the process, a process where they will make an application knowing that an injunction will not come forward because it is constitutional. That is just a very, very simple example of it.
However, this predictability with all the partners involved allows these great projects, if and when they are put forward, to do so in a timely fashion where the government is actually, once it has done its job, out of the way and allowing people to get such good jobs.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, quite clearly, if they are willing to mail in the next three weeks, we are not prepared to do so. The next three weeks are very important. There are plenty of bills—
An hon. member: You have mailed in the last four years.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Perhaps the member has been mailing it in for the last four years, but we have not. We have been trying to push forward the business of government despite fierce opposition. That is the opposition's job; we get it. Any bill presented before Parliament at this stage should be given serious consideration. This is an important stage, and members are free to debate it all they want. Simply put, we will give it the consideration it is due. If they care about the north, they will support the bill.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his fierce advocacy for indigenous peoples, and particularly the swift adoption of his colleague's private member's bill on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am dismayed and disgusted that it is stuck in the other House in what amounts to bad faith from certain members on the other side. They are members of the Conservative caucus. It is incumbent upon members of the caucus in the House of Commons to push their colleagues to make sure that the bill goes through in a swift and timely manner. Indigenous peoples across Canada are waiting for this to come through, and it is an essential act of reconciliation.
This bill incorporates a number of elements, including the consultation review that indigenous people have been looking for. Many of the commentators on the bill have specifically underlined how it does in fact conform with the relevant provisions of UNDRIP.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
[Member spoke in Mohawk and provided the following text:]
Levi Oakeskénha tehonwaká:nere ne raohwá:tsire, wa’thatsha’tí:ia’ke tsiahiàksera tsi nahe ratironhia'kehronòn:ke shiiotohétston. Karonhià:ke tethakà:nere ó:nen. Ronkwe’tiióhne, tóhske, tahnon raweientehtòn:ne ahaiéntho.
Ohnakénkha Kanien’kehá:ka Code Talker roiio'téhkwe ne tekeníhaton shiwaterí:io. Tsi tewateriioskó:wa tékeni watòn:tha, wà:ratste’ onkwehonwehnéha ahshakowennohetstánion ne tehotirihwaienawá:kon ronatenróhshon. Iah ónhka tehotitokèn:se oh nahò:ten rotitharahkwèn:ne ne Code Talkers.
Akwé:kon waharihwáhsehte’ tsi nihoié:ren íhsi nón:we ne tsiá:ta niwáhsen niiohserá:ke nikarì:wes. Akwáh í:ken tsi enhonwaia’tí:sake’ ne raohwá:tsire tahnon raonkwe'ta'shòn:a Í:kehre aonsahihsennakará:tate’ énhskat ó:ya nenkahá:wi’te’ né:’e tsi katá:tis ne owén:na nè:ne wà:ratste’ ne káti aón:ton akwé:kon skén:nen aetewanonhtonniónsheke.
[Mohawk text interpreted as follows:]
Mr. Speaker, Levi Oakes crossed over the clouds last Tuesday. There, there was his family when he passed away. He is looking down now from sky world. He was a good man, truly, and he was good at gardening.
Levi was the last Mohawk code talker; none remain. He used his indigenous language during World War II. He used a secret code to protect his family. No one broke the code talker's code.
He will very much be missed by his people and his family. I want to honour his name again on one more occasion, by using the language that he used so that we could live in peace.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month, and I am happy to note that it is also the fourth year of the indigenous reads initiative.
Indigenous reads presents an exciting opportunity for all Canadians to expand their awareness of indigenous life, culture and history by reading works of talented first nation, Inuit and Métis writers. As UNESCO marks 2019 as Year of Indigenous Languages, indigenous reads reminds us of the power of words and the importance of language.
This June, I encourage everyone to join me by reading indigenous authors. New books will be highlighted each week on the Government of Canada's indigenous social media channels. By using #lndigenousReads, all Canadians can read together by sharing their favourite indigenous books and authors.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I know you are a Mooseheads fan, but Sunday, May 26, was a great day. The Rouyn-Noranda Huskies won their first Memorial Cup with a 4-2 win over the Halifax Mooseheads.
After shattering a Quebec Major Junior Hockey League record with 59 wins in the regular season, including 25 consecutive wins, and taking the President's Cup by beating the Mooseheads in six games, the Huskies won their first national title. The Huskies are extraordinary ambassadors for the town of Rouyn-Noranda and the Abitibi Témiscamingue region. The team is without a doubt the biggest source of pride for the community.
I would like to highlight the contribution of head coach Mario Pouliot, tournament MVP and Montreal Canadiens prospect Joël Teasdale, the parents, players, host families and all staff who worked hard to make our major junior hockey league a national success story.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, this government has taken historic measures to reunite families, and it is a little rich for the member opposite, whose party had two options when dealing with files: pressing the delete button or the alt-right button. It is a disgrace for the member opposite to stand up and talk about family reunification.
It is this government that has made historic investments in budgets 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016 to make sure that people are welcome in Canada and that immigration files are processed in a systematic fashion.
Of course there are extremely complex files, and the element that the member mentioned is a very particular file. We are glad to take it—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, our government is working in support of the Government of Nunavut in the provision of health services to its residents.
Last week, the Minister of Indigenous Services met with the minister of health and finance for the Government of Nunavut to discuss health care and a number of other shared priorities. We continue to stay in close communication to ensure that Nunavummiut have access to the quality health services they need.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her relentless advocacy in this matter, as well as her colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.
This is obviously a matter that is under advisement with the department. It is a matter we take very seriously, and I hope to come back to the House with further clarification on the matter.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-262 is a key step in implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Passed by the House last spring, the bill is now stalled in the other place as a result of Conservative procedural delay tactics.
While we have enormous respect for the independence and work of the other place, reconciliation with indigenous peoples and particularly this piece of legislation cannot be subject to partisan and procedural games. I urge the Conservative members of the other place and the members of this House who are in their caucus to heed the unanimous motion passed by the House this week and stop their inexcusable delay tactics.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my support for Bill C-88 and explain why I approved it at second reading stage.
First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Yukon on his fine speech and thank him for his support for a region of this country that I rarely get to visit. I also want to thank the member for Northwest Territories, who is also a very strong advocate for that region. Goodness knows that they have approached me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations with many requests. I am well aware of how passionately these two individuals advocate in favour of that beautiful part of our country, which is so rarely visited by most Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all my fellow members to visit the far north. It is a beautiful place that reinforces and reminds us what it means to be Canadian.
I would like to use my time to draw the attention of my hon. colleagues to the authorization of regional studies. Although this may be a lesser-known aspect of Bill C-88, regional studies should have a significant and positive impact on the review process at the core of the regulatory regime governing resource development in Canada's north.
The changes proposed in the bill before us would allow the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade to establish committees to conduct regional studies. These studies could take very diverse forms. They could, for example, be as narrow as a documentary analysis or as broad as in-depth research to create databases on a body of water or a land mass. The relevant text of the proposed bill is purposely broad in order to allow for a variety of scopes and activities.
One of the reasons why the bill uses non-specific language is that science and scientific knowledge are expanding and becoming increasingly sophisticated. It is impossible to accurately predict today what kind of regional study will be most beneficial 10 or 20 years from now. That said, regional studies can generate valuable environmental and socio-economic information about the potential impacts of a proposed project. The Northwest Territories' regulatory boards would definitely find that kind of information useful.
Although the proposed bill does not specify the form, scope, or subject of the studies, it clearly sets out what these studies and committees are not. Regional studies are not a substitute for the regulatory boards, for example, or any of the roles these boards play in the regulatory regime. The bill also states that a committee has no other role than what is set out in its terms of reference. Asking a committee to undertake a study essentially means hiring an expert or consultant to prepare a report. Under this bill, regional studies would be subject to the general principles of the integrated co-management regulatory regime authorized by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.
The value of including regional studies in environmental impact assessments has long been recognized. For example, the 1992 version of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act referred directly to regional studies. Under subsection 16(1), proponents had to consider the cumulative environmental effects of their projects, while section 16(2) emphasized the role and value of regional studies, outside the scope of the act, in considering cumulative effects. Parliament repealed the act in 2012, replacing it with a new version that explicitly authorizes the minister of the environment to establish committees to conduct regional studies.
Regional studies also feature prominently in a 2009 publication issued by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The publication, which is entitled “Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment in Canada: Principles and Guidelines”, lists the benefits of regional studies. These include analyzing, identifying and managing cumulative environmental effects at a more appropriate, regional scale.
According to this publication, regional studies can also contribute to the discussion of alternative sustainable future scenarios and key environmental goals and objectives for a region.
Studies can save time and resources by avoiding environmental effects early on, rather than mitigating cumulative effects much further down the line. Regional studies establish regional environmental targets, limits and thresholds against which to monitor and evaluate subsequent development and management actions. In this way, studies support effective project-based performance assessment. Lastly, the publication suggests that regional studies can provide an early indication of public interest in regional environmental issues.
It is clear that the value of regional studies to environmental impact assessments is increasingly being recognized. Many regulatory regimes in Canada use them as a way to collect environmental data and analyze environmental effects. Besides the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, provisions authorizing regional studies also appear in section 5 of Saskatchewan's Environmental Assessment Act and section 112 of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.
Many other jurisdictions in Canada incorporate regional studies into impact assessments even though those studies are not explicitly mentioned in the legislative measure in question. The simple truth is that regional studies are becoming increasingly popular because they are useful. They can provide accurate, up-to-date, relevant data. They are versatile and can be adapted to specific, practical circumstances. For example, a regional study may analyze potential impacts from the perspective of an ecosystem or region as a whole, rather than solely from the perspective of a particular project. Regional studies can provide necessary baseline data from which to analyze the impact of future development projects. These studies can also help to determine environmental thresholds. Ultimately, the reliable data and analyses generated by regional studies help board members make well-informed decisions. That is very important.
By authorizing regional studies, Bill C-88 will make this valuable tool available to regulatory boards in the Northwest Territories. The studies can be used to support project reviews and potentially speed up environmental assessments and environmental impact reviews. By referring to regional studies, the boards would be better able to properly review complex data that exceed the technical expertise of their members. Regional studies can also be used to gather and analyze baseline data, which is not part of the boards' responsibility.
The government is committed to maintaining strong legislation that protects Canada's rich natural environment, respects the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and supports Canada's resilient natural resources sector. Bill C-88 makes a number of significant improvements to the system.
In addition to authorizing the use of regional studies, the bill restores the regional land and water boards and creates a law enforcement system comprising inspections and revised penalties. Other changes will allow the boards to request extensions of their members' terms and enact regulations governing how governments and proponents consult indigenous peoples during the process to issue licences and permits and the environmental impact assessment process under the law.
All these improvements will strengthen northerners' ability to maximize the benefits of resource projects while minimizing their negative impact.
The bill before us deserves the support of the House. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-88 at second reading.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, language is very important. Language is a core element of people's identity and a key to who they are. We should know this, particularly people who come from Quebec and have fought so long for the French language. For indigenous peoples, particularly those in very difficult situations where languages have been ripped from them, it is exceedingly clear how important vitalization of languages is.
For my part, learning a language puts one on a playing field that is equal insofar as learners are able to look at something from a position where they are trying to understand languages, ways of thinking and where people are coming from. That is key to understanding what “honour of the Crown” means in the first place.
Honour of the Crown is a duty that is incumbent upon every single member of Parliament, particularly those in government when negotiating relations with indigenous peoples. As the member highlighted in his speech, a number of these relationships are treaty based. Therefore, it is not a question of enforcing and imposing federal law, which would then be unconstitutional. It is a question of perfecting those rights that have been acquired for a long time. This bill, when enshrined in law, will help perfect that relationship.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, in Canada, the gap between indigenous people and non-indigenous people is still quite wide, especially when it comes to education.
I am sure she read the budget in its entirety. She will have noted that 25% of the new spending is allocated to indigenous peoples, and rightly so. This is not something that can be accomplished in a four-year span, as many of us like to think. This has to be done in a spirit of reconciliation, in order to build something solid and long-lasting.
Our government is making record investments. We are talking about billions of dollars. We need to take a measured approach to this in collaboration with indigenous peoples.
We will welcome comments on this particular bill in committee.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, budget 2019 builds on almost $17 billion of investments in indigenous priorities, with an additional $4.5 billion to advance indigenous self-determination, redress past wrongs and close socioeconomic gaps. This includes $1.4 billion to forgive communities' outstanding comprehensive loan claims, $126 million to establish a national council for reconciliation and more than $15 million to ensure that federal policies and programs reflect the voices of indigenous youth. These sustained investments of more than $21 billion affirm and reaffirm our commitment to reconciliation.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Pontiac for his tireless commitment to reconciliation and, more specifically, his engagement with the people of Kitigan Zibi. I also want to highlight his undertakings in learning the Algonquin language. He is an example to us all.
With the signing of this MOU and the settlement of these claims, which includes compensation of over $116 million, we are supporting the acceleration of community-led social and economic initiatives and advancing reconciliation in a way that respects the rights and interests of Kitigan Zibi. By working together, we have not only helped address past wrongs, but also have taken important steps to renew and strengthen our nation-to-nation relationship with Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, this Sunday I joined thousands of Montrealers in my riding, along with the Minister of Justice, for the 196th Montreal St. Patrick's Day parade.
St. Patrick, of course, was an immigrant and a slave who became the emblem of a country. This Montreal institution is the longest-running, uninterrupted St. Patrick's Day parade in North America and has been held, without exception, every year since 1824.
The 196th annual parade, an important celebration of Quebec's Irish community, was well attended as usual. Each year, this event brings together thousands of Montrealers and visitors to celebrate one of our city's founding peoples. Let us not forget that the Irish famine refugees doubled the population of Montreal in a two-year period in the late 1840s.
