//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersIndian ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.): (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this topic and to join my colleagues, the topic being Bill C-38. Again, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sudbury, as I indicated earlier, and I will be providing important information about the Indian Act and about the amendments being proposed in Bill C-38.My colleagues have described how these amendments were developed through engagement with first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations, which was central to the process. We could not do this without their collaboration and guidance. Now, I would like to share the potential impact of the amendments and some next steps in addressing the historical inequities of the registration and membership provisions of the Indian Act, and ultimately, a full transition away from the act to true self-determination and governance by first nations.The amendments being proposed today are situated within a broader whole-of-government effort to advance indigenous rights to self-determination and to self-government.Our government acknowledges that the Indian Act is an extension of our colonial history. These amendments would be an incremental step toward the development of an approach to first nations' citizenship that would be an alternative to the Indian Act. We have heard from many first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations that we need to address a range of issues before a full transition of jurisdiction over citizenship to first nations can occur.That is what we are working toward today by introducing amendments to address inequities in registration and membership under the Indian Act. What would the impact of these amendments be? Let me begin with the proposal to address the discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. This bill would eliminate the differential treatment of those whose family histories include involuntary or voluntary enfranchisement, resulting in approximately 2,400 newly entitled individuals.It would also reinstate individuals who collectively were enfranchised as a band prior to 1985, resulting in approximately an additional 1,100 newly entitled individuals. Descendants of enfranchised individuals would be entitled to registration and would be able to exercise their rights and access the associated benefits and services, which include education and non-insured health benefits.These amendments would also recognize the acquired rights of all individuals to membership in their natal communities. The amendments would provide a legal mechanism enabling women to re-affiliate with their natal bands, if they wish. This would directly benefit those first nations women and their descendants whose membership in their natal bands was changed without their consent or their say. The result would be that first nations women who married first nations men from a different community, between 1876 and 1985, would have the choice to reconnect to their natal community.The bill would also return autonomy to first nations by allowing them to deregister or to remove their name from the Indian register if they wish. Individuals would have the legal capacity to exercise agency over their status. Finally, by eliminating outdated and offensive language about first nations persons with a disability, the amendments strive to align the language of the Indian Act with the last 50 years of development in capacity and guardianship law. The outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act is a lingering affront. Addressing culturally insensitive and offensive language would positively benefit first nations persons with disabilities, and their caregivers, by acknowledging their fundamental humanity and personhood, instead of relegating them as defective in some manner. These amendments in Bill C-38 are considered necessary incremental changes with an aim to align the Indian Act with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; although, clearly, much work remains. By amending the Indian Act to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the amendments support the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 43, which calls upon federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments to fully adopt and to implement the UN declaration as their framework for reconciliation.The amendments also support the national action plan to address missing and murdered women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people by acknowledging and recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples. Of course, we know that the work is not complete. Reconciling the colonial legacy of Canada's relationship with first nations while constrained to the framework of the Indian Act is fundamentally challenging.(1040)During this round of engagement, we have heard loud and clear that the second-generation cut-off issue continues to impact many individuals, and our next focus must be on this issue. An equal application of the second-generation cut-off has resulted in many grandchildren and great-grandchildren being denied status and membership to a first nations community. There are also remaining issues, such as the scrip taking and cross-border concerns. Further conversations are needed with first nations partners to listen and learn about what future changes may encompass. To this end, starting in early 2024, we will begin engagement on these initial inequities, with a plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly. Changing the Indian Act is a continuous iterative process. We unequivocally respect the need for engagement and input from first nations voices. Any future legislative changes will be the result of ongoing engagement and the codevelopment of solutions with first nations partners and other rights holders.Under section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Government of Canada must, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. The amendments being introduced today are considered requisite incremental changes that both increase the Indian Act's alignment with the declaration while also laying the groundwork for the Indian Act to be repealed in due course. The changes under discussion today are a necessary step to transition Canada out of the business of Indian registration and toward a future beyond the Indian Act.By addressing historic wrongs in co-operation with first nations, we will continue to advance reconciliation and support a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. We strive toward a relationship based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.I encourage members in this most honourable House to join me in supporting Bill C-38 and the steps it proposes to begin to move away from the Indian Act.2SLGBTQI+ communitiesC-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)DiscriminationGirlsGovernment billsHomicideIndian RegisterIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMissing personsPersons with disabilitiesReconciliation with indigenous peoplesRegistration of peopleSecond readingSplitting speaking timeWomen8284820CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110663VivianeLapointeViviane-LapointeSudburyLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaPointeViviane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersIndian ActInterventionMs. Viviane Lapointe (Sudbury, Lib.): (1050)[English]Madam Speaker, kwe kwe, ullukkut, tansi, hello and bonjour. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.I am thankful for the opportunity to say a few words today as we debate important amendments to the Indian Act, a relic of our colonial history that needs change.I would like to begin by providing a historical overview to show why these amendments are so important and why we could not be proposing them today without first taking time to listen to and learn from first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations.Before European contact, first nations had their own, long-established methods for determining citizenship. While methods varied between nations, the issues of kinship and community ties were at the heart of these processes. Colonial administrations, and then successive Canadian governments, introduced a progression of statutes that drastically changed the meaning and the nature of citizenship within first nations. The goal of these statutes was assimilation, and through the Indian Act, the process of enfranchisement was introduced. Through enfranchisement, first nations members lost entitlement to registration and membership in their home communities if they wanted to vote in Canadian elections, own land, serve in the Canadian military, marry a non-first nations person or deny compulsory residential school attendance for their children. This legal process not only extinguished individual rights to registration under the Indian Act but also eliminated the right to access a range of rights and benefits, including the ability to vote in their nations' elections. Individuals, including men, their wives and minor children, could be enfranchised involuntarily or by application. As I alluded to earlier, many parents sought enfranchisement simply as a means to protect their children from forced attendance at residential schools. Some were involuntarily enfranchised when they earned a degree; became a doctor, lawyer or professional; or resided outside of Canada for more than five years without permission.The implication of enfranchisement in these circumstances was that first nations heritage and culture was somehow incompatible with notions of modernity and professional achievement.The evolution of the Indian Act had particular consequences for first nations women. By 1869, the definition of “Indian” was no longer based on first nations' kinship and community but instead on the predominance of male lineage and their community connection. Under the Indian Act, a woman who married an Indian man was automatically transferred from her father's nation to her husband's community. Women who married non-lndian men lost their status and any associated benefits completely.The result of these policies has been devastating. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls explains how the policy played a role in limiting women's social and economic independence. We know from the national inquiry that social and economic marginalization was among the root causes of the unspeakable violence that indigenous women and girls endure in this country.There have been attempts over the years to do better, but these have fallen short. Amendments to the Indian Act in 1951 attempted to remove some of the offensive political, cultural and religious restrictions, but they also gave the provinces jurisdiction over indigenous child welfare. This paved the way for the sixties scoop, a painful process where first nations children were removed from their families and communities instead of being provided with resources and supports. In 1985, the process of enfranchisement was eliminated from the Indian Act. Individuals who had been enfranchised by application had their entitlement restored, but they still could not pass on entitlement to their grandchildren. This is why it is so crucial for any amendments to be made in coordination with those who are most affected by them. Today we are on a path toward reconciliation. We are trying to listen, learn and do better. Policy development must reflect the recommendations and perspectives of first nations peoples and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations.(1055)For example, through the collaborative process on Indian registration, band membership and first nation citizenship, first nations partners guided the development of Bill S-3, which received royal assent in 2017, came into force in 2019 and eliminated known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Today, because of these changes, matrilineal and patrilineal lines of ancestry are treated equally in entitlement to registration, all the way back to 1867. Despite the successful removal of sex-based inequities in registration, the Government of Canada and first nations agree that there are still legacy issues that impact women and issues in registration and membership which remain, and these need to be addressed.In March, the Minister of Indigenous Services reaffirmed the federal government's commitment to addressing enfranchisement-related inequities in the Indian Act as soon as possible. We have been working with first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations to craft these amendments. We are grateful for their advice and guidance, and we recognize how difficult it can be to share their stories over and over again in a struggle for change that spans decades. The amendments in the bill before us today are the result of discussions with impacted first nations individuals, first nations representatives, Indian registration administrators and national indigenous organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Native Women's Association of Canada, Métis Nation of Canada and the Manitoba Métis Federation. Some provided formal written feedback on the draft of the legislation, while others participated in conversations about the need for and direction of the amendments. I will now provide a brief overview of what the amendments include. The amendments being proposed will address discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. They will also address individual deregistration, natal band membership and some of the outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act.They will ensure that first nation individuals with a family history of enfranchisement will be treated equally to those without. The amendments will also allow those individuals who want to remove their names from the Indian register the opportunity to do so. We know this is important for members of Métis groups or American tribes who wish to pursue this option based on the membership requirements of their respective groups.We note that those who are deregistered will still legally retain their entitlement to be registered under the Indian Act in the future and subsequently transmit entitlement to their descendants. The proposed amendments would also create a legal mechanism that would ensure that women who lost the right to membership in their natal first nations, prior to changes made in 1985, have the right to apply to have that membership restored.Last, we know the Indian Act includes all manner of outdated and offensive language. Today's amendments will focus on the term “mentally incompetent Indians”, which would be replaced with the more respectful “dependent person.”We recognize that there is much more work to be done to address the colonial legacies in legislation. Starting early in 2023, we will begin engagement on the additional inequities that still remain in registration, including the second generation cut-off. We will plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly.We are committed to working hand in hand with first nations to accomplish this. We are striving to make changes based on recognition and respect for the right to self-determination. It is a learning process. We are learning how to listen and also how to act with humility. I reiterate my thanks to the first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations who have devoted their time and energy to this process of change, and to the many individuals that work hard every day to make things better in this country. Their resilience and patience paves the way for a brighter future, and I offer my deepest gratitude to them.It is my hope that this historical context and overview provides members of Parliament with a sense of why these amendments are needed. I hope all members will join me in supporting this important bill and in continuing to work towards true reconciliation.C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)ChildrenDiscriminationEqual opportunitiesGovernment billsIndian RegisterIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMarriage and divorceNon-status IndiansRegistration of peopleS-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)Second readingSexual discriminationSocial marginalityTerminologyWomen8284836FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeJohnAldagCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, my thanks for your guidance today as I start my speech on Bill C-318.This is a very important bill. I want to congratulate the member of Parliament who put forward this bill, as well as all the family members and advocates who pushed to make this a reality today.This was a very good bill in its original form. However, I was deeply disappointed that the amendments to the bill, which I pushed forward at committee, to uphold Canadian law were thrown out. Those amendments would have ensured that this new piece of legislation, which hopefully will go forward, would be consistent with Bill C-15. That was adopted in the last Parliament, and it ensures that all legislation going forward is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Rather than upholding that law and upholding our constitutional obligations to ensure they are reflected in this current legislation, the Liberals at committee, first of all, voted against it, and then the member for Winnipeg North brought forward a point of order to throw out my amendments.This is a pattern of behaviour I have witnessed from the government, a failure for this current government, to uphold the very law that it put forward in the last Parliament, a government bill. I want to point specifically to Bill C-15, section 5, which states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” By failing to uphold Bill C-15, the current government is wilfully not respecting Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.I want to read into the record Articles 19, 20 and 21 so that we can have a permanent record of the specific human rights that the government is flippantly violating in refusing to amend this bill, even though the sponsor of the bill supported the amendments I put forward at committee and indicated that they were in the scope of the bill. Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reads:States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.I would like to remind the government that when we are talking about adoption and when we are talking about child welfare systems, in Manitoba alone, 90% of kids currently in child welfare are indigenous. Many families choose customary and kinship care arrangements. We have so many grandmothers in our communities who look after their loved ones without financial assistance, without the option of leaving work, doing double duty with no financial resources.The Liberal government has been held in non-compliance over 14 times with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and it was to immediately stop racism against first nations kids on reserves. Once again, the government is showing a commitment to having a two-tiered system in this country: one for indigenous children and one for everybody else. The current government is demonstrating, through throwing out these amendments, that the human rights of indigenous kids are still not being respected.(1900)Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.Traditional means parenting. They need to be given the resources to be able to parent kids the way they choose. Let us not forget that there are more kids in care now than at the height of residential schools. It was well reported in the TRC report that we need systems reform in our child welfare system. The residential school system has left a legacy of intergenerational trauma and healing within our nation.Not only did they throw out my amendments, but they are also throwing out the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. If the government is not ready to respond to the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is mainly giving our kids back, the government is far from reconciling with indigenous peoples in this country.Article 20(2) states, “Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.” That includes financial resources so we are able to raise our kids in the way that we choose, not in poverty, so that we do not have to go to the Human Rights Tribunal and go after the government for years for it to finally settle $17 billion, more than what was asked. It is abhorrent what has happened in this House.Article 21(2) states:States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.I would like to remind the government, which threw out amendments to ensure that human rights of indigenous peoples would be upheld, to ensure we would be upholding Canadian law and to ensure that it is consistent with section 5 of Bill C-15, that the child welfare system has been named the pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls in this country.We have a legacy of sixties scoop survivors who were separated from family and community, who have nowhere to return home to. However, on the very subject of our children, the government, once again, fails to take the opportunity to reconcile with indigenous peoples in Canada by giving us the resources we need to uphold our human rights to be able to raise our children in kinship and customary care arrangements.Although the Speaker ruled my amendments as being out of scope, I would like to remind the House that they, in fact, were in scope because the government has the legal obligation to make sure all legislation going forward is consistent with Bill C-15 . I am going to urge the government because it still has the power to make a royal recommendation, with the amendments I put forward, to make sure it is consistent with human rights law. If it is serious about reconciliation, it will give our kids back.AdoptionC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Care for childrenChild povertyEmployment insuranceIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsParental leavePrivate Members' BillsRacial equalityThird reading and adoption824764082476418247642824764382476448247645824764682476478247648824764982476508247651824765282476538247654824765582476568247657Marie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—LabelleMichelleFerreriPeterborough—Kawartha//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersShannen KoostachinInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, we are on the 12th anniversary of Parliament's passing the “Shannen's Dream” motion, named in honour of the young Cree leader Shannen Koostachin, who stood up to challenge the systemic denial of rights for indigenous children. Shannen had never seen a real school. Children in Attawapiskat were being educated in squalid and dangerous conditions. The government knew this. It just did not give a damn. Thirteen-year-old Shannen launched the largest youth-driven civil rights movement in Canadian history. Shannen never lived long enough to see the beautiful school that was built because of her work. She died in a horrific car accident at 15. Following her death, youth, activists and educators from across Canada launched “Shannen's Dream” to end the systemic underfunding of first nations schools. We have so much farther to go. Children in Eabametoong have no school right now. Children in Kashechewan have no proper gym. Shannen reminded us that the greatest resource in this country is not oil or diamonds; it is in the potential of this young generation. We thank her. The fight for justice continues.ChildrenIndigenous rightsKoostachin, ShannenSchoolsStatements by Members82397238239724823972582397268239727Marie-FranceLalondeOrléansYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniHon.Arif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsInterpretation ActInterventionHon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice, Lib.)(1530)[Translation]Bill S-13. First readingmoved that Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts be now read the first time and printed.(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)Government billsIndigenous rightsIntroduction and First readingS-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other ActsSenate bills8240009JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut blows me away every day in this place. She mentioned the SCC ruling on Bill C-92. In terms of self-determination, there are concerns I have had lately about child welfare matters impacting our kids. At committee, I pushed an amendment forward to an adoptive care bill, an EI bill, to include kinship and customary care to ensure that the bill was consistent with Bill C-15, meaning that all future legislation has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Winnipeg North member said the other day that they are in the process of trying to throw out those amendments, which, once again, with the SCC ruling, affirm the need for amendments to the current EI bill.I was wondering what my colleague's thoughts were about the government's continual fight to not allow us to bring our kids home.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for Reconciliation81957588195759LoriIdloutNunavutLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout: (1635)[English] Uqaqtittiji , I always appreciate my colleague's fierceness in the House. I always learn from her.It has definitely been very disappointing to sit here since 2021 and to see the Liberal government not respect UNDRIP after passing Bill C-15. A very important aspect of UNDRIP, as she mentioned, is the importance of free, prior and informed consent. If the Liberal government, for example, had used free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, in developing the Métis bill, I think first nations in Ontario would have been a lot more supportive in helping to ensure that the bill is supported by all.I think that ensuring free, prior and informed consent is something that helps to unite all indigenous peoples. It has been quite unfortunate to see the Liberal government dividing first nations, Métis and Inuit against each other. We need to see the examples set by the Supreme Court of upholding the constitutionality of Bill C-92.In order for us to do better for first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families, free, prior and informed consent must be at the core of our work. That is how we will make sure that our relationships are respectful, that we are working toward an overall sense of well-being for now and for the future of all of Canada. With Canada being founded on indigenous peoples' lands, if we work together, we can make sure that legislation is meeting the needs of first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for Reconciliation8195760819576181957628195763LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise and speak to Bill C-29. This flawed bill was the government's attempt, over nine years in office, to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 through 56. Indeed, since 2015, the Liberal government, for all its rhetoric on reconciliation, continues to ignore indigenous voices. It breaks promises and perpetuates the archaic, broken and paternalistic “Ottawa knows best” approach to indigenous issues. We do not have to look very far to see this.The Chiefs of Ontario, which represents more than 130 first nations in the province, filed for a judicial review because this Liberal coalition government refuses to listen to indigenous communities and axe the carbon tax. The first nations argue that the imposition of the price on carbon is leaving their communities worse off than others in Canada and breaching the principles of true reconciliation. Abram Benedict, the Grand Chief for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne said, “People feel that their rights are being violated.” The chiefs want the federal government to redevelop the policy with their communities by either exempting first nations people from the price on carbon or allowing them to recoup all the costs associated with the system. Many first nations members cannot benefit from the rebates delivered under the pricing mechanism, because the payments are linked to income taxes, which are not collected from individuals working on reserves. The leadership also argues that the price on carbon places a burden on their constitutionally protected rights to hunt, harvest or fish on their traditional territory because of the added fuel costs for all-terrain vehicles, trucks, boats and snowmobiles. Furthermore, with respect to the long-anticipated national loan guarantee program, the Liberal government has remained silent on the details. Indigenous leaders are very concerned that oil and gas will not be included, sidelining over $300 billion in projects over the next decade and $40 billion in LNG projects ready to go next year. Indigenous leaders are asking for details, but this government refuses to engage with them and give them the details they actually need to plan. This is not reconciliation. This is alienation.This leads me to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act. Speaking previously, I made it clear that it was important to use a consensus-building approach to improve this piece of legislation. Bill C-29 deserved, in its formation, a responsible look at areas where it needed improvement. At second reading I pointed out that Bill C-29's foundation was cracked and would need some care and attention at committee if the government hopes to provide a workable council that is respected by all leaders, all communities and all organizations across Canada. I wanted to make sure that all five indigenous national organizations were represented, not just the three that were in the original bill, notably the Native Women's Association of Canada, NWAC, and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, both of which were ignored. My colleague, the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, added that he wanted the following addressed: The transparency and independence in the selection process of the board of directors; words that were purposely vague to avoid accountability; the lack of any measurable outcomes; the fact that it took over four years to bring the bill to the House in the first place; and, of course, lastly, that the Prime Minister should be the one responding to the council's annual report, as was the direction in the call to action 56. In 2015 the Prime Minister claimed that building a good relationship with indigenous peoples would be the government's top priority. I am not sure what the word “priority” means to the Liberal Prime Minister, but to me it does not mean tabling any indigenous-related legislation at the last possible minute. Bill C-38 was introduced December 14, 2022, the last sitting day of a House sitting session. Bill C-53 was introduced on June 21, 2023, the last day of a House sitting session. Bill C-29, of course, was introduced June 22, 2022, which was the last day of a session. I do not know about my colleagues, but the trend certainly does not scream “priority” to me. Indigenous people deserve more than a last-minute Liberal effort. (1720)Need I say that, while the Prime Minister would love to take credit for being the first to advance reconciliation, it was actually the previous Conservative government that finally issued a formal apology on behalf of Canada to all indigenous people across the country? Actions speak louder than words, which is why I remind the House that 17 of the 19 amendments Conservatives put forward were passed at committee. It is the job of the official opposition to improve legislation where possible and to make it representative of all voices, and that is exactly what members on this side of the House did. Unfortunately, there was one amendment we proposed that was disproportionately voted down by the other parties, and that is what I would like to discuss for a few minutes.One of the most glaring issues with Bill C-29 is the lack of representation on the national council for reconciliation. The bill sets aside three seats for the AFN, ITK and the MNC, three national organizations that the Liberal government deals with almost exclusively when it comes to indigenous issues across the country. It chose to ignore the other two major organizations, NWAC and CAP.At committee, Conservatives got a motion passed to have both organizations recognized in the same manner as the AFN, ITK and the MNC, yet when the bill was reported back to the House, the Liberal-NDP coalition chose to deliberately vote against the will of its members on committee and remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from the bill. The Liberal-NDP coalition chose to ignore the voices of large swaths of urban and poor people. CAP represents over 800,000 off-reserve indigenous voices, yet it has no voice when it comes to reconciliation. It has been alienated by the government and its supporters.The Conservative senators in the other place tried hard to rectify this, but again the Prime Minister made sure his Liberal senators defeated that amendment. I often hear in meetings with indigenous leaders about the importance of economic reconciliation, not just to address their own issues with their own resources but also to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour to a people who have had it stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.Conservatives also put forward an amendment to add a seat on the board of directors for someone from an indigenous organization that is focused on economic reconciliation. With many options available from a whole list of organizations that are all doing great work in this sphere, finding a well-established organization that has done historic work in creating economic opportunity for indigenous people would not have been a barrier. The lack of support for this amendment, it should be pointed out, came at the expense of not listening to multiple witnesses who clearly voiced their approval for the inclusion of an economic lens being a part of this board. To ignore these voices discredits the very process of reconciliation.As the shadow minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, I hear regularly from indigenous groups and leaders across the country how important economic development and prosperity are to reconciliation. Having members with fiscal expertise on a commission directly focused on advancing reconciliation seems like a key component to ensuring an economic lens is at the forefront of their work.Instead, obstruction comes from the Liberal-NDP coalition, which looks down upon Conservatives who encourage economic reconciliation. We need to establish an economic national dialogue with indigenous leadership and organizations to remove the bureaucratic barriers to economic prosperity that exist at Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, with a goal of phasing out these government bureaucracies altogether. Conservatives are moving in this direction, with the recent announcement of the grassroots, indigenous-led first nations resource charge. Common-sense Conservatives are ready to dismantle the “Ottawa knows best” archaic and paternalistic way of doing things. For hundreds of years, first nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians in Ottawa. The Indian Act hands over all reserve lands and money to the federal government. This means that first nations must go to Ottawa to ask for the tax revenues collected from resource projects on their lands. This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists, not first nations. The direct results of this “Ottawa knows best” approach have been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, and unsafe drinking water.(1725)The first nations resource charge is a signal to indigenous peoples that the Conservatives recognize the need to correct the fiscal imbalance between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. This would ensure that they receive stable, annual fiscal benefits and to advance reconciliation by promoting first nations self-determination and economic development. We tried to do this with Bill C-29 as well, yet the Liberals were not interested in hearing the voices of off-reserve indigenous peoples or even considering economic reconciliation on a national committee tasked with reconciliation.Conservatives continue to observe Liberal and NDP MPs aggressively challenging indigenous leaders who appear as witnesses at the indigenous and northern affairs committee, advocating for economic reconciliation. Unfortunately, I find myself asking why. It seems there is an aversion to even having a discussion on economic reconciliation. This tells me that something does not add up.What is it about indigenous peoples being the creators of their own destiny that Liberal MPs dislike? What is it about empowering the creation of healthy, strong and vibrant communities through prosperity that they do not like? What is it about using own-source revenue from true partnerships to solve long-standing social issues that they dislike? What is it about leaving behind the destructive grip of poverty to offer hope and opportunity to future generations that they dislike? Why will the Liberal government not listen to what indigenous people are trying to tell them? Sadly, the answer is that they are more concerned with political power and control.By imposing their own views, rather than listening to indigenous voices, they create the same environment that indigenous peoples have lived under for far too long in this country. One group's world views and political opinions are forced upon another group.This past week, on many different occasions, I heard the Minister of Indigenous Services claim that her department is focused on co-development with first nations. The Prime Minister even stood in this House and used the term “co-develop” as well.This sounds like another Liberal buzzword used to create the illusion of equal partnership between indigenous leaders and Canada. In fact, in response to the use of the term, first nations leaders have pushed back and said that they are not sure who the Liberal government is co-developing with, because it is sure not them.We heard from the national chief, Chief Elmer St. Pierre, of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples that “Reconciliation must start with inclusion”. He added, “Despite the existence of five National Indigenous Organizations, the Liberal Government seems to be engaging in partisan politics by excluding CAP and the voices of urban Indigenous peoples.”