I would like to thank the organizers, the United Irish Societies of Montreal, as well as the thousands of participants and the hundreds of volunteers who make this event a success year after year. Sláinte.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour I rise today to speak about this significant piece of legislation. We can all agree on the importance of acknowledging the impact of Indian residential schools on first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
Bill C-369, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation), calls for a day of commemoration, but an essential part of this day would be about educating Canadians.
I represent an area of Montreal that is traditional indigenous territory. It does not have a reserve on it, but it has many indigenous people and was a meeting place for indigenous peoples well before my people arrived.
The challenges we face as non-indigenous people in understanding what has gone on in the past are great. Before the word “reconciliation” comes the word “truth”, and that is perhaps the biggest challenge we face not only in this House but across Canada. What we still do not know is the truth. Often the truth is exceedingly painful.
I have had the privilege of starting on a very long path of learning an indigenous language, and not surprisingly, it has come with some surprises. As someone who was taught English and French, and has taken them both for granted, my conception of language is kind of a string on two soup cans between the people talking. It just vibrates, and that is what language is.
Naively, I embarked on this attempt to learn Kanyen'kéha, or Mohawk, thinking, like an idiot, “How hard could it be?" It is exceedingly hard. Having put perhaps an hour a day into it, I come out of these learning sessions, whether I am doing passive listening or working in my workbooks, with my brain completely fried.
One would think of it as if I were embarking on learning another Indo-European language that had some similarities with English and French. It is quite the contrary. It is a process of learning root words and piecing together ideas and images that are then conveyed onto other people. In this, one gains a very small glimpse into a window—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, this has allowed me to have a small window into what it means to understand certain concepts that were completely foreign to me, whether we are talking about creation stories or the connection of language to the land. This is something I would have entirely taken for granted two years ago had I not attempted to learn the language, however bad I am now.
When I talk to non-indigenous people about my learning experience, and I have received emails and phone calls, I have found that it pulls a deep emotional chord on people's heart strings, which I never realized at the outset.
In Quebec, we struggled with French in a sea of English. What it does for people is entrench the deep emotional importance of who one is as a person. It is a core element of identity. It is why this government and the entire House supports the indigenous languages act.
My point is that as we recognize a day for truth and reconciliation, we have to come face to face with the truth before we can perfect reconciliation. That comes with a lot of emotional wounds and scars that will be reopened. We see that as we engage and go deeper in our engagement with indigenous peoples. This is not something that can be embodied in one day. However, that day would support a time of reflection for non-indigenous people.
When I speak to constituents who do not have any indigenous heritage, they tell me that they are very eager to learn, but the sources are not there. This would be a very small element in beginning to understand what indigenous people have gone through in this country, both the good and the bad.
There is a tendency, and it is an unfortunate tendency, whether one is an advocate for indigenous issues or not, to always draw to the fore the bad things, and that has the perverse effect of re-stigmatizing. There are some good things going on in this country. I had the opportunity to have the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations over to my house to speak to some very powerful indigenous voices from Colombia. They were shocked that she used the word “self-determination”, because that is not something they hear from officials in their country.
As we take a step back and recognize what this government has achieved, there is a lot to be proud of. However, there is a lot to ask forgiveness for continuously to move forward, not for the sake of forgiveness itself.
This would be a symbolic day. My hope is that non-indigenous Canadians will seize this as a moment of reflection to better perfect the relationship we need to have with indigenous people to move on as a country and to look at ourselves as we imagine ourselves to be but are not yet.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, based on this last intervention, we can all agree there is a complex legal regime that surrounds confidentiality and is something that needs to be discussed and analyzed quite thoroughly in a non-partisan arena. As we have seen over the last few days, it has become quite partisan, to the point of creating what has been called an unholy alliance between the Conservatives and the NDP.
I know a lot of the NDP members from Montreal are out pulling votes. I gladly provided them with a map of Outremont for their benefit. The joke is on them because they do not do door-to-door all that much.
In any event, I will get on with the core of my speech.
I would like to address the House on a very important aspect of this debate, one our government takes very seriously, which is our integrity regime that governs how we do business with suppliers. Let me be clear about where our government stands on this issue. Simply put, unethical business practices should have no place in the Government of Canada's business at all. We do not, and will not, stand for it. Canadians should not, and will not, stand for it.
The fact is that corporate wrongdoing imposes significant, economic and social costs that can weaken competition and threaten the integrity of our markets. It can also place barriers on our economic growth and significantly increase the cost and risk of doing business. Additionally, it undermines public and investor confidence.
I want to assure Canadians that protecting the integrity of our public programs and services is one of our highest priorities. How we do business with suppliers is by no means an exception. The fact is that the Government of Canada spends approximately $20 billion per year on procurement contracts, real property agreements, the management of Crown-owned properties and rental payments on over 1,690 lease contracts across the country.
These are significant dealings that call for a robust and effective integrity regime, which is precisely what we have. It helps foster ethical business practices, ensures due process for suppliers and upholds the public trust in those dealings. As the government's central purchasing agent and real property manager, Public Services and Procurement Canada is deeply committed to ensuring the highest ethical standards in everything it does. Fraud, collusion and corruption have absolutely no place in our dealings. That is precisely why PSPC has a rigorous framework around prevention, detection and enforcement. The framework is firmly based on the values of fairness, transparency and accountability, and it is focused on delivering real results for all Canadians.
In 2015, Public Services and Procurement Canada put in place a government-wide integrity regime aimed squarely at ensuring the government did business with ethical suppliers in Canada and abroad. As part of this work, PSPC conducts more than 20,000 integrity verifications annually on contracts and real property transactions. The names of ineligible and suspended suppliers are posted on the department's website.
While our integrity regime is strong, our government is committed to making it even more effective in the fight against corporate wrongdoing. In fact, since taking office, this government has taken significant steps forward to do just that. Our commitment to Canadians has always been to ensure our approach remains transparent, rigorous and consistent with best practices in Canada and abroad.
In everything we do, we believe consultations are an important step in ensuring clear and transparent laws and policies fair to all. Our approach to improving and modernizing how we deal with corporate misconduct is no different. In 2017, we conducted a public consultation to seek input on expanding Canada's tool kit to address corporate wrongdoing. Government officials consulted over 370 participants and received 75 written submissions.
In keeping with our commitment to transparency, we released a report that summarized the views of those who participated in this consultation process. The report is available to all Canadians online, and I encourage all members to read it.
Based on what we have heard, last year we began the work to update and enhance our approach. Those actions included a number of provisions that we are discussing today for remediation agreements, equivalent to the Canadian deferred prosecution agreements, which are essentially an additional tool to hold corporations to account. Let me underscore the words “deferred prosecution agreement”. It is not something that was conjured up yesterday. I would point the House to a number of provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada that date back to early 2000 that deal with how we treat corporations.
Dealing with corporations that have committed serious offences is important for the integrity of our markets, the integrity of Canadians, but sentencing has to deal with justice, fairness and proportionality. I know the Conservatives have criticized us for suggesting that we need to protect jobs in this country, but the provisions that allow us to do that, or that allow prosecutors to do that for that matter, are in black and white in the Criminal Code.
Let me read for the House, section 718.21 of the Criminal Code, which tells about which factors the court considers when imposing a sentence. We are not talking about a deferred prosecution agreement, and I will be quite clear about that. This is when a company has been found liable and the court needs to consider factors in sentencing. It reads as follows:
A court that imposes a sentence on an organization shall also take into consideration the following factors:
(a) any advantage realized by the organization as a result of the offence;
(b) the degree of planning involved in carrying out the offence and the duration and complexity of the offence;
(c) whether the organization has attempted to conceal its assets, or convert them, in order to show that it is not able to pay a fine or make restitution;
(d) the impact that the sentence would have on the economic viability of the organization and the continued employment of its employees;
(e) the cost to public authorities of investigation and prosecution of the offence;
(f) any regulatory penalty imposed on the organization or one of its representatives in respect to the conduct that formed the basis of the offence;
(g) whether the organization was - or any of its representatives who were involved in the commission of the offence were - convicted of a similar offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body for similar conduct;
(h) any penalty imposed by the organization on a representative for their role in the commission of the offence;
(i) any restitution that the organization is ordered to make or any amount that the organization has paid to a victim of the offence; and
(j) any measures that the organization has taken to reduce the likelihood of it committing a subsequent event.
We have heard in the House over the last week, in various political panels, that these were novel regimes designed to whitewash actions of a corporation. They are quite the contrary. People who are saying that have no particular understanding of what the Criminal Code considers as fairness, justice and proportionality in sentencing.
I do not discount partisan read, but I question the people who are suggesting this particular knowledge of the Criminal Code. The provisions I cited date back to about 15 years.
The remediation agreements are similar in the objectives that they seek, and I need to highlight them here as well. For purposes of my next quote, I am citing section 715.31 of the Criminal Code, which talks about remediation agreements and underscores their purpose. It reads as follows:
The purpose of this Part is to establish a remediation agreement regime that is applicable to organizations alleged to have committed an offence and that has the following objectives:
(a) to denounce an organization’s wrongdoing and the harm that the wrongdoing has caused to victims or to the community;
(b) to hold the organization accountable for its wrongdoing through effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;
(c) to contribute to respect for the law by imposing an obligation on the organization to put in place corrective measures and promote a compliance culture;
(d) to encourage voluntary disclosure of the wrongdoing;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons—employees, customers, pensioners and others—who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.
There has been a lot of discussion about how this has been taken in Quebec, the reaction in Quebec and the alleged willingness of Quebeckers to glance over this. I mentioned in a prior speech that the rule of law is as equally important in Quebec as it is in any other province. However, we hear this narrative coming back into the Conservative discourse particularly. They are thinking that Quebec will somehow let these issues off the hook faster than they would in other provinces. I find it disgusting. We have told them to say it in French and they do not. If one aspires to lead this country, one needs to hold a discourse that has the same narrative across this country, in both official languages. I am not hearing that from members of the opposition.
I also heard a member of the opposition suggest that a member of Parliament, conveniently from Montreal, was appointed to be Minister of Justice and Attorney General, which somehow insinuates that he would be more lenient on a company that has its headquarters in my riding. Before I get into the substance of it, let me remind this House of the merits of the current Attorney General. He has a Ph.D. from Yale. He served as a professor at McGill University for many years and has given impeccable legal advice throughout a distinguished career. To have a member of Parliament stand up and question his integrity is a disgrace. We can talk about bashing Montreal MPs. I am one. The member can bash me, that is okay, but I do not stand it for any of my colleagues. Regarding the allegation that he made against the current Attorney General, I would invite him to say it outside of the House.
What we have talked about today, and what we will continue to talk about presumably over the next few days, is a regime that is intended to put a company that has admitted its crime, paid its dues and taken steps to ensure the measures it is accused of cannot and will not happen again is given a deferred prosecution agreement. That means that if it violates that agreement, it can be prosecuted. It does not mean it is off the hook. However, it does allow it, for example, to compete internationally against similarly situated companies that may or may not have benefited, and more often than not may have benefited, from similar regimes in projects that require that type of regulatory framework.
As I mentioned before, SNC-Lavalin can defend itself. It has capable lawyers. However, let no one in this House suggest that the deferred prosecution regime was intended for any particular company. It is a regime that balances three things, proportionality, justice and fairness, to allow companies not to have terminate innocent employees, for example, among other things. Any member of Parliament who is suggesting that this is a Quebec thing not only does not understand Quebec but also does not understand the company they are levelling accusations against. It has most of its employment outside Canada, and most of its Canadian employment outside of Quebec.
The enhanced policies that I have set forth expand on policies that are already in existence but that we have sought to make better. In certain circumstances, companies can be declared ineligible or suspended from doing business with the government. These policies also provide flexibility in determining periods of ineligibility to ensure that they are proportional, and based on the nature and the context of the offence and the steps taken by the suppliers to address misconduct. I would also note that under our current policy, a supplier found guilty of committing an offence may be declared ineligible for a period of up to 10 years.
The ineligibility and suspension policy is an important component of the integrity regime. It sets out when and how a supplier may be declared ineligible or suspended from doing business with the government for a period of up to 10 years.
Allow me to inform this House about some of the things we learned and how we have taken action to address feedback gathered during those consultations, specifically as it pertains to our integrity regime.
First and foremost, it was encouraging to see that participants were fully supportive of fair, proportional and transparent measures that enable the government to take action against corporate wrongdoing. They also supported measures that ultimately hold companies accountable for misconduct.
Among the majority of stakeholders, there was a call for additional discretion and flexibility within the integrity regime, specifically into the provisions of the ineligibility and suspension policy. As we look to strengthening the regime, we know that we must strike a balance by considering more flexibility in the policy that directs it and expanding the list of circumstances that could result in ineligibility.
Let me come back to the matter currently under debate. I am a bit perplexed at the request to have the Prime Minister appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Over the past two weeks, I have seen the Prime Minister answer 40 questions on the matter for a total of 45 minutes and that does not include the questions that we all heard today. We have had questions from six MPs and two party leaders—the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of his own party, the name of which escapes me, the hon. member seated at the back near the leader of the Green Party. Obviously the NDP House leader also asked questions of us.
I analyzed the questions, and I do not want to repeat all of them, but obviously the Conservatives' questions were disrespectful and implicated the Prime Minister's principal secretary, Gerald Butts, an individual who served our country with honour and integrity. I want to emphasize that. Canadians are indebted to him. The Conservatives wanted to call into question that individual's dignity and the way he served our country, no matter what the cost.
I know there is one member of the NDP who will laugh at this, but I wanted to compliment the parliamentary leader, who called for the waiving of solicitor-client privilege. The Prime Minister answered that question very respectfully. I will tell him because he is not in the House. I do not want to point out someone's absence from the House. The NDP's questions were more respectful than those of the Conservatives, with few exceptions. There was one question about lifting the confidentiality regime. Obviously, we would need to debate that to determine why confidentiality should be waived. There are cases before the courts. We have to look at striking a balance, achieving a proportionality, before confidentiality can be waived, whether we are talking about cabinet confidences or solicitor-client privilege.
In my private practice, I was subject to solicitor-client privilege. Any time we wanted to waive that privilege, all of the potential impacts had to be examined.
There are two cases before the courts. There is talk of an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. Obviously, these considerations could harm the interests of Canadians and third parties. This is something that must be figured out between the former attorney general and cabinet as such.
I am sure—and this will make the debate less partisan—that this will be settled among lawyers in a sober and deliberate way, and that the former minister of justice and attorney general will have the chance to speak candidly.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. With respect to his first observation, I would suggest that he listen to what his friend said when he subtly impugned the integrity of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, by saying how convenient it was that the minister is from Montreal. That is an obvious case of Quebec-bashing. I would encourage him to speak to his colleague and ask him to apologize because that is unacceptable.
With respect to what he said next, waiving confidentiality involves some very complex considerations. If he wants to ask the Prime Minister questions, he can do so in the House. If he is not happy with the questions his leader asks, he himself can ask the Prime Minister. There is ample opportunity to do so every Wednesday.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
Canadians expect there to be robust discussions between the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Prime Minister's Office in a G7 country, a pluralistic democracy.
Canadians expect there to be extensive, even difficult, discussions on certain issues, especially issues that could hurt our country, whether we are talking about jobs or any other issue. Otherwise, we would be living in a democracy that does not reflect who we are. Obviously, in this particular case, the final decision was for the former attorney general to make.
The nature of those discussions is quite unique. They are subject to cabinet confidentiality, in other words, cabinet confidence, within a solicitor-client relationship. There are two kinds of confidentiality, perhaps even three or four. The confidentiality we are talking about refers to the legal privilege that exists between solicitors and their clients. There is also a general confidentiality regime.
People are confused, and they have every reason to be. However, the regime must have a partial exception for matters in which the clients, who in this case are cabinet and the Prime Minister, speak about matters that could be secret and could have unintended consequences for third parties. We do not want information to get out that could undermine an ongoing court case, for example, or, and I am obviously speculating here, that would have a negative impact on a third party or inadvertently reveal secrets. As a citizen, I think that secrets should stay within cabinet.
I am a member of the caucus, and I expect my cabinet to keep secrets. I expect some matters not to be known in the public sphere. This is absolutely reasonable to me. Lawyers obviously need to have a non-partisan discussion to understand the scope of what the witness would testify to. I support these kinds of discussions, in order to give Canadians the truth they are looking for.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am a politician, so I will comment, but normally I would not, as that was extremely well said.
The national economic interest was put into that agreement because of our obligations under the anti-bribery treaties with the OECD countries. It is intended to ensure that we do not let a company go simply because the national interest demands that we do so. It is to avoid protectionism and to avoid rewarding wrongdoers. It is not a provision that is intended to exclude every single large company in this country.
I would note, in the case of the company everyone is speculating about, that it is a company that has jobs outside Canada. Therefore, we could perhaps make an argument that these sorts of considerations would not apply to it. However, these are important things, because we do not want to encourage bad behaviour and protectionist behaviour. That is why these provisions were put in place. However, they cannot be interpreted so broadly as to exclude large companies in this country.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation governed by the rule of law. This basic premise is not only written into our Constitution, but it is also found in the actions of our political actors and in the structure of our executive, legislative and judiciary institutions, as well as how they relate to one another.
Upholding the Constitution requires not only respect for the supreme law of the land, as set out in the provisions of our Constitution, but also rules and practices that reflect and support constitutional values.
As a member from Quebec and someone who has worked in the legal field in several jurisdictions, including in Europe, the United States and Quebec, but mainly in Quebec, I found it very troubling to hear certain members and media outlets suggesting that Quebec does not uphold the rule of law to the same extent as other provinces. That statement is completely false and utterly shameful.
In our parliamentary system we must adhere to and respect well-established constitutional principles and conventions. Foremost among them is the principle of separation of powers, which our Supreme Court has emphasized in a principle that is fundamental to the workings of Parliament and the courts. This principle requires that each branch of government recognize the role of the other branches and respect the appropriate limits of its own role.
As Justice McLachlin, later the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote in New Brunswick Broadcasting in 1993:
It is fundamental to the working of government as a whole that all these parts play their proper role. It is equally fundamental that no one of them overstep its bounds, that each show proper deference for the legitimate sphere of activity of the other.
In 2005, Justice Binnie observed that it was a wise principle that the courts and Parliament strive to respect each other's role in the conduct of public affairs. He went on to state:
Parliament, for its part, refrains from commenting on matters before the courts under the sub judice rule. The courts, for their part, are careful not to interfere with the workings of Parliament.
We have emphasized, here in the House, the need to respect parliamentary privilege. As Justice Binnie indicated, “[p]arliamentary privilege...is one of the ways in which the fundamental constitutional separation of powers is respected.”
However, we also need to remember that the separation of powers requires respect for the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary and that we need to refrain from interfering either directly or indirectly—and that is important to note—in the adjudicative function of the courts. That applies particularly to courts that deal with criminal and other related cases.
One way we in the House continue to protect the principles of the separation of powers and judicial independence is through respect for the sub judice rule. That rule is embodied in a cherished constitutional convention.
Democratic government under the rule of law has been under attack lately domestically and abroad. Continuing to ensure respect for constitutional conventions is one of the ways our political culture supports a modern parliamentary democracy that is also attuned to the values Canadians cherish, including the independence of our courts and the right to a fair trial.
Similarly, we need to abide by the sub judice convention because it contributes to respect for the principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, which are fundamental to any pluralistic democracy.
We need to strike a balance between the powers, roles and duties of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and this long-standing convention is an important means of accomplishing that.
Parliamentarians should be very familiar with the sub judice convention. There has been enough talk about it.
In fact, it is described at length in the authoritative guide to the workings of the House of Commons, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which I hope everyone has read, as an “exercise of restraint on the part of the House in which restrictions are placed on the freedom of Members to make reference in debate to matters which are sub judice, that is, awaiting judicial decisions. It is also understood that matters before the courts are also prohibited as subjects of motions, petitions or questions in the House.”
This book goes on to note that this “restriction exists in order to protect an accused person or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry from any prejudicial effect of public discussion of the issue. The convention recognizes the courts, as opposed to the House, as the proper forum in which to decide individual cases.”
It is also worth noting that the convention “has been applied consistently” to “all matters relating to criminal cases”.
In our parliamentary system, speaking of a matter that is before a court of justice, particularly a court seized with a criminal matter and related proceedings, may risk prejudicing the outcome of a trial and may affect the protection of due process, including the presumption of innocence afforded to accused persons in our society.
Let me say this. Over the last few days, we have seen a rush to judgment and politicalization by certain opposition MPs. While I hasten to say that I offer no excuses for SNC-Lavalin, and indeed it is fully capable of defending itself, I find it highly troubling that some colleagues would readily condemn it for their own personal political gain.
When I meet lobbyists, which we have bandied about as almost a dirty word, it is highly informative of what goes on in Canadian society. I choose carefully who I meet. It is not a one-way discussion; it is a two-discussion. I ask them what they can do for the citizens of Canada.
As we who have been elected to this House know, our duty in this House is to be the representatives and voices of our constituents, not just the ones who voted for us but all the constituents in our ridings. That does not mean that we can ignore what businesses say to us, because they employ a lot of people in our ridings. In the centre of Montreal, they employ many people who are not necessarily capable of voting for someone like me, because they come in through the 14 metro stations in my riding. That does not mean that I will not stand up for those people, the employees, if there are circumstances that affect their families, whether or not they have chosen to vote for me.
My job is not to protect business but to protect the people in my riding: their charter values, their livelihoods, and first and foremost, their physical integrity and their right to have gainful jobs and to contribute to this economy. Therefore, when a company, whether large or small, comes into my riding, my principal focus is the employees and ensuring that good jobs for Canadians are maintained in my riding.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms constitutionally guarantees the right of a person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, according to the law, in a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. I am certain that no one in this chamber would want to undermine that fundamental constitutional right by discussing a matter that is within the rightful purview and jurisdiction of the court and is before it pending a decision.
In the case at hand, it is reasonable to ask this: After a proper accounting is made of white-collar crime and the actors are punished and fines are levied, what is left? It goes back to what I said earlier. The answer, more often than not, is employees who may see their families and livelihoods jeopardized by further prosecution. In this sense, and I will stress that I have no direct evidence of what has been discussed, the Prime Minister's Office would have been remiss not to seek advice from the then attorney general, and the then attorney general would have been remiss not to give that advice.
I want to take a moment as well to pay homage to the work done by the former minister of justice in advancing key elements of our platform. Whether it was the legalization of cannabis or assisted-dying legislation, they are elements that touch upon moral values and go beyond legislation. I want to pay tribute to the work she did in that role in advancing the values of Canadian society.
She has also helped me, on personal level, deal with issues of which I know very little. In that sense, I refer to indigenous issues, which are top of mind for this government. I want to thank her for her service in that respect.
This brings us back to the reason for the rule, which is to protect not only the constitutional rights of accused persons, but also the constitutional principles of judicial independence and separation of powers.
In the House, which respects these principles as well as constitutionalism and the rule of law, we need to do everything in our power to prevent interference, or the perception of interference, in due process, the broader principles of fundamental justice and the impartiality of the courts.
Let me discuss this concept in some detail. As I have said, by convention, members of Parliament do not comment on matters that are pending before the courts. This is known, as I said earlier, as the sub judice rule, which is just fancy Latin for matters under judicial consideration.
The rule is appropriately described in Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada: “Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record.”
Why do I mention this? It is because, so far, despite many media reports, what we have are unsubstantiated allegations. Indeed, we have had two high-profile resignations, but we do not know the substance of those allegations. I know many people will stand in the House and say that we should get to the bottom of this. What I have said in the last few minutes as an answer speaks for itself.
If anything, the motion today is premature, absolutely premature, with very few substantiated facts. The members opposite, even some reputed legal minds, in fact legal minds I respect quite profoundly, would hasten to waive solicitor-client privilege. We could have a long discussion as to whether it has already been waived.
Hon. Erin O'Toole: It has.
Mr. Marc Miller: I thank the member for Durham for pointing that out. We worked in the same firm, but not contemporaneously. He has suggested that it already has, and again, he is substituting his mind for other legal minds. I know, despite that, that he is a humble man.
Solicitor-client privilege is a basic tenet of our democracy, of common law courts more particularly. As applied to the relationship between the Prime Minister's Office and the Attorney General, it has a number of particular legal twists. However, the fundamental tenet remains the same. It allows the client, in this case the Governor in Council or the Prime Minster's Office, whatever we call it, to get full, complete counsel on matters that are of capital importance. The corresponding role of the lawyer is to give free and unfettered advice back.
Again, as many members have pointed out, it is a privilege that can be waived by the proverbial client. Whether it should be is an entirely different consideration, because we are talking about complex matters that, as we have seen in the last week, have been highly politicized and based on what we know to be, so far, unsubstantiated reports.
Members may take different positions on this motion, and indeed different positions may be taken within our caucus and with respect to other parties in the House, but there is a level of prematurity here that we cannot deny.
I have heard a number of arguments given here today. I am studying the motion, and indeed, my colleagues are studying the motion, in depth. We need to take a deep look at where we want to go with this. These are matters before the court, and as I mentioned, I am in no position to, nor should I necessarily have to, defend one of Canada's largest companies. It has wise counsel.
Yes, there may very well be jobs at risk, regardless of the province they lie in. I have no direct evidence that discussions occurred, but the very difficult discussions that may have occurred between the Prime Minister's Office and the former attorney general were most likely appropriate under the circumstances, and correspondingly, the former attorney general's advice had to be heeded. Attempting to open that process to a highly politicized inquiry through which members may very well, wittingly or unwittingly, compromise judicial positions in court, with potentially unintended consequences, is cavalier, particularly in the face of unsubstantiated evidence.
I would readily concede that we do not know enough. The issue is whether we are publicly entitled to know enough. The only things that prevent that are solicitor-client privilege, which is a basic tenet of a pluralistic democracy, and various levels of confidentiality that may or may not be asserted. This lies at the very core of what we are as a country and as a democracy, which is respect for the division of powers, respect for judicial process and respect for the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.
I respectfully submit to the House that before implicating any particular company, or importantly, any person, it is important that we exercise the requisite prudence and refrain from discussing these matters, not only to protect the parties but because the trial could be affected by debate and conjecture in the House.
I ask all my colleagues in the House to join me in reflecting on the importance of maintaining respect for the sub judice convention and the broader constitutional principles that have been developed specifically to protect criminal matters and related proceedings.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret to this House that my friendship with the Prime Minister goes back quite some time. The member opposite opened the door; it is not my position to speak about that relationship. I will simply underline that one of the reasons I dropped quite a decent job to run to represent Canada was based on four decades of experience of the honesty and integrity of the person who is the current prime minister.
I will also say this about Gerald Butts, who has just resigned. His resignation is a loss for Canadians, and it is a loss for Canada. It is something we will have to reconstruct as a government in order to move on and pursue the work of someone who is so passionate in the defence of Canadians and of progressive, non-partisan politics in our country.
As much as people may object to that and think it is the contrary, that is absolutely not the case. Gerald Butts has nothing but Canada and Canadians at heart. He has sacrificed a tremendous amount to do that, and I hope he continues to do that over the next few years.
I am not going to talk about when and where privilege gets waived. It is a highly opportunistic argument from the member for Durham. In that regard, it is up to the former attorney general to take a position. She has retained wise counsel in that regard, and no doubt she will be speaking up and speaking truthfully, as she always has in the past, when she gets the opportunity to get proper counsel on that matter.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I will readily concede that what is missing here are the facts. It requires the House to speculate. Thus far, that speculation has been based on unsubstantiated claims of pressure, which may be entirely licit or illicit, and that an investigation should be launched. In my mind this is entirely premature.