“The government's attempt to divide and conquer by selectively recognizing certain indigenous groups is deeply concerning,” stated Kim Beaudin, CAP national vice-chief. He went on: “Reconciliation cannot be confined to reserves alone, as the majority of Indigenous peoples now reside in urban and rural areas, demanding their voices to be heard.”What an embarrassing indictment of the Liberal government this is. To make matters worse, one of the three original council members, the ITK, an organization that represents Inuit peoples, has withdrawn its support of Bill C-29. The ITK's president, Natan Obed, fears that the reconciliation body created by the bill could undermine ongoing Inuit work to build a direct relationship with the federal government and advance Inuit rights and interests. He says that the bill, as it stands, also does little to make the federal government accountable for fulfilling its obligations on reconciliation. On this issue of “co-development”, which the Liberals insist is how they do business, President Obed said: “It has been debatable on the Inuit side on whether or not we would describe how we've interacted with the federal government as co-developed.... These terms are largely subjective and we wanted to make them more clear.”Chief St. Pierre was much less forgiving, saying, “This extraordinary move by the Liberals is a slap in the face to thousands of survivors who live off-reserve.... For seven years now, the Liberals have trumpeted the importance of reconciliation, but this exclusion reveals their true colours.”It is time to fundamentally change the approach. Much of my work on this file was shared by my colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. In fact, it was that member who shepherded Bill C-29 through the House, and I wanted to take a moment to thank him for his work on this file.(1730)Out of respect for his work, I would like to share a story from his riding, which really highlights the changes that are already happening on the ground in northern Saskatchewan. Having spent time with Pelican Lake First Nation's Chief Peter Bill, RCMP and two of Pelican Lake's own community safety officers, the member asked how the newly established community safety officer program was going. Chief Bill replied that the community now has six full-time employees and its own fully equipped vehicles, and it is in the process of training more officers. The RCMP also explained how helpful the program had been in the overall safety of the community.How did Pelican Lake First Nation pay for this community service officer program? In fact, it was their own-source revenue, which was generated from their forestry business. They invested the profits to assist the overall health of the community, instead of waiting around for years while the government and the bureaucrats plan; meet; make frameworks, charts and graphs; do benefit assessments and feasibility studies; or use the signing of MOUs for photo ops.Later that day, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River was at Flying Dust First Nation to participate in a walk of solidarity with residential school survivors. On that walk, he saw the hockey rink that was built a few years ago and, beside it, the newly built 6,000-square-foot sporting goods store and facility called Snipe and Celly. If one looks in the other direction, one finds the new Petro-Canada gas station located right on the highway. For the member, it was a stark reminder of what the MLTC Cree vice-chief, Richard Derocher, had mentioned to him earlier that day, when he spoke positively on reconciliation. He shared that his wish was that, one day, when people were either visiting or driving through the area, they would not be able to recognize when they were leaving Flying Dust First Nation and entering Meadow Lake. Generating prosperity through economic development works. It is a shame that this was not recognized by the government. The existing model of federal public servants determining who is and who is not ready for self-governance needs to change. Reconciliation must be centred on the future of indigenous peoples, not what is in the best interest of the Liberal government. By modernizing our approach to indigenous partnerships, we will modernize Canada and usher in a new age of economic prosperity and equality of opportunity. Conservatives promote and believe in economic reconciliation. It is the solution to eradicating poverty and, with it, the social ills that poverty creates. With control put back in their hands, indigenous peoples can begin to manage prosperity instead of poverty and take concrete steps toward healing through self-determination.Conservatives support off-reserve and non-status indigenous peoples. Unlike the Liberals and the NDP, we have demonstrated this publicly with our support of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples' inclusion on the national council for reconciliation. The Liberals and their NDP coalition partners effectively silenced the voices of the 800,000 off-reserve and non-status indigenous peoples when they voted against amendments that would have included CAP on the council. Let the record show that it was the Liberal, NDP and Bloc members who stood against the addition of economic reconciliation to the national council, while Conservatives recognized the importance of consultation and of hearing from as many diverse indigenous voices as possible.To conclude, I am proud of the work our Conservative team did in making Bill C-29 a better version than what originally came to the House.Board of directorsC-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationCarbon pricingCarbon taxCongress of Aboriginal PeoplesConsideration of Senate amendmentsEconomic developmentFirst nation safety officersGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsGovernment loan guaranteesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationOff-reserveOil and gasReconciliation with indigenous peoplesSelection process81958498195850KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise today to talk about Bill C-29. I want to let the House know that the NDP wants the bill to pass. I am always very honoured to work with my good colleague, the member for Nunavut. She has put a lot of effort in to amend the legislation to make it much stronger.If we want to reconcile in this country, we must focus on children and families. I say that because I want to go back to why we have to have these discussions in the House to begin with; it is for the country to try to reconcile, as was affirmed in the Haida Nation case, the sovereignty of indigenous people with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown. I share that because it was an assumed sovereignty that began a violent genocide of indigenous people in Canada, which began with the dispossession of lands and led to the dispossession and kidnapping of our children and taking them off to resident schools, where they experienced all kinds of abuses.It is important to note that, as we sit here in the House debating the bill before us, there are more kids now in the child welfare system than there were at the height of residential schools. We will not reconcile in this country until all governments make a concerted effort to bring our kids home. However, I worked on the legislation in committee making amendments, and that does not happen in real time, even though in the last session the Liberal government passed Bill C-15. I would like to read article 5 of Bill C-15, under the title “Consistency”. It says, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” I share that because at every turn on matters impacting children, the Liberal government continues to not support the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people to make decisions about our own children. I will give an example: The national child care strategy, until the NDP amendment, did not support the inclusion of honouring the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples to make decisions on matters impacting our children.Why is this significant? First, it is because the government is now obliged to ensure that all legislation is compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Second, it is because one of the most serious violations that has reverberated in our communities and has had lasting impacts is when they robbed us of our children and shipped them off to residential schools. I have said in speeches before that, as a mother, I cannot even imagine the pain that reverberated in our communities when those communities fell silent each September when they stole our children, many of whom never returned home. I share that because every day, even now, there is a growing movement of residential school denialism, where survivors and descendants have to confirm the fact that genocide did occur in residential schools and that many of our children did not in fact return home but are buried around schools around the country. What school needs a graveyard? What school is built with a graveyard attached?(1750)There was nothing about the residential schools that was about education. I say that because although the government talks a good game of reconciliation, and although it passed Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, it is one thing to pass a bill but another thing to change colonial behaviour, a tradition of colonial violence in this place. That includes something I had to experience today, having the member for Winnipeg North lecture me about the dark cloud I place on this place when I talk about the ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls, and when I complain about the fact that the government has not moved fast enough around the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationCare for childrenChildrenConsideration of Senate amendmentsFamilies and childrenGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsNational Council for Reconciliation8195908819590981959108195912JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan: (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out that the member did mention Winnipeg Centre. I assumed the comments were made toward me when he said my riding, but let us leave that.Going back to what I was saying, the fact that he felt a need to defend himself in the middle of my speech is another example of what I had requested in my point of order, which was for him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to leave his white male privilege at the door and not to tell indigenous women what to talk about when they are talking about indigenous kids.We are here today because of the violent kidnapping of our kids, which has had lasting impacts on our families. It goes back to the dark cloud our parents and families felt when they robbed our kids, leaving our communities silent. Can members imagine being in a community without laughter and without play? I cannot imagine that and not to have the privilege of being able to raise my son. For no reason other than who I am and where I was born, the government is able to steal my child and to have that legislated. That is why these amendments are so critical to legislation if we are going to reconcile and to honour this new bill, Bill C-29. That is why amending legislation so it is compatible, especially on matters impacting our children, is so critical. I would argue, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the government violating its own law and its own constitution by not ensuring legislation is compatible with Bill C-15, as we saw with the child care legislation in the last session that we managed to get through committee. Now the government is going against amendments to make the legislation compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is trying to overturn it in the House. If the Liberal government is not willing to give our kids back when we have more kids in child welfare than we did at the height of residential schools and when we know that 90% of kids in care are indigenous and that all this new adoptive care legislation will probably not apply to 90% of parents, which once again will leave the financial burden on families to care for their children, then the government is not ready to reconcile.The government took over 13 non-compliance orders in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling to let them know that it was intentionally racially discriminating against indigenous and first nations kids on reserve on matters impacting child welfare. It finally came up with a settlement that was $17 billion less than what was ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling. Then, I have to listen to the government talk all the time about how it wants reconciliation, when we constantly have to fight for the fact that our kids deserve the same as other kids in the country, and I have to go to committee and fight for the EI legislation. I would like to, once again, read to the House the amendment that would allow us to uphold Canadian law and that was passed at committee, even though the Liberal members abstained from the vote and outright voted against it during the national child care legislation. They are now trying to overturn it in the House because it was passed at committee.(1755)I will read the amendment, which states: For greater certainty, in this Part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a claimant for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a claimant, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the claimant primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.I will refer to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the NDP's attempt to make this legislation compatible. It says:Article 19States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. Article 20 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities. 2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress. That would include equal benefits under EI.It goes on to state:Article 21 1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.Once again, like The Twilight Zone, I am here fighting to bring our kids home. I am here having to plead with the government as to whether it is really ready to reconcile or not. I have been told there is a bill, Bill C-54, that the government will put forward and that it wants to consult with indigenous people. My reply is for the government to find me one indigenous person who would argue against the right for them to raise their children in their own traditions and customs. The kinds of things we have to consult on, basic human rights, being used as a stalling mechanism is another form of institutional racism. I will provide a couple of examples.How do indigenous people feel about clean drinking water? Let us consult on that for four years. How do indigenous people feel about toilets and how fire trucks are going to get to their communities so their houses do not burn down? The government asks them to say how they feel about that. Find me one indigenous person who feels they need to consult about human rights and life and death matters at every turn. I can provide a whole list. I can give an encyclopedia of them, in fact. I can point out the Indian Act that the government developed without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. I can name a million resource extraction projects where militarized police are smashing in the doors of indigenous women, being called out by the United Nations where there was no consultation, yet when we ask to bring our kids home, when we say we want to uphold Canadian law so this new legislation is aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, something the government is obliged to do, what does it say? It thanks me for my work and says it needs to consult on it. What do I call that? I call it systemic racism. What do I call child welfare? I call it a pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. What do I call that? A pipeline to the justice system. What do I call the sixties scoop? I call it a loss of identity, the disruption of our families that we will never get back and the ongoing genocide of our families.(1800)This is shameful, and I am going to call out this shame unapologetically, because it is time for all governments, without excuse, to bring our kids home, period. It is time for our kids and our families to get the same resources that are afforded to other families in this country.Do you know what I think the problem is, Mr. Speaker? I am going to be fully transparent here. It is money. Because 90% of kids in care are indigenous, the government is going to fight it every step of the way, like it did the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.Do you know what that tells me? It tells me that we are less than, still, in this country. Our kids are not as valuable. Our women and our 2SLGBTQIA+ people will continue to go missing and be murdered. Why? It is because the government has completed zero calls for justice in 2023.They finished 13 altogether out of the 81 that they are responsible for as the federal government, yet I had to hear a speech about the dark cloud that I place over their heads. I will tell you something. I will tell you a dark cloud.I have a friend whose loved one was just murdered in an incident involving grotesque police brutality. That is a dark cloud. That is called systemic racism.If that is dark, if people say, “Oh, you want your clip, Leah. There, you got your clip, I heard,” and if that is what they think it is about, I do not care. We are going to bring our kids home, and I am going to fight this government or any other government that comes in its place to give us the resources we need to bring our kids home.I will not be questioned by a member whose riding has the highest number of kids in care in the whole country, justifying and celebrating how well his government is doing, when I am now, once again, fighting his government so that our families do not have to live in poverty. That is disgusting, and it is racist.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationCare for childrenChildrenConsideration of Senate amendmentsEconomic conditionsGovernment billsGovernment compensationIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentNational Council for ReconciliationRacial equalityReconciliation with indigenous peoples81959228195925819592681959278195928819592981959308195931819593281959338195934819593581959368195937819593881959398195940GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): (1805)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a bit about the Indian Act. That word itself is a violent, racist word that harkens back to an extremely violent colonial history. The previous name was even more repugnant, if such a thing is possible. The current Indian Act is an amendment to an old law whose name I would not even dare utter.What does my colleague think about the fact that today, in 2024, a supposedly modern and contemporary country that claims to be open, multicultural and progressive can still have a law called the Indian Act?C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for Reconciliation81959508195951LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan: (1805)[English]Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation in the last Parliament. In fact, I worked with the current Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, amending it, putting this bill forward. We have something, in fact. It is not a lack of legislation. It is now a fact of pushing for a change of colonial behaviour.We have the TRC's 94 calls to action. We have the 231 calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which provide a framework and a path forward.We have legislation, Bill C-15, to make sure any legislation going forward respects the human rights of indigenous peoples, because we know, globally, that we needed a declaration because there has been a universal, global violation of the human rights of indigenous peoples throughout the globe.I am just heeding the government's call to act on the very legislation that it supported.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for Reconciliation8195952819595381959548195955Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 1945—Mr. Arnold Viersen: With regard to the 6,880 suspicious transactions related to the Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children referred by the Philippines to FINTRAC and shared with the RCMP during the 18 month period ending on December 2022: (a) how many RCMP investigations related to suspicious transactions have either been initiated or are ongoing; and (b) what were the results of the investigations in (a)?Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre, NCECC, receives disclosures from the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, FINTRAC, related to online child sexual exploitation and abuse. The information contained in the disclosures may be used by the NCECC to help support investigations by law enforcement, including where the RCMP serves as police of jurisdiction.The NCECC also receives reports pertaining to online child sexual exploitation from various Canadian and international sources, such as law enforcement agencies; cybertip.ca, Canada’s public reporting tip line; and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, in the United States. The NCECC also receives reports from various service providers, such as social media applications and online gaming platforms. The NCECC assesses and triages all reports received, prepares investigative packages for all actionable reports and distributes the packages to the police agency of jurisdiction for further investigation.The RCMP undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The RCMP concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.Question No. 1950—Mr. Stephen Ellis: With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): what is the breakdown of the religions or denominations that CAF members identify as, in total, and broken down by branch of the CAF, including the number and percentage of CAF members for each?Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, building a defence team where all members feel protected, supported, respected and empowered to serve is a top priority. As such, the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, makes certain to respect and protect, in a holistic manner, the spiritual dimension and needs of all its members.The CAF does not track religious denomination or faith tradition information from members who are enrolling unless they volunteer the information. When this information is volunteered, it is protected by the Privacy Act.Question No. 1953—Mr. Eric Duncan: With regard to Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC): what specific interests and potential conflicts were identified in the ethical disclosures for each member of SDTC’s executive team, broken down by individual?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. The requested information is being withheld because it constitutes personal information.Question No. 1954—Mr. Colin Carrie: With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines: (a) did Pfizer disclose that Process 1 vaccine formula was used during the original trial to obtain their safety and efficacy data while Process 2 was invoked following the Interim Order to massively upscale production of vaccine doses whereby DNA was cloned into a bacterial plasmid vector for amplification in Escherichia coli (E. coli) before linearization with the possibility of potential residual DNA; (b) was HC aware of the quantum of linearized DNA fragments present in each dose of the Pfizer vaccine prior to releasing the vaccine to Canadians, and, if so, what was the amount of acceptable residual DNA per vaccine dose and the method used to measure it; (c) if the response to (b) is negative, has HC since confirmed the quantum of linearized DNA per vaccine dose per mRNA manufacturer, and, if so, what method was used; (d) do the risks of residual DNA meet HC’s standards for transfected foreign DNA; (e) did Pfizer and BioNTech disclose to HC the presence of the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter-enhancer-ori used to amplify the production of Spike mRNA in the DNA plasmid used to produce the mRNA; (f) has HC confirmed the presence of SV40 sequences in the Pfizer vaccine, and, if so, is the amount of SV40 within safe limits and how was it tested; (g) if the response to (f) is negative, when and who will conduct the study to confirm the presence of SV40 and by what method; (h) how were contaminants and impurities addressed throughout the regulatory process for both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna products; (i) are further studies planned to investigate how these contaminants and impurities will impact human subjects given transfection for both products, and, if so, who will conduct the investigation and when will it be conducted; (j) is HC considering regulating these products as gene therapy products; and (k) how does HC plan to inform those Canadians who received the mRNA products about the adulteration of these products, specifically SV40 in Pfizer and heightened levels of DNA plasmids in both Pfizer and Moderna products, to ensure fully informed consent?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Pfizer’s submission provided information that process one was used for clinical trials and process two was used for commercial scale-ups. The residual DNA limit is the same for both processes and is in line with the recommendation from the World Health Organization. The comparability of the vaccine produced by these two processes was demonstrated based on their biological, chemical and physical characteristics.With regard to part (b), Health Canada was aware of the presence of residual plasmid DNA because in the manufacture of any vaccine, residual elements are part of the standard manufacturing process and may remain. There are strict limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments to ensure that there is no effect on the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.The limit for residual DNA in biologic drugs required by Health Canada for approval is not more than 10 nanograms per human dose. This is in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendation concerning residual DNA in biological drugs and is consistent with the quality limits of other international regulators.It is important to assess the results using the authorized validated assays performed by the vaccine manufacturers to ensure that the quality of commercial vaccine lots is comparable to that of lots shown to be safe and efficacious in clinical studies.With regard to part (c), refer to part (b).With regard to part (d), Health Canada initially authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in December 2020 and subsequently has authorized updated versions, including the most recent vaccine targeting the XBB omicron subvariant in September 2023. Each assessment included a determination that the vaccine met the department's stringent regulatory safety, efficacy and quality requirements for use in Canada.As a regulator, Health Canada sets quality standards and requirements for manufacturers to follow, including providing comprehensive and detailed information about the vaccine itself and about the manufacturing process. In the manufacture of any vaccine, residual elements that are part of the standard manufacturing process may remain. There are strict limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments to ensure that there is no effect on the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.The simian virus 40, SV40, promoter enhancer sequence was found to be a residual DNA fragment in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The fragment is inactive, has no functional role and was measured to be consistently below the limit required by Health Canada and other international regulators.With regard to parts (e) and (f), in the case of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the full DNA sequence of the Pfizer plasmid was provided at the time of initial filing. The SV40 promoter enhancer sequence was found to be a residual DNA fragment in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The fragment is inactive, has no functional role and was measured to be consistently below the limit required by Health Canada and other international regulators. Monitoring of the residual DNA fragments is conducted by the manufacturers using methods that have been reviewed and validated by Health Canada as appropriate for its purposes. All Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID 19 vaccine commercial batches released in Canada complied with the requirements approved by Health Canada, including the residual DNA.With regard to part (g), refer to part (f).With regard to part (h), as a regulator of vaccines, Health Canada sets quality standards and requirements for manufacturers to follow, including providing comprehensive and detailed information about the vaccine itself and about the manufacturing process. In the manufacture of any vaccine, residual elements that are part of the standard manufacturing process may remain. There are strict limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments to ensure that there is no effect on the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.With regard to part (i), Health Canada continues to monitor the COVID-19 vaccines to ensure that they continue to meet the highest standards for safety, effectiveness and quality and that their benefits continue to outweigh any potential risks.With regard to part (j), Health Canada is not considering regulating mRNA vaccines as gene therapy products, as these vaccines cannot modify genes. Gene therapy involves the use of genes as medicine to treat genetic disease where the faulty gene is fixed, replaced or supplemented with a healthy gene so that it can function normally. The new gene has to enter the cell nucleus. The mRNA from the vaccines does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the DNA at all, so it does not constitute gene therapy. Furthermore, vaccines must meet the high standard of quality, safety and efficacy for medicinal products. Consistent with the international approach to regulating these products, Health Canada will continue to regulate mRNA vaccines as vaccines.With regard to part (k), Health Canada initially authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in December 2020 and subsequently has authorized updated versions, including the most recent vaccine targeting the XBB omicron subvariant in September 2023.As a regulator of vaccines, Health Canada sets quality standards and requirements for manufacturers to follow, including providing comprehensive and detailed information about the vaccine itself and about the manufacturing process. In the manufacture of any vaccine, it is expected that there may be variabilities or residual elements that are part of the standard manufacturing process. To manage this, Health Canada requires strict quality limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments to ensure that the vaccine continues to be safe and that any residual fragments are inactive and have no functional role in the vaccine. All versions of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that have been marketed in Canada continue to meet the strict quality standards required by Health Canada. Health Canada takes immediate action should any marketed vaccine product be found to be non-compliant with regulatory standards in Canada.Question No. 1955—Mr. Luc Berthold: With regard to the grocery rebate announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance at Rabba Fine Foods in early July 2023: (a) did any of the minister’s staff members remove, or request that the store remove, the price tags from the food in the background of the announcement, and, if so, why was this done; and (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, what is the minister’s explanation as to why there were no prices visible in the background of her announcement?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance does not have records pertaining to this specific matter of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance’s announcement on July 5, 2023. Question No. 1957—Mr. Richard Bragdon: With regard to the October 26, 2023 announcement temporarily pausing the carbon tax on deliveries of heating oil: when the three year pause is completed in November 2026, does the government plan to tax home heating oil at the current carbon tax rate of $65 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), or will it be taxed at a higher rate, and, if so, what will that rate be?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2023, the government announced its intent to temporarily pause the fuel charge on deliveries of light fuel oil exclusively for use to provide heat to a home or building. This pause is proposed to apply to deliveries on or after November 9, 2023, and before April 1, 2027.The fuel charge rate for light fuel oil in 2027 28 can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/fcrates/fuel-charge-rates.html.Question No. 1958—Mr. Marty Morantz: With regard to the Prime Minister: has the Prime Minister ever received any formal requests from any of the Liberal members of Parliament representing ridings in Manitoba asking that the carbon tax be paused or removed from natural gas or other sources of home heating, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) requester, (ii) date the request was made, (iii) summary, (iv) Prime Minister's response?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as global market forces and inflation continue to affect Canadians, too many families are feeling the pressure on their monthly energy bills. To put more money back in the pockets of Canadians, while ensuring there is less pollution in our air, the Government of Canada is helping more households make the switch to clean, affordable home heating options. To support this measure, the Government of Canada is doubling the pollution price rural top up and temporarily pausing the pollution price on heating oil.Heating oil is highly polluting and particularly expensive, costing two to four times as much as natural gas to heat a home. This temporary pause is a targeted measure to address that reality while support rolls out to help Canadians switch to a clean, affordable electric heat pump.The Department of Finance has no records on the specific matter of formal requests. Question No. 1959—Mr. Tom Kmiec: With regard to the current Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages: (a) has the minister advocated or taken other action to convince the Prime Minister to remove or pause the carbon tax from natural gas or other sources of home heating; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including for each action, the (i) date, (ii) description of the action taken, (iii) response received; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why not?Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in cabinet and cabinet committees, as well as in meetings, phone calls and other conversations with cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages works to ensure that the voices of Alberta businesses, stakeholders, industries, communities and residents are heard.As Albertans and Canadians across the country continue to face the impacts of climate change, including the devastating impacts of fires, floods, heat waves, and atmospheric rivers that have threatened lives and our communities, the minister continues to support urgent climate action. As confirmed by leading economists, the most effective market-based mechanism for reducing carbon emissions is a price on pollution. In jurisdictions where the federal carbon pricing backstop applies, such as Alberta, Canadians receive climate action incentive, or CAI, payments from the federal government to help individuals and families offset the cost of the federal pollution pricing. It consists of a basic amount and a supplement for residents of small and rural communities. In Alberta, an average family of four will receive $1,544 this year.The Government of Canada has changed the payment method for the CAI from a refundable credit claimed annually on personal income tax returns to quarterly tax-free payments made through the benefit system starting in July 2022.On October 26, 2023, it was announced the government is moving ahead with doubling the CAI payment rural top-up rate in Alberta and elsewhere, increasing it from 10% to 20% of the baseline amount starting in April 2024. People who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city.Furthermore, the Government of Canada continues to support the adoption of heat pumps as an alternative source of home heating across the country. Albertans qualify for a $5,000 grant to support the installation of a ground source heat pump that meets Canada’s efficiency regulations.Question No. 1960—Mr. John Barlow: With regard to the Prime Minister: has the Prime Minister ever received any formal requests from the member for Edmonton Centre or the member for Calgary Skyview asking that the carbon tax be paused or removed from natural gas or other sources of home heating, and, if so, what are the details of the requests, including the (i) requester, (ii) date the request was made, (iii) summary, (iv) Prime Minister's response?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as global market forces and inflation continue to affect Canadians, too many families are feeling the pressure on their monthly energy bills. To put more money back in the pockets of Canadians, while ensuring there is less pollution in our air, the Government of Canada is helping more households make the switch to clean, affordable home heating options. To support this measure, the Government of Canada is doubling the pollution price rural top-up and temporarily pausing the pollution price on heating oil.Heating oil is highly polluting and particularly expensive, costing two to four times as much as natural gas to heat a home. This temporary pause is a targeted measure to address that reality while support rolls out to help Canadians switch to a clean, affordable electric heat pump.The Department of Finance has no records on the specific matter of formal requests.Question No. 1971—Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: With regard to the Canada–Philippines Enhanced Defence Agreement: (a) what progress has been made on the agreement, and has it been signed by both countries; (b) what assessment of the state of human rights in the Philippines was carried out before the agreement was negotiated; (c) does the agreement include conditions for human rights monitoring and, if so, what are these conditions, and are they sine qua non to maintain the agreement between the two countries; (d) what mechanisms allow for the human rights situation to be monitored; (e) will the mechanisms in (d) include the consideration of the agreement by a parliamentary committee with participation from civil society organizations; (f) when will the terms or the wording of the agreement be made public; and (g) how can citizens access information on the programs and funding associated with the agreement?Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as outlined in Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, Canada has committed to expanding existing military capacity building initiatives that advance joint priorities and interoperability with regional partners, including the Philippines.As part of this commitment, National Defence is in the process of negotiating a non-legally binding defence cooperation arrangement, or Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, with its counterpart in the Philippines. The MOU will provide a framework for cooperation between Canada and the Philippines in the field of defence and military matters. This may include cooperation in the areas of defence and security policy; humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and maritime security, among others.Prior to entering into an MOU, National Defence ensures compliance with all applicable federal laws and government policies, directives, and guidelines, including those established by Global Affairs Canada. Canada supports efforts by the Philippines to advance inclusive and accountable governance, diversity, human rights, and the rule of law. The negotiation process, which is underway, involves various levels of consultations, including those among federal departments; as such, specific details have yet to be determined.Question No. 1972—Ms. Melissa Lantsman: With regard to the government's response to evidence that Samidoun has ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and other entities that have been recognized by the government as terrorist entities: (a) when did Public Safety Canada (PS) first recognize Samidoun's ties to the PFLP, and what action, if any, has it taken in response to these ties; (b) what action, if any, was taken by PS to respond to events hosted by Samidoun that glorified terrorist and armed militants from the PFLP; (c) does the government recognize that Samidoun has raised money for the PFLP and entities tied to the PFLP, including the Union of Health Work Committees, and, if so, what action has the government taken to stop such financing; (d) has the government taken any action against Samidoun organizers, and, if so, what are the details, including dates of any such action; and (e) has PS examined whether Samidoun has ties to any organizations involved with or which have praised the October 7, 2023, terror attack committed by Hamas, and, if so, what were the findings?Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada takes terrorist threats against Canada and its citizens seriously. Security and intelligence agencies are continuously monitoring entities that could pose such a threat and taking appropriate action.One of the underlying objectives of the Criminal Code list of terrorist entities is to ensure that terrorist entities do not use Canada as a base from which to conduct terrorist activities, including fundraising, and to prohibit individuals from supporting terrorist entities. Assessing entities for possible listing under the Criminal Code is continuous. The process is rigorous, thorough and involves inter-departmental consultations. Pursuant to section 83.05(1) of the Criminal Code, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or has knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with, an entity involved in a terrorist activity; then the Minister of Public Safety may recommend to the Governor in Council, or GiC, that it be added to the list.The government cannot comment specifically on the activities of groups or what groups are being assessed, or considered for listing.Question No. 1974—Mr. Larry Brock: With regard to the fact-finding report prepared for Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton (RCGT) dated September 26, 2023: (a) what are the government expenditures related to the report incurred to date, in total, and broken down by type of expenditure; (b) what are the details of the contract awarded to RCGT in relation to the report, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) start and end date, (v) initial contract value, (vi) current contract value, (vii) scope of the work; and (c) what are the details of any limitations (Cabinet confidence, unavailable records, etc.) faced by RCGT in the fact-finding exercise?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the total government expenditure related to the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, or RCGT, report to date is $300,500, or $339,565 with tax.With respect to part (b)(i), the contract is dated March 17, 2023; part (ii), the initial contract value is $97,400, or $110,062 with tax; part (iii), the vendor is Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton; part (iv), the start date is March 17, 2023, and the end date is March 29, 2024; part (v), the initial contract value is $97,400, or $110,062 with tax; part (vi), the current contract value is $300,500, or $339,565 with tax. The fact-finding exercise identified certain facts that required additional procedures to further assess the relevant facts of the allegations. The additional procedures included a more in-depth analysis of sampled projects to assess conflict of interest, project eligibility and approval and monitoring requirements. With respect to part (b)(vii), the scope of the project included a review of relevant documentation, such as the allegations received by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, a sample of contribution agreements between Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, and funding recipients, and program governance documents, and interviews with informants and key individuals, such as current and former employees and board members. The project also took into account the terms and conditions that apply to Governor in Council appointees, the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, SDTC’s Values and Ethics Code and any other applicable standards of conduct.Lastly, with respect to part (c), there were no limitations on the documents that were provided by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton to support this work. Most supporting documentation was provided directly by the corporation subject to this exercise.Question No. 1976—Mr. Dean Allison: With regard to Health Canada (HC) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) what do HC and PHAC know about the origins of COVID-19; and (b) how and when was the knowledge in (a) obtained?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,the precise origin of COVID-19 remains unknown. The first report of an unknown pneumonia outbreak in China, later called COVID-19, was detected by the Global Public Health Intelligence Network or GPHIN on December 30, 2019. The information was then distributed to Canadian public health practitioners on December 31, 2019, via the GPHIN Daily Report. The Public Health Agency of Canada orPHAC actively monitored the situation and initiated regular and ongoing communications with federal, provincial and territorial partners.The Government of Canada is supportive of all efforts that will contribute to a clear understanding of the origins of the virus. Canada continues to work with international partners to better understand the origins of COVID-19. Question No. 1983—Mr. Ben Lobb: With regard to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC): what were the expenditures incurred by NSERC related to the reception on November 1, 2023, titled "Celebrating Excellence: Honouring Canada's Top Natural Sciences and Engineering Researchers", in total, and broken down by item?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC, incurred $4,796.85 in expenses for the November 1, 2023, reception titled “Celebrating Excellence: Honouring Canada’s Top Natural Sciences and Engineering Researchers”, including $4,231.85 for hospitality and $565 for the professional services of a photographer.Question No. 1984—Mr. Doug Shipley: With regard to the Climate Action Incentive Payment and the government's plan to increase the rural top-up rate from 10 to 20 percent of the baseline amount starting in April 2024: how will the rate increase be funded, including whether the increase will come from general revenue or from carbon tax revenue?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the price on pollution is revenue neutral for the Government of Canada. Climate action incentive payments, including the rural supplement for individuals residing in small and rural communities in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, are fully sourced from carbon pricing proceeds. This will continue to be the case in 2024 25, when the rural supplement rate is proposed to increase from 10 percent to 20 percent.Question No. 1988—Mr. Dan Mazier: With regard to the statement made by Mr. Derek Hermanutz, Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, for Environment and Climate Change Canada on November 9, 2023, at the Standing Committee of Environment and Sustainable Development that “I think we're probably in a world where we could say with some rough analysis that up to one-third, potentially, of the emission reductions that we're projecting to 2030 would come from carbon pricing,”: (a) what analysis did the government use to produce this projection; (b) has the government made this analysis and emission reduction projection public to Canadians, and, if so, where can Canadians locate it; (c) when was this analysis and projection initially made; (d) what are the titles of the individuals at the executive level or higher who conducted or oversaw the analysis in (c); and (e) does the government measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced from federal carbon pricing, and, if so, (i) how is it measured, (ii) what is the amount of emissions that have been reduced in Canada directly and specifically from federal carbon pricing, broken down by year?Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), to produce this projection, the government used the provincial-territorial computable general equilibrium model, EC-Pro, from Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC.EC-Pro simulates the response of the main economic sectors in each province and territory, and their interactions with each other, including interprovincial trade. It captures characteristics of each province and territory’s production and consumption patterns through a detailed input-output table, and links the provinces and territories via bilateral trade. Each province and territory is explicitly represented as a region and the rest of the world is represented as import and export flows to the provinces and territories, which are assumed to be price takers in international markets. To support analysis of energy and climate policies, the model incorporates information on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs, related to the combustion of fossil fuels. It also tracks non-energy related GHG emissions.Ideally, estimating the incremental impact of carbon pricing alone would involve developing a bottom-up baseline that does not include carbon pricing. However, given that carbon pricing is now in the historical data and that a significant number of complementary GHG-related measures and regulations have also been introduced or planned, it is extremely challenging to develop a bottom-up baseline that does not include carbon pricing. Therefore, to develop a scenario that does not include carbon pricing, ECCC used a statistical technique that relies heavily on price elasticities, namely how consumers and industry respond to changing prices.To quantify emissions in the absence of carbon pricing between now and 2030, the initial starting point for this analysis was the reference case with current measures, or Ref22, and with additional measures, or Ref22A, reported in the eighth National Communication Report and fifth Biennial report submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, on December 31, 2022.The statistical technique to isolate the carbon pricing contribution is as follows: in the calibration of EC-Pro to Ref22 and Ref22A parameters, the carbon price prevailing in the relevant years is explicitly added. This includes the Output-Based Pricing System stringency and the fuel charge coverage, as well as provincial carbon pricing. By doing this, the model establishes a statistical relationship between the prevailing carbon price and fuel use and related emissions by sector by province by year and a baseline that explicitly includes carbon pricing as identified in Statistics Canada’s Supply and Use Tables.The next step is to develop a relationship between the EC-Pro parameters, namely elasticities and cost curves, to match the CO2 and non-CO2 emissions by sector, by region, and by source to target the emission levels in Ref22. For carbon capture and storage, or CCS, and other technologies that are being driven by carbon pricing, we account for what would have happened if there were no carbon pricing. For example, to assess how carbon pricing and policies to promote reductions influence CCS activities, the level of CCS is held to the current historical level allowing the model to then endogenously project CCS activities in response to policies.The final step is to run this scenario where the carbon price in the Output-Based Pricing System and the fuel charge are set to zero.With regard to (b), a 2018 study conducted before the full implementation of carbon pricing across Canada was released in December 2020 and can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/estimated-impacts-federal-system.html.With regard to (c), an updated analysis, referring to (a), was completed in October 2023 drawing from projections reported in the eighth National Communication Report and the fifth Biennial report submitted to the UNFCCC on December 31, 2022.With regard to (d), the analysis was directed and overseen by the Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, and by the Director, Model Development and Quantitative Research, Economic Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada.With regard to (e), the government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing. Retroactively attributing specific GHG reductions to a specific action, such as carbon pricing, a discrete regulation, or a specific incentive, is difficult given the multiple interacting factors that influence emissions, including carbon pricing, tax incentives, funding programs, investor preferences and consumer demand. The National Inventory Report, which reports annually on historical GHG emissions, does not include this information.Question No. 1989—Mr. Dan Muys: With regard to the Ministers' Regional Office (MRO) in Toronto, between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022: (a) what were the total expenditures related to hosting or attending videoconferences at the MRO in Toronto, broken down by year; (b) what is the breakdown of the expenditures by videoconference, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) name and title of the minister or other individual hosting, (iii) purpose of the meeting, (iv) total expenditures, (v) breakdown of expenditures by type (audio-visual costs, Zoom fees, catering, etc.), (vi) number and titles of attendees, broken down by those at the MRO in Toronto versus those participating from another location?Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ministers’ regional offices, or MROs, provide secure accommodations, administrative and logistical support for on and off-site meetings and events for the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and senior government officials. The offices are equipped with information technology infrastructure to facilitate client participation in virtual meetings.MROs currently do not systematically track expenditures related to hosting or attending videoconferences in the department’s financial system or a centralized database. Further, any expenditures incurred for catering services during events or meetings held in the facilities are the responsibility of the respective departments involved.Question No. 1992—Mr. Terry Dowdall: With regard to section 3.32 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report “Hydrogen's Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions”: why did Natural Resources Canada not factor in the modelling how (i) the supply of hydrogen and associated costs that would be deployed to meet the projected demand, (ii) the existing grid and infrastructure could accommodate electrification ambitions, as well as hydrogen production from renewable generation?Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources and Energy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hydrogen strategy for Canada released in 2020 provided initial analysis of the potential opportunity and role that low-carbon hydrogen could play in Canada. As such, it modelled what the full potential of hydrogen could be in Canada’s energy system, including the economic, environmental and social benefits created by different scenarios and actions.The modelling focused on the near term, and economically viable end-uses, such as heavy-duty transportation, natural gas blending, cement and steel manufacturing and low-carbon fuel production. These were identified through the engagement undertaken with other government departments, provinces and territories, academia and industry across Canada. The analysis included aspects of technology readiness levels, economic competitiveness, adoption potential and other factors, including supporting infrastructure. Projected demand was not within the scope of this initial modelling, thereby associated costs of supplying hydrogen that would be deployed to meet the projected demand were likewise out of scope.The modelling undertaken for the hydrogen strategy for Canada was the first of its kind, as Canada had never previously undertaken nationally-based modelling specifically looking at the potential initial vision of using low-carbon hydrogen in various decarbonization applications such as those identified above. Since this was a nascent sector, the modelling had limited data on actual usage of low-carbon hydrogen. It relied on data and assumptions based on historical usage of hydrogen as an energy source. Future modelling will make use of data based on actual usage of low-carbon hydrogen as an energy source, based on pilot, demonstration and early deployment projects.Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, continues to track progress on low-carbon hydrogen production, infrastructure and end-use projects to improve projections in Canada around the potential role of low-carbon hydrogen in the future, including its role in electrification. In the upcoming progress report update of the hydrogen strategy, expected to be published in early 2024, NRCan will provide updated low-carbon hydrogen modelling projections from six different modelling initiatives that considered hydrogen in the context of net-zero by 2050. Each of these were undertaken since the publication of the hydrogen strategy for Canada in 2020, and the progress report will present the full range of new results.Question No. 1993—Mr. Terry Dowdall: With regard to exhibit 3.2 in the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report "Hydrogen's Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions": (a) in reference to the near-term phase, what are the total cost projections and current costs of the (i) development of new hydrogen supply and distribution infrastructure and mature market application, (ii) launching of pilot projects in regional hubs, including pre-commercial applications for heavy-duty trucks, transport equipment for seaport goods, power generation, heat for buildings, and industrial feedstock, (iii) development and implementation of additional policy and regulatory measures needed to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050; (b) in reference to the mid-term phase, what are the total cost projections and current costs of the (i) addition of new regional hubs, (ii) rapid expansion of adoption of fuel cell electric vehicles and transit buses, (iii) increase in new and large­scale hydrogen production, to be commercialized in regional hubs, to enable hydrogen and natural gas blending for industry and as feedstock for chemical production; and (c) in reference to the long-term phase, what are the total cost projections and current costs of (i) an increase of new commercial applications supported by supply and distribution infrastructure, (ii) the commercial launch and rapid expansion of new ways to use hydrogen in transportation, (iii) building of more dedicated hydrogen pipelines, (iv) an increase in the supply of low-carbon intensity hydrogen throughout Canada, allowing heavy-emitting industries to adapt operations to decrease carbon emissions, (v) increased production of hydrogen, which could also position Canada as a large scale exporter of hydrogen?Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Exhibit 3.2 of the Auditor General’s report “Hydrogen’s Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions” references pages 101 and 102 of the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada, in particular the section entitled “Roadmap to 2050”.This section outlined potential actions that could take place in the near, medium and long term, if the low-carbon hydrogen market were to develop in a correlated manner to the incremental or transformative scenarios described in the Hydrogen Strategy. The section does not reference specific federal government policies, programs, initiatives, or commitments. As such, it did not include cost projections for those actions. Costs of individual projects, including production, infrastructure, or pilot projects, are borne by project proponents, are project specific, commercially confidential, and vary based on jurisdiction.Question No. 1994—Mr. John Barlow: With regard to the targets outlined in the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Clean Air, Strong Economy, since January 1, 2022: (a) what are the projected (i) job losses in Canada, broken down by province, (ii) loss of investment within Canada from entities from other countries, (iii) costs for the treasury to convert to carbon neutral, as a result of the government's plan to achieve the targets; and (b) what are the realized (i) job losses in Canada, broken down by province, (ii) loss of investment within Canada from entities from other countries, (iii) costs for the treasury to convert to carbon neutral, to date, resulting from the government's plant to achieve the target?Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, climate change is an urgent and existential threat that poses significant risks to the well-being of Canadians and ecosystems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that increases in global warming reaching 1.5°C would cause unavoidable increases in multiple hazards and present significant risks to ecosystems and humans. At current rates, global warming of 1.5°C will likely be reached between 2030 and 2052, and it is only with deep reductions in greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions that global warming can be limited to below 2°C.The science is clear, accelerated efforts to reduce GHG emissions rapidly by 2030 and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 are necessary in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. As a result, in 2021, Canada increased its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution, its NDC under the Paris Agreement to 40-45% reductions below 2005 levels by 2030, from 439 to403 megatonnes. This target represents a reduction of GHG emissions by 293 to 329 megatonnes from 2005 levels. In 2021, Canada enshrined into legislation its commitment to being net-zero by 2050 through the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Under the Act, the Government of Canada is required to set progressively more ambitious emissions targets for 2035, 2040, and 2045, supported by emissions reduction plans.As you know, in March 2022, the Government released the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, the ERP, which shows a credible pathway to achieving Canada’s enhanced 2030 target. The Plan highlights the emissions reduction potential for all economic sectors to reduce emissions by 2030 and includes concrete action that the Government will take to reach our target. The 2030 ERP builds on the foundation set by Canada’s existing climate actions with a suite of new mitigation measures and strategies and $9.1 billion in additional investments.More recently, in December 2023, Canada released its first progress report for the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. The 2023 Progress Report provides an update on progress toward the 2030 target, based on Canada’s most recent inventory of historical emissions and recently updated emissions projections. The 2023 Progress Report indicates that we are on a solid path toward our 2030 target. Canada is on pace to surpass our previous target of 30% below 2005 levels and is currently tracking to exceed our interim objective of 20% below 2005 levels by 2026. Between previously announced measures and the additional actions to be explored that are included in the Progress Report, Canada remains firmly on track to meet our ambitious but achievable 2030 target.The Government of Canada does not currently conduct the level of analysis sought in your inquiry; however, it does know that Canada is already experiencing the impacts of the changing climate, and the costs will continue to climb the longer we postpone climate action. A 2020 report by the Canadian Climate Institute found that the average cost per natural disaster has jumped 1,250% since the 1970s. Over the last decade, the average yearly cost of weather-related disasters and catastrophic losses has risen to the equivalent of 5-6% of Canada’s annual Gross Domestic Product growth.This past year is on track to being one of the costliest given the extent of climate-related disasters across Canada, including flooding and the worst wildfire year on record. The growing clean economy is building the net-zero industries of tomorrow. It will also create and maintain well-paying jobs for Canadians and businesses in Canada. Clean energy jobs are estimated to grow to 2.68 million by 2050, according to modelling by independent experts from Clean Energy Canada and Navius Research. Taking climate action now is a critical economic opportunity that will maintain and create Canadian jobs and make our economy more resilient and more competitive.The Government of Canada recognizes that affordability and cost-of-living is top of mind for many Canadians right now. Making life more affordable for Canadians is a key objective of Canada’s climate action. The 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan helps to reduce energy costs for our homes and buildings; makes it easier for Canadians to make the switch to electric vehicles; and creates good, middle-class jobs in every province in the country.Canada’s climate plans use an optimal mix of incentives and regulations to address climate change ensuring that our workers and business fully benefit from the economic opportunities as investors and consumers in Canada and around the world increasingly look for environmentally sustainable products and resources. Canada’s federal carbon pricing system is flexible and carefully designed to ensure it remains affordable. Under the federal system, the Government will continue to provide support to Canadians and businesses as the carbon price rises to ensure that carbon pricing remains affordable, and most households are better off. Any province or territory can choose the federal pricing system or can design its own pricing system tailored to local needs.The Government of Canada is committed to supporting a whole-of-government and whole-of-society effort to reduce emissions, create clean jobs and address the climate-related challenges communities are already facing, and we are working closely with industry and provinces and territories for all sectoral contributions in a way that creates economic opportunities in every sector. We will also reach those ambitions through investment, which we are doing through investments in clean technology, in the auto sector, and greener buildings, as an example. However, given the economic interdependencies and interactions within and between sectors, the exact areas for emissions reduction potential may shift in the future as Canada further decarbonizes and flexibilities will exist. For example, creating a clean electricity grid will go a long way towards supporting our zero-emission vehicles goals. The Government of Canada is always exploring new and innovative approaches to drive ambition toward its climate objectives. That is why the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan is an evergreen plan that will evolve as Canada moves toward its 2030 and 2050 targets.More information on our climate plans, our progress and our investments is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange.html.The Government of Canada will continue to work tirelessly for the health and wellbeing of Canadians, and for a cleaner, more resilient, and prosperous world for this and future generations. Question No. 1995—Mr. Dan Mazier: With regard to meetings and tours attended by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change: (a) how many meetings or tours attended by the minister were located on farms, since October 26, 2021; and (b) what are the details of each meeting or tour in (a), including the (i) date, (ii) category and type of farm, (iii) province or territory in which the farm was located, (iv) event description or the purpose of the minister’s attendance?Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are on the front lines of the fight against climate change and are also playing a key role as part of the climate solution. Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, has had extensive engagement with farmers and the agricultural sector while they work together in seeking solutions to combat climate change.ECCC continues to engage with agriculture stakeholders on various aspects of the Government of Canada’s climate plan, the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, which is under development, and the broader environmental agenda. The government remains committed to helping farmers meet the world’s need for food, while safeguarding resources for future generations.Many of my cabinet colleagues and I have met and will continue to meet with Canadians and industry representatives from across the country in the fight to clean up the environment, combat climate change, reduce greenhouse gases all while maintaining a strong economy. For additional information, the Registry of Lobbyists can be found at https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/guest.Question No. 1998—Mr. Larry Maguire: With regard to the meeting between the office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Mayor of Swan River, Manitoba, referred to in the government’s response to petition 441-01673: (a) what was the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) location, of the meeting; (b) what were the titles of all attendees representing the government who attended the meeting; (c) why was the meeting initiated; (d) what were the outcomes of the meeting; (e) were there any presentations or briefing materials provided during, or in advance of the meeting, by the government; and (f) did the representatives in (b) take any notes during the meeting?Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Minister of Justice met with the Mayor of Swan River virtually on May 29, 2023, from 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., at the request of the Mayor. This meeting was attended by a Senior Policy Advisor from the Office of the Minister of Justice and by an Advisor, Parliamentary and Regional Affairs (West and North). The meeting was productive, and it was valuable to hear the perspective of the Mayor. The Mayor encouraged swift passage of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), which received Royal Assent in December 2023. Discussions were also had about work which could be done by the Province of Manitoba to address concerns around crime.Question No. 1999—Mr. Scot Davidson: With regard to memorandums or directives provided to government officials related to the conducting of background checks on visa applicants, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all such memorandums or directives, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipients, (iv) type of documents, (v) title, (vi) details of the directive provided, if applicable, including which categories of visa applicants are subject to the directive?Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Centre for Immigration and National Security Screening of the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, oversees the delivery of the Immigration National Security Screening Program, which includes the collection, analysis and review of information and intelligence on foreign nationals to assess their admissibility for temporary or permanent residence and refugee status.For the purpose of responding to this question, the CBSA interpreted “memorandums or directives provided to government officials” as referring to any formal written direction provided to CBSA personnel by, or on behalf of, the Minister of Public Safety or the President of the CBSA. No memorandums or directives, as defined earlier, have been identified since January 1, 2019.Question No. 2001—Mr. Randy Hoback: With regard to section 3.56 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report entitled "Hydrogen's Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions": of the models referred to in the section, what specific models were used and what were the conclusions of each model?Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 2022 Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the Parliament of Canada, specifically, Report 3—“Hydrogen’s Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, found that Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, and Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, had different approaches to assessing the role hydrogen should play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Environment and Climate Change Canada expected to achieve 15 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reductions in 2030 whereas the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada, published by NRCan, projected up to 45 megatonnes. It should be noted that the difference between NRCan and ECCC’s estimated reduction potential is due to the different scope and analytical approaches used by the departments.To generate the 15 megatonnes reduction estimate, ECCC used the EC-Pro model. EC-Pro is a provincial-territorial multi-regional, multi-sector computable general equilibrium model. It covers up to 50 industries and three final demand categories across all 13 Canadian provinces and territories. It is calibrated to the most recent input-output data from Statistics Canada and energy, or emissions, data from the Energy, Emissions and Economy Model for Canada, or E3MC. ECCC focused on modelling the Hydrogen Strategy as one of the many policies and measures announced in Canada’s strengthened climate plan and used a proxy, a 7.3 percent hydrogen–natural gas blending mandate, to incorporate potential emissions reductions from hydrogen.As noted by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, NRCan looked at a transformative scenario where hydrogen could fill the gap in energy demand not met by other decarbonization means, such as electrification, biofuel, and emissions offset for fossil fuels. The Transformative Scenario was meant to represent the potential size of Canada’s hydrogen opportunity if bold action is taken in the near term. NRCan commissioned a third-party consulting firm, ZEN and the Art of Clean Energy, or ZEN, to undertake modelling for the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada. Together with the Institute for Breakthrough Energy + Emission Technologies, the modelling explored the potential role that hydrogen could play in Canada’s energy future including exploring issues such as hydrogen demand, deployment and emissions reduction potential for hydrogen use across all sectors of the economy, in the context of Canada’s net-zero climate commitments. ZEN’s modelling, which took a regional approach, considered six broad end-uses covering all aspects of the economy, namely transportation, the built environment, several industrial processes, oil and gas, clean fuels, blending with natural gas. The ZEN modelling estimated that hydrogen could contribute up to 45 megatonnes of reductions by 2030.In addition to the transformative scenario, NRCan also considered an Incremental scenario, which was based on a business-as-usual approach with lighter policy measures and a slower start to adoption of hydrogen. Under this scenario, the potential reductions from hydrogen were expected to reach 22 megatonnes.Question No. 2004—Mr. Dean Allison: With regard to requests made by CBC/Radio-Canada to social media companies to take down, edit, ban, or change in any other way social media content, posts, or accounts, since January 1, 2020: what are the details of all such requests, including (i) who made the request, (ii) the date, (iii) the social media platform, (iv) the description of the original content including the name or the handle associated with the post, (v) the description of the change requested, (vi) whether the social media company abided by the request?Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from January 1, 2020, to November 21, 2023, CBC/Radio-Canada asked various social media companies to act on content posted on their platforms that violate copyright of their platform community standards. CBC/Radio-Canada records do not contain the complete information required to provide a comprehensive response to this question.An extensive manual search would be required to gather the information requested and remove any personal information, and the results could only partially answer this request. This could not be accomplished in the time allotted for this request.Question No. 2005—Mr. Gerald Soroka: With regard to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis of the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2023-24: what is the breakdown of the $500 million that is being frozen across 68 organizations to achieve the reductions in 2023-24, by organization and by object code?Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Refocusing Government Spending to Deliver for Canadians website at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/topics/planned-government-spending/refocusing-government-spending.html provides the breakdown of amounts frozen by organization for 2023–24. The budgetary expenditures by standard object for Supplementary Estimates (B), 2023–24, which can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/supplementary-estimates/supplementary-estimates-b-2023-24/budgetary-expenditures-standard-object.html, are based on the authorities to date and do not include frozen amounts.Question No. 2007—Mr. Jeremy Patzer: With regard to the $669,650 contract awarded to KPMG to provide advice on how to save money on consultants: (a) what advice did KPMG provide to the government; and (b) does the government consider the advice to be worth $669,650?Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources and Energy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the total amount of the contract awarded to KPMG on July 13, 2022, is $630,000 (without tax). The contract was established to leverage the firm’s experience to support the modernization of internal services and departmental operations. The work began prior to the President of the Treasury Board’s Government of Canada spending initiative, which was detailed in budget 2023. In support of the spending initiative, Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, submitted its proposals to refocus spending to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat in October 2023.With respect to part (a) of the question, KPMG conducted an independent financial review of internal service expenditures to identify cost-saving opportunities for the department, in line with the department’s ongoing efforts to manage public resources efficiently. The department worked with the firm to analyze cost-saving opportunities, specifically in information technology, or IT, and real property. The analysis was much broader than spending on professional services.KPMG’s analysis revealed opportunities for efficiencies in operational IT areas such as IT service and software asset management, IT contractor usage, desktop computing, printer optimization, and application portfolio rationalization. Their analysis also pinpointed areas of potential efficiency improvements in real property, such as fleet management, space utilization, and the centralization of real property functions.KPMG provided recommendations that covered areas of policy, procurement, governance, planning, organizational structure, and technology. These recommendations provided both short and long-term options and proposed operational efficiencies and risk mitigation for the department.With respect to part (b) of the question, KPMG’s advice was derived from: analyzing diverse data types, that is, financial data, internal service volume and website analytics; conducting consultations; and performing benchmarking analysis against similar organizations. This facilitated the development of methodologies, tools and templates for assessing potential efficiencies and proposing actionable next steps.The analysis revealed efficiency opportunities in IT areas benefiting from optimization or lower cost alternatives, and helped the department ensure the continuity of ongoing activities and strategic real property activities.KPMG provided an external perspective to the department to identify efficiency opportunities using industry best practices’ benchmarking and data analysis methodologies.Question No. 2008—Ms. Niki Ashton: With regard to the surveillance infrastructure for tuberculosis (TB): (a) since 2015, broken down by province, what was the incidence of TB in Canada generally, and for First Nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada; (b) what date will the government publish the next Tuberculosis in Canada report; (c) how does Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Indigenous Services Canada collaborate with the recommendations outlined in the TB in Canada report; (d) what are the demographic criteria included in Canada’s TB surveillance system to appropriately disaggregate data to identify gaps in care and is this disaggregated data shared with provincial health departments; (e) how much funding is dedicated to Canada's TB surveillance system and dissemination strategy, including the launch of the TB in Canada report; (f) what is the average response time between when a TB outbreak is declared by a public health authority, and when that data is reflected in the national TB surveillance system; and (g) what steps is the Public Health Agency of Canada taking to ensure that the recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy are implemented for tuberculosis data?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the incidence rate of tuberculosis, or TB, in Canada is broken down by province and by territory and by Indigenous group, namely First Nations, Inuit and Métis, for the 2008-2018 time period and can be found at https://opencanada.blob.core.windows.net/opengovprod/resources/1ff8f1b6-02a8-425a-bd0b-af9495d2e53c/tb-in-canada_2008-2018_eng_march24-2022.pdf?sr=b&sp=r&sig=D6d5ljkzoXi4CwVF9%2BMAAxZrPYJN2tG8/yQBAvKkhzA%3D&sv=2019-07-07&se=2024-01-30T02%3A27%3A38Z.Surveillance data for the 2012-2021 reporting period will be published on the Government of Canada website in winter 2024 in a new report entitled “Tuberculosis in Canada: 2012-2021 Expanded report.” The report will include updated data broken down by province and by territory, as well as descriptive statistics on a wide range of variables related to TB. A summary of TB data for the 2012 to 2021 time period was recently published and can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/tuberculosis-surveillance-canada-summary-2012-2021.html. With regard to the incidence rate of TB in 2021, the data showed 135.1 cases per 100,000 among Inuit people, 16.1 cases per 100,000 among First Nations people and 2.1 per 100,000 among Métis people.Additionally, an infographic with surveillance highlights entitled “Tuberculosis in Canada: Infographic (2021),” is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/tuberculosis-canada-2021-infographic.html. It is expected that an infographic presenting 2022 data will be released by March 2024.With regard to (c), the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, Health Canada, and other federal departments such as Indigenous Services Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada meet regularly to discuss national TB surveillance trends and interventions to support TB elimination such as support for outbreaks, access to TB medications, capacity building, and other activities. These departments and other partners, such as the provinces, territories, Indigenous groups and TB experts, use national TB surveillance reports to measure Canada’s progress towards TB elimination targets and commitments which in turn help to inform TB policy and program decision making, research initiatives and innovation related to TB. TB surveillance reports are also used by provincial and territorial partners for benchmarking and to inform decision-making.With regard to (d), demographic data collected through Canada’s TB surveillance system originate from the provinces and territories. The data includes province or territory of residence, population group, namely the country of birth, immigration status, the year of arrival in Canada and Indigenous groups, age and sex. A complete list of variables can be found on our case report form available at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/diseases/tuberculosis/active-tuberculosis-reporting-form-eng.pdf.The national surveillance system consists of TB related data submitted from provincial and territorial public health departments but does not include specific information on health care.With regard to (e), the TB surveillance program at PHAC has a total funding of $1,222,030 for fiscal year 2023-2024, which includes employee salaries, program operations and maintenance. Furthermore, the dissemination of the infographic and surveillance report have an estimated cost of $6,500.With regard to (f), active TB cases are reported to the National Tuberculosis Surveillance system on an annual basis in the summer months following the calendar year in which they were diagnosed. A national report is then produced usually in the fall and published in the winter. The time period between when data are submitted to PHAC and published include requirements for cleaning data, verifying quality, analyzing, reporting, and publishing.With regard to (g), guided by recommendations from an Expert Advisory Group, there was significant collaboration between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments towards a pan-Canadian health data strategy, focused on common priorities such as modernizing and aligning health data standards, policies and governance, and building public trust. This work set the stage for enhanced collaboration across the country, under the Government of Canada’s “Working Together to Improve Health Care for Canadians” Plan, announced in February 2023, and a Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Joint Action Plan on Health Data and Digital Health, which was endorsed by Ministers of Health on October 12, 2023. More information on the “Working Together to Improve Health Care for Canadians” Plan is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2023/02/working-together-to-improve-health-care-for-canadians.html.The Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy, or PCHDS, led to the release of a final report in May 2022 led by an Expert Advisory Group which includes recommendations for health data partners from all jurisdictions, namely federal, provincial and territorial, which can be found at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/corporate/mandate/about-agency/external-advisory-bodies/list/pan-canadian-health-data-strategy-reports-summaries/expert-advisory-group-report-03-toward-world-class-health-data-system/expert-advisory-group-report-03-toward-world-class-health-data-system.pdf.Some of these recommendations align with the work being undertaken by PHAC’s TB surveillance program. The program works collaboratively with federal, provincial and territorial surveillance stakeholders to collect common indicators for TB. In addition, to better understand data needs, gaps and expectations, bilateral discussions with provincial and territorial TB partners took place in the summer and fall 2023. This aligns with recommendation #5 from the PCHDS: Establish meaningful and ongoing engagement with the public and stakeholders to understand their health data needs and expectations.Furthermore, the PHAC TB surveillance program is exploring the development of a new surveillance infrastructure to modernize the storage, management and analysis of data. This is expected to improve timeliness and data quality and aligns with recommendation #9: Establish common integrated health data standards and data architecture and drive and monitor their roll out.Question No. 2011—Mr. Brad Redekopp: With regard to government responses to document production orders adopted by the House of Commons and its committees: (a) does the government acknowledge the authority of the House and its committees to compel the production of documents through the power to send for papers and records; (b) does the "suggested key messages" briefed to the Office of the Deputy Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship by departmental officials, on May 2, 2022, that "Parliamentary committees may request documents from the government, but the government is of the view that they cannot compel their disclosure" represent the government's official position, and, if not, what is the government's official position; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, what remedial action has been taken to ensure that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is correctly informed about the House's constitutional authority to compel the production of documents; (d) are the key messages prepared for an assistant deputy minister of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on April 28, 2022, for a briefing to be provided to the deputy minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, specifically that "even in the face of an order from the House of Commons, it remains open to protect personal information from disclosure if ministers wish to do so" reflective of the government's official position; (e) if the answer to (d) is negative, what remedial action has been taken to ensure that the department is correctly informed about ministers' authority to override orders of the House and its committees; and (f) is it the position of the government that ministers have any discretionary authorities to redact documents ordered by the House or its committees to be produced, and, if so, on what grounds and lawful authority may orders of the House and its committees be overridden "if ministers wish to do so"?Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, parliamentarians perform a pivotal role in Canada’s Westminster system of government by studying and passing legislation, deliberating on matters of national concern, and generally holding the government to account. The Government of Canada consistently strives to be as forthcoming with parliamentarians as possible, while respecting its legal obligations to treat certain types of information as confidential. That being said, Speaker Beaudoin stated in 1957 that “No matter how ample its powers may be, there are certain documents to which the house is not entitled, and that is those a cabinet minister refuses to produce on his own responsibility.”The Privacy Act, for example, provides that personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed except in accordance with the Act. When faced with requests by parliamentarians for personal information, government institutions consider all available authorities that may permit disclosure. Officials support ministers, notably with respect to the production of documents as well as in their relationship with the House of Commons, to which they are responsible for the policies and operations of the Government of Canada. All of this is in keeping with the constitutional principles that underly our system, including parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary privilege, responsible government, and the rule of law.As former Conservative Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson stated in the House of Commons on March 31, 2010, “The central issue before you, Mr. Speaker, is whether parliamentary privilege gives the House an absolute and unqualified right to order the production of documents and to receive the documents and whether any expression of views that it might not constitute a contempt of the House. On this point, I would remind the House that our parliamentary privileges are not indefinite, nor unlimited, but defined by the Constitution in the Parliament of Canada Act as those possessed by the United Kingdom House of Commons in 1867.”Question No. 2016—Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman: With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the October 6, 2023 directive for CAF reconstitution from the Chief of the Defence Staff and the deputy minister: (a) how many and what percentage of CAF members are considered non-essential; (b) how many and what percentage of those considered non-essential have been ordered to "temporarily cease activities" to focus on the reconstitution order; (c) what is the breakdown of how many CAF members have been reassigned to focus on the reconstitution order by the unit or squadron they were with; and (d) what are the details of each analysis conducted, including timelines, findings, and number of personnel involved, related to the part of the directive stating that "Before reductions in staffing processes and/or the ceasing of activities and tasks that do not directly contribute to CAF reconstitution efforts, an analysis shall be conducted to determine the impacts on Public Service processes and activities, and solutions will be devised in collaboration with ADM(HR-Civ) to mitigate negative second and third order effects"?Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff, or CDS,and Deputy Minister, or DM, directive for Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, reconstitution initiated a concerted, defence team-wide effort to rebuild the strength and numbers of its members and, at the same time, build on the structure and competencies that are necessary to defend and protect Canadians. The directive calls on the defence team to optimize its operational tempo, prioritize resource allocation to areas of increasing strategic relevance and create capacity for reconstitution efforts. Notably, there are no CAF personnel who are deemed non-essential through this process.The directive was initially produced by the Strategic Joint Staff, with support from organizations across National Defence. There is no dedicated team or set of individuals that have been re-assigned to focus on the directive’s implementation. This is because the directive provides tasks and planning guidance for all members across the defence team to consider and incorporate into future planning.Indeed, a number of tasks identified in the directive have been achieved due to close coordination and collaboration between individuals and teams across National Defence since October 2022. For example, the defence team has successfully executed an initial review of operations and contingency plans to initiate a short-term optimization of critical ranks and trades, streamlined the delivery of basic training and completed a review of all ceremonial tasks in order to prioritize reconstitution efforts.As of December 18, 2023, these efforts have not necessitated analyses on public service processes and activities. Nonetheless, all elements and organizations within National Defence – military and civilian – continue to apply a reconstitution lens to all operations, plans and commitments, with due consideration given to priorities and capacity.Reconstitution is an ongoing effort that will continue until the force is appropriately rebuilt. There will be continual reviews of the directive to ensure that the aims are still correct and being achieved and to ensure the tasks are appropriate and prioritized.Question No. 2017—Mr. Earl Dreeshen: With regard to the orders in council adopted since November 4, 2015: (a) how many orders in council have not been published on the Privy Council Office website; and (b) with respect to each order in council not published, (i) what is the number assigned to it, (ii) what is the date on which it was adopted, (iii) who was the minister who gave the recommendation to adopt it, (iv) which departments, agencies or Crown corporations did it concern, (v) what is its subject-matter, (vi) did it enact regulations exempted from examination, publication or registration under the Statutory Instruments Act?Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with few exceptions, orders in council are available to Canadians online on the Privy Council Office, or PCO, Orders in Council website and are published in the Canada Gazette.Between November 5, 2015, and November 22, 2023, the Governor in Council approved 10,828 orders in council. Of those, 10,728 were posted on the PCO Orders in Council website. The remaining 100, representing less than 1% of the total number approved by the Governor in Council, are protected in accordance with Canadian legislation.Some statutes, including, the Statutory Instruments Act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Investment Canada Act, contain provisions that restrict the publication of orders in council, temporarily or permanently, when their content relates to national security, military operations, sensitive personal or commercial information, or information that could interfere with the conduct of international or interprovincial affairs. Question No. 2018—Mr. Alex Ruff: With regard to Old Age Security (OAS), for the 2022 tax year: (a) how many OAS payment recipients were not residents of Canada for tax purposes; and (b) how much was paid out in OAS payments to the recipients in (a)?Mr. Terry Sheehan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, in 2022, an average of 155,477 Old Age Security or OAS program recipients residing outside Canada received benefits each month.These recipients may or may not have non-resident status for tax purposes. Data limitations regarding the OAS and International Agreements administrative databases preclude the reliable identification of beneficiaries with non-resident status for tax purposes as granted by the Canada Revenue Agency.With respect to part (b), in 2022, $620,967,040 was paid to OAS program recipients residing outside Canada.Question No. 2020—Mr. Eric Melillo: With regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan 2023-2028: (a) what is the date each measure will (i) begin to be implemented, (ii) be fully implemented; and (b) for each measure in (a) where implementation dates are not available, why are dates not available?Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,the Department of Justice undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The Department of Justice concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the human rights of indigenous peoples as the minimum standard for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world.Together, first nations, Inuit and Métis and the Government of Canada are already working to implement the UN Declaration on the ground, including through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, orUNDA, which created a lasting framework to advance federal implementation of the declaration in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples.There are already many initiatives underway that contribute to achieving the objectives of the declaration. These include, but are not limited to: Indigenous Languages Act; First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Families and Youth Act and the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy.The UNDA action plan is intended to be implemented over five years, from 2023 to 2028. As is therefore to be expected, different action plan measures are at different stages and will proceed at different rates. For some, measures are already well underway or nearing completion: for example, Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts; Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements); and Bill C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts); for others, initial work planned has been shared with indigenous peoples, that is, shared priorities, or SP, 30 indigenous data sovereignty) and some discussions with indigenous peoples are already underway, such as SP 28 development of an indigenous justice strategy and SP 52 indigenous cross-border mobility). For others, dedicated consultation has yet to begin. Information about specific measures will be collected, confirmed and reported on as part of the UNDA annual reporting process.To ensure indigenous peoples’ continued participation in the action plan implementation process, the Department of Justice is providing funding to support indigenous participation in the various implementation, monitoring and oversight processes described in the action plan.As with the other obligations set out in the UNDA and the commitments made in the action plan, the annual reports on progress must be developed in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples. Shared priorities measure 20 from the action plan commits to the development of metrics with indigenous peoples to ensure useful measurements are being reported on.The next Annual Report to Parliament is scheduled to be completed in June 2024 and will be tabled shortly thereafter.Question No. 2021—Mr. Gérard Deltell: With regard to legal services and the Department of Justice: (a) what are the total legal costs incurred by the government for the case of Responsible Plastic Use Coalition v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change); and (b) what is the breakdown of the costs?Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to legal expenses incurred by the government related to the Responsible Plastic Use Coalition v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change) litigation, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.The total legal costs, namely the actual and notional costs, associated with the Responsible Plastic Use Coalition v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change) action amount to approximatively $1,307,200. The services targeted here are litigation services provided in this case by the Department of Justice, as well as litigation support services. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs represent file related legal disbursements paid by the Department of Justice and then cost-recovered from client departments or agencies. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of November 29, 2023.Question No. 2027—Ms. Niki Ashton: With regard to the effective tax rate paid by high-income individuals and businesses: (a) from 2015 to 2023, what was the effective tax rate paid by those making above (i) 1 million, (ii) 2 million, (ii) 5 million, CAD; (b) what was the average effective tax rate paid by the top (i) 1%, (ii) 0.1%, (iii) 0.01%, of income earners from 2015 to 2023; and (c) what was the effective capital gains tax rate of the top (i) 1%, (ii) 0.1%, (iii) 0.01%, of capital gains earners from 2015 to 2023?Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the previous question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, for the time period of January 1, 2015, to November 27, 2023, that is, the date of the question.The CRA is unable to provide a response to (a), (b) or (c).Effective tax rates are not captured on tax forms or schedules, nor in the CRA’s systems and databases, for either individuals or corporations. Computations of effective tax rates are not undertaken by the CRA. Providing the information requested would require an extensive data modeling exercise to produce a tax calculation for which the CRA neither has the requisite expertise nor a tried and tested methodology.Question No. 2028—Mr. Adam Chambers: With regard to the Bank of Canada's (BOC) digital Canadian dollar consultation: (a) what are the details of all memorandums or briefing notes that have been sent from or received by the BOC in relation to the topic, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of document, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) title, (vi) file number; (b) what are the details of all studies the BOC has done since 2016 related to the topic, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the methodology, (iii) who conducted the study, (iv) the results; and (c) what (i) was the input received, (ii) were the overall findings, from the digital Canadian dollar consultation, which occurred from May 8 to June 19, 2023?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, (i) with regard to the Bank of Canada's digital Canadian dollar consultation, the bank found one relevant briefing note or memorandum dated October 3, 2023; (ii) the type of document is a briefing note; (iii) the sender is the communications department of the Bank of Canada; (iv) the recipient is the executive council of the Bank of Canada; and (v) the title is “Overview of engagement to date and material for publication by the Bank”. Item (vi) is not applicable, as there is no file number associated with this document.With respect to part (b) of the question, details of the relevant study are in the response to part (c) of the question. There are no additional studies related to the Bank of Canada's digital Canadian dollar consultation.Lastly, with respect to part (c), on May 8, 2023, the Bank of Canada launched an open public questionnaire on the digital Canadian dollar, which ran for six weeks. On November 29, 2023, the bank released the results of its overall engagement and public consultation work in a report entitled, “A Digital Canadian Dollar: What we heard 2020–23 and what comes next”. The report includes an appendix prepared for the bank by a third-party service provider, Forum Research, on public questionnaire results. This includes an explanation of the methodology used for the questionnaire, an analysis of the quantitative results and a summary of the qualitative feedback. Question No. 2031—Mrs. Karen Vecchio: With regard to the government and Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+): what were the results of the GBA+ analysis and the subsequent actions taken for (i) Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, (ii) Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), (iii) Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, (iv) Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act?Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice supports the Government of Canada’s commitments to Gender-Based Analysis Plus, or GBA Plus, to help ensure that federal initiatives are responsive and inclusive. The department’s Policy on Gender-Based Analysis Plus: Applying an Intersectional Approach to Foster Inclusion and Address Inequities defines the guiding principles and key steps for the integration of intersectional GBA Plus considerations in the development of legislation as well as other departmental initiatives. Members can consult annex C of the policy. The policy requires all Justice Canada officials to apply an intersectional GBA Plus approach in a systematic, evidence-based way to ensure that federal government legislation, policies, programs and other initiatives are responsive, inclusive and reflective of diverse experiences and realities in order to address existing inequities and barriers.The GBA Plus assessment process is focused on understanding who is impacted by the issue being addressed, identifying how the initiative could be tailored to meet diverse needs of the people most impacted, and anticipating and mitigating any barriers to accessing or benefitting from the initiative. Applying an intersectional approach goes beyond gender and sex to include consideration of multiple identity factors, such as age, disability, economic status, education, sexual orientation, language, racialization, ethnicity, religion and spirituality. The analysis also includes creating meaningful GBA Plus indicators to monitor and report on the impacts of the initiative on diverse groups, as well as identifying existing and potential barriers and inequities experienced by specific groups and addressing them in a timely manner as needed.Here is some information on the GBA Plus analysis and further actions taken in respect of the specific bills that were the subject of this inquiry.Regarding the former Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the GBA Plus analysis was provided to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on May 10, 2019. The amendments were expected to have differential impacts on some identifiable groups, due to the demographic characteristics of individuals involved in the criminal justice system, the CJS. Since these amendments were not designed to address all social issues, without sufficient training for CJS actors, operational changes in the courts and administration of justice at the provincial and territorial level to support them, vulnerable populations were expected to continue to experience overrepresentation. Since the enactment of this legislation, Justice Canada has undertaken further work with the provinces and territories to implement the amendments and monitor any impacts of the legislation.Justice Canada is currently developing a survey to examine CJS stakeholders’ perceptions of CJS efficiencies in general, and more specifically in light of recent legislative changes, including those enacted by former Bill C-75. This will include an assessment of the overall impacts of these changes on Indigenous and racialized accused/offenders and other vulnerable populations.With respect to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), the GBA Plus analysis was provided to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on September 27, 2023. It is available at https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/LCJC/briefs/2023-10-13_LCJC_C-48_Follow-up_GBAplus_e.pdf. The Government of Canada recognizes that the lack of national bail statistics in Canada has resulted in knowledge and data gaps on the topic. Justice Canada is collaborating closely with Statistics Canada and with the provinces and territories to improve data collection and fill these gaps, which would help better understand the impacts of our bail system. Section 2 of Bill C-48 also requires a parliamentary review of the amendments to begin five years after Royal Assent to assess the impacts of the reforms. This review must begin by December 5, 2028, or as soon as reasonably feasible.With respect to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, the GBA Plus analysis was provided to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on April 14, 2023. The reforms enacted by C-9 were carefully designed to improve the process for reviewing complaints against federally appointed judges, with a focus on its cost and efficiency, as well as its fairness, accountability and transparency, all without having a disproportionate impact on judges or complainants who are members of identifiable groups relevant to GBA Plus. The reforms are expected to have a positive impact on those who submit complaints related to discrimination, including based on race and gender. Whether the proposed reforms might have negative or unintended impacts for judges or complainants was considered, and none were identified. No further steps are considered necessary at this time.With respect to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the GBA Plus analysis was provided to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on October 18, 2022. It is available at https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/LCJC/briefs/C-5_Followup_Lametti_Full_e.pdf. Section 21 of Bill C-5 included a mandatory parliamentary review of the amendments four years after coming into force to assess the operation of the reforms. This review must begin by November 17, 2026. Justice Canada will continue to collaborate with partners to monitor the impacts of the amendments.The Department of Justice will continue to improve its practices and promote the early and meaningful integration of intersectional GBA Plus considerations in legislation, policies, programs and other initiatives to advance equity and inclusion.Question No. 2036—Mr. Chris Warkentin: With regard to claims by the Prime Minister that senators appointed by him are independent: (a) what are the details of all messages sent by the Prime Minister, any minister, or any ministerial staff to Senator Marc Gold since January 1, 2023, including, for each, the (i) sender (ii) type of message (e-mail, text, letter), (iii) title, (iv) summary of the contents, (v) date; (b) what are the details of all government meetings where Senator Gold was invited, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) meeting title, (iii) names and titles of invitees, (iv) location; and (c) has Senator Gold ever been invited to any cabinet meetings, and, if so, how many?Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions, and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in December 2015, the Prime Minister implemented an independent advisory board that makes merit-based recommendations for Senate appointments. Every new senator since that time has been appointed as an independent. The new independent Senate led to the creation of the Government Representative Office, led by the Government Representative, Senator Marc Gold. He does not sit in or lead a partisan caucus.Senator Gold’s role is representing the Senate to the government, and vice versa. For the government, he is the first point of contact and holds the responsibility for steering the government’s legislation through the Senate, while also maintaining and encouraging the independence of senators. Senator Gold is a member of the Privy Council. He attends Cabinet when deemed appropriate for facilitating his role in managing the government’s legislative agenda in the Senate, and receives relevant correspondence as needed.Question No. 2037—Mr. Damien C. Kurek: With regard to the new passport's development, design, production, and distribution: (a) other than the $284 million contract with the Canadian Bank Note Company, were any other contracts awarded related to the passport, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (i) vendor, (ii) value, (iii) date, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (competitive bid, sole-sourced)?Mr. Paul Chiang (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or IRCC is concerned: yes, a contract was awarded related to the passport. Specifically, the department leveraged an existing contract with TRM Technologies Inc. via a task authorization or TA to conduct a privacy assessment of the technical solution producing the new passport.The contract was awarded to TRM Technologies Inc. The TA value was $33,052.50. The TA was awarded on October 17, 2022. The purpose of the TA was to analyze the new technical production solution for privacy issues, to identify associated risks and mitigation strategies and to draft an addendum to the existing ePassport Privacy Impact Assessment. This contract was awarded via a competitive bid.Question No. 2038—Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: With regard to the comments by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on November 8, 2023, that "tens of thousands of people across the Prairies are getting the chance to replace their home heating oil": what is the breakdown of the number of homes on the Prairies that currently use home heating oil, broken down by each of the Prairie provinces?Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, produces the Comprehensive Energy Use Database, or CEUD. CEUD provides an overview of sectoral energy markets in Canada and in each region of the country and provides data on the stock of residential heating systems in each province and in the territories. CEUD data for the residential sector is derived from multiple sources, including Statistics Canada’s Report on Energy Supply and Demand, Survey on Household Energy Use, or SHEU. The latest CEUD data is for 2020. CEUD 2021 data is expected in early 2024. The CEUD can be found online at https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/menus/trends/comprehensive_tables/list.cfm.According to CEUD data, in 2020, it is estimated that there were 12,000 residential heating systems that use heating oil in Alberta, 12,800 in Saskatchewan, and 8,200 in Manitoba, totaling 33,000 across the Prairie provinces.Question No. 2040—Ms. Melissa Lantsman: With regard to the grant of approximately $133,800 that the government provided to the Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC) and Laith Marouf: (a) how much of the $120,000 paid out through the grant contract has been recovered to date and when was the money recovered; (b) if the money hasn't been recovered, what is the government's plan to recover the money, and by what date will the money be recovered; (c) has the government examined any "anti-racism" training provided or developed by Marouf or the CMAC in relation to the grant for anti-Semitic elements, and, if so, what were the results; (d) what specific actions, if any, has the government taken to correct any harm caused by any anti­Semitism which was promoted through this grant by the CMAC or Marouf; and (e) what curriculum or training materials were developed in relation to the grant?Mr. Sameer Zuberi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of December 4, the Department of Canadian Heritage has not been successful in its efforts to recover any of the $122,661 in funds that had been issued to the Community Media Advocacy Centre, or CMAC.With regard to (b), the contract with CMAC was terminated on September 23, 2022, and the Department of Canadian Heritage retained a third-party collection agency to recoup the $122,661 paid to CMAC, as well as the services of an investigative agency. Additionally, the department asked the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, to apply their set-off program that allows amounts owed by an organization to be re-directed to set off debts. Following these efforts, a statement of claim was filed on November 17, 2023, by the Attorney General of Canada to take legal action against CMAC for breach of contract. The timing of the recovery of funds will be determined by the results of these efforts.With regard to (c), the Anti-Racism Action Program, or ARAP, suspended the project on August 19, 2022, when it became aware of Mr. Marouf's hateful tweets. The department has not relied on any of the material that was developed by either Mr. Marouf or CMAC.With regard to (d), following the discovery of hateful comments made by Mr. Marouf, the minister paused the programs that fall under Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy while the department conducted a comprehensive review of the grants and contributions under the programs, improved program integrity protocols and processes, and provided training to program employees.The department made changes to the application guidelines of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program, the declaration and attestation section of the application form and the contribution agreement template. The attestation requires that funding recipients attest that they will not undermine Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, that they will respect the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that they will disclose any information about the applicant that could bring disrepute to the Government of Canada. These changes were posted on the departmental website and the online application portal on December 14, 2022.Additional program integrity review is also undertaken: enhanced assessment by program staff is conducted via web searches of a recipient’s board members, people directly involved in project delivery and the organization’s social media. Should potential risks be identified, such as allegations of racism, discrimination or harassment by board members or other individuals directly involved in the proposed project and named in the proponent’s application, then an escalation protocol is triggered to further review the file and make a recommendation.New training has been provided to all program advisors on the importance of each step in the evaluation process, as well as on the new enhanced assessment/re-assessment criteria for applicants and recipients that include parameters on in-depth environmental scans. This training also included application assessment, risk management tools and monitoring. The department has also provided anti-racism and antisemitism training to all program employees across the country, which included the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism.Additional training on antisemitism, developed by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, was also offered to program staff, as well as staff in communications and human resources.Lastly, with regard to (e), see response for part (c).Question No. 2041—Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman: With regard to the comments from Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee that the Navy is in a critical state: (a) what specific elements of the RCN does the government admit are in a critical state; and (b) for each element in (a), (i) how long has it been in a critical state, (ii) what specific action, if any, has the government taken over the past five years to improve the state of the element, (iii) by what date will the situation improve so that that element is no longer in a critical state?Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Navy, or RCN, continues to meet needs at home and to support Canada's international commitments abroad. For example, the RCN is able to meet high-readiness requirements for deploying frigates annually, two per coast, while maintaining a minimum level of personnel on other ships and shore establishments to support force generation objectives.However, as with any platform, as equipment ages, more maintenance is required to keep vessels operational and, with age, costs of maintenance and spare parts also increase. These increased costs, to sustain operational capacity, are putting significant pressure on existing maintenance budgets. Further, capability challenges are compounded by recruitment challenges across the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, including the RCN. In addition, and aside from challenges in the international security environment, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on the CAF and the RCN, both from an equipment perspective, due to fragile supply challenges resulting in contract delays, and from a people perspective, in terms of the RCN’s own personnel management and, more broadly, at shipyards for skilled labour.As outlined in Canada’s Defence Policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, National Defence is making significant investments to renew and modernize the Royal Canadian Navy by investing in six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, fifteen Canadian surface combatants, and two joint support ships. Together, these ships will play a critical role in protecting Canada’s maritime domain, including in Canada’s Arctic waters, and in contributing to international missions with allies and partners.National Defence has received four of six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, with the fifth planned for delivery in December 2024 and the sixth in December 2025. These vessels will significantly enhance the RCN’s capabilities and presence in the Arctic, allowing the RCN to better uphold Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.The Canadian surface combatant, or CSC, project will replace the Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates with a single class of vessels; delivery is expected to begin in the early 2030s, with full delivery by 2050.As the RCN awaits the delivery of the CSC capability, the Halifax-class frigates are continuing to be deployed on operations, including under Operation NEON to conduct surveillance operations and identify maritime sanctions evasion activities in the Indo-Pacific. However, the frigate fleet is beyond the originally expected design life and given the age of the vessels, between 27 and 35 years, there has been a significant increase in the length of necessary maintenance periods and higher associated costs.The Halifax-class is a major component of the national shipbuilding strategy’s third pillar, which is Repair, Refit and Maintenance. Under this pillar, the Government of Canada has contracts in place with the three large shipyards to execute the extensive docking work periods required to sustain the class. Additionally, Defence is working with marine industry partners to implement a risk-based program for the Halifax-class to ensure that they continue to operate safely into the future.Further, the procurement of two joint support ships, or JSSs, in 2025 and 2027 will contribute to the defence of Canada and international security by providing crucial at-sea replenishment capabilities. In the interim, and to address the retirement of the Protecteur-class auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels, the RCN has contracted the interim auxiliary oiler replenishment ship to provide support until the JSSs are delivered.At the same time, the CAF is experiencing a shortfall in personnel. That is why National Defence and the CAF are undertaking a period of reconstitution; that is, to prioritize efforts to recruit and train personnel and to make the organization stronger and more effective.To address personnel shortages, the RCN continues to work with the chief of military personnel to develop policies and programs that improve recruitment and retention. One example is the Naval Experience Program, or NEP, which aims to increase the intake of recruits and attract a new generation of Canadians to serve in the RCN.More specifically, the program offers Canadians the opportunity to experience life as a sailor for a one-year contract and provides them with exposure to a variety of naval trades before deciding if a career in the RCN is right for them. The program will also help the RCN to identify and address inefficiencies in its current human resources process.To date, 98 candidates are enrolled with 400 prospects in the recruiting process, helping to address the RCN’s requirement of 1,200 new enrollees each year. The NEP has other benefits: it has engaged the naval reserve divisions in recruiting for the regular force, it has tripled the number of potential applicants at recruiting centres who ask about the navy, and through the program, the navy is enrolling three times as many visible minorities and indigenous Canadians through the NEP than previously. It has forced the RCN to better manage all its personnel on the basic training list, which is beginning to deliver an improved experience for all trainees.Question No. 2046—Mr. Gerald Soroka: With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) approach to carousel schemes and other GST/HST fraud, broken down by year since 2018: (a) what is the CRA's estimate on the amount of unwarranted payments it has paid out through GST/HST fraud; (b) of the amount in (a), how much does it estimate involved carousel schemes; (c) how much of the money paid out in (a) and (b) has been recovered to date; (d) how much of the money paid out in (a) and (b) does the CRA expect to recover; (e) what is the breakdown of where the fraudulent companies were located; and (f) what is the breakdown of the countries where the bank account into which the unwarranted payments were transferred to or cashed from?Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, for the time period of January 1, 2018, to December 1, 2023, namely the date of the question.General information relating to the CRA’s approach to carousel schemes is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/campaigns/tax-schemes/combatting-carousel-schemes.html.The CRA’s programs play an important role in preventing the payment of unwarranted refunds, identifying suspicious behaviour, and referring high-risk returns for further review and examination. The CRA has dedicated programs that identify, deregister and safeguard goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax, or GST/HST, accounts that are registered as a result of identity theft, as well as programs that verify commercial activity before the initial GST/HST return is filed. This allows the CRA to close suspicious accounts before a return is filed and an unwarranted refund is paid. These programs are based on enhanced risk assessment tools designed to identify and prevent suspicious entities from infiltrating the filing population.With regard to (a), the CRA is only able to identify an unwarranted payment through compliance actions. Therefore, there is no systematic way to estimate the amount of all unwarranted payments. As such, the CRA is unable to provide the information in the manner requested.With regard to (b), for the reason outlined in (a), the CRA is unable to estimate the total amount of unwarranted payments that involves carousel schemes.With regard to (c) and (d), while the CRA’s collections program tracks payments in many ways, namely by date of payment, account number, revenue line, and program, it is not able to trace payments back to the source of the assessment or reassessment. Additionally, an amount owing can be comprised of debts from various years, various revenue lines and various assessment types. Due to this system limitation, the CRA is unable to provide an amount that has been recovered or provide an estimate of future recoveries in the manner requested.With regard to (e) and (f), as the CRA does not systematically capture the location of fraudulent companies or bank accounts to which payments are issued, it is unable to provide a breakdown of where companies are located or to where payments have been transferred.Question No. 2054—Mr. Ben Lobb: With regard to the High Frequency Rail project and the final report expected in late 2023 to inform government decisions on opportunities to enhance rail service in Southwestern Ontario: (a) is the final report complete, and, if so, what is the website address where the report can be found; and (b) if the final report is not yet complete, when will it be, and what is the reason it was not ready in late 2023?Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in November 2022, following a competitive procurement process, the government contracted the services of external advisors, namely CPCS and WSP, to explore options to improve intercity passenger rail frequencies, on-time performance, and shorten travel times in Southwestern Ontario. The external advisors have been making steady progress and are nearing completion of their analysis. They are on track to deliver a final report with options to the federal government in early 2024.The delivery of the final report is a few months later than originally anticipated due to unforeseen delays in obtaining all the requisite information from external partners to complete the analysis.The government has committed to releasing a summary of the report once it has been reviewed by Transport Canada. The summary will be written in a manner that is accessible to the public and that protects any proprietary information that has been provided by external parties.Question No. 2057—Mr. Dan Albas: With regard to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance's involvement in the World Economic Forum (WEF): (a) is the minister still a member of the WEF's board of trustees, and, if not, why is she no longer a board member and on what date did the minister cease to be a board member; and (b) if the minister resigned from the board, what was the reason for the resignation?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the response from the Department of Finance to (a) and (b) is as follows:Per the Conflict of Interest Act, activities of designated public office holders are disclosed on the Public Registry. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance’s declaration Summary Profile can be viewed at https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/PublicRegistries/Pages/Client.aspx#k=8c283ee4-555c-e311-8703-002655368060.Question No. 2058—Mr. Jamie Schmale: With regard to Crown-Indigenous relations: (a) what (i) criteria, (ii) framework, (iii) legal test, was used by the government to determine that each of the communities represented by the Métis Nation of Ontario holds rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982; and (b) what specific evidence or information did the government use to arrive at the conclusion that each and all of the communities represented by the Métis Nation of Ontario are Section 35 rights-holders?Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through the February 2023 Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement, or the 2023 agreement, Canada has recognized that the Métis Nation of Ontario, or MNO, is a Métis government and is authorized to act on behalf of its Métis collectivity.The Métis collectivity is comprised of Métis individuals who are citizens, namely those who have chosen to register, have been found to meet the Powley criteria, and registered in the register for the MNO; and the Métis communities it represents. Further, through the 2023 agreement, Canada recognizes that this Métis collectivity has mandated the MNO as the indigenous government responsible for representing and advancing its section 35 rights. Canada has not recognized specific communities.In the 2003 R. v. Powley decision, the Supreme Court of Canada, or SCC, confirmed the existence of Métis rights under section 35, and in paragraph 38 it confirmed that the Métis have “full status as distinctive rights-bearing peoples.” The SCC also recognized, in paragraph 53, that “[m]embers of the Métis community in and around Sault Ste. Marie [in Ontario] have an Aboriginal right to hunt for food under s. 35(1).” The Métis community in and around Sault Ste. Marie is one of the historic Métis communities represented by the MNO.In 2013, the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples released a report on the Recognition of Métis Identity in Canada, “The People Who Own Themselves,” in which the Committee acknowledged that “the identity of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples is a matter for peoples themselves to determine.” The report notes the need for practical solutions to legal and policy challenges respecting Métis identity and “self-identification.”This recommendation is consistent with the 2016 report, “A Matter of National and Constitutional Import: Report of the Minister’s Special Representative on Reconciliation with Métis: Section 35 Métis Rights and the Manitoba Métis Federation Decision”:“[I]t is in the public interest to have Métis governments and institutions having objectively verifiable mechanisms and processes to determine Métis in accordance with Canadian law for the purposes of Section 35. … While determining who is Métis for the purposes of Section 35 is not as straightforward as making an inquiry to the Indian Registrar, the SCC has set out the test for determining who is Métis for the purposes of Section 35.”Following these SCC decisions and related reports, Canada established a Recognition of Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination, or “RIRSD”, table with the MNO in 2016 and began engaging in exploratory discussions toward self-government.First, section 35 Métis rights were recognized by the courts: the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Powley recognized a Métis community near Sault Ste. Marie; Ontario courts upheld the ON-MNO Métis Harvesting Agreement in the 2007 Laurin decision.The Powley decision continues to be the Supreme Court’s only consideration of Métis rights protected by section 35, and sets out what is required, namely the legal test, to prove the existence of a Métis community with rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.According to the judicial notice of organization, the MNO was granted intervener status in a number of section 35 rights-based cases.Based on the analysis of historic communities, to help guide its response to the Powley decision, the Department of Justice launched 15 research projects on the development of historic mixed-ancestry communities in several parts of the country, including Ontario.According to the provincial recognition of section 35 rights, while Ontario has recognized seven historic Métis regional communities to inform provincial policy approaches, Canada has not recognized specific communities.Question No. 2059—Mr. Jamie Schmale: With regard to the required compliance audit to be included in the government's Indigenous Business Directory: (a) when was the last time that (i) Coradix Technology Consulting, (ii) DALIAN Enterprises Inc., were the subject of a compliance audit, broken down by the client department or agency which provided contracts to either of the companies since January 1, 2016; and (b) for each audit in (a), what were the results?Ms. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Indigenous Business Directory, or IBD, assists indigenous businesses in pursuing business opportunities, including federal government contracts. A profile in the IBD confirms the indigenous business’ eligibility to be considered for award of federal government contracts that are limited to competition under the procurement Sstrategy for Iindigenous business, or PSIB.In order to ensure the integrity of the IBD, Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, conducts audits to ensure that indigenous businesses meet the PSIB criteria and that set-aside requirements are effectively reserved for the PSIB-registered businesses. Pre-award and random audits are performed to verify that the indigenous business meets the ownership and control requirements and is mandatory for PSIB set-aside requirements valued at, or greater than, $2 million. A post-award audit is optional at the request of a contracting authority to ensure that the contractor meets the PSIB criteria during the contract, including the business’ ability to meet the indigenous content requirement.As Coradix Technology Consulting is a non-indigenous company, and is not listed in the IBD, it would not be subject to a compliance audit under the IBD or PSIB. Since 2016, ISC holds records of Dalian Enterprises Inc. and Coradix Technology in joint venture undergoing two compliance audits to confirm 51% indigenous ownership and control.First, a mandatory pre-award audit was concluded November 25, 2016, for contract T8080-150428 awarded by Transport Canada, with a result of “pass”.Then, a mandatory pre-award audit was conducted August 9, 2022, for contract A0416-183262/001/ZM awarded by Public Services and Procurement Canada, with a result of “pass”.To date, no post-award audits have been conducted. In December 2023, at the request of Public Services and Procurement Canada, ISC has initiated post-award audits on active contracts with Coradix Technology Consulting and Dalian Enterprises Inc.Question No. 2060—Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) how many CAF members have been forced to take a lower pension amount due to being sent to a lower paying transition unit, due to age, injury, or other factors, prior to retirement; (b) are the CAF members in (a) able to have a pension based on their highest earning years, including allowances, and, if not, why not; (c) what measures are in place to ensure that the CAF does not try to intentionally lower pension payments by placing higher earning CAF members into lower earning transition units prior to the CAF member's release; (d) how many CAF veterans are currently receiving a pension based on a rate based on a transition unit rather than based on their highest earning unit; (e) what is the CAF doing with the extra money resulting from lower pension payments; (f) how many Canadian Special Operations Regiment (CSOR) members have participated in missions or operations but still been denied full danger pay and risk allowances; (g) what is the rationale for providing regiments operating at the same time and place with full danger pay and risk allowances while denying it to special forces; (h) does the rational take into consideration that special forces tasking is often more dangerous, and living conditions are equally poor, and, if not, why not; (i) what mechanisms are in place for CSOR members who have been denied danger pay or risk allowances to appeal the denial; (j) how much money is the government saving by denying danger pay and risk allowances to CSOR members; (k) what is the government doing with the money it is saving by denying danger pay and risk allowances to CSOR members; and (l) how does the government justify denying full danger pay and risk allowances to CSOR members who participate in assignments abroad when their conditions are worse than other CAF regiments in the same place at the same time?Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) to (e) of the question, Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, members are not forced to take a lower pension due to assignment to a transition unit. A member’s pay in a transition unit is at the rate and increment they are entitled to and is not lower than the rate they had been receiving immediately prior to being sent to a transition unit. If a member is not changing occupations, their pay will not decrease as a result of being posted to another unit, including a transition unit.A member’s entitlement to a pension is prescribed in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, or CFSA, and subsection 15(1) of the Act sets out how pensions are calculated. All CAF members who are eligible for benefits, including those sent to a transition unit prior to retirement, have their pension calculated based on the average annual pay received during their five highest-earning years. Notably, allowances are not pensionable. In the case of a member who has to their credit less than five years of pensionable service, the average annual pay received during the total period of pensionable service to their credit is used instead. Where a member has more than 35 years of pensionable service, if any of those years after 35 years are part of that member’s highest paid five consecutive years, then that period of higher pay counts towards the calculation of their pension, as per subsection 15(5). There are no CAF veterans that are currently receiving a pension that is not based on their five highest-earning years.Neither the government nor the CAF use members’ assignments and their pensions as a cost-saving measure. The CAF administers and calculates pensions in accordance with the CFSA and its regulations. As such, there are no lower pension payments, nor any surplus funds.With respect to parts (f) to (l), CAF personnel often face dangers and discomfort while deployed on operations around the globe. Their extraordinary dedication does not go unrecognized.As per the Military Foreign Service Instructions, CAF personnel are entitled to a hardship allowance, or HA, and risk allowance, or RA. The intent of the HA is to compensate for the living conditions existing at a specific post. The allowance is based on an assessment of the living conditions in theatre versus the member’s home base routine in Canada. The type of inconvenience, discomfort, or stress is considered and rated on a scale. Meanwhile, the RA is intended to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post and is based on the probability of a hazard occurring, as well as the severity of its impact.Allowance levels are determined by a department hardship and risk committee, or DHRC, led by the strategic joint staff, and the rates for each level are determined by Treasury Board. The DHRC conducts a review of each operation and determines the appropriate level of HA and RA to be accorded to deployed members. A wide range of factors, including conditions faced by members while deployed, are considered during this review, along with supporting information provided by deployed task force commanders, as well as subject matter experts, operations, intelligence, and medical staff.The government does not deny HA and RA to Canadian Special Operations Forces, or CANSOF, units operating alongside conventional forces who also receive these allowances. The criteria used to determine the level of the allowance is the same across all operations, regardless of the unit generating the force for that operation. There may be instances in which HA and RA levels are determined after a member has deployed, pending submission of operational details on the ground from the mission location or where the nuances of a CANSOF-specific mission may require a more detailed examination by the DHRC. Once the levels of HA and RA are determined, these allowances are paid to members retroactively. Notably, CANSOF operations have never been denied HA or RA.Neither the government nor the CAF use members’ allowances as a cost-saving measure. No members are denied an allowance that they are entitled to. As such, there are no denied allowances, nor any surplus funds resulting from these allowances. A human resource administrator is available to CAF members who may have questions or concerns regarding allowances. The administrator can also directly rectify issues.Question No. 2062—Mrs. Anna Roberts: With regard to the First Home Savings Account (FHSA): (a) how many accounts are currently active; (b) what is the total cumulative amount held in all accounts; (c) what is the average and median account balance; (d) how many accounts have over (i) $1,000, (ii) $5,000, (iii) $10,000, (iv) $20,000, in them; and (e) what is the breakdown of the number of FHSA accounts by the owner’s income bracket?Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, as of December 6, 2023, that is, the date of the question.With regard to (a) to (d), the CRA will be unable to provide the requested information until all First Home Savings Account, or FHSA, annual information returns have been processed. Financial institutions will only start filing these returns after December 31, 2023. The returns are due by the end of February 2024.General information on the filing of T4FHSA annual information returns can be found on the CRA website at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/registered-plans-administrators/first-home-savings-account/t4fhsa-annual-information-return.html.Question No. 2066—Mr. Scott Aitchison: With regard to the Prime Minister: which senators did the Prime Minister personally call to discuss Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act?Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in December 2015 the Prime Minister implemented an independent advisory board that makes merit-based recommendations for Senate appointments. Every new Senator since that time has been appointed as an independent and operates that way, aside from the Conservative caucus, which as of today is the only partisan caucus in the Senate. An independent Senate where senators are appointed on merit following recommendations from the independent advisory board on Senate appointments ensures better diversity and has ensured, since 2015, a high standard of integrity, collaboration and non-partisanship in the Senate.The Prime Minister and members of the government regularly discuss a range of issues with parliamentarians. This communication and collaboration are a crucial part of our democratic system. Senators bring various points of view and experiences. Their perspectives on matters affecting Canadians are always welcome.Question No. 2067—Mr. John Barlow: With regard to the AgriRecovery announcement for 2023 to support farmers and ranchers in Western Canada: (a) on what date did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food receive funding requests from each of the Western provinces under the AgriRecovery framework; (b) on what date did the minister come to an initial agreement with each of the Western provinces, and what were the agreed upon amounts; (c) what was the final amount offered to each province; (d) if the amount offered is lower than the amount agreed upon, what is the rationale for why the amount is lower; and (e) were any ministers, other than that of Agriculture and Agri-Food involved in the decision about what funding level to provide, and, if so, which ones?Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, I received the requests for AgriRecovery assessments from Alberta on July 5, British Columbia on July 14, and Saskatchewan on July 17, 2023.With respect to part (b) of the question, I had secured all of the federal authorities required, including funding, by October 18, 2023.The amounts of federal funding for each province for the 2023 drought/wildfires are up to $42,624,161 to British Columbia, up to $99,211,409 to Alberta and up to $77,164,430 to Saskatchewan, for a total of up to $219 million in federal funding.As regards part (c) of the question, the amounts of federal funding for each province for the 2023 drought/wildfires are up to $42,624,161 to British Columbia, up to $99,211,409 to Alberta and up to $77,164,430 to Saskatchewan, for a total of up to $219 million in federal funding.In response to part (e) of the question, for all funding requests, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Central Agencies collaborate to secure the required authorities, including funding, through the government decision-making process that includes some or all ministers who are members of cabinet and Treasury Board, and the Governor General.Question No. 2073—Mr. Peter Julian: With regard to the federal government’s healthcare funding plan announced in December 2011 for the years 2014 to 2024: which (i) healthcare sectors, (ii) provinces and territories, received less federal funding as a direct result of this decision, broken down by dollar amount and by year?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in December 2011, the Government of Canada announced that the Canada health transfer, or CHT, would continue to grow at 6% annually from 2014-15 to 2016-17, and beginning in 2017-18, the CHT would grow in line with a three-year moving average of nominal gross domestic product, or GDP, growth with funding guaranteed to increase by at least 3% per year.The December 2011 announcement effectively extended the 6% CHT escalator for three additional years beyond the legislated time frame set out in the September 2004 10-year plan to strengthen health care, which was to end in 2013-14. This resulted in the CHT continuing to grow at 6% annually for 2014-15 to 2016-17, thereby providing provinces and territories with additional CHT growth in those years. Since then, the CHT has grown at an average annual rate of 4.9% under the current GDP-based escalator, which provided provinces and territories with ongoing and predictable funding for health care. In addition, budget 2017 included a targeted investment of $11 billion in federal funding over 10 years to improve home and community care and mental health and addiction services.Looking forward, the government's working together to improve health care for Canadians plan, first announced in February 2023, includes $25 billion through new tailored bilateral agreements and billions more through top-ups to the CHT and other funding. In total, the Government of Canada is investing over $200 billion over the next 10 years to support provinces and territories to strengthen Canada’s universal public health care system.Historical data for the Canada health transfer and other major federal transfers to provinces and territories can be found at the following link: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/4eee1558-45b7-4484-9336-e692897d393fQuestion No. 2079—Mr. Pat Kelly: With regard to the condition of structures, facilities, and housing units on Canadian Armed Forces bases throughout Canada as of December 1, 2023, for each base: (a) how many buildings had warnings regarding health and safety hazards, including, but not limited to, asbestos or chipping lead paint, posted on the premises, in total and broken down by type of hazard; (b) how many buildings included broken features such as doors, windows, lighting, HVAC, or plumbing on the premises; (c) of the health and safety hazards in (a), how many existed for (i) a month, (ii) six months, (iii) a year, (iv) over a year; (d) of the broken features in (b), how many existed for (i) a month, (ii) six months, (iii) a year, (iv) over a year; (e) of the health and safety hazards in (a), what is the estimated cost of remediating all outstanding hazards; and (f) of the broken features in (b), what is the estimated cost of repairing or replacing all outstanding broken features?Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence, or DND, administers the largest real property portfolio in the Government of Canada. The portfolio stretches from coast to coast to coast, occupying approximately 10 million square metres of floor space; 21,000 buildings, including nearly 6,200 buildings that provide over 11,600 residential housing units; 2.2 million hectares of land; and 13,500 works, including roads, water, storm and sewer pipes, airfields, jetties, ranges and training areas. The defence real property portfolio has an approximate annual operational budget of $2 billion.The number of buildings in National Defence’s real property portfolio with warnings regarding health and safety hazards is not centrally tracked. Determining the number of buildings and the details of the hazards would require a manual search, which cannot be completed in the allotted time. Although National Defence does not centrally track specific broken features across bases, the department does centrally track open work orders across the DND real property portfolio.As of December 1, 2023, there are 60,819 open work orders related to DND’s real property portfolio, which includes 3,764 for residential housing units. The work orders span Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, facilities across Canada, with locations ranging from Albert Head, British Columbia, to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Of this total, 33,517 work orders pertain to corrective activities and work, which support the maintenance and preservation of the service potential of the defence real property assets, e.g., repair or replacement plumbing.Of the open work orders as of December 1, 2023, the majority date from 2023. The oldest work orders date back to 2018.The estimated costs associated with open work orders are tracked at the detachment and section level. A further manual search would be required, which cannot be completed in the allotted time.In addition, National Defence maintains a public-facing inventory of all structures containing asbestos, which can be found at the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/national-asbestos-inventory.html#anc2.There are a number of occupational health and safety hazards that could be encountered in a National Defence workplace. These include, but are not limited to, chemical hazards; electrical hazards; mechanical hazards; physical hazards, e.g., noise, lighting, slips and falls; and psychosocial or psychological hazards, e.g., stress, burnout. Within National Defence, there are numerous regulations, orders, directives, guidelines and warnings that deal with the day-to-day occupational health and safety aspects to be followed in the performance of one’s job.National Defence’s general safety program consists of occupational safety policies and guidelines aimed at preventing accidents in operations, training, and support activities. It is National Defence policy to have a formal, structured, and recorded hazard prevention component within the general safety program, which includes audits, inspections, surveys, and hazard analysis. Bases, wings, stations, units, and detachments all have their own general safety programs that are compliant with the National Defence general safety program.Regarding residential housing units, or RHUs, the Canadian Forces housing agency, CFHA, takes the health and safety of CAF members and their families seriously and has a robust series of programs in place to identify, monitor and manage hazards in RHUs in accordance with federal, provincial and local codes, standards and regulations.When a hazard is identified in an RHU, local housing service centres respond to ensure the health and safety of occupants and engage qualified contractors to further investigate and remediate as required. CFHA coordinates with authorities having jurisdiction, which are organizations responsible for enforcing a code requirement or procedure such as utility providers, fire hall and police services, and maintains regular communication with the RHU occupants. Occupants also receive information about their role in maintaining a safe and healthy living environment, including proper use of systems, reporting of maintenance issues, and adherence to safety guidelines.CFHA is continually improving the condition of its housing portfolio by conducting regular and planned maintenance and renovating or recapitalizing RHUs. In addition, new RHUs are being constructed to replace RHUs that have been demolished due to condition or to meet CAF requirements. Most housing components are completely replaced when they undergo extensive renovation. Components are also replaced during routine life-cycle replacement, repairs and regular maintenance. These activities are completed by qualified contractors following strict health and safety requirements, and materials are disposed of in accordance with provincial and local requirements. Question No. 2080—Mr. Pat Kelly: With regard to the application of the federal price on carbon to fuels used for military purposes between December 1, 2022 and December 1, 2023: (a) what classes of fuel used by military vehicles were exempt from the price on carbon; (b) what classes of fuel used by military vehicles were subject to the price on carbon; (c) of the classes of fuel in (b), what percentage of the cost of fuel consumed by Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) aircraft was attributable to the price on carbon; (d) of the classes of fuel in (b), what was the dollar value of the application of the price on carbon to fuel consumed by CAF aircraft; (e) of the classes of fuel in (b), what percentage of the cost of fuel consumed by CAF watercraft was attributable to the price on carbon; (f) of the classes of fuel in (b), what was the dollar value of the application of the price on carbon to fuel consumed by CAF watercraft; (g) of the classes of fuel in (b), what percentage of the cost of fuel consumed by CAF ground vehicles was attributable to the price on carbon; (h) of the classes of fuel in (b), what was the dollar value of the application of the price on carbon to fuel consumed by CAF ground vehicles; (i) what percentage of the cost of fuel consumed to heat military facilities was attributable to the price on carbon; (j) what was the dollar value of the application of the price on carbon on fuel consumed to heat military facilities; (k) what was the total dollar value of fuel purchased by the CAF which was exempt from the price on carbon; (l) what was the dollar value of fuel purchased by the CAF which was subject to the price on carbon; (m) what was the dollar value of revenue collected by the government further to the price on carbon applicable to fuels in (k); and (n) what was the dollar value of revenue which the government would have collected had the price on carbon been applicable to the fuels in (l)?Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with a mandate to protect and defend Canadians and Canadian interests at home and abroad, the defence team must have a focused approach to sustainability, while ensuring continued operational readiness.National Defence spent $390,836,130.63 on fuel purchases between December 1, 2022, and December 1, 2023. This includes the following categories of fuel: light fuel oil, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, heavy fuel oil, lubricating fuel, and other mineral fuels, oils, and products. There are currently no exemptions for the fuel purchased by National Defence under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, or GGPPA, or other provincial carbon pricing.National Defence does not centrally track the share of fuel costs attributable to carbon pricing, and a manual search could not be completed in the time allotted.The defence climate and sustainability strategy, or DCSS, available at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/corporate/reports-publications/dcss/dcss-e-signed.pdf, outlines National Defence’s plan to achieve a sustainable vision for our assets and operations, in Canada and around the world. The DCSS charts a course to reduce military fleet emissions and support the Government of Canada, GC, commitment of net-zero emissions by 2050. Reaching net-zero national safety and security, or NSS, emissions by 2050 means reducing greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions from our NSS fleet to as low as possible through cleaner fuels and operational efficiencies. The balance of emissions would be addressed through carbon removal. To achieve a GC goal of 20% low-carbon fuel, or LCF, by 2030, we will also be introducing LCF into some of our fleets in the coming years. Any solutions for military application must consider availability, affordability, operational feasibility and compatibility to maintain military force readiness and interoperability with our allies, inform future force design and ensure best value for Canadians.Question No. 2090—Ms. Rachel Blaney: With regard to the administration of the Veteran and Family Well-Being Fund: (a) how does Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) ensure that the goals of a program are met, including through the (i) inclusion of Veterans’ consideration in the allocation of funds, (ii) use of exit surveys for Veterans benefiting from projects; (b) how does VAC capture lessons learned, both good and bad, from projects after their completion; (c) how does VAC ensure that funds are not disproportionately allocated, including to (i) particular racial or ethnic groups, (ii) a particular gender, (iii) a particular age cohort, (iv) particular provinces or territories, (v) urban rather than rural areas; (d) how does VAC coordinate between this fund and other funding streams to ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap; (e) how does VAC decide whether to renew funding for a given project; (f) how are organizations notified when they are not chosen to receive funding; (g) is there a maximum number of times that funding recipients can be awarded funding by VAC through this program; and (h) how does VAC ensure that Veterans are safe to participate in the programs offered by funding recipients?Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs Canada, or VAC, is committed to ensuring that its program decisions are informed by input from veterans and stakeholder organizations across Canada. VAC’s primary interest is to ensure that projects funded through the veteran and family well-being fund, or VFWF, are directly benefiting veterans and their families.Prior to funding, VAC provides recipients with project support tools to ensure organizations have the resources necessary to achieve their program goals. VFWF grant recipients are expected to measure the success of their project by providing a progress activity report 30 days after the end of each quarter and a final report 60 days following the project completion date. Contribution recipients are required to provide a progress activity report and financial claim 30 days after the end of each quarter and a final report and final financial claim 60 days following the project completion date.If a report lacks sufficient detail or clarity, VAC interventions include the following: discussing options to bring activities into alignment with the program’s goals, requesting additional information about past and ongoing activities, providing coaching on eligible and approved activities, discussing expectations regarding reporting, and holding formal discussions with recipient concerning expectations at multiple milestones.Exit interviews are not conducted as the VFWF is run in accordance with the Privacy Act. As such, the VFWF does not have the authority to collect participants’ personal information, which could inadvertently be provided through exit interviews.VAC captures all lessons learned through final reports, which are due within 60 days of the project end date. In these final reports, recipients are required to describe the results achieved and lessons learned, and explain any discrepancies between the results and the planned or expected results. Recipients may also be called upon to deliver a final report presentation to demonstrate best practices to VAC policy decision-makers, other government departments and other relevant external partners.Before funding decisions are made, applications are reviewed by VAC officials to ensure the distribution of funding is equitable based on language, geography and indigenous representation, with special consideration to vulnerable populations. VAC has made a commitment to support equity-deserving subpopulations, which is taken into consideration when selecting applicants for funding. The VFWF supports diverse groups such as women; two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and additional people, or 2SLGBTQI+; indigenous veterans; and veterans who experience homelessness.A project can receive assistance from all levels of government: federal, provincial, territorial and municipal. However, total assistance from government cannot exceed 100% of eligible expenditures. Recipients are required to disclose all other sources of funding before beginning their project to ensure stacking limits are respected.The terms and conditions of the VFWF do not allow for the renewing of funding for a given project. Recipients are permitted, however, to submit applications for new projects in subsequent calls for applications.VAC sends email notifications to unsuccessful applicants. Additional feedback on applications is available upon request.The VFWF terms and conditions do not limit the number of times an organization can be awarded VFWF funding. During each call for applications, proposals are evaluated against the funding criteria and ranked by criteria scores to prioritize a selection of projects for funding.Recipients must demonstrate that they can meet regulatory standards and are working within accepted standards of practice, which includes the proper screening of volunteers and staff who are working directly with veteran participants. Since 2021-22, funding agreements have required recipients to ensure all staff and volunteers involved in delivering the program are adequately vetted and trained in order to ensure a safe and trauma-informed environment for veterans and their families. Question No. 2091—Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen: With regard to the deployment of Canada’s military personnel and the Department of National Defence in 2023: (a) how many Canadian active military personnel have been, or are currently, on exchange with the Israeli military, or deployed with the US military in the Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf, broken down by (i) location, (ii) occupation; (b) how many groups of Canadian troops, including the group size, unit, location, and duration, have been deployed on or since October 7, 2023, to Israel or other countries in the Middle East and North Africa; (c) for each country of deployment in (b), what are the current rules of engagement and have they changed on or since October 7, 2023; (d) what is the planned cost of increases in the number of personnel deployed to Israel and the surrounding region since October 7, 2023; (e) what Canadian naval vessels are within operational range of Israel and Palestine; (f) are there any Canadian naval vessels included in the USS Gerald Ford carrier group or with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Group; and (g) what technical or logistical support is provided to the government of Israel or the Israeli Defence Forces by the Department of National Defence or Canadian Armed Forces personnel, broken down by year and by dollar amount?Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), no Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, personnel were on exchange with the Israeli military during the period in question.There are nine personnel deployed to Qatar under Operation Foundation, an operation through which the CAF works with the U.S. and other partners to counter terrorism. These personnel provide HQ support in the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center, as well as in other U.S. Air Forces Central aerospace control units. There are also six personnel deployed to Bahrain under Operation Artemis, Canada’s mission to help stop terrorism and to make Middle Eastern waters more secure. These personnel provide support to the U.S.-led Combined Maritime Forces, CMF, a naval partnership of 34 nations. This information is current as of December 14, 2023.With regard to part (b), in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, there have been multiple CAF deployments to the region under two key operations. Under Operation Ion, the CAF’s operation to support the transportation of Canadian entitled persons and foreign nationals from Israel, approximately 236 personnel were deployed to the region to support assisted departure flights. These personnel were part of an air task force, including air and ground crews, as well as aeromedical staff, based out of Athens, Greece. Between October 12 and 23, 2023, these CAF personnel conducted 19 assisted departure flights, evacuating over 1,650 people to safety.Under Operation Lumen, the CAF’s operation in preparation for a potential non-combatant evacuation operation in Lebanon, approximately 415 personnel were deployed to Cyprus, Greece, Lebanon and Egypt between October 2023 and December 2023. This deployment included personnel from 1 Canadian Air Division.This does not include the number of Canadian Special Operations Forces deployed to the region to assist the Canadian embassy in Israel with contingency planning due to operational security reasons. Maintaining operational security is paramount to the safety of our deployed CAF members. As such, National Defence assesses every mission individually and on a case-by-case basis to determine how much or how little can be said in order to protect our CAF members and the operation. Operational security refers to the principle of safeguarding the integrity of a military operation or activity and/or the safety of CAF members and other personnel involved in a military operation or activity.In addition to deployments under operations Lumen and Ion, National Defence also has standing operations in the region, including Operation Impact, Operation Calumet and Operation Proteus. Of these operations, Operation Impact was the only operation that underwent a regularly planned rotation of personnel during the period in question.With regard to part (c), the rules of engagement for the above-named operations cannot be publicly released due to operational security reasons. See part (b).With regard to part (d), the incremental cost for National Defence’s response to the crisis in the Middle East since October 7, 2023, is approximately $29 million. This includes both personnel and non-personnel costs.With regard to part (e), no Canadian naval vessels have been within operational range of Israel, the West Bank or Gaza since October 7, 2023. This response is current as of December 15, 2023.With regard to part (f), no Canadian naval vessels are part of any of the U.S. carrier groups. This response is current as of December 15, 2023.With regard to part (g), National Defence and the Israel Defence Forces, IDF, maintain a co-operative defence relationship, which includes a range of activities, some of which cannot be disclosed for operational security reasons. See part (b). As part of the Canada-Israel strategic partnership memorandum of understanding, MOU, the two countries are committed to strengthening defence and security co-operation and advancing regional security. Efforts to advance bilateral defence co-operation under the MOU include conducting regular senior-level strategic defence policy dialogues, holding a military-to-military working group and maintaining military attaché offices in each respective country. National Defence has not provided direct funds to the IDF through this MOU.Most recently, in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, the CAF enabled the movement of Israeli nationals on Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, aircraft from Greece to Israel, following a request for support from the Government of Israel. More specifically, during the assisted departure of Canadian entitled persons from Israel to Greece in October 2023, the CAF utilized surplus capacity on return flights and flew 28 Israeli nationals from Athens to Tel Aviv.Question No. 2092—Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: With regard to the initiatives of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence (NAP GBV) and the bilateral agreements subsequently signed with the provinces and territories: (a) what is the breakdown of the amounts to be allocated under the NAP GBV and through the bilateral agreements; (b) of the amounts in (a), how much is for francophone or Acadian women’s organizations, including those serving official language minority communities; and (c) what investments, or what proportion of investments, are earmarked for francophone or Acadian women, including investments for official language minority communities?Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the national action plan to end gender-based violence, or NAP to end GBV, is supported by a budget 2022 investment of $525 million over four years to support provinces and territories in their implementation of the NAP to end GBV, through bilateral funding agreements. The breakdown for each province and territory can be found on the webpage titled “Bilateral agreements to end gender-based violence”: https://femmes-egalite-genres.canada.ca/en/gender-based-violence/intergovernmental-collaboration/bilateral-agreements.html. For more information on Quebec, see below.In response to (b) and (c), these bilateral agreements with provinces and territories were designed to allow jurisdictions the flexibility to implement opportunities for action within the framework of the five pillars and foundation of the NAP to end GBV in accordance with their regional realities and priorities, except Quebec. For more information on Quebec, see below. Each province or territory is responsible for directing investments according to its areas of need and priorities, including investments for official-language minority communities.Gender-based violence is a priority for the Government of Quebec, which has invested significant funds to end violence against women. However, although it supports the overall objectives of the national action plan to end gender-based violence, the Government of Quebec cannot adhere to it because it intends to retain its full responsibility in this area on its territory. Through an agreement that respects its autonomy, the Government of Quebec receives federal funding to support the programs, initiatives, and services to end gender-based violence that it puts in place based on the needs of its territory.Question No. 2094—Mr. Colin Carrie: With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines: did any of the manufacturers provide biodistribution studies to Canada’s regulatory agencies, departments, or other government entities, and, if so, (i) when were the studies provided, (ii) based on the biodistribution studies, where in the body was DNA or modified RNA, lipid nanoparticles and spike protein found, (iii) what percentage of the dose remained at the injection site at acute timepoints, (iv) for what period of time did this material remain in the organs or tissues of the body, including blood and bone marrow, (v) what was the period of time that biodistribution studies tracked this material in animal subjects, and was this time sufficient to confirm elimination of DNA, modified RNA, lipid nanoparticles and spike proteins, (vi) how many doses were evaluated in the biodistribution studies and did the researchers report any ill effects on the animals at any of the doses that were studied, (vii) were samples collected to evaluate the potential for shedding from the body, including in breast milk, (viii) if the answer to (vii) is affirmative, was shedding found in the breast milk, (ix) if the answer to (vii) is negative, why was it not required, (x) when did HC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or the National Advisory Committee inform the Canadian public and the medical community where and for how long these products remain in the body?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (i), non-clinical biodistribution studies in animals were submitted to Health Canada for regulatory evaluation in the original COVID-19 vaccine submissions, with the following exceptions: Covishield vaccine, for which information was cross-referenced to AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine given that they are both based on the same viral vector technology; and Covifenz, which uses an adjuvant already approved for influenza vaccines and cross-referenced biodistribution studies that were conducted with the influenza vaccine.Details of these studies are included in the Summary Basis of Decisions, SBDs. The SBDs can be accessed through this link: COVID-19 vaccines and treatments portal (canada.ca)With regard to part (ii), non-clinical pharmacokinetic studies that were provided evaluated the biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticle, LNP, formulated with a model mRNA. These studies also evaluated the metabolism and excretion of the novel lipid excipients.The biodistribution data identified no cause for concern as the spike protein is expressed transiently. For Comirnaty, for example, it peaks at six hours post-injection with signals at the injection site and the liver, then declines over time. Less than 1% of signal was detected in other tissues and it becomes undetectable within 24 hours.The results of the non-clinical studies as well as the potential risks to humans have been included in the specific product monographs: Spikevax PM, Comirnaty PM and Vaxzevria PM. In addition, specific non-clinical information regarding biodistribution data can be found in the Summary Basis of Decision of Spikevax SBD, Comirnaty SBD and Vaxzevria SBD.With regard to parts (iii) and (iv), please see the response to part (ii).With regard to part (v), please see the response to part (ii). All toxicity and biodistribution studies were conducted in line with international standards of WHO Guideline: Non-clinical evaluation of vaccines.With regard to part (vi), repeat-dose toxicity studies were conducted in accordance with international guidelines of WHO Guideline: Non-clinical evaluation of vaccines.With regard to part (vii), metabolism studies demonstrated that components of the LNP are slowly metabolized and excreted via the fecal route, and evidence of urinary excretion for some of the lipids. Studies have shown that intravenous and intramuscular injection of mRNA-encoded spike protein is only expressed transiently and at the injection site and the liver, then declines over time. Vaccine produced spike protein is rapidly broken down and does not persist in the body. Many studies have demonstrated that the mRNA remains in the cytoplasm of cells and does not come in contact with human DNA, which resides in the nucleus.The potential toxic effects of vaccine present in milk are evaluated in reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. No vaccine-related maternal toxicity or overt adverse effects on pre- and post-natal development were observed.Evidence about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy has been growing from real-world use. The data show that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe for people who are pregnant or breastfeeding. No safety concerns were identified in a study of more than 35,000 pregnant people who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days of conception. More information about COVID-19 Vaccination and pregnancy is available here: https://bit.ly/3E5bytJ.With regard to parts (viii) and (ix), please see the response to part (vii).With regard to part (x), Health Canada is responsible for the regulatory authorization of vaccines, which encompasses the review and assessment of various studies, including biodistribution studies, to ensure the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, primarily focuses on analyzing data from human clinical trials to provide vaccine safety recommendations. NACI's role is not directly involved in the regulatory authorization process or in the initial review of biodistribution studies. The question regarding the timing and manner of informing the Canadian public and medical community about the biodistribution of COVID-19 vaccine components is outside the scope of NACI's mandate, as NACI focuses on analyzing clinical trial data for vaccine safety recommendations rather than regulatory communications.Question No. 2097—Mr. Sameer Zuberi: With regard to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the report entitled, "Evaluation of the Detector Dog Service Program": (a) how many items seized through the postal mode are (i) non­restricted firearms, (ii) restricted firearms, (iii) prohibited firearms, (iv) replica firearms, (v) antique firearms, (vi) the frame of a firearm, (vii) the receiver of a firearm, (viii) the barrel of a firearm, (ix) the upper or slide of a firearm, (x) a cartridge magazine, (xi) ammunition for a firearm, (xii) other firearms parts not classified in the preceding items; (b) for parts (a)(ii) and (a)(iii), how many of the firearms are handguns; (c) for each part in (a)(i), (a)(ii), and (a)(iii), how many of the firearms are rifles; (d) for each part in (a)(i), (a)(ii) and (a)(iii), how many of the firearms are shotguns; (e) how many other items were captured in the report as firearms or parts but not included in (a)(i) through (xi); and (f) what are the descriptions, including quantities, of each item, in (d)?Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information below is from April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022.With regard to part (a), the items seized through the postal mode are as follows: non-¬restricted firearms, 27; restricted firearms, 272; prohibited firearms, 189; replica firearms, 3,572; antique firearms, 10; the frame of a firearm, zero; the receiver of a firearm, zero; the barrel of a firearm, 11; the upper or slide of a firearm, zero; a cartridge magazine, 79; and ammunition for a firearm, six. Other firearms parts not classified in the preceding items are as follows: 3,060 prohibited devices, including 98 described as parts and accessories and 2,962 as silencers; seven parts exclusively for fully automatic firearms; and 51 firearm parts, accessories and ammunition, not prohibited.With regard to part (b) as to how many of the firearms are handguns, 147 are restricted firearms and 124 are prohibited firearms.With regard to part (c) as to how many of the firearms are rifles, eight are non-restricted firearms, three are restricted firearms and 11 are prohibited firearms.With regard to part (d) as to how many of the firearms are shotguns, zero are non-restricted firearms, zero are restricted firearms and one is a prohibited firearm.With regard to part (e), an additional 6,309 items were identified in the data pull as firearms or parts but not included in the response provided above, that is, seized outside of postal mode.With regard to part (f), the descriptions, including quantities, of each item in part (e) are as follows: non-¬restricted firearms, 695; restricted firearms, 1,308; prohibited firearms, 1,946; replica firearms, 141; antique firearms, 41; the frame of a firearm is not applicable; the receiver of a firearm is not applicable; the barrel of a firearm, 15; the upper or slide of a firearm is not applicable; a cartridge magazine, 1,546; and ammunition for a firearm, 139. Other firearms parts not classified in the preceding items are as follows: 174 prohibited devices, including 96 described as parts and accessories and 78 as silencers; 17 parts exclusively for fully automatic firearms; and 328 parts, accessories and ammunition, not prohibited, with no further description available.As a note, the number of quantities may be reflected in various categories. As to part (e), the items were seized outside of postal mode. Also, some data is not available for various reasons, that is, none seized or reported under that category.Question No. 2098—Mr. Dan Albas: With regard to the amounts listed on page 143 of the Public Accounts of Canada 2023, Volume 3, related to fraudulent claims under Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion: (a) of the 100 cases listed as a fraudulent claims for the Canada Student Loan, how many were, and what dollar amount represented, fraudulent cases involving payments made to (i) non-Canadians or payments being sent outside of Canada, (ii) deceased individuals; and (b) of the 44,902 cases listed as fraudulent claims for Employment Insurance Benefit, how many were, and what dollar amount, represented fraudulent cases involving payments made to (i) non-Canadians or payments being sent outside of Canada, (ii) deceased individuals?Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the fraudulent claims for Canada student loans were a result of fraudsters using stolen identities of Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada to apply for funding. The fraudsters have not yet been identified so the Canada student financial assistance program cannot confirm if the payments were received by non-Canadians. However, the program can confirm that no payments were sent outside Canada. All funds were disbursed to Canadian financial institutions. No payments were made to deceased individuals.With regard to part (b), the dataset pertaining to our compliance reviews is not detailed enough to extract the information requested.Question No. 2105—Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to the Phoenix pay system, broken down by fiscal year since its implementation: (a) what is the total number of severe impact claims made, broken down by (i) compensation for individuals on maternity, parental or disability leave, (ii) discriminatory practice, (iii) lost occupational capacity, (iv) lost security clearance, (v) bankruptcy, (vi) significant credit rating impact, (vii) resignation from the public service, (viii) mental anguish, and (ix) other personal and financial hardship; (b) for each category in (a) what is the total number of claims that were accepted; (c) for each category in (a), what is the total number of claims that were rejected; and (d) of the claims in (b) that received compensation, what is the average value of compensation awarded?Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a note, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS, claims office runs its monthly statistical report on the first working day of the month. The most recent report was run on December 1, 2023.The TBS claims office uses a specially designed client relationship management, CRM, system that is internal to TBS and has as its primary function the capability to manage and track the submission and processing of claims. As the CRM system has limited capability to gather and produce detailed statistical reports on a historical basis, the information provided is cumulative from the date of inception to the date of the report.With regard to part (a), as of December 1, 2023, the TBS claims office received a total number of claims broken down by the following categories: compensation for individuals on maternity, parental or disability leave, 68; discriminatory practice, 36; lost occupational capacity, 28; lost security clearance, five; bankruptcy, 18, 17 of which were not accepted and one of which is in progress and not closed; significant credit rating impact, 47; resignation from the public service, 21; mental anguish, 375; and other personal and financial hardship, 495. As a note, many claimants file under this general heading of damages. However, upon further examination by the TBS claims office in consultation with the claimant, the claims are resubmitted under the corresponding specific category of damages where they are best assessed. The CRM system does not have the capability to track the number of “Other personal and financial hardship” claims that have been reassigned and assessed under the more appropriate specific category of damages. In addition, claims erroneously submitted under this category are closed in CRM as “not accepted” claims.With regard to part (b), for each category in part (a), the total number of claims that were accepted is as follows: compensation for individuals on maternity, parental or disability leave, seven; discriminatory practice, zero; lost occupational capacity, zero; lost security clearance, zero; bankruptcy, zero, with one in progress and not closed; significant credit rating impact, three; resignation from the public service, zero; mental anguish, 129; and other personal and financial hardship, two.With regard to part (c), for each category in part (a), the total number of claims that were rejected is as follows: compensation for individuals on maternity, parental or disability leave, 61; discriminatory practice, 36; lost occupational capacity, 28; lost security clearance, five; bankruptcy, 17, with one in progress and not closed; significant credit rating impact, 44; resignation from the public service, 21; mental anguish, 246; and other personal and financial hardship, 493.With regard to part (d), the CRM system assigns a unique claim number to an individual claimant. A claimant is eligible to submit multiple requests for damages based on their individual circumstances. As the CRM system was designed to track individual claimants, an average value of compensation awarded for categories listed in part (b) above cannot be provided.The total cumulative amount recommended for payment for all severe impacts claims as of December 1, 2023, is $1,077,010.92 and 6,536.73 hours of leave credits.Question No. 2106—Mr. Dan Muys: With regard to stolen motor vehicles being illegally exported from Canada via the Port of Montreal: (a) how many stolen motor vehicles has the CBSA retrieved at the Port of Montreal before being illegally exported from Canada for the calendar years of (i) 2021, (ii) 2022, (iii) 2023; (b) how many vehicles does the CBSA estimate have been illegally exported from Canada via the Port of Montreal in the calendar years of (i) 2021, (ii) 2022, (iii) 2023; and (c) what percentage of outgoing containers from the Port of Montreal have been scanned for goods being illegally exported from Canada for the calendar years of (i) 2021, (ii) 2022, (iii) 2023?Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the number of stolen vehicles retrieved by the CBSA at the Port of Montreal before being illegally exported from Canada was 1,020 vehicles in 2021, 1,050 vehicles in 2022, and 1,075 vehicles up to December 6, 2023.In response to part (b) of the question, the CBSA does not have an estimate of how many vehicles have been illegally exported from Canada via the Port of Montreal. The CBSA acts on all referrals received from police of local jurisdiction.With respect to part (c) of the question, the CBSA assesses the risk of all marine containers, in both the import and export stream, to identify potentially high-risk shipments and determine, on a case-by-case basis, if further examination is required. Risk assessment includes but is not limited to security intelligence, referrals from law enforcement indicator research, and detection tools. The agency also acts on all cases referred to the CBSA by police authorities. To maintain the integrity of its programs and ensure the safety and security of Canada, the agency does not disclose specific data related to examination rates or techniques.Question No. 2112—Mr. Garnett Genuis: With regard to the government awarding a contract to GC Strategies to develop the ArriveCan application: what was the name and title of the person who decided to award the contract to GC Strategies?Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contract 47419-212524/001/EL awarded to GC Strategies for COVID-19 pandemic IT PRO services was signed by Angela Durigan, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, Procurement. As per the contract, the contracting authority is Alain Huot, PSPC supply officer. The technical authorities for the contract are Antonio Utano, CBSA executive director, and Cameron MacDonald, CBSA director general, in Antonio Utano’s absence. The contract referenced above was provided to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 24, 2023.Question No. 2115—Mr. Tim Uppal: With regard to visas for international students in Canada: how many international students are (i) currently studying in Canada, (ii) studying at institutions accredited by Universities Canada, (iii) in post-graduate studies, (iv) studying at institutions accredited by the National Association of Career Colleges?Mr. Paul Chiang (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, does not possess information about the number of international students holding study permits who are currently residing in Canada. This is primarily because individuals can leave the country at any point in time after arrival. However, as a proxy, IRCC holds information on the total number of study permit holders. On November 30, 2023, 981,192 study permit holders held a valid permit, 336,636 of these study permit holders were studying at institutions recognized by Universities Canada and 129,792 of these study permit holders were in postgraduate studies. Data in part (iv) is not tracked by IRCC.Data is based on preliminary estimates and subject to change. Study Permits are valid as of November 30, 2023. Clients’ most recent study permit is considered. Clients’ designated learning institutions, DLI, were based on their recent permit and cross-referenced with those listed on the website for Universities Canada: https://www.univcan.ca/universities/member-universities/. Also note that Universities Canada is a membership organization and not an official accrediting organization. Study level of client is based on this recent permit. Postgraduate studies is defined as the identified level of study being for either a master or a doctorate.Question No. 2118—Mr. Scot Davidson: With regard to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC): (a) what were the total expenditures by the CHRC related to the study and publication of the discussion paper on religious intolerance, published in October 2023; and (b) what is the breakdown of the expenditures in (a)?Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only expenditure engaged by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in relation to the study and publication of the discussion paper on religious intolerance, published in October 2023, was for the translation of the document from English to French. The total cost for the translation of “Discussion Paper on Religious Intolerance” was $73.08.Question No. 2119—Mr. Michael Barrett: With regard to the Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) Canada and the current probe into the actions of Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC): (a) how many current and former employees of (i) ISED, (ii) SDTC are under non-disclosure agreements that prohibit them from discussing wrongdoing that they witnessed involving SDTC, or ISED, including the minister's office; (b) will the minister release any officials who witnessed or have knowledge of wrongdoing from their non­disclosure agreements; and (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, what is the reasoning behind this decision?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the current allegations against Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, there are no current or former employees of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, under a non-disclosure agreement, including the minister’s office. Public servants are governed by Treasury Board’s policy on people management and the directive on conflict of interest.Given SDTC’s status as a shared-governance corporation at arm’s length from the department, the number of non-disclosure agreements with former and current employees is not known.The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act gives federal public sector employees a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoing in the workplace, as well as protection from acts of reprisal.The minister is not a party to any non-disclosure agreements between SDTC and its current or former employees.ISED requested that the Department of Justice appoint a law firm to undertake a fact-finding exercise into recent allegations of labour and employment contraventions, including harassment or abuse, and report the findings to the minister. McCarthy Tétrault was appointed as the legal agent.To ensure that these issues receive proper focus and that any other current or former employee may come forward without fear of reprisal, SDTC has agreed to allow current and former employees to freely speak to the law firm without violating any applicable settlement agreements or non-disclosure agreements.Question No. 2122—Ms. Leah Gazan: With regard to the Minister for Innovation, Science and Industry’s commitment to stabilize food prices: (a) has the Minister held any meetings with CEOs or executives of companies serving Northern, rural, and remote communities where there is little or no competition in the grocery sector; (b) does the Minister’s commitment to stabilize grocery prices include efforts to stabilize prices in Northern, rural and remote communities where food insecurity is the highest; (c) does the Minister’s efforts to create a grocery task force include a mandate to monitor the practices of grocers in Northern, rural and remote communities; and (d) what efforts is the Minister making to improve the availability and accessibility of data on food prices in Northern, rural and remote communities?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has met with the leaders of Canada’s five largest grocery chains, which make up over three-quarters of the grocery market share in Canada.Affordability is an issue that affects all Canadians. The minister has engaged with his provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss efforts to stabilize food prices across the country.The grocery task force’s mandate and responsibilities include engaging governments and consumer advocacy stakeholders to help ensure coordination of activities; engaging external partners, experts, and industry representatives in undertaking analysis; working with consumer groups undertaking research and advocacy work to report back findings to Canadians; and promoting grocery-related information to Canadian consumers so they are aware of their rights and are empowered to make informed marketplace choices.In November 2023, Statistics Canada launched the Food Price Data Hub, which provides Canadians with information on food prices and helps consumers make informed decisions about their food purchases.Question No. 2129—Mr. Garnett Genuis: With regard to the government’s expedited assessment process for arms exports: why is Ukraine not considered eligible for the same expedited assessment processes for arms exports that is used for other allies?Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is unwavering in its support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, its people and their democratically elected government. Canada continues to arm Ukraine and provide it with the support it needs to defend itself. Together with our allies and partners, Canada is delivering military materials without delay and will continue to provide support to the Ukrainian people to defend their country. The export or transfer process related to military donations made to the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine is under the responsibility of the Department of National Defence and falls outside of Canada’s export controls administered under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act.Under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act and as per Canada’s commitment to support Ukraine’s self-defence, the Government of Canada is making every effort to expedite the export permit process for controlled items destined to appropriate consignees and end-users in Ukraine. Canada continues to ensure that the exports of controlled goods and technology are conducted lawfully, and all permit applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis under Canada’s risk assessment framework, including against the Arms Trade Treaty criteria, which are enshrined in Canada’s Export and Import Permits Act. During the review process, particular attention is given to the nature of the item, the region of destination, the purpose and intended use of the item, the record and behaviour of the stated consignees and/or end-users of the item, and the possibility of unauthorized diversion.From the date a complete permit application is received, every effort is made to process an application within a reasonable time frame or sooner, as per the department’s service standards. These are within 10 business days when consultations outside the trade and export controls bureau are not required, and within forty 40 business days when consultations outside the trade and export controls bureau are required.Canada remains resolute in supporting Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. Together with the international community, and working with the Government of Ukraine, Canada will continue to call on Russia to end its war, withdraw its troops and equipment from Ukraine and turn to good-faith diplomacy.Question No. 2130—Mr. Charlie Angus: With regard to the government’s efforts to support food price stabilization, since October 2023: (a) what indicators does the government use ensure that its efforts are making a meaningful difference to stabilize grocery prices; and (b) what accountability measures exist to ensure that grocery retailers are keeping their commitment to stabilize food prices based on the indicators in (a)?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Government of Canada is closely monitoring the change in the “food purchased from stores” category in the monthly consumer price index published by Statistics Canada.With regard to part (b), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada maintains close and frequent communication with major grocery retailers in order to monitor commitments. Question No. 2133—Mr. Frank Caputo: With regard to the prison needle exchange program at facilities operated by Correctional Service Canada, since 2018 and broken down by year and by correctional institution: (a) how many instances occurred where an inmate used a needle to assault (i) guards or other CSC employees, (ii) fellow inmates; (b) how many instances occurred where needles distributed, or meant for distribution, under the program have gone missing; and (c) how many instances occurred where needles were discovered as contraband items?Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, With regard to part (a), there have been no reported assaults related to the prison needle exchange program, PNEP, in any Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, institution.With regard to part (b), appropriate safeguards are established in every institution to ensure that PNEP kits are safely stored and accounted for on a daily basis. While we are unable to provide specific numbers in this time frame, so as to avoid providing inaccurate information, we can say that it is very rare. However, if a needle were to go missing, CSC would take immediate action to ensure that the safety and security of staff, the public and inmates are maintained.With regard to part (c), CSC undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. CSC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted, and this could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.Question No. 2136—Ms. Leslyn Lewis: With regard to the government’s immigration levels plan for 2024-2026: (a) what analyses has the government undertaken to estimate the (i) infrastructure, (ii) housing, (iii) health, and (iv) social service capacity requirements to accommodate the immigration levels; (b) for each analysis in (a), what are the results; (c) has the government identified a risk of a lack of appropriate infrastructure, housing, or supports in meeting the needs of new immigrants; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what is that risk level and how is it being mitigated; (e) what external consultations has the government undertaken to assess the capacity requirements for the immigration levels plan; (f) what risks or concerns have stakeholders or experts raised; and (g) what are the government’s plans to ensure the (i) infrastructure, (ii) housing, (iii) health, and (iv) social service needs of new immigrants are met?Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is concerned, the 2024-26 immigration levels plan, tabled November 1, 2023, was developed in close consultation with a wide variety of partners and stakeholders and took into account a range of factors. The 2024-26 levels plan aims to balance Canada’s need for population and economic growth with its capacity to welcome and integrate newcomers, while maintaining confidence in Canada’s immigration system.In developing the 2024-26 levels plan, IRCC extended the scope and breadth of its consultations. This approach built upon extensive efforts undertaken through the strategic immigration review, which outlined a road map to ensure that our immigration levels planning takes into account the need to address labour shortages in key industries, as well as social and infrastructure capacity.As such, IRCC broadened its engagement at the federal level to begin instituting a broader, phased approach to levels planning. This includes whole-of-government efforts to align various mandates, plan and work together to manage the potential impacts of population growth, in order to ensure strong outcomes for newcomers and Canadians alike.In 2024-26, this included, among others, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Infrastructure Canada on housing and capacity; Employment and Social Development Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada on labour market trends; a multitude of departments on labour market needs, for example, Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Transport Canada; and Statistics Canada on underlying data to support policy decision-making.As well, in the spirit of reconciliation, IRCC built on previous efforts to engage with indigenous communities to increase its understanding of indigenous perspectives on immigration and its impacts on indigenous peoples. IRCC also increased the number of indigenous organizations engaged through its survey.In addition, every year IRCC conducts bilateral and multilateral engagement on levels planning with a number of partners and stakeholders, including federal delivery partners who perform security and immigration enforcement activities that are integral to the processing and execution of the multi-year levels plan, contributing to maintaining the integrity of the immigration system; and provinces and territories, or PTs, including with Quebec pursuant to the Canada-Québec Accord, to understand and respond to their needs and concerns, such as labour shortages as well as the capacity to welcome newcomers.IRCC also takes into consideration public views gained through public opinion research and conducts an online survey of key partners and stakeholders, including employers, educational institutions, faith-based organizations, indigenous partners, industry councils, municipalities and service-providing organizations, among others, to inform the development of the plan.Through its extensive consultations in the development of the 2024-26 levels plan, IRCC heard about the need for talented and skilled newcomers to help address labour market shortages and contribute to economic growth, while also ensuring sustainable population growth to balance pressures on housing, health care and other infrastructure and services. As such, the 2024-26 levels plan aims to stabilize immigration levels in 2026.Another factor that is taken into consideration in immigration levels planning is that key sectors such as health, transportation, agriculture, residential housing construction, teaching and early childhood education, and natural and applied sciences-related occupations are facing labour market shortages. While population growth through immigration increases demand for housing, infrastructure and services, it also contributes to the supply of labour in, for example, health care occupations and the construction sector to build new homes.In addition to the input received through extensive engagement and consultations, the levels plan is also informed by humanitarian commitments as well as the overall downstream domestic capacity, such as housing, health care and settlement services. Other considerations include the need to manage existing inventories and to continue to improve processing time in a context of fiscal responsibiliy.As such, the 2024-26 levels plan aims to balance traditional immigration objectives such as economic and demographic growth, family reunification and Canada’s humanitarian commitments with the need to mitigate impacts on domestic capacity.Immigration drives Canada’s economy and fuels its future growth. As Canada continues to face an aging population and critical labour shortages in key sectors, newcomers are critical to help spur innovation, grow the economy and support local businesses and communities.Moving forward, continued closer collaboration at the federal level will enable better alignment across departments in support of government economic and social priorities. IRCC, alongside other government departments, is committed to further engagement ahead of the next levels plan. Collaboration with PTs, partners, stakeholders, and indigenous peoples will be critical to help Canada adapt to the realities of immigration-driven population growth. Question No. 2139—Mr. Dan Muys: With regard to the tariff quota for the import of supply-managed goods for 2023-24 and the expiry of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland eligibility to import under the reserve for non-European Union World Trade Organization Members within Canada’s World Trade Organization tariff rate quota on December 31, 2023, without a replacement agreement: (a) how much access quantity and available quantity of cream is allocated to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2023-24; (b) is the number specified for in (b) less, greater, or equal to the access quantity and available quantity of cream allocated to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the 2022-23 period; (c) are there any programs known to Global Affairs Canada to help Canadian small businesses compensate for any financial loss resulting from the expiry of this agreement if no replacement deal is agreed upon by December 31, 2023; and (d) are there any plans known to Global Affairs Canada to subsidize the financial loss incurred by Canadian small businesses resulting from the expiry of this agreement if no replacement deal is agreed upon by December 31, 2023?Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.The World Trade Organization, or WTO, specialty creams tariff rate quota, or TRQ, allocated annually on a dairy year basis, from August 1 to July 31, is not being impacted by the expiry of the cheese side letters. Therefore, the response below will primarily focus on the WTO “Cheeses of All Types” TRQ, or WTO cheese TRQ, and the cheese side letters addressed in the question.The WTO cheese TRQ is allocated annually on a calendar year basis, from January 1 to December 31, and split into two reserves: one for European Union origin cheeses and one for non-EU origin cheeses.The 2020 cheese side letters to the Canada-United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (U.K.) Trade Continuity Agreement, or TCA, are the product of a negotiated outcome between Canada and the U.K.As part of a balance of concessions, Canada agreed to grant the U.K., via the cheese side letters, continued access to the EU cheese reserve under the WTO cheese TRQ until December 31, 2023, in order to facilitate planning horizons and an orderly transition for Canadian allocation holders under the WTO cheese TRQ.The terms of this transitional arrangement have been well known to stakeholders since the TCA was concluded in late 2020.After December 31, 2023, cheese imports originating from the U.K. can be imported under the non EU reserve of the WTO cheese TRQ.Regarding the WTO “Cheeses of All Types” TRQ, for the calendar years 2022, 2023 and 2024, the import access quantity for the WTO cheese TRQ is 20,411,866 kilograms. Of this, 69.9%, or 14,267,894.3 kilograms, is allocated to cheese imports from the EU, and 30.1%, or 6,143,971.67 kilograms, is allocated to cheese imports from non-EU sources. There is no specific quantity of TRQs allocated to individual countries and/or markets under each respective reserve.For the calendar years 2022 and 2023, cheese from the U.K. could be imported under the EU reserve’s overall access quantity of 14,267,894.3 kilograms. For the calendar year 2024 and going forward in subsequent calendar years, cheese from the U.K. will be imported under the non-EU reserve’s overall access quantity of 6,143,971.67 kilograms.Regarding WTO specialty creams TRQ, for the dairy years 2022-23 and 2023-24, the import access quantity for the WTO specialty creams TRQ is 394,000 kilograms. There is also no specific quantity of TRQs allocated to individual countries and/or markets under the WTO specialty creams TRQ.TRQ allocation holders’ individual business decisions are made in line with their own commercial considerations. However, Canada’s inclusive approach to trade seeks to ensure that the benefits of trade are more widely shared, including with traditionally under-represented groups in trade such as small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs.The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that SMEs have access to the right resources, information and tools required to participate in trade, access global opportunities and supply chains, benefit from international trade and investment opportunities, and succeed in global markets.This is achieved through mainstreaming inclusive trade provisions across Canada’s free trade agreements, or FTAs, and seeking dedicated inclusive trade chapters, including on trade and SMEs, with FTA partners.The Government of Canada has a range of programs to provide financial support to SMEs in trade, including the CanExport SMEs, Canada small business financing program, the women entrepreneurship strategy, the Black entrepreneurship program, the 2SLGBTQI+ entrepreneurship program, and the indigenous growth fund.Question No. 2141—Mr. Alistair MacGregor: With regard to federal support for Canada’s grocery sector, between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 2015: (a) how much federal funding was provided to Canada’s major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; (b) how many federal subsidies were provided to those major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; and (c) what programs were responsible for managing federal funding and subsidies to Canada’s grocery sector, by federal department or agency?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to federal support for Canada’s grocery sector, between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 2015, no federal funding or subsidies were provided to Canada’s major grocery companies, namely Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys and Costco, to support business development.Question No. 2142—Mr. Alistair MacGregor: With regard to federal support to Canada’s grocery sector, between November 1, 2015, to January 1, 2024: (a) how much federal funding was provided to Canada’s major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; (b) how much federal subsidies were provided to those major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; and (c) what programs were responsible for managing federal funding and subsidies to Canada’s grocery sector, by federal department or agency?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to federal support to Canada’s grocery sector, between November 1, 2015, and January 1, 2024, no federal funding or subsidies were provided to Canada’s major grocery companies, which are Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys and Costco, to support business development.Question No. 2143—Mr. Alistair MacGregor: With regard to lobbying conducted by Canada’s grocery sector, between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 2015: (a) how many meetings did the federal government have with Canada’s major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to request federal funding, by (i) year, (ii) company; and (b) how many meetings did the federal government have with those major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to request federal subsidies, by (i) year, (ii) company?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 2015, no meetings were held with Canada’s major grocery companies, Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys and Costco, to request federal funding.Question No. 2144—Mr. Ryan Williams: With regard intellectual property created by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, since April 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all grants and contributions, broken down by fiscal year, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) organization (if applicable), (iii) date, (iv) description and title of project funded, (v) amount requested, (vi) amount provided, (vii) intellectual property created by the funding; and (b) for each intellectual property created, who has the property rights?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, SSHRC, does not systematically track intellectual property resulting from the grants it awards and does not maintain records on intellectual property ownership resulting from funded research. With regard to part (b), SSHRC claims no rights of ownership to intellectual property associated with an award, and any intellectual property agreements are between the researcher or institution and their partners. SSHRC's intellectual property policy can be found at https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/policies-politiques/g_copyright-s_droits_auteur-eng.aspx.All grants awarded by SSHRC are publicly disclosed and published in the Open Government portal at https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/.Question No. 2145—Mr. Ryan Williams: With regard to intellectual property created by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, since April 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all grants and contributions, broken down by fiscal year, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) organization (if applicable), (iii) date, (iv) description and title of the project funded, (v) amount requested, (vi) amount provided, (vii) intellectual property created by the funding; and (b) for each intellectual property created, who has the property rights?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC, does not systematically track intellectual property resulting from the grants it awards and does not maintain records on intellectual property ownership resulting from funded research. With regard to part (b), NSERC claims no rights of ownership to intellectual property associated with an award and any intellectual property agreements are between the researcher and/or institution and their partners. NSERC's intellectual property policy can be found at https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/nserc-crsng/policies-politiques/ip-pi_eng.asp.All grants awarded by NSERC are publicly disclosed and published in the Open Government portal at https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/.Question No. 2146—Mr. Ryan Williams: With regard to intellectual property created by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, since April 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all grants and contributions, broken down by fiscal year, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) organization (if applicable), (iii) date, (iv) description and title of the project funded, (v) amount requested, (vi) amount provided, (vii) intellectual property created by the funding; and (b) for each intellectual property created, who has the property rights?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, does not systematically track intellectual property created by grants awarded by CIHR. As such, producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would not be possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.With regard to part (b), as per the Tri-agency Guide on Financial Administration, CIHR does not pass judgment on the eventual commercial success of research, nor does it retain or claim any ownership of, or exploitation or proprietary rights to intellectual property, copyright or inventions developed/resulting from research supported with agency grant funds. Administering institutions are required to disclose to grant recipients their policy on intellectual property rights and ownership arising from supported research. Grant recipients that decide to pursue commercialization of any results of the research are required to adhere to applicable institutional policies governing the assignment of intellectual property.As per the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Application Administration Guide, the onus is on the nominated principal investigator, or the institution or both, depending on the institution's policy on ownership of intellectual property, to seek patent protection, in collaboration with the partner where applicable, for inventions or developments arising from CIHR-supported research. Grant recipients that pursue commercialization of any results of the research are required to adhere to institutional and agency policies governing the assignment of intellectual property.Question No. 2149—Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen: With regard to the Government’s commitment to create a Grocery Task force to monitor actions taken by food retailers and producers: (a) by what date with will the Grocery Task force be established; (b) what is the mandate for the Grocery Task force; (c) what entities, taskforces, or groups exist currently to monitor the prices of groceries and other goods; and (d) what government entities, taskforces, or groups exist currently to monitor and investigate the actions of grocery retailers?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the grocery task force is currently operational.The grocery task force’s mandate and responsibilities include engaging governments and consumer advocacy stakeholders to help ensure coordination of activities; engaging external partners, experts and industry representatives in undertaking analysis; working with consumer groups undertaking research and advocacy work to report back findings to Canadians; and promoting grocery-related information to Canadian consumers so they are aware of their rights and are empowered to make informed marketplace choices.Innovation, Science and Economic Development, along with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Statistics Canada, have partnered to make timely data on food prices available to consumers in one central and easy-to-access location. The new Food Price Data Hub provides Canadians with more detailed information on food prices and helps consumers make informed decisions about their food purchases.The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. The bureau administers and enforces the Competition Act and three labeling statutes that govern business conduct in all sectors of the economy, including the grocery sector. The Competition Act contains civil and criminal provisions addressing various forms of potentially anti-competitive conduct, such as competitor collaborations and cartels, abuse of a dominant position and merger review, as well as deceptive marketing. The bureau brings civil cases before the specialist Competition Tribunal or courts to seek remedial orders, while criminal matters are prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.Question No. 2150—Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen: With regard to the Minister for Innovation Science and Industry’s commitment on October 5, 2023, to take additional action to restore the food price stability that Canadians expect: (a) what actions was the minister or department told that grocers would take so that Canadians would see aggressive discounts across a basket of food products that represent the most important purchases for most households; (b) since October 5, what measures have been put in place to ensure grocers are delivering results for Canadians; (c) by what date does the minister expect to see results; (d) by what date will the minister take additional action if grocers don’t implement the changes that they were asked to implement; and (e) what actions will the minister take if grocers don’t deliver results?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada’s top five major grocery chains committed to support efforts aimed at stabilizing food prices through actions such as aggressive discounts, price freezes and price-matching campaigns.The Government of Canada continues to explore all measures and tools to address affordability. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri Food engaged with provincial and territorial consumer counterparts to discuss efforts to stabilize food prices across the country.The government reiterated its commitment to stabilizing food prices within its 2023 fall economic statement, in which it was emphasized that the government has and will continue to advance initiatives to achieve this objective.Price stabilization requires the full engagement of the entire supply chain, and the Government of Canada is working with a range of stakeholders, including grocers, manufacturers, provinces and territories, to find solutions that are in the best interest of Canadians.The Government of Canada is considering all measures and tools to address affordability issues.Question No. 2153—Mr. Ted Falk: With regard to Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), the Ad-hoc COVID-19 Clinical Pharmacology Task Group and Health Canada (HC) research or communication about lvermectin: (a) did they find any harm to Canadians from taking oral lvermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19; (b) did HC, PHAC, or a committee review the lvermectin meta-analysis conducted by Andrew Bryant, lvermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines, American Journal of Therapeutics, 28, e434-e460, July 2021, (i) did their analysis show any benefit from using lvermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19; (c) did HC or PHAC perform a risk-harm analysis for the use of lvermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19, (i) if the answer to (c) is negative, why not, (ii) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, was this information provided to Dr. Theresa Tam, Dr. Supryia Sharma, or the Minister of Health, (iii) what dates was the information from (ii) communicated, (iv) if the answer to (ii) is negative, why not?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Ivermectin for use in humans is an oral drug approved in Canada for the treatment of certain parasitic worm infections, such as strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis. This is based on evidence from clinical studies that were included by the manufacturer as part of its submission for review by Health Canada: https://dhpp.hpfb-dgpsa.ca/review-documents/resource/RDS00498. However, Ivermectin is not approved for the prevention or treatment of coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19.Health Canada was made aware of reports in media related to issues with the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19. Subsequently, the department communicated on this issue in a public advisory in August 2021 and October 2021: https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/ivermectin-not-authorized-prevent-or-treat-covid-19-may-cause-serious-health-problems.With regard to part (b), emerging information from sources such as literature publications and poison control centres was screened for signal detection purposes as part of our surveillance activities for products authorized to prevent or treat COVID-19. This specific publication was not reviewed by Health Canada as part of these activities given that it did not provide new risk or safety information with the use of Ivermectin as authorized and reflected in the product monograph for the drug.With regard to part (c), Health Canada did not perform a risk-harm analysis for the use of Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID 19. Health Canada only performs this type of analysis if a marketing application for a drug has been submitted by a manufacturer. Health Canada has not received an application seeking the authorization of Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Therefore, the department has not received nor reviewed any scientific evidence for the purpose of determining a benefits, harms and uncertainties profile on such use. Question No. 2154—Mr. Ted Falk: With regard to Health Canada monitoring Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine: (a) did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) or Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) receive the report entitled Pregnancy and Lactation, Cumulative Review from Pharmacovigilance Database, dated April 20, 2021, or an equivalent document; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including the (i) date HC, PHAC, NACI or CIHI received a report outlining clinical data any period from the time of drug product development to the end of the first six months of the roll out, (ii) report name, (iii) percentage of pregnant women who reported adverse events, (iv) percentage of lactating women who reported adverse events in themselves and their newborns; (c) what is HC's analysis of the document in (a) relative to, (i) premature deliveries, (ii) miscarriages, (iii) spontaneous abortions, (iv) stillbirths, (v) maternal deaths, (vi) the percentage of pregnant women who reported adverse events, (vii) the percentage of lactating women who reported adverse events in themselves or their newborns; (d) if the answer to (a) is negative does HC, PHAC, NACI or CIHI plan to request this report or equivalent report from Pfizer; (e) with respect to passive surveillance, what is the established threshold for conditions listed in (c) (i) to (v) for withdrawing approval for this population; (f) for institutions who met the continuous review of global vaccine safety surveillance rule which showed no evidence of any adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccination, what are the (i) institution names, (ii) links, (iii) supporting document names?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Health Canada did not receive the above-mentioned report. With regard to part (b), the answer is nil, as per (a). With regard to part (c), the answer is nil, as per (a).With regard to part (d), Health Canada has a robust vaccine safety surveillance system in place that engages health care professionals, vaccine manufacturers, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, and the provincial and territorial health authorities. Through these measures, manufacturers are required to submit safety data from real-world use and results related to safety and effectiveness from ongoing and planned studies as they become available.In addition, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada have been actively monitoring and reviewing reports of adverse events following immunization, AEFI, reported to the Canada vigilance program, at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medeffect-canada/canada-vigilance-program.html, and the Canadian adverse events following immunization surveillance system, at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/canadian-adverse-events-following-immunization-surveillance-system-caefiss.html. This information is published on the Government of Canada’s website at https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/. As noted on this website, there were 95 reports of spontaneous abortion up to and including September 15, 2023. It is important to note that these reports do not necessarily imply that a relationship between the adverse event and the vaccine has been established. However, they are an important source of information supporting ongoing safety monitoring. Health Canada also monitors and considers information from the scientific literature and international regulators.Health Canada will not request the above-mentioned report separately since the report is now outdated. However, on October 22, 2022, Health Canada published a summary of the review on the use of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax during pregnancy and breastfeeding, which included adverse events reported to Health Canada. Information about the summary of the review is available by clinking on this website: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/drugs-health-products/medeffect-canada/health-product-infowatch/october-2022/health-product-infowatch-october-2022.pdf.Health Canada continues to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada to help ensure that the benefits continue to outweigh the risks for all groups of individuals, including pregnant and lactating women. Should there be new safety issues identified, Health Canada will take action, as appropriate.From the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, the summary of evidence and rationale for NACI’s pregnancy and breastfeeding recommendations was updated to reference developmental and reproductive toxicity, DART, animal studies for COVID-19 vaccines as those became available throughout 2020 and 2021. The relevant evidence was summarized in each update to NACI COVID 19 recommendations. In September 2022, as more evidence accumulated, NACI revised public health advice to strongly recommend that COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to those who are pregnant or breastfeeding, based on a review of global vaccine safety surveillance, vaccine effectiveness, vaccine safety studies and Canadian epidemiology. This included information from the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network study, which started in December 2020, and the COVID-19 vaccine registry for pregnant and lactating individuals, which was launched in July 2021.With regard to part (e), none of the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers sought indications for use in pregnant or lactating women or submitted randomized clinical trial data in pregnant or lactating women for regulatory evaluation. The product monographs included statements about the uncertainties related to pregnancy and lactation. A change to the approved conditions of use for a drug, including vaccines, or removal of a drug from the market is based upon the available evidence regarding the risks and benefits of the drug. There is no specific threshold but rather a scientific evaluation of the balance of risks and benefits. If the available evidence, including data obtained through passive surveillance, indicates that the risks outweigh the benefits, Health Canada will take appropriate action. This action may include changes to the conditions of use of a drug, such as contraindicating use for some groups, or complete removal of the drug from the market. Should such action be taken, Health Canada would also communicate the risk to Canadians and health care providers.With regard to part (f), while Health Canada has no information on institutions that met continuous review of the global vaccine safety surveillance rule, we understand that vaccine safety is monitored worldwide by health authorities. This information can be found on the official websites of international health authorities.Question No. 2158—Ms. Lisa Marie Barron: With regard to the conditions of licence for marine finfish aquaculture in British Columbia and the licence issued to Cermaq for its aquaculture farm at Bawden Point: (a) what were the dates of all licenses issued to Cermaq to operate its farm at Bawden Point since January 2015; (b) was Cermaq ever found in violation of the licenses it was issued and, if so, what are the reasons for breach of license; (c) were the licenses issued to Cermaq in (a) amended to allow for higher sea lice thresholds; (d) what are the details of all amendments in (c); and (e) was Cermaq fined or otherwise reprimanded for violations of the licenses it was issued?Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the conditions of licence for marine finfish aquaculture in British Columbia and the licence issued to Cermaq for its aquaculture farm at Bawden Point, the dates of all licences since January 2015 are September 12, 2023; March 9, 2023; August 16, 2022; July 1, 2022; March 1, 2020; November 17, 2016; November 10, 2016; July 1, 2016; December 19, 2015; and September 8, 2015.The following violations are documented at the Bawden Point facility: 17 late reports from 2016-23; and one instance of failing to conduct sea lice abundance assessments in 2018.Licences issued to Cermaq were not amended. There is no record of Cermaq being fined or otherwise reprimanded for the documented violations.Question No. 2162—Mrs. Cathay Wagantall: With regard to Health Canada’s use of preclinical manufacturer’s data for authorizing COVID-19 vaccines: (a) did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) follow The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) standards; (b) were Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) guidelines required to be met for the determination of safety for either the Pfizer or the Moderna products for pregnant and lactating mothers; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, (i) did the animal studies assess any effects within a complete reproductive cycle from conception to the reproductive capacity of the next generation, (ii) did the animal studies evaluate long term outcomes in offspring, (iii) were any fetal or offspring abnormalities detected, (iv) what fetal or offspring abnormalities were detected, (v) what is the significance of the fetal or offspring abnormalities in defining safety, (vi) were any adverse events observed in the mothers, (vii) what is the significance of adverse events observed in the mothers for human safety, (viii) was decreased fertility detected in the first or second generation, (ix) were biodistribution studies conducted in the pregnant animals and their fetuses, (x) were alternate routes of exposure studied in the animals including through mating with a vaccinated male or transmammary routes; (d) if the answer to (b) is negative, what requirements needed to be met with respect to DART prior to the interim order approval and after the interim approval?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), yes, the non-clinical studies submitted to Health Canada to support the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines were conducted in accordance with the ICH standards. In particular, the ICH safety guideline S5(R3), detection of reproductive and developmental toxicity for human pharmaceuticals, has specific requirements for the design and conduct of developmental and reproductive toxicity studies for vaccines. This guideline provides information on animal species selection as well as dose selection and study design for vaccines against infectious diseases.Health Canada is responsible for the regulatory authorization of vaccines, which encompasses the review and assessment of various studies to ensure the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, primarily focuses on analyzing data from human clinical trials to provide vaccine safety recommendations. NACI's role is not directly involved in the regulatory authorization process or in the initial review of safety and efficacy studies.With regard to part (b), yes, DART studies were required as part of the regulatory evaluation of COVID-19 vaccines. These studies were conducted in accordance with ICH guidelines in S5(R3). These studies were submitted for regulatory review and supported the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines. The outcomes of these studies were included in the relevant documents prepared and published by Health Canada to inform the public, health care professionals and researchers. This information can be found under each specific product. For Comirnaty, from Pfizer-BioNTech, the product monograph is at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf and the summary basis of decision is at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/SBD00510-comirnaty-en.html. For Spikevax, from Moderna, the product monograph is at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf and the summary basis of decision is at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/SBD00511-spikevax-en.html.It should be noted that the vaccine manufacturers did not seek an indication for use in pregnant and lactating women and that the product monographs included statements about the uncertainty regarding safety and efficacy in pregnancy and lactation. At the time of approval, there was limited experience with the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women. Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy, embryo or fetal development, parturition or postnatal development, and human randomized clinical trials were not submitted for regulatory evaluation.With regard to part (c), as indicated above, DART studies were required as part of the regulatory evaluation of COVID-19 vaccines. DART studies are required to detect any effects of the vaccine within a complete reproductive cycle as relevant to humans, from initial conception to reproductive capacity. No vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertility, fetal development or postnatal development were reported in the studies for the vaccines. Excerpts from the product monographs are included below.As to Comirnaty’s reproductive and developmental toxicology, in a reproductive and developmental toxicity study, 30 micrograms per animal, or 0.06 millilitres of a vaccine formulation containing the same quantity of nucleoside-modified messenger ribonucleic acid, mRNA, and other ingredients included in a single human dose, of Comirnaty was administered to female rats by the intramuscular route on four occasions: 21 and 14 days prior to mating and on gestation days nine and 20. No vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertility, fetal development or postnatal development were reported in the study.As to Spikevax’s reproductive and developmental toxicology, in a pre- and postnatal developmental toxicity study, 0.2 millilitres of a vaccine formulation containing the same quantity of mRNA, 100 micrograms, and other ingredients included in a single human dose of Spikevax was administered to female rats by the intramuscular route on four occasions: 28 and 14 days prior to mating and on gestation days one and 13. No vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertility, fetal development or postnatal development were reported in the study.Part (d) is not applicable. Please see response to part (b).Question No. 2163—Mrs. Cathay Wagantall: With regard to Health Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring and assessment for pregnant and lactating (P&L) women: (a) are observational trials and surveillance systems adequate to establish safety or must this be accomplished through randomized trials; (b) were randomized control trials (RCTs) used to obtain approval and support safety claims in P&L women, and, if so, what are the details, including, the (i) name of the trial, (ii) date of the trial; (c) did the trials in (b) (i) include all trimesters, (ii) include high risk pregnancies, (iii) include clinical and sub-clinical testing, (iv) include a trial group measured against a placebo control group, (v) include a control group which remained intact for multiple years to establish long term safety data, (vi) be sufficiently powered to detect common and rare side-effects; (d) if the answer to (b) is negative, what trials were used to evaluate the safety in the P&L population prior to approval in this cohort, including the (i) trial name, (ii) trial date, (iii) analysis of the trial; (e) did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization or Canadian Institute for Health Information inform pregnant and lactating women of the Pfizer monograph “No data are available yet regarding the use of COMIRNATY Omicron XBB.1.5 during pregnancy” or “No data are available yet regarding the use of COMIRNATY Omicron XBB.1.5 during breast-feeding. It is unknown whether COMIRNATY Omicron XBB.1.5 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded"; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, how were pregnant and lactating women advised of the Pfizer safety data; (g) what is HC’s scientific basis for claiming safety of the XBB.1.5 mRNA product in P&L women; (h) what rigorous prospective studies, with active patient reporting and monitoring, is HC relying upon to support their safety claims in the P&L population for the use of Omicron XBB.1.5 product?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Health Canada’s regulatory evaluation of vaccines includes the review of randomized control studies if there are indications for pregnant and lactating women. Observational studies may be required as part of the risk management plan that is reviewed by Health Canada prior to authorization. In addition, after authorization, Canada has a robust and well-established vaccine safety surveillance system involving Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, provinces and territories, and vaccine manufacturers. Health Canada monitors the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through monitoring and risk minimization measures, including requiring manufacturers to regularly submit safety reports and reports of adverse events following immunization, AEFIs, and regularly assessing whether there is any new safety information that may affect the benefit-risk profile of the product. Health Canada has been actively monitoring and reviewing safety data submitted by the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccines. Health Canada also monitors and considers information from the scientific literature and international regulators.With regard to part (b), none of the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers sought indications for use in pregnant or lactating women or submitted RCTs in pregnant/lactating women for regulatory evaluation. The product monographs included statements about the uncertainties related to pregnancy and lactation. The product monographs can be accessed using the following link: COVID-19 vaccines and treatments portal (canada.ca).With regard to part (c), as indicated above, there were no RCTs in pregnant/lactating women submitted for regulatory evaluation as the vaccine sponsors did not seek an indication for use in pregnant and lactating women.With regard to parts (d) and (g), the regulatory basis for the decision taken by Health Canada is publicly available at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/ for each specific vaccine. Please see Regulatory Decision Summary and Summary Basis of Decision documents.As indicated in the specific product monographs, it is noted that the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in pregnant women have not yet been established. No indication for use in pregnant or lactating women was sought by the vaccine sponsors or authorized by Health Canada.It is important to note that evidence about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy has been growing from real-world use. No safety concerns were identified in a study of more than 35,000 pregnant persons who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy or in the immediate period prior to conception. More information about COVID-19 vaccination and pregnancy is available here https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization-vaccines/vaccination-pregnancy-covid-19.htmlHealth Canada has been actively monitoring and reviewing safety data submitted by the manufacturers as well as adverse events following immunization, AEFI, reported to the Canada vigilance program, CVP, of Health Canada while also considering information from Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System, CAEFISS, of the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, and foreign data from international partners. Should there be new safety issues identified, Health Canada takes actions, as appropriate.With regard part (e), Health Canada publishes the product monographs on its website https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/ in order to inform the public, health care professionals and the research community. As noted in the product monograph, the safety and efficacy of Comirnaty in pregnant women have not yet been established. In addition, Health Canada also publishes the summary basis of decision that provides information about the authorization of the Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5. Please see https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/SBD1700495075939-comirnaty-omicron-xbb-1-5-en.htmlThe National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, is an external advisory body that provides independent, expert advice to PHAC on the optimal use of authorized vaccines in Canada. When making recommendations, NACI considers the benefits and potential risks of a vaccine and any unknowns at the time. NACI has made recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccine in pregnant and lactating women based on the totality of evidence available across all authorized COVID-19 vaccines. Considerations specific for pregnant and/or lactating women are included in the Canadian Immunization Guide COVID-19 chapter, which is based on the NACI recommendations. Links to the product monographs for authorized XBB.1.5 vaccines are included in the latest advice from NACI.With regard to part (f), Health Canada publishes the product monographs on its website https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/ in order to inform the public, health care professionals and the research community.With regard to part (h), Health Canada has not approved any safety claims with regard to pregnant and lactating women. Question No. 2167—Ms. Bonita Zarrillo: With regard to the Disability Tax Credit, from 2020 to present, broken down by province and territory: (a) what is the average income for persons who receive the Disability Tax Credit (i) before tax, (ii) after tax; (b) what is the median income for persons who receive the Disability Tax Credit (i) before tax, (ii) after tax?Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, for the period of January 1, 2020, to December 13, 2023, the date of the question.With regard to parts (a) and (b), while the question requests data based on those in receipt of the disability tax credit, DTC, namely certificate holders, the CRA’s DTC income data is structured based on claimants.The one-to-one relationship between claimants and certificate holders is difficult to ascertain, with the possibility of more than one individual being a claimant on the same certificate. For this reason, CRA is unable to provide the income breakdowns of certificate holders, the beneficiaries, and is not in a position to respond in the manner requested.The CRA has publicly released detailed statistics on the DTC featuring data on the number of people claiming the DTC, amounts claimed and applications accepted and rejected. This information is available at the following website: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/income-statistics-gst-hst-statistics/disability-tax-credit-statistics.html.This includes data on the number of DTC claimants benefiting through a tax reduction, broken down by net income range. For the most recent such data, please see https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cra-arc/prog-policy/stats/dtc-stats/dtc-tbl14-2021-e.pdfQuestion No. 2168—Mr. Dave Epp: With regard to the Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19 (the Interim Order) on September 16, 2020: (a) does the Minister of Health require an application by the manufacturer to approve a drug that is already approved for another indication; (b) what is the total number of inquiries received by Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada about Ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID- 19; (c) how many inquiries have been made to Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada about Ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, broken down by (i) the general public (ii) healthcare clinicians, (iii) researchers, (iv) provincial and territorial health authorities, (v) hospitals, (vi) long-term care facilities, (vii) healthcare practitioners' regulatory governing bodies, (viii) Members of provincial, territorial and federal Parliament (ix) organizations; and (d) what is the number of signatures on any petitions related to Ivermectin?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, yes, the Minister of Health requires a manufacturer to submit an application for approval of a new indication for a drug that is already approved for a different indication. However, health care practitioners may choose to prescribe a drug outside of its approved indication, also called off-label use. Off-label use falls under the “practice of medicine” and is regulated at the provincial and territorial level.Regarding parts (b) and (c), Health Canada’s bureau of gastroenterology, infection and viral diseases, which is part of the pharmaceutical drugs directorate, received 17 inquiries in its inquiries mailbox related to the use of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. All inquiries received were from the general public.In general, inquiries made to Health Canada, or HC, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, about ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 are not systematically tracked in a centralized database. HC and PHAC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.However, ministerial correspondence is tracked centrally. Based on the question, 123 pieces of ministerial correspondence were identified and are broken down as follows: 115 pieces from the general public; four from health care professionals; one from a member of provincial, territorial or federal Parliament; and three from organizations.Regarding part (d), Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada do not track this information.Question No. 2170—Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay: With regard to the government’s supply and confidence agreement with the NDP and the associated universal, single payer pharmacare program: what are the government's projected costs to implement this program for 2024 and each of the following five years, broken down by year?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in budget 2022, the Government of Canada committed to continue its ongoing work towards a universal national pharmacare program. This will include tabling a Canada pharmacare bill, and then tasking the Canadian drug agency to develop a national formulary of essential medicines and bulk purchasing plan.The nature of the bill is still under discussion, and we are not able to confirm either any specific approach to national pharmacare or any potential future investments at this time.That said, the Government of Canada has made important investments to date to support the implementation of national pharmacare. The government announced its intention to move forward, in partnership with provinces, territories, and other partners and stakeholders, on foundational elements of national pharmacare, including the following.First is the creation of the Canadian drug agency, or CDA, supported by $89.5 million over five years, in addition to the existing federal funding of $34.2 million annually to support the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. The CDA will provide the dedicated leadership and coordination needed to make Canada's drug system more sustainable and better prepared for the future, helping Canadians achieve better health outcomes.Second is the launch of the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, supported by investments of up to $1.5 billion over three years. This first phase aims to increase access to and affordability of effective drugs for rare diseases, which will contribute to improving the health of patients across Canada.Third are enhancements to Prince Edward Island’s public drug programs, supported by $35 million to provide its residents with more affordable access to prescription drugs and to inform next steps on national universal pharmacare.Question No. 2172—Mr. Richard Cannings: With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office concerning policies affecting small and medium-sized businesses, since January 1, 2023: what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (v) the value of the contract related to the poll?Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2023, the Privy Council Office has obtained no polling data concerning policies affecting small and medium-sized businesses.Question No. 2174—Mr. Don Davies: With regard to diabetes and analysis done by Health Canada or relevant government departments: (a) does the government have an estimate of the total out-of-pocket costs that people in Canada have to pay on an annual basis if they do not have coverage for (i) prescription diabetes medication, (ii) insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors and other diabetes control supplies, through public or private insurance?Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, diabetes is a complex disease with many different treatments, including insulin, metformin and dozens of other medications, which are sometimes used together, to manage blood sugar levels. In addition, diabetics use a range of medical devices, such as syringes and insulin pumps, as well as test strips, continuous glucose monitors and other related supplies to manage their condition.In general, there are limitations for estimating out-of-pocket costs for people with no public or private insurance. It can be difficult to make generalizations about individual costs as there are considerable variances in dose, frequency, type of medication or supplies and prices, such as in the case of generic or brand name drugs. Some diabetes medications may be used to treat other conditions, and data on the condition for which medication was prescribed is generally not available. Determining the costs for diabetes supplies is especially challenging, as this data is not routinely collected.While publicly available data on the cost of prescription medications and supplies is limited, Health Canada has licensed access to some data on drug spending in Canada through IQVIA Solutions Canada Inc., which collects data on dispensed prescriptions at retail pharmacies. In 2022, IQVIA data suggests that the combined public, private and out-of-pocket spending on prescription diabetes medications was approximately $4.1 billion. As a disclaimer, the statements, findings, conclusions, views and opinions expressed in this report are based in part on data obtained under licence from IQVIA Solutions Canada Inc. concerning the information services of Compuscript, from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022. All rights are reserved. The statements, findings, conclusions, views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of IQVIA Solutions Canada Inc. or any of its affiliated or subsidiary entities.Diabetes Canada has done work to determine the potential annual out-of-pocket costs for people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes under different scenarios. Its report suggests that out-of-pocket costs for Canadians living with type 1 diabetes can vary from a low of $78 to a high of $18,306 across the provinces. For type 2 diabetes, out-of-pockets costs can vary from a low of $76 to a high of $10,014. These cost estimates are not broken down with respect to which proportion is for prescription diabetes medication versus diabetes control supplies. Question No. 2178—Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council office concerning anti-scab legislation or replacement workers, since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (vi) the value of the contract related to the poll?Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2023, the Privy Council Office has obtained no polling data concerning anti-scab legislation or replacement workers.Question No. 2179—Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office concerning electoral reform, since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (vi) the value of the contract related to the poll?Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2023, the Privy Council Office has obtained no polling data concerning electoral reform.Question No. 2183—Mrs. Carol Hughes: With regard to the Wahpeton New School Project proposal, since January 2023: (a) what meetings and consultations have the Minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister for Indigenous Services had regarding the need for a new community school; (b) what services has the department offered to help Wahpeton with funding, planning, and completion of a new community school; (c) what interim measures has the government provided to Wahpeton Dakota Nation to ensure students can continue in-class learning; (d) does the government intend to fund and complete a new community school in Wahpeton; (e) for what reasons has the government not proceeded with this project; and (f) by what date does the government expect construction to begin on a new community school?Ms. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs has nothing to report on this issue.With regard to part (a), Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, officials have been directly involved with Wahpeton Dakota Nation’s project management team to support and assist the community in the preplanning, design and construction of a new school facility.With regard to part (b), a new school for Wahpeton Dakota Nation is in the design stages. ISC is working with the community to ensure that the new school will meet the most current, recently updated standards in space allocation, building construction, education delivery, cultural and outdoor learning and proper learning environments to accommodate all students, including those with high needs.With regard to part (c), portable classrooms were provided in an effort to remove students from the conditions that existed in the original building. Subsequent replacement of two of the original portable classrooms that were beyond repair is currently ongoing.With regard to part (d), ISC is committed to successfully moving this project to tender and construction.With regard to part (e), budgetary constraints, volatility in the construction market and a redesign due to changes in the school space accommodation standards have contributed to the delay in construction. Most recently, changes in the school space accommodation standards resulted in beneficial eligibility for the community to increase space allocations beyond the original design. The positive impact of the redesign provides long-term improvements to the educational spaces.With regard to part (f), the new school may proceed to tendering and construction upon completion of planning and preconstruction project phases. The project management team estimates the redesign, with refined enrollment projections and additional space allocation through the updated school space accommodation standards, will be complete and ready for tender in November 2024.Question No. 2184—Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner: With regard to the government’s agreement with Stellantis-LG Energy Solutions (LGES) related to electric vehicle battery production: (a) were any consultants or external advisors used by the government related to the deal or the negotiations, and, if so, what are the details of each, including (i) who, (ii) the amount of the contract, if applicable, (iii) the description of goods or services provided, (iv) the reason that the consultant or advisor was chosen; and (b) were any bonuses or performance awards awarded to any individuals for their work on the agreement, and, if so, (i) how many people received such bonuses or performance awards, (ii) what was the total amount paid out in such bonuses or performance awards?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, the government did not use any consultants or external advisors to assist with negotiations or the drafting of the contribution agreements with the Stellantis-LG Energy Solutions joint venture, NextStar.With respect to part (b) of the question, no bonuses or performance awards were provided to any individuals exclusively for their work on the contribution agreements with NextStar. All executives at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, including those who would have worked on the NextStar project, are evaluated annually for performance pay in accordance with the Treasury Board’s “Directive on Terms and Conditions of Employment for Executives”. The amount of performance pay, including at-risk and bonus pay, depends on the extent to which results were achieved, further to the Treasury Board’s “Directive on Performance and Talent Management for Executives”, as well as how the key leadership competencies and values and ethics were demonstrated.Question No. 2192—Mr. Matthew Green: With regard to audits done by the Canada Revenue Agency, since 2015 and broken down by year, number of audits and size of audit: how many audits were either paused or cancelled following contact from an individual representing a company worth over $1 million annually?Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, for the time period of January 1, 2015, to December 13, 2023, the date of the question.The CRA takes its responsibility seriously when administering the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act and does so by acting with integrity, in accordance with legislation, policy and audit guidelines.Canadian taxpayers and registrants have the right to have an authorized representative interact with the CRA on their behalf. Communicating with the CRA does not influence the CRA’s processes. Regardless of