I worked in the corporate field in a number of jurisdictions, with both larger and smaller companies than the one at issue. Clients need to have a comfortable area in which they can talk to their lawyer openly. They will go through strategy sessions, asking, “Can we do this? Can we do that?” If a client suggests that their lawyer should do something that the lawyer cannot do, that lawyer must speak up and report up. Lawyers need to have that confidence with their client to report it up. If a client orders them to do something, their lawyer must resign and refuse to do it.
Again, I am speculating, but if I were in that position I would expect the former attorney general to do precisely what it was her job to do. I have no doubt that she did it.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, there are many venues through which to get a proper ventilation of what is going on. His basic point was that we need someone independent, who is apolitical and has a judicial or quasi-judicial role, and who is able to look at the facts soberly and clearly to come to a conclusion. That will enable Canadians to get the certainty that a number of members opposite have attempted to politicize. Clearly, the Ethics Commissioner will exercise that role wisely, apolitically, and with a sober eye to the facts.
This is a process that perhaps, because the facts may stay confidential, will not be ventilated in the public sphere and perhaps even used to some people's political advantage. However, we trust the Ethics Commissioner's work, which we have seen a little of. We trust that he will come to a conclusion that, in my mind, will absolve the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing.
Again, this is not my decision to take. It is properly vested in the Ethics Commissioner, as well as any other bodies that may be seized of it. I certainly welcome the investigation and look forward to seeing its results.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the following five reports: The Annual Report of the Implementation Committee Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, dated April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016; the Tla'amin Nation Annual Treaty Implementation Report, 2016/2017; the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Annual Report, 2014-2015; the Annual Report of the Implementation Committee Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017; and finally, the 2014-15 Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Annual Report.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
[Member spoke in Mohawk and provided the following text:]
Ó:nen aesewatahonhsí:yohste’ kenh nikentyohkò:ten tsi nahò:ten í:’i karihwayentáhkwen.
Tyotyerénhton, í:kehre takwanonhwerá:ton’ akwé:kon ken:’en kanónhsakon sewaya’taró:ron tahnon wa’tkwanòn:weron’ tsi enhskwatahónhsatate’ ón:wa kenh wenhniserá:te. Í:kehre ó:ni taetewatenonhwerá:ton tsi yonkwaya’taró:ron raononhwentsyà:ke ne Ratirón:taks. Tahnon tehinonhwerá:ton ne Shonkwaya’tíson ne akwé:kon tehshonkwá:wi.
Kén:’en tewaktá:’on akwahthárhahse’ ne Kanyen’kéha, nè:ne raotiwén:na ne Kanyen’kehá:ka. Enkhthá:rahkwe’ ne kayanerénhtshera aorihwà:ke nè:ne enkahretsyá:ron’ tsi yontá:tis onkwehonwehnéha Koráhne.
Akwáh í:ken tsi onkwatshennónnya’te’ sha’akwate’nikonhrísa’ kén:’en kanónhsakon, taetewawennaté:ni’ ne ó:nen háti ónhka ok yetsyénhayens á:yenhre’ ayontá:ti’ ne onkwehonwehnéha. Yorihowá:nen ayehthina’tón:hahse’ ratikorahró:non tsi tewawennakwennyénhstha ne onkwehonwehnéha ne kèn:tho, kanaktakwe’niyò:ke Koráhne, kanáktakon tsi ratinorónhstha ne ratikorahró:non.
Yawehronhátye, akwáh í:ken tsi sénha yorihowá:nen ne kí:ken kayanerénhtshera ne onkwehón:we raotirihwà:ke. Ratinyén:te ahatiwennahní:rate’ ne raotiwén:na, owén:na nè:ne wahoná:ti’ tókani wahonwatíhkwa’. Tentewarihwahskénha’ ne kí:ken kayanerénhtshera, kén:’en tahnon ó:ya kanáktakon. Enyonkwaya’takénha’ sénha ayonkwa’nikonhrayén:ta’ne’ ne kí:ken kayanerénhtshera. Enskarihwahserón:ni’ ne karihwaksèn:tshera tsi nahotiyé:ra’se’ ne onkwehón:we, tahnon enkanónhstate’ tsi sénha enkarihwakwénnyenhste’ ne raotiwén:na tahnon nihotirihò:ten ne onkwehón:we Korahne.
É:so niyonkwè:take rotirihwanontón:ni, “Oh nontyé:ren tsi teyotonhwentsyóhon Koráhne aetewateweyén:ton’ tahnon aonsetyón:nite’ owennahshón:’a nè:ne yah thaón:ton konnonhá:’ok akonnónnheke?” Ta’ non é:so niyonkwè:take ayonnonhtónnyon’ tsi yah the tehatirihwayenté:ri nè:ne eh ratirihwanón:tons ne kí:ken tahnon sakerihwahserón:ni’ nè:ne aesewa’nikonhrakarewáhton né:’e tsi wa’kerihwanón:ton’, nek tsi yorihowá:nen tóhkara niyorì:wake takerihwahthe’te’ ne káti ayako’nikonhrayén:ta’ne’ tsi nahò:ten yoteríhonte ne Koráhne. Enkate’nyén:ten’ aontakerihwa’será:ko’ ne karihwanónhtha né:’e tsi enkhthá:rahkwe’ ne ón:kwe nè:ne wahontá:ti’ ne Rotinonhsyón:ni raotiwennahshón:’a, skawén:na nè:ne Kanyen’keha.
Shontahón:newe’ ne kèn:tho ne Onhwentsyakayonhró:non, é:so niyonkwè:take wahontá:ti’ ne Rotinonhsyón:ni raotiwennahshón:’a. Rotinonhsyonnì:ton nè:ne akwáh í:ken tsi yotshá:niht. Onhwentsyà:ke thonnónhtonskwe Ohiyò:ke tsi ya’tewahsóhthos tsi niyó:re Kanyatarowá:nen tsi tkarahkwíneken’s. Yonhwentsyowá:nen ratinákerehkwe, onhwentsyà:ke tsi tkarahkwíneken’s nonká:ti nè:ne kenh wenhniseratényon tewana’tónhkwa Koráhne tahnon Wahstonhronòn:ke.
Teyotonhwentsyohónhne Onhwentysakayonhró:non skáhne ahotiyó’ten’ ne onkwehón:we tahnon tahontatya’takénha’. Teyotonhwentsyohónhne ahatinonhkwa’tsherayentérha’ne’ ne Onhwentysakayonhró:non. Teyotonhwentsyohónhne ahatiweyentéhta’ne’ tsi ní:yoht ahonnónnhehkwe onhwentsyà:ke. Teyotonhwentsyohónhne ahonatenro’tsherí:yo’ne’ tahnon tahotirihwayenawakónhake ne onkwehón:we ne káti ahonnónnheke. Sha’onkwe’tanákere’ne’ ne ratihnará:ken wa’thontekháhsi’ tahnon tahontáhsawen’ tahontaterí:yo’. Tetsyarónhkwen nonká:ti tehotirihwayenawá:kon ón:ton’ ne onkwehón:we ne káti sha’tekarihwató:ken akénhake ne tetsyarónhkwen nonká:ti.
Né:’e tsi tehonterané:ken wahonterí:yo’ ne Tyorhenhshá:ka, Wahstonhró:non wahóntsha’ahte’ tahnon wahatiká:ri’ é:so nikaná:take raoná:wenk ne Rotinonhsyón:ni tahnon wahshakotíhkwa’ yonhwentsyowá:nens raonawénkhahkwe. E’thóhtsi aonsetewehyá:ra’ne’ ne kí:ken.
Tókat yah skáhne teyonkwayo’tén:’on ne onkwehón:we eh shikahá:wi, tókat yah teyonkwatenro’tsheriyó:’on ne onkwehón:we eh shikahá:wi, tókat yah teyonkwarihwayenawá:kon teyotó:’on ne onkwehón:we eh shikahá:wi, yah thakénhake ne Koráhne nè:ne tewayenté:ri nón:wa. Tsi waterí:yo ne sha’té:kon yawén:re tewennyá:wer tékeni yawén:re shiyohserá:te, ronterí:yos ne onkwehón:we tahnon tehatinekwenhsayéhston, é:so tsi nahontyerányon’ ahshakotiya’takénha’ ne Korahró:non tahnon Tyorhenhshá:ka raotinèn:ra ne káti tahonwanatya’tón:ti’ ne Wahstonhró:non tahnon ahatinónhstate’ ne kí:ken onhwéntsya. Tsi waterí:yo, tóhkara niyohsénhserote ronterí:yos ne onkwehón:we wahonterí:yo’ tehonterané:ken ne sótar ne Tyorhenhshá:ka tahnon Korahró:non.
Akwáh kenh náhe, kanónhsakon ne kèn:tho, wa’tetshitewahsennakará:tate’ ne Levi Oakes, nè:ne wà:ratste’ raowén:na aharihwáhsehte’ tsi waterí:yo tékeni watòn:tha, ne káti skén:nen tahontaththárhahse’ ne sotár Korahró:non. Karihwahétken ná:’a, ne ó:nen Koráhne wa’thonwanatonhwéntsyohse’ ne onkwehón:we, wahonthonkárya’ke’. Tahnon nón:wa, skén:nen í:ken, tahnon é:so tsi niyonaterihwayén:ni ne raotiwén:na, ayethi’nikonhrotá:ko’. Yoyánerehkwe sha’teyonkwarihwayenawakòn:ne ne onkwehón:we ne ó:nen tetewateranekénhne shetewaterí:yo’. Nek tsi nón:wa, skén:nen í:ken, tahnon yonkwarihwatkà:wen tsi yethirihwakwennyénhstha skén:nen tayonkwarihwayenwakónhake ne onkwehón:we.
Akwáh í:ken tsi roti’nikonhrakarewáhton ne onkwehón:we oh nihotiyerà:se tsi yontaweya’táhkwa ronwati’terontáhkwa. E’tho nón:we wahonwatinénhsko’ ne raotiwén:na tahnon nihotirihò:tens. Íhsi nón:we ne énhskat tewennyá:wer niyohserá:ke nikarì:wes, Koráhne, raotikoráhsera tahnon yonterennayentahkwahshón:’a, wáhontste’ yontaweya’tahkwahshón:’a ronwati’terontáhkwa ahatiká:ri’ raotiwén:na tahnon nihotirihò:tens ne onkwehón:we ne kati onkwehón:we ahatirihwahserehsonhátye ne o’serón:ni nihotirihò:tens. Ne ok ne o’seronni’kéha tókani o’seronni’ón:we wá:tonskwe ahontá:ti’ kanonhsakónhshon ne ronteweyénhstha. Wahonwatihré:wahte’ yo’shátste’ ne ronteweyénhstha, tókat wahontá:ti’ raotiwén:na. Akwáh í:ken tsi wahotironhyá:ken’ ne é:so nihá:ti. Akarihwahetkénhake, tokenhske’ón:we, tayonterihwathe’te’ tsi nihotiya’tawén:’on e’tho nón:we.
Akwáh ki’ nón:wa, kheyanonhtónnyon ne tsyeyà:ta Kanyen’kehá:ka, Oronhiokon, Gladys Gabriel, yontátyatskwe, ye’terón:tahkwe ne Shingwauk yontaweya’táhkwa, Sault Ste. Marie nón:we. Eh wahshakotiya’ténhawe’ ne wisk sha’teyakaohseriyà:kon. Akwáh í:ken tsi wa’ontatya’tí:sake’ nako’nihsténha nek tsi yah tetsyakohténtyon tsi niyó:re yà:yak yawén:re na’teyakohserí:ya’ke’. Yah teyotón:’on ayontá:ti’ ne akowén:na tsi yontaweya’táhkwa nek tsi yonsayerihwà:reke’. Wa’erihwáhsehte’ tsi takyatathárhahse’ ne Kanyen’kéha ne akohtsí:’a Wari niya’tekahá:wi ne ó:nen yah ónhka teyakothón:te.
Oronhiokon tayakéhtahkwe’ tsi Shonkwaya’tíson wahshakorihón:ten’ ayontóhetste’ ne akowén:na ne ronwatiyen’okón:’a. Tayakéhtahkwe’ tsi ahonwa’nikonhrakaré:wahte’ tókat yah tehonhrónkha ne akowén:na. Yah teyakotkà:wen tsi yontá:tis ne akowén:na tsi yontaweya’táhkwa. Eh wahonwatiya’takénha’ ne ronwatiyen’okón:’a, nè:ne Gabriel raotihwá:tsire Kanehsatà:ke nithoné:non, ahontkón:tahkwe’ tsi ronhrónhkha ne Kanyen’kéha tsi niyó:re ón:wa kenh wenhniserá:te. Wakerihwà:reks ne Oronhiò:kon akoká:ra ase’kén kheyenté:ri ronátya’ke ronwatiyén:’a tahnon ronwanateré:’a tahnon wakerihwasè:se tsi órye khena’tónhkwa.
Yah eh tehonaterahswiyóhston ne é:so niyonkwè:take tahnon wahoná:ti’ raotiwén:na. Ótya’ke wahontéhen’ ne raotiwén:na aorihwà:ke né:’e tsi kakoráhsera tahnon yonterennayentahkwahshón:’a wahonte’nyén:ten’ ahshakonónnyen’ ne onkwehón:we tahontté:ni’ ne káti o’serón:ni ahón:ton’. Wè:ne tsi yah teyonkwatkà:wen tsi tewathshteríhstha ne onkwehonwehnéha ne káti aonhá:’ok akatátyeke. E’tho káti sakarihwahserón:ni’ ne Kakoráhsera nek tsi yah é:so teyonkwatyé:ren aonsetewarihwahserón:ni’ ne karihwaksèn:tshera tahnon ka’nikonhrakarewahtónhtshera nè:ne nahotiyé:ra’se’ ne onkwehón:we.
Kenh wenhniseratényon, onkwehón:we ronhrónkha íhsi nón:we ne yà:yak niwáhsen nikawén:nake Koráhne tahnon thó:ha akwé:kon yonaterihwayén:ni. É:so niyohsénhserote niyonkwè:take ronhrónhka ótya’ke nikawén:nake. Tsyeyà:ta tókani tehniyáhsen ok nihá:ti yonhrónhka ne ó:ya. Akwé:kon yotiwennakenhé:yon. Ótya’ke yonenheyenhátye.
Tókat yah othé:nen thayotiyén:ta’ne’ ne kaya’takenhà:tshera, yohsnó:re, tóhkara ok enyonatatenrónhake. Nek tsi enwá:ton ayakorhá:rahkwe. Ne ó:nen khekwáthos Freedom School ne Akwesáhsne, Onkwawawén:na Kentyóhkwa ne Ohswé:ken, tókani Ratiwennahní:rats ne Kahnawà:ke, khé:kens ronteweyénhstha ronatonnháhere, niya’tehonohseriya’kónhshon, nè:ne ronaronhkha’onhátye. Wakerhá:re. Khé:kens shakotirihonnyén:nis ótya’ke nè:ne ronaterí:yo íhsi nón:we ne tewáhsen niyohserá:ke nikarì:wes ne káti tsyorì:wat ne onkwehonwehnéha ahatinónhstate’ – raotiwén:na.
Tahnon í:se, teyonkwarihwayenawá:kon kenh kanónhsakon, tahnon ratikwé:kon ó:ya onhwentsyà:ke nè:ne ronaterí:yo ahatinónhstate’ ne O’seronni’ón:we, owén:na nè:ne yoterihwayén:ni tsi tekyatkénnyes ne O’seronni’kéha, e’thohtsi ayokén:take tsi nahò:ten wá:ken. É:so niyonkwè:take ratirihwayenté:ri ne ate’nyenten’tà:tshera tahnon ronateryèn:tare tsi ní:yoht tsi na’teyotirihwayenawá:kon ne káti ayontatyenteríhake tahnon aontayonnónhton’ tsi niyontyérha. Ayá:wen’s tsi enhatihretsyá:ron’ kayaneren’tshera nè:ne enkarihwahní:rate’ tsi tkarihwayé:ri ahontá:ti’ raotiwén:na ne onkwehón:we, ne káti enhotiya’takénha’ onkwehón:we aontahonnónhton’ oh nahóntyere’ tsi niyenhén:we. Tahnon ó:ni, enkahretsyá:ron’ sénha niyonkwè:take ahontá:ti’ ne onkwehonwehnéha thiyonhwentsyakwé:kon Koráhne. Tókat yah thaón:ton’ naetewá:yere’ ne kí:ken, yah í:’i teyonkwe’tò:ten tsi ní:yoht tsi ítewehre.
Enkatewennò:kten’ akhthá:rahkwe’ niwakerihò:ten.
Wakatá:ti ón:wa wenhniserá:te ne Kanyen’kéha. Yah akewén:na té:ken. Takatáhsawen’ akatéweyenhste’ teyohserá:ke tsi náhe. Tyóhtkon wà:kehre’ akkwé:ni’ akatá:ti’ nek tsi kyaneren’tsherón:nis kakorahserà:ke táhnon í:kehre aonke’nikonhrayén:ta’ne’ raotiwén:na ne Kanyen’kehá:ka, onkwehshón:’a nè:ne kén:’en ratinákere karì:wes ohén:ton tsi niyó:re tahón:newe’ ne akonkwè:ta.
Wakerihwatshénryon ok nahò:ten nè:ne sénha niyorì:ware tsi ní:yoht tsi teyakwatatewenná:wis. Wakerihwatshénryon tsi wakkwényon aonke’nikonhrayén:ta’ne’ akenákta tsi yonhwentsyá:te tahnon yah tewakerihwanonhwé:’on ká:ron tsi niyó:re takatáhsawen’ akeweyentéhta’ne’. Ó:nen’k tewakatáhsawe aonktó:ten’se’ tsi niyoterihwanehrákwat ne owén:na, tsi niyokwátshe, tsi niyoyánere. É:so tsi sénha niyorì:ware tsi ní:yoht ne ó:ya ne akewén:na.
É:so nihá:ti wa’onkwatenro’tsherí:yo’ne’. Kheya’tatshénryon nè:ne ronnonhwentsyanorónhkwa tahnon akwé:kon káhawe ne onhwéntsya nè:ne tetewakháhsyons. Wake’nikonhrahserón:ni, akwáh í:ken, tahnon tekhenonhwerá:ton akwé:kon nè:ne yonkya’takénhen aontakatáhsawen’ akeweyentáhta’ne’.
Wa’tkwanòn:weron’ akwé:kon nè:ne sewatahonhsatá:ton ne akewén:na. Ayá:wen’s tsi skén:nen aesewanonhtonnyónhseke.
E’tho nikawén:nake. Tahnon ó:nen e’tho.
[Mohawk text interpreted as follows:]
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this assembly, listen well to the matter that has become my responsibility to speak about.
I first want to greet and acknowledge everyone gathered in the House and thank them for listening to me today. I also want to acknowledge that we are meeting here on the traditional lands of the Algonquin people, and I thank the Creator for everything he has given to us.
I am risen here to speak in Kanyen'kéha, the language of Kanyen'kehà:ka, the Mohawk people. I will speak about a law that encourages the speaking of indigenous languages in Canada.
It greatly pleased me when we decided here in the House that we would provide translation when any member of Parliament wanted to speak in an indigenous language. It is important that we show Canadians that we respect native languages here, in the capital of Canada, in a place that Canadians cherish.
Nevertheless, this law is much more important to the indigenous people. They are on a mission to strengthen the indigenous languages they lost or that were taken from them. We will debate this law here and in the other chamber. It will help us understand this law better. It will make amends for the wrongs that were done to the indigenous people and it will ensure that indigenous languages and cultures in Canada will be more respected.
Many people have asked: Why does Canada have to preserve and bring back to life languages that cannot live on their own? Many people may think that the ones asking do not know anything about this and I apologize to those who might be offended that I asked, but it is important for me to explain several matters in order to understand Canada's responsibility. I will try to answer the questions by talking about the people who spoke Iroquoian languages, one language being Kanyen’kéha, the Mohawk language.
When the Europeans arrived here, many people spoke an Iroquoian language. They had created a confederacy that was brilliant. They controlled the land from the Ohio River in the west to the St. Lawrence River in the east. They occupied a large territory of what is now eastern Canada and the United States.
The Europeans and indigenous people had to work together and helped one another. The Europeans had to learn about the medicines. They had to learn how to live off the land. They had to become friends and partners with the indigenous people to survive. When the white population increased, they became divided and began to fight among themselves. Both sides made alliances with the indigenous people so that both sides would be equal.
Because the Iroquois fought alongside the British, the Americans burned and destroyed many Iroquois villages and took large tracts of Iroquois land. We should remember this.
If we had not worked with the indigenous people at that time, if we had not been friends with the indigenous people at that time, if we had not made alliances with the indigenous people at that time, the Canada we know now would not exist. During the War of 1812, indigenous and Métis warriors greatly aided the Canadian and British forces in repelling the Americans and protecting this land. During the war, several thousand indigenous warriors fought alongside the British and Canadian troops.
Recently, here in this House, we honoured Levi Oakes, who used his language as a secret code during the Second World War so that Canadian soldiers could safely communicate with each other. It is truly an ugly matter that when Canada needed indigenous people, they volunteered, but now, in peacetime, when their languages are in such danger, we would disappoint them. It was good when we were in an equal relationship with the indigenous people, when we fought side by side, but now it is peacetime, and we have stopped respecting indigenous concerns and stopped having a good relationship with them.
The indigenous people are deeply wounded by what was done to them at residential schools. Their languages and their cultures were stolen there. For more than 100 years, Canada, its government and the churches used residential schools to destroy indigenous languages and cultures so that indigenous peoples would follow the ways of the white people. The students could only speak English or French in the schools. Students were severely punished if they spoke their language. Many of them suffered greatly. It would be an ugly truth to describe what happened to them there.
Right now, I am thinking of a Mohawk woman, Oronhiokon, or Gladys Gabriel, who attended the Shingwauk residential school in Sault Ste. Marie. They took her there when she was five years old. She missed her mother greatly, but she did not go home again until she was 16 years old. She was not allowed to speak her language there, but she resisted. She hid the fact that she would speak Mohawk with her older sister, Mary, on every occasion when no one was listening.
Oronhiokon believed that the Creator had given her a duty to pass on her language to her children. She believed that she would offend the Creator if her children did not speak the language. She did not quit speaking her language at residential school. That helped her children, the Gabriel family from Kanesatake, to continue speaking the Mohawk language to the present day. Oronhiokon’s story compels me because I know some of her children and grandchildren and I am proud to call them my friends.
Many people were not that lucky and lost their language. Some people became ashamed of their language because governments and churches tried to make indigenous people change into white people. Obviously, we have not quit messing with indigenous languages so that they could continue on their own. The government apologized, but we have not done much to make amends for the bad acts and trauma that indigenous people have suffered.
These days, indigenous people speak more than 60 languages in Canada, and almost all of them are in trouble. Thousands of people speak some of these languages; just one or two people speak others. All of the languages have been weakened. Some are dying.
If they do not get help soon, only a few will remain, but there is hope. When I visit the Freedom School in Akwesasne, Onkwawenna Kentyohkwa at Six Nations or Ratiwennahnirats at Kahnawake, I see excited students of all ages becoming speakers. I am hopeful. I see teachers, some of whom who have fought for more than 20 years to protect one element of indigenous identity, their language.
For my colleagues in this House and all the others in the country who have fought to protect the French language, a language that has issues competing with English, what I have said should be self-evident. Many people know about the challenge and how identity and self-determination are so interrelated. Hopefully, they will support a law that will strengthen the right for indigenous people to speak their language so that it will help them control their future and where it is going. It will also encourage more people to speak indigenous languages all across Canada. If we cannot do this, we are not the kind of people we think we are.
I will end my words by speaking about some personal matters.
I have spoken today in the Mohawk language. It is not my language. I began studying two years ago. I have always wanted to be able to speak the language, but I am a member of Parliament and I want to understand the language of the Mohawk people, people who have lived here long before my people arrived.
I have discovered something that is more complicated than sharing words with one another: I have found that I have become able to understand my place on Earth, which I did not appreciate before I began learning. It has now just begun to make sense to me how amazing the language is, how rich it is, how exceptional it is. It is a lot more complicated than my other languages.
I have made many good friends. I have found people who love this Earth and everything on it that we share. I am very pleased, very much so, and grateful to everyone who has helped me begin learning.
I thank those who have listened to my words. I wish them peace.
Those are the words. That is all.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her support for the bill. Clearly, funds would need to go to the right places, the right institutions and the right people, those who have been struggling to preserve languages, sometimes against our leadership, our previous governments and even local governments.
We know some of the gut-wrenching stories, one of which I told in my speech, of people speaking a language in private and ensuring its survival. We need to put up the money necessary, not only to correct the wrong that was done by our people but also to ensure vitality.
I thank the member for thanking me for my learning Mohawk. It is an extremely complex and rich language. I encourage anyone to learn at least the greetings, but hopefully the whole language.
It is not for me to be speaking here in Parliament. This is a very symbolic act, an act of respect. The most important thing is to ensure that children are speaking it in communities, taught by the people who know best how to do it, who have been preserving it for years, against us.
The cost will be significant, so I would encourage the member's support within her caucus for those funds when they are announced.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his very insightful comments as to where and how the funding should flow. If he wants to learn some words, there are some people who may or may not be here who are fully versed on how to teach it, my teacher Brian Maracle and his wife Audrey.
We are already funding schools, as we speak. Under the current funding envelopes we tripled investments. Certainly that is not enough and certainly the models have been heavily criticized as to their perennity and as to their predictability. Courses can take two or three years. People who are fully immersed give up their jobs in order to take up this language. They are at the prime of their earning career and they have to drop everything and spend two or three years learning the language they are brave enough to reclaim.
We are funding now in schools and this has to be a multi-pronged approach. It needs to be at an early age, within the K to 12 system, where it is taught in a fashion that is respectful of language, that is respectful of culture and is taught by indigenous people, and not simply for the effectiveness of that, but because we know that the outcomes are great and the graduation rates are equal, if not above, non-indigenous graduation rates.
We know that there are real effects of putting language and culture into the K to 12 system, putting it into kindergarten and putting it into the immersion system, which is essential in ensuring that generations can pass it on and speak it at home because the work is not sufficiently done in the schoolroom. It is important to have the funds at their disposition and I have no particular objection to the member opposite's question.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his very relevant question.
By learning to speak Kanyen'kéha, I had the opportunity to meet people I would never ordinarily have met. I had the opportunity to visit immersion schools and to meet people who are passionate about tradition and culture. Under normal circumstances, these people would not have the opportunity to meet a Canadian government official.
I had the honour of discovering a people I did not know, even though I have been living in this area since I was born in 1973. I learned a lot in meeting with people who are passionate about culture, language and the vitalization of indigenous languages. I could have said “revitalization”, but “vitalization” is really the right term for it. This new legislation will recognize that indigenous language rights are inherent.
Everyone was very kind to me, and I am grateful to them for that. Obviously, language is a sensitive issue, as francophones are well aware, and dealing with sensitive issues can have consequences.
I know the member thanked me, but I would like to note at this time that the real thanks is the translation services, which have been done by a woman called Margaret Cook-Peters, or Margaret Cook-Kaweienon:ni, who has been the translator in the House allowing everyone here today to hear such wonderful words.
I hope I am not outing her, but she is also the person who translated the residential school apology into Mohawk so that a lot of communities could have that apology formally acknowledged in Mohawk from our government. She is behind that with her wonderful team and group. She has been fighting for years for her language, fighting in her community, fighting against governments, and I want to thank her profoundly for the work that she has done today in the House.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I note the effort and I really applaud it. When a lot of people speak a new language, they feel insecure because language, particularly as politicians, is what we are defined by and if we stutter, whether it is in English, French or a language we are not familiar with, we get very insecure. We have to get out of our comfort zone and do that. There are people available if the leader of the Green Party wants to learn it.
We are at second reading. There is plenty of opportunity to get input. I will note that the rights that exist and are acknowledged today are not pursuant to any declaration or particular law. They are acknowledged and need to be perfected by the House, but they existed way before our people got here.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, this month, the Action réfugiés Montréal organization is celebrating its 25th anniversary. This is the perfect occasion to recognize the important work of this association, which strives tirelessly for more social justice for asylum seekers and refugees. With its three awareness programs, Action réfugiés Montréal has become indispensable in Montreal.
Over the years, Action Réfugiés Montréal has helped private groups sponsor over 1,200 people from countries such as Afghanistan, Burundi and Syria, just to name a few. Through its twinning program, which matches newly arrived refugee women with women already living in Montreal, it is helping create social support systems to break the isolation many newcomers feel.
When many countries are turning inward and there are a record number of displaced people around the world, the work of organizations like Action Réfugiés Montréal needs to be celebrated and supported more than ever.
Together, let us continue to support these programs that promote inclusion and help our wonderfully diverse Canadian society.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, on Tuesday the House rightly honoured the last living Mohawk code talker and hero, 96-year-old Levi Oakes, Bear Clan, of Snye, Akwesasne.
Technician Fourth Grade Oakes enlisted at the age of 18 in the United States army and served with honour and distinction for six years with B Company, 442nd Signal Battalion, active in the South Pacific, New Guinea and Philippines theatres.
For his service, he was awarded the Silver Star, the third highest military combat decoration of the United States. For his services as code talker, he was awarded a United States Congressional service medal.
Indigenous code talkers are known the world over as having the only unbroken code in history. In respect of his service, Levi kept utter silence until a couple of years ago and only upon receiving written confirmation that he would be allowed to discuss it.
Indigenous languages served our country and our allies at a time when we needed it most. For this, we are eternally grateful. As Mr. Oakes repeated to me when I visited him in his house in May, “Tsi nika'shatste ne onkwawenna”, “The language is strong”.
Niawen'ko:wa Levi.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, our government is committing to advancing self-determination and ensuring that first nations students have access to culturally appropriate, high-quality education that meets their needs.
The evidence is clear that first nations-led education systems achieve better results for students. This week, the minister was honoured to sign an agreement in principle with the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents a major step forward to greater self-determination and a brighter future, mostly importantly, for their students.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Canada remains committed to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples to the conclusion of modern treaties. The Government of Nunavut has been participating in negotiations and its concerns are being addressed. The Government of Nunavut has always been welcome to sign these treaties as part of Canada as it has done previously. We have been negotiating these treaties for almost 20 years and are hopeful that the Athabasca Denesuline and the Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene modern treaties will be concluded in the very near future.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech, he alluded to code talking. It is important to remind this House that when the U.S. needed indigenous languages, we spared no resources in ensuring that they were used. Indeed, they were used as unbreakable code, unbreakable to the Japanese and the Germans, when Canada and the U.S. needed them most. Therefore, I find it a bitter irony when I try to grasp the objections of the Conservatives. They say that their argument does not turn so much on rights or reconciliation but more on resources and money. I still question their motives, but I believe them at face value.
It is a bitter irony that these languages, which are fragile 73 years later, are threatened with extinction, in some cases, because of omission and the direct action of governments and government-related institutions. It would be a bitter irony that, in part, their being wiped out would be contributed to simply because resources were an issue.
These are fragile languages. If we take the example of the number of friends I have who speak Mohawk or Kanyen'kehà:ka, there are about 100 of them. That is the equivalent of 10 million English speakers. In 2019, we mark the International Year of Indigenous Languages at the UN. If the Conservatives do not believe in rights and reconciliation, surely they believe in respect, surely they believe in effort and surely they believe in lifting languages to the state where they need to be in this era.
On that note, I would like to ask the member opposite if he could talk about the minimal effort this report is requiring to lift these languages to the state we need to lift them, as the member opposite said, to recognize ourselves as the country we portray abroad.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to ending the ongoing national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls has been directed to examine the broad systemic and institutional failures that have led to and perpetuated the epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.
Our government gave the inquiry an extension in order to provide more time for the families to be heard. This extension will also provide additional time for institutional and expert hearings and to finalize the report. After listening to survivors and family members, indigenous organizations and the provinces and territories, the commission asked for more time to carry out its important work. This request for more time had to be balanced with the needs of the families, foremost, who have been waiting years for answers.
Our government is confident that this six-month extension will enable the commission to deliver on its mandate to provide recommendations on the systemic causes of violence against indigenous women and girls. However, we have not waited for the final report to act. Since the inquiry was officially launched on August 3, 2016, we have been making progress. We have taken immediate action with investments in women's shelters, housing, education, and the reform of child and family services. As well, we have responded to the inquiry's interim recommendations by providing nearly $50 million in additional investments.
Canada is dedicating an additional $9.6 million over five years to support the RCMP's national investigative standards and practices unit. Funding was also provided for organizations with expertise in law enforcement and policing to review police policies and practices.
Our government is increasing health supports and victim services for families and survivors. We are also expanding the family liaison units that were set up to help families navigate the system and get the information they need. We have also allocated an additional $38 million to assist the inquiry with its operational needs during the extension and to provide aftercare to families and survivors who testify.
We remain committed to working with indigenous governments and communities, the provinces and territories and other key partners to end the unacceptable rates of violence against indigenous women and girls in this country. Our government will continue to support and empower indigenous women and girls.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her advocacy for indigenous rights. I encourage her to perpetuate that within her party.
Clearly, this is not theoretical. People are suffering and wounds are being reopened by this inquiry. Friends of mine have testified at this inquiry and, indeed, the healing has barely begun. My sympathy goes out to them and I have deep concern for their well-being.
As well, there has been an impact on commissioners. We cannot deny that people have left. This is an extremely hard job and I salute those who have pushed through this and, nevertheless, striven to turn out a report that will be insightful to the systemic violence incurred by indigenous women and girls.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, every year a group of young women taking part in McGill University's Women in House program come to Parliament Hill to meet with our female MPs in an effort to encourage civic engagement and political participation among women.
Although there is a record number of women running for office, there is still much work to be done and I sincerely hope this experience helps convince some of the women here to put their names on the ballot. The under-representation of women in politics is a long-standing issue, but it is one we can overcome through effort and with the help of opportunities offered by programs like McGill's Women in House.
I want to welcome all the women from McGill University taking part in the program this year and wish them every success.
As the product of three generations of women who attended McGill, it gives me great pleasure to say to these women that this House is theirs. I hope to see them in one of these seats, those seats, soon.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker,
[Member spoke in Mohawk and provided the following translation:]
On this day, the eighth day of November, we will all bring our minds together and pay our respects to the indigenous peoples who enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Let us think of them and let us remember those who fought and died in the great wars.
Let us pay our respects and let us honour those who died for us so that we could live in peace.
Let our minds be that way.
Let us remember them.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, thousands of indigenous people fought in the War of 1812, including on this day, October 26, in 1813. Two hundred and five years ago at the Battle of the Chateauguay, Mohawk warriors from Kahnawake and Kanesatake were fighting a common foe, Ranatakarias, the destroyer of towns, who had destroyed their peoples' villages some 30 years earlier.
The Battle of the Chateauguay is remembered alongside the Battle of Crysler's Farm, which caused American forces to give up their attack on Montreal and abandon their St. Lawrence campaign. On this day, a British force of slightly over 1,500 troops, composed mostly of French Canadian fighters and commanded by Charles de Salaberry, repelled an American offensive twice its size.
Today, six regiments of the Canadian Armed Forces carry battle honours from the conflict: the Royal 22e Régiment, the Canadian Grenadier Guards—“Up the Guards”—the Black Watch; Les Voltigeurs de Québec; Les Fusiliers du St-Laurent; and Le Régiment de la Chaudière.
Canada's history is both rich and complex, but we must remember that on this day 205 years ago the founding peoples of this country joined together to fight a common foe and to lay the foundation for what—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, we are committed to justice for all Indian residential school survivors. As the member well knows, our government has provided all the documents to the courts, those that have been asked for, when it comes to St. Anne's residential school. We are also working with those claims that were affected by the previous government's actions, to settle those in a fair and equitable way.
It is important to note that more than 95% of all claimants from St. Anne's have received compensation much higher than the national average for residential school claims. As the supervising court has made clear, “the evidence shows that Canada has kept its promise and continues to keep its promise.”
While most claims have been resolved, those few remaining do include the most difficult and challenging. Unfortunately, that has led to far too many court challenges.
As the administrator of the IRSSA, Canada has a duty to defend the integrity of the process and to ensure fairness for all participants. These cases have brought further clarity to the process, ensuring that all survivors are treated equitably and in the spirit of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that was approved more than 12 years ago.
The legal fees referenced by the hon. member are an accounting of existing internal legal resources, which were dedicated to ensuring that claimants received the compensation they deserved and the integrity of the independent process. No outside fees have been incurred in any of the cases brought against Canada.
It is also important to note that Canada has never, and our government will never, seek legal costs against any individual claimant.
In exceptional circumstances, costs can be sought against lawyers who do not appear to be acting responsibly. Sadly, in one of the cases the member refers to, the court has stated that counsel's “repeated and deliberate attack on the integrity of this Court threatens to interfere with the administration of justice”. Baselessly attacking the credibility of the courts and of the independent assessment process that has handled more than 38,000 cases does a great disservice to survivors.
Counsel is responsible for the symbolic costs that have been awarded, and they will be donated to a fund that supports former students.
Our government has reached negotiated settlements to undo the harm caused by the previous government's unethical legal arguments, such as the so-called administrative split.
Our government has reached negotiated settlements to address claims of student-on-student abuse, which faced too high a legal bar to be fairly compensated.
We have repeatedly shown the willingness and desire to work closely with survivors to help them on their healing journey and to undo the terrible legacy Indian residential schools have left in Canada.
As the courts have said, the evidence is clear that our government has kept and is keeping its promise to residential school survivors.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the passion with which the member opposite conveys his point. However, I disagree strongly with some of the conclusions he is drawing.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I gave the member the opportunity, quite quietly, to advance his point, however passionately, without criticizing. I would ask that he accord the same respect to me, as he is leaving the House.
As we have said, with respect to Indian residential school court cases, Canada has not, and will not, seek costs against survivors. In exceptional circumstances, costs can be awarded by the courts against counsel whose conduct they find questionable and that undermines the integrity of the court system.
We have repeatedly shown the willingness and desire to work closely with survivors to help them on their healing journey and undo the terrible legacy Indian residential schools have left in Canada.
As the member opposite well knows, 95% of the claims in respect of St. Anne's residential school have now been resolved.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the annual report of the implementation committee on the Sahtu Dene and Métis comprehensive land claim agreement for the period from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2015.
At the same time, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, annual report, April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the new Inuvialuit Final Agreement Consolidated Report of the Implementation Coordinating Committee, 2013-2014 to 2015-2016.
At the same time, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the annual report of the Tlicho Implementation Committee: Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, 2010-2011 to 2014-2015.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of some of my constituents, it is my honour to present to the House a petition about the plan for the revitalization of the Old Port of Montreal.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that indigenous peoples have inherent and treaty rights, and we are committed to removing colonial barriers that impede the exercise of those rights. That is why we work so hard in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis people to create a new recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework. The framework will ensure that Canada moves from a denial of rights approach to one that recognizes and affirms those rights, and we will be glad to work further with the member opposite in perfecting those rights.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, this summer, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations had the pleasure of signing the co-developed Métis nation housing agreement with governing members of the Métis National Council. The design, delivery and administration of housing services for citizens of the Métis nation will now be undertaken by its governing members and supported by a $500-million investment over 10 years, as set forth in budget 2018. This will improve socio-economic conditions for members of the Métis nation and drive progress toward their vision of self-determination.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague and hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
Before I give the formal part of my speech, I would like to start by discussing an element that was brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, who had spoken about a number of members of the Senate and others as well as the Right Hon. John Turner as to their potential financial interest in legalizing marijuana.
I understand this is an issue of privilege, that members can say what pleases them in this House. However, I found it particularly unparliamentary that the member would raise the record of someone who has served this country with distinction and with honour in talking about the Right Hon. John Turner who was Prime Minister of Canada, and among the positions he occupied he also was the minister of finance and the minister of justice. He is a man of some advanced age, I believe. I would like to wish him a happy birthday; he turned 89 quite recently. I know it on good authority that he has zero interest in the legalization of marijuana or any pecuniary derivative thereof.
I will not presume bad faith on the side of the hon. member, and I hope that when he gets a chance to retract those words he does so because we are in fact talking about a person who served this country honourably, regardless of party lines. I do hope the member takes the chance to retract those comments.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to respond to an amendment adopted by the Senate with regard to Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.
I commend the Senate for the valuable work that it did as part of its in-depth study of Bill C-45. However, I believe that some of the amendments the Senate adopted do not fully support the political objectives of the bill. They may also have unintended consequences.
Take for example, clause 5.2, a new clause that would provide for the following:
For greater certainty, this Act does not affect the operation of any provision of provincial legislation that is more restrictive with respect to, or prohibits, the cultivation, propagation or harvesting of cannabis in a dwelling-house.
Bill C-45 would allow adults to grow up to four cannabis plants per residence. Cannabis grown in a dwelling-house could not, under any circumstances, be sold to others, and anyone who grows more than four plants could be criminally charged.
The justification for the proposal to allow Canadians to grow up to four cannabis plants per household is twofold. First, this proposal would help displace the illegal cannabis market. Second, it would help prevent the unnecessary criminalization of otherwise law-abiding Canadians who safely and responsibly grow a small number of cannabis plants at home for personal use.
Home cultivation would also create a legal source of cannabis for people who do not have easy access to it through a provincial or territorial store or an online platform, particularly those who live in remote regions.
The proposal to allow people to grow a limited quantity of cannabis for personal use is similar to the current provisions regarding tobacco and alcohol. Canadians can legally grow their own tobacco or brew their own beer at home for personal use.
We can also trust Canadians to properly store cannabis, just as they safely store their prescription drugs at home in a responsible manner.
I would also like to point out that in the national cannabis survey, one of the questions the government asked was where people currently get their cannabis and where they thought they might be able to access it in the future. Of all the respondents who use cannabis, only 2% had thought of cultivating it for personal use.
The home cultivation our government is proposing is based on the opinion of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, and is in line with the frameworks adopted by most of the American states that have chosen to legalize and regulate cannabis for non-medical purposes, particularly Colorado, California, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska.
Those states allow home cultivation and have limits regarding the number of plants that can be grown, ranging from four to 12 plants per household. It is important to remember that Bill C-45 was designed to allow the provinces and territories to oversee the distribution and sale of cannabis within their borders and to add additional restrictions regarding certain aspects that are not proposed in the federal cannabis legislation, such as personal cultivation, if they wish.
That flexibility is there so they can adapt their laws in response to local realities and priorities in a way that is compatible with the public health and public safety goals in the proposed cannabis legislation.
The Government of Canada believes that the provinces and territories are in the best position to determine whether they need such restrictions and to establish tougher regulations. Most of the provinces do allow home cultivation of four plants as set out in Bill C-45. However, some provinces have already chosen to include restrictions in their legislation. For example, New Brunswick requires cannabis cultivated outdoors to be surrounded by a locked enclosure. Indoor cultivation must take place in a separate, locked space. Alberta would allow indoor cultivation only, and Nova Scotia has indicated that it would allow landlords to prohibit cannabis cultivation and smoking in rental units.
If someone decided to challenge a provision of a provincial cannabis law, a court would review the provincial system in its entirety, along with the federal cannabis law. It would then be up to the court to determine whether there was a conflict or whether the objectives of the federal legislation had been frustrated.
Over the past two years, our government has carried out extensive consultations and studies to support this bill. In this way, we have developed the best possible measures for protecting all Canadians, especially young Canadians.
Bill C-45 is largely based on the recommendations of the task force I mentioned earlier, which were formulated based on the opinions and expertise gathered through the extensive consultations. The bill reflects and balances the broad array of opinions from the provinces and territories, municipalities, communities, indigenous governments, and a wide range of experts and stakeholders.
The provincial and territorial governments developed their own legislation based on this insightful framework, and their investments and preparations for the establishment of retail systems are well under way.
Bill C-45 proposes to allow adults to grow up to four cannabis plants at home. It is essential to allow home cultivation in order to support the government's objective of displacing the illegal market.
The government is proposing a national approach to home cultivation designed to allow this activity to be achieved in a way that takes into account the valuable comments received from countless stakeholders. Although the framework for legalization includes some flexibility for setting certain restrictions on home cultivation, we are of the opinion that this amendment is inconsistent with that approach.
However, as we know, the bill contains a provision to review the cannabis act. Under that provision, three years after the coming into force, the minister will have to ensure that the act and its application are reviewed. Our government is proposing to amend that provision in order to specify that the review in question will include a review of the impacts of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house. Our government is committed to carefully examining the findings of such a review.
Based on the evidence currently before us, we are fully convinced that home cultivation can be done in such a way that is compatible with the health and public safety objectives of the bill. It constitutes a reasonable way to allow adults to grow cannabis for personal use, and that approach squares with the opinion of the task force and the approach adopted by most of the American states that have legalized and regulated cannabis.
For those reasons, I will not be supporting this amendment.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, far be it from me to give anyone math instructions, but the member should well know that prescriptions are given on an individual basis and are not to be passed off. She should also know that on a medical basis, up to 30 grams are authorized.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that he is speaking about a former prime minister, the Right hon. John Turner, who served this country honourably and in a very distinguished fashion. I see absolutely no remorse on the member's part, so I feel no particular compulsion or need to answer any further questions, which are quite leading.
I would encourage the member to examine his conscience a little more in-depth and show a little remorse and respect for the House, and respect for a former distinguished prime minister, and distinguished cabinet minister, both in finance and justice. The member should take a little time and think about what he just said.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, if the member opposite examines the fiscal framework that we have been discussing with the provinces, she will note that we will be taking none of profits for personal use but investing it into fighting a lot of the ills that the consumption of cannabis has caused, including ensuring that youth know about the ills of consuming cannabis, particularly the effect on the immature brain.
We will be giving 75% to provinces and municipalities to ensure that they address the issue, because they are in a good position to address it, and that they put it through their streams to ensure youth, in particular, know of the ills of consuming cannabis.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight that, as has been said before, we have a comprehensive infrastructure plan that is delivering to Canada for Canadians. These projects are creating economic growth as noted by the Bank of Canada, and opportunities for Canadians as we build healthy, livable, and sustainable communities. Our infrastructure plan was presented in budget 2016, and we expanded that in the year's fall economic statement and the funding was profiled, as members may recall, in budget 2017.
The government's investing in Canada plan is made up of three important elements: $92 billion in renewed programs, $14.4 billion in investments in projects that make much-needed repairs to existing infrastructure, and $81.2 billion to support infrastructure investment in five priority areas over the next decade. They are notably public transit infrastructure, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation infrastructure, and infrastructure in rural and northern communities, which is particularly responsive to the member's question, especially as it represented a change in what we had planned to do, notably through advocacy of rural members. I would encourage the member opposite to take note of that, and even more so as the federal government's share increased a larger percentage in the last bilateral agreements that we have been negotiating with provinces, which will alleviate the burden on smaller communities.
I want to focus on the new investments made by our government.
In budget 2016, we launched the phase one of our $180-billion investing in Canada plan. Phase one supports a wide variety of infrastructure projects, including public transit, water, waste water, and affordable housing projects in communities across Canada, including indigenous communities.
Since then, the Government of Canada has approved over 29,000 projects for a total estimated value of $13.2 billion in federal funding.
We are also making considerable progress on our commitments made under budget 2017. Under the second phase of our plan, 11 federal departments, as the member opposite highlighted, are delivering 24 programs and nearly all have launched.
We are committed to transparency and, as highlighted in budget 2018, we have reprofiled funding over the years of our plan. This is an issue of cash flow management and not one of lack of activity, as the members opposite might suggest, which is entirely erroneous. The funding in our investing in Canada plan remains available. If funding does not flow in a given year, it is reprofiled to future years, ensuring that the federal funding remains available to project partners when they need it.
We remain committed to working openly and transparently as we develop programs that will provide necessary funding for infrastructure Canadians need and use every day.
Our government understands that infrastructure is the foundation of building a strong economy, creating jobs for the middle class and creating opportunity for those who work hard each and every day to be part of the middle class. These investments we have made to date demonstrate our commitment to Canadians, and we look forward to building even stronger, more sustainable, and inclusive communities for the 21st century.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to respond directly to the question by stating that we have put several billion dollars in focusing precisely on what the member opposite has discussed, which is climate change and making sure we are building infrastructure that is responsive and resistant to climate change, which we know is occurring, which we know is made by humanity, and which we know we need to adapt to for the 21st century.
We rely on the expertise of our local partners, who decide which projects will help them grow the economy, build inclusive communities, and support a green, low-carbon economy.
We are proud to provide federal funding to achieve those objectives. During phase one of our plan, as I said in the first half of my presentation, the federal government approved over 29,000 projects for a total estimated value of $13.2 billion in federal funding. That does not include funding awarded to communities, provinces, and municipalities, among others. The vast majority of these projects are under way.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, June is Pride Month across Canada. We are celebrating hope, change, and the recognition that as Canadians, we should all be proud of who we are. However, Pride Month is not just a time of celebration. It is also a time to remember that the fight against homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia is not over. It is a time to reflect that, by passing laws to protect trans and gender-diverse people from discrimination, by apologizing to federal employees and Canadian Armed Forces members who were persecuted due to their sexual orientation, including my friend Martine Roy, who was unfairly dismissed from the armed forces, and by financially supporting the Rainbow Refugee Society to protect LGBTQ2 refugees, we are continuing to defend LGBTQ2 rights in Canada and abroad. In closing, I want to remind my colleagues of all parties that local pride activities will be going on all summer. I hope to see many of you in my riding for Montreal's great pride parade on August 19.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on this side of the House and support Albertans and the jobs that we are creating in Alberta.
I will underline what we have done for Alberta.
Working with our Alberta partners, we have improved transit, roads, bridges, and water systems all over Alberta. We have approved 150 projects worth $1.7 billion in federal funding and $3.9 billion in total funding.
I, with the Minister of Infrastructure, am quite proud to stand on this side of the House. We have done more in three years than several dozen MPs from Alberta did in 10 years for Alberta, and we will do it again when we get re-elected.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to inform the House, particularly as I am surrounded by hard-working Manitoba MPs, that yesterday the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities signed an agreement with the Government of Manitoba that will see the federal government invest more than $1.1 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years.
This funding will mean better public transit, more recreation and community centres, and better roads and bridges across the country. These investments will help create jobs and economic growth, build inclusive communities, and support a low-carbon green economy—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that we are delivering a historic infrastructure plan of $180 billion over the next 10 years.
As part of our procurement process, the hon. member will note that we are a free trade country. We must respect our engagements to be open and free with the world, and that goes the same for our procurement process, which will remain open, transparent, and free, as part of a free trading nation.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, our two official languages are at the very core of our Canadian identity. The Canada Infrastructure Bank must comply with the Official Languages Act.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that Pierre Lavallée has been hired as the bank's first CEO. He is highly qualified and bilingual. He has all the skills required to head up this important institution, which will help us build more infrastructure after 10 years of the Harper Conservatives' laissez-faire approach.
We trust that Mr. Lavallée will put together a skilled, diverse, and bilingual team capable of serving Canadians in both official languages.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, families across Canada will come together to celebrate Mother's Day. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to mothers, grandmothers, godmothers, aunts, all those who play a mentorship role in the life of a child, and especially the mother of my children, Elin, as well as my own mother, Pam.
Everyone in the House makes a lot of money, some more than others, so there is no excuse to miss Mother's Day or to get some flowers or chocolates. If people need recommendations in the Ottawa area or the Montreal area, they can give me a call.
More importantly, and I hope this statement gathers wide support from the House on this Mother's Day, let us not only celebrate mothers but continue our work to give mothers the respect they deserve, to fight for the equality of women, and to provide all parents with the tools they need to support them in doing the most important job, raising the next generation of leaders.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her new role as infrastructure critic. I am a bit behind in congratulating her, so this role is not necessarily new, but since she is from a so-called new party that is not actually new, my congratulations may still be relevant.
I would like to respond directly to my colleague's question. Our $180-billion investment in infrastructure was historic. This investment was double the amount that was previously invested in infrastructure. It will allow for transformative projects to be done in conjunction with provinces and municipalities, and we will respect their jurisdictions and priorities. My colleague knows that, with respect to the traditional funding streams, the provinces are primarily responsible for setting priorities, whether this is done in the first phase or second phase of our infrastructure plan. The provinces are responsible for carefully reviewing the projects, since their ministries have the expertise needed to assess and carry out the projects.
It is therefore very easy for me to stand here today and confirm that, indeed, we will be respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories and of indigenous peoples. This is a priority. This is what we said during our election campaign, and this is a promise that we are fulfilling.
This is an important aspect of our infrastructure plan and investing in Canada plan. The respective provincial jurisdictions and their priorities are at the heart of the bilateral agreements we are currently negotiating, seven of which have been positively concluded to date, with the remaining in the final stages. It is precisely for that reason we have taken our time to negotiate in good faith with provinces and territories, ensuring there is flexibility where it is necessary for provinces to invest.
At the same time, it is important to remember, because it is an important part of our investment plan, we are asking provinces and municipalities to put up money as well. Their needs and prioritizations with respect to capital investments, as well as their five-year and 10-year plans, need to be examined and then negotiated. I am very happy to announce that we have concluded the majority of them to date.
When it comes to the question of my hon. colleague about the Infrastructure Bank, again, it is important to reiterate that this is an optional tool that will see us investing $35 billion from the federal government into projects that generate revenue, in tandem and in co-operation with private capital so we deploy and invest in those assets now, where and when it is needed.
It is with great pleasure that I stand here to remind and confirm for the member opposite that respect of the provinces and other priorities is top of mind and is key to ensuring these assets are properly deployed and invested in.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that infrastructure across the country was underfunded for at least the past 10 years. We announced this transformative plan to invest $180 billion to build Canada for the 21st century. It is a very ambitious plan and expectations are high, but we are investing the necessary funding.
I am very proud to confirm that municipalities that have been waiting for about 10 years to renovate their community centre or upgrade their wastewater treatment system are now seeing their applications for funding approved. I am very proud to talk to mayors of small towns that do not have money to invest in their infrastructure and who have received confirmation that they will be getting funding from the federal government. I look forward to making announcements with my colleague in her riding.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to thank the hon. member for the advocacy on behalf of her constituents that she displays on a daily basis, particularly with this issue.
As the hon. member well knows, our government is making unprecedented infrastructure investments in communities across the country, totalling more than $180 billion, through our investing in Canada infrastructure plan. Public transit infrastructure is a top priority for our government. These investments improve commutes, cut air pollution, and help grow our economy.
The public transit infrastructure fund, which we launched as part of phase 1 of our infrastructure plan, focuses on the rehabilitation of public transit systems across the country. It includes investments of more than $29 million in Saskatchewan.
Our government has so far invested in 15 projects in Saskatchewan worth more than $38 million.
This funding supports projects such as fleet renewal in Saskatoon, the replacement of 17 buses and nine paratransit buses in Regina, and public transit fleet upgrades in Prince Albert.
Projects like these are helping modernize transit fleets across Saskatchewan, making public transit more accessible and reliable while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
As the member well knows, the Saskatchewan Transportation Company was a provincially run service, and the decision to terminate the service was made by the province. It is up to the provinces to decide how to best provide public transit services to their communities within their jurisdictions. It is a tenet that we all well know.
The federal government has infrastructure programming available to support transit services and facilities. The Government of Canada does not actually operate the bus system, but the Government of Canada can invest in the physical assets that are required to support the bus system. There would need to be a proponent in Saskatchewan willing to bring forward that proposition.
We are currently working closely with the province of Saskatchewan to finalize the new bilateral agreement for long-term funding under the investing in Canada infrastructure plan. For Saskatchewan residents, this will mean federal investment of just over $307 million in public transit.
The Government of Canada recognizes that local governments are in the best position to know the priorities and needs of their communities. That is why we work closely with them to support priority and transformative investments that will have a positive, concrete impact on communities.
We are committed to supporting the provinces, territories, and indigenous communities while working to improve the infrastructure Canadians need and use every day.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member opposite to continue her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. That would include engaging the provincial government on this priority in particular.
As she knows, the Government of Canada has made this public infrastructure a top priority. Through the first phase of our investing in Canada plan, we have committed $29 million specifically to public transit systems in communities across the province of Saskatchewan.
For the next stage of our long-term plan, we are working closely with Saskatchewan. We hope to finalize a new bilateral agreement, which would commit the aforementioned sum of $307 million to the province for its transit investment priorities.
Public transit is essential to building strong, inclusive, green communities. The Government of Canada is firmly committed to supporting the construction of modern, efficient public transit networks across the country. We are eager to work with Saskatchewan communities to support their public transit plans.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
[Member spoke in Mohawk]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, these words I spoke in Kanienkehaka, or Mohawk, would have been prohibited in a residential school. The speaker, more often than not a young child, would have faced punishment, often corporal in nature, and sometimes nothing short of torture in order to associate the pain with the speaking of this so-called barbaric language, which, for anyone who attempts to learn it will quickly realize it is an exceedingly rich and complex language, far richer in many aspects than the two languages I was given.
My friend, Elder Satewas Gabriel of Kanesatake, tells of the experience of his mother Oronhiokon, or Gladys, at Shingwauk Home in Sault Ste. Marie where she was taken at age five, miserable because she missed her mother, not to return home until she was 16. There her language was prohibited, but she fought it bitterly sneaking it in private with her sister Wahri, or Mary, at every occasion she was safely out of earshot.
This single act of defiance was key in ensuring that the branch of the Gabriel family in Kanesatake has been able to preserve an unbroken chain of language transmission to this day, thanks to Oronhiokon's deep spiritual belief that the Creator would be offended if her children did not speak the language that was given to them.
On August 6, 1993, Archbishop Michael Peers, because we are talking about an Anglican school, on behalf of the Anglican Church offered in part the following apology to residential school victims of the Anglican-run system:
I am sorry, more than I can say, that we tried to remake you in our image, taking from you your language and the signs of your identity.
I am sorry, more than I can say, that in our schools so many were abused physically, sexually, culturally and emotionally.
On behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada, I present our apology.
This apology, indeed symbolic, put the Anglican church on a long path still incomplete toward reconciliation. This, sadly, has not occurred with the Catholic Church, whose institution left wounds equally deep, which is why we support the motion being debated today. My own frustration with the time being spent on this motion today is the opportunity it takes away from what we can be doing as Canadians and as a government to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.
I will address a number of these actions which will make real concrete differences in people's lives.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are guiding our efforts. All the calls to action require us to take meaningful and measurable action to provide first nations, and Inuit and Métis peoples with the tools, resources, and supports they need to overcome the harm done by residential schools.
I would like to note that total federal expenditures for indigenous programs will increase from over $11 billion in 2015-16 to more than $15 billion in 2021-22, an increase of 34% over six years.
These investments in education, infrastructure, and training are contributing directly to securing a better quality of life for indigenous people while building a stronger, more unified, and more prosperous Canada.
We are also working with first nations partners to build a new fiscal relationship that will provide first nations communities with adequate, predictable, and sustainable funding.
Delivering on call to action 11, budget 2016 set aside $1.53 billion over five years to increase Canada student grants amounts, followed by $329 million per year after that.
Budget 2017 took further substantive steps to provide the necessary tools, through an additional investment of $3.4 billion over five years, to advance reconciliation and promote skills and opportunities that would empower indigenous peoples to seize opportunities in today's economy and the economy of tomorrow.
In 2018, we added an investment of $5 billion over five years to bridge the socio-economic gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, including new funding to eliminate tuberculosis in Inuit Nunangat, funding for clean drinking water, funding for first nations and Métis housing and for Inuit-led housing, and funding to recognize indigenous rights and strengthen indigenous communities' capacity for self-determination.
Let us look at the impact these changes will have on first nations children. In response to call to action no. 3, which calls upon all levels of government to implement Jordan's principle, the Government of Canada committed $382.5 million over three years in July 2016.
From July 2016 to March 2018, over 70,000 requests for products, services, and support for first nations children were approved, in keeping with Jordan's principle. Those include requests for mental health care services, speech therapy, education services, and medical equipment.
We created Indigenous Services Canada in response to call to action no. 5, which calls on the federal, provincial, territorial, and indigenous governments to develop culturally appropriate parenting programs for indigenous families.
In response to funding pressures faced by child and family services agencies, the Government of Canada increased resources for prevention so that children would be safe and families could stay together and proposed additional funding of $1.4 billion over six years for first nations child and family services agencies.
In direct response to call to action 41, the Government of Canada created a public inquiry into the causes of, and remedies for, the disproportionate victimization of indigenous women and girls. The Commission of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls delivered its interim report on November 1, 2017.
To that end, I want to salute the courage of the women who stepped forward and publicly shared their grief, in particular my friend Cheryl McDonald, who lost her sister Carleen 29 years ago. These are wounds that are still open and will take much more than the length of the inquiry to heal, but Cheryl needs to know that every member of the House, and all of Canada, is here for her.
From education, to health services, from supports to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, from protecting languages to asking the Pope to apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church, our government is taking action on advancing reconciliation.
I would like to end by thanking my hon. colleague for bringing forward this motion, for his determination, and for all the work he has done to see call to action 58 and, indeed, all of the calls to action move forward.
I want to reiterate and personally apologize to at least two of the members who I know in the House, who spent time in residential schools, for the wounds this may be reopening. On my personal behalf, I apologize.
[Member spoke in Mohawk]
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a legitimate point. The basic point of it is that we have a lot more work to do as a government, as a people, and as individuals in advancing reconciliation.
The member mentioned the numbers. I have spoken to a number of indigenous people, and I do not purport to speak for them. However, when I talk about this resolution, they acknowledge the symbolic value of it. At the same time, they ask “What are you doing?”, and inevitably the conversation does cover the financial amounts. I believe it is less known how much the government is putting into reconciliation, into health services, into language advancement, and into ensuring we engage significantly.
In my mind, this call to action is not the most important one. In fact, it deflects from what the government can be doing directly to advance reconciliation. A lot of people have questioned whether we should have it. There is some deep symbolic value to it, but I believe our time is better spent advancing the calls to action that this government controls. Indeed to cure what is now going on to a millennium of injustice in four years is unrealistic and we need to take the time necessary to do it properly.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to sit down with the member opposite, with more than two budgets in hand, and go through the concrete measures that we are putting forward. If the member looks at the boil water advisories, concrete work has been done there.
In answer to the member's comment that we need to do this in three years, we need to do it promptly and we need to keep at it. However, the expectation, as I mentioned in my previous answer, that we can cure what is now running on half a millennium in three years, is not only unrealistic, it whips up sentiment that we do not want to whip up, particularly when we need to make important, detailed advancements in a number of communities that vary widely. Therefore, to expect everything to be done in three years is a perspective I do not share.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I will preface my speech by saying that I will be sharing my time with my friend, the hon. member for St. John's East.
In the spring of 1847, Montrealers got word of a mass emigration on an unprecedented scale from Britain, mostly from famine-stricken Ireland, devastated by potato crop failures in the previous two years. Of the 100,000 who sailed to British North America, an estimated 70,000 landed in Montreal, instantly more than doubling its population. A local paper, the Montreal Witness, warned that “our shores are likely to be thronged with emigrants, chiefly of a class who will have little or nothing left when they arrive”, and urged the population to prepare.
However, nothing could prepare Montrealers for what arrived. Overcrowded “coffin ships” that brought the migrants to the new world were the perfect breeding ground for typhus. While fear gripped parts of the population, many more stood up to help: Protestant clergy, nuns, and priests, as well as regular citizens. Among them was the then mayor of Montreal, John Mills, who would later succumb to the disease. They all disregarded their own safety for the newcomers. As well, the Mohawks of Kahnawake, much like their ancestors did several hundred years earlier for the new immigrants, brought food for the starving.
The events of the mid-19th century shaped our nation. Indeed, 40% of Quebec now claims some Irish heritage and, with the exception of indigenous peoples, we are a country built by immigrants and their descendants. This fact has shaped our history. It makes us an open and welcoming country that is the envy of the world. It has shaped our policies and laws.
Canada is an open and welcoming country to those in need of protection, the most vulnerable people whom we have a legal and moral duty to protect. Case in point, we recently took in Syrian refugees and gave them a welcome everyone in Canada could be proud of. In return, these people are going to help shape our country.
However, in any modern country that cares about protecting its citizens, immigration needs to be done in an orderly fashion, in collaboration with all orders of government. Based on our recent experience with the influx of irregular migrants, the government feels it is very important to work more closely with its partners in managing the marked increase in border crossings from the United States over the past year.
These irregular border crossings have major local effects, which call for meticulous consideration and ongoing collaboration with the relevant provinces and territories. Although these irregular crossings are happening at various locations across the country, we recognize that Quebec is receiving a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, especially at the Lacolle border.
That is why we are working very closely with Quebec in order to ensure that we respond to their concerns. We gave our support to the work of the ad hoc intergovernmental task force on irregular migration, which provides a point of convergence to federal ministers and our colleagues in Quebec and Ontario, ensuring a coordinated approach across all levels of government.
To date, the task force has met nine times and continues to meet regularly to discuss the latest developments and the coordination efforts that are under way. During the most recent meeting of the task force, on April 18, in Ottawa, members agreed to take concrete measures to ensure the coordinated and effective management of irregular migration.
To that end, members announced that they will work together on assessing the details of Quebec's request for additional funding, including money for housing. Although housing is a provincial jurisdiction, Quebec has asked for help, and our government is working with its counterparts on determining the best way to provide assistance. We are exploring several options not just in Montreal, but also in the regions.
We are also working with Quebec on finding ways to help screen asylum claims and facilitate travel for those wishing to go outside Quebec.
As for preparing for another possible influx in the future, I want to emphasize the considerable progress made in recent months.
I also want to point out that these recent commitments are part of a series of measures taken by our government and are on top of the $3.2 billion Quebec will receive as part of the 2018-19 Canada social transfer and in addition to an increase of $112 million to support the settlement and integration services offered in the province under the Canada-Quebec accord,.
Moreover, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is expediting the processing of work permits for all asylum claimants in Canada and has committed to a service standard of 30 days. These people also want to work and contribute to the Canadian economy.
In addition, as soon as a refugee claim is found eligible and referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the federal government covers the cost of all eligible health care services under the interim federal health program, which provides short-term, limited health care coverage to resettled refugees, asylum seekers, and certain other groups, including victims of human trafficking and individuals detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Given the extraordinary circumstances and delays in the processing of asylum claims as a result of the increased volume of irregular arrivals last August, we are currently issuing certificates for the interim federal health program to asylum seekers in Lacolle, immediately after security screening, background checks, and setting the date for the initial interview to determine eligibility.
It should also be noted that in addition to working collaboratively with provincial counterparts, the Government of Canada is also engaging with the Government of the United States and the U.S. embassy in Ottawa on this issue as our countries continue to co-operate in the management of irregular migration at the border. The Minister of Public Safety meets regularly with his American counterpart and discusses these issues in depth. In addition, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship met with the new American ambassador in Ottawa recently specifically to discuss this issue.
As we work with our diverse immigration partners, we remain strongly committed to orderly migration and the safety of all Canadians. That is why, in the context of the 2018 budget, following the Harper government's major cuts in its last few years, $173.2 million has been invested into the management of irregular migration. These funds will be used to provide short-term support for border security processing and to support decision-making capacity at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Canada is a beautiful country shaped by immigrants. We often hear talk stigmatizing a whole group by calling it “illegal”. While the unlawful crossing of the border is not advised, and at times is dangerous, stigmatizing a whole group has a pernicious effect and sends signals to a certain party's base, which we find highly despicable. If someone crosses the border in an irregular fashion and is deemed to be an asylum seeker and a refugee protected under the conventions, that crossing is not illegal at all.
As descendants of the wretched masses yearning to breathe free, children of the wretched refuse from the teeming shores, we must not only ensure the health and safety of our people but remain open, free, and welcoming to those who seek our protection in accordance with the rule of law.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I want to commend the member opposite on his choice of words. He is indeed an example to this House and to his party in particular.
The member opposite should note that we are in constant conversation with our American counterparts on these issues and a number more. This is one of the most highly crossed borders in a regular fashion in the world, and indeed one of the best managed. I know the member opposite has been paying attention, so he knows that many ministers have been south of the border, including the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Immigration, to discuss specifically these issues and to have a concerted response on irregular migration and the management of the border as well. The member can rest assured, and I again thank him for his use of the words “irregular migration”.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, again the working assumption in the member's question is that this should be done unilaterally. Certainly that would be highly inadvisable, given our partner across the border. Again, these are discussions that need to be taken privately and soberly in a whole-of-government approach to how the border is managed. Hundreds of thousands of people cross that border regularly. We are lucky compared to our European partners to have only one partner across a border. People cannot simply march into Canada and march through Canada. We have three quasi-impermeable borders, and our partner in the major crossing of 9,000 kilometres is indeed a safe country, but issues do arise and we are addressing them in a sober and orderly fashion.
Results: 101 - 200 of 295 | Page: 2 of 3

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

For more data options, please see Open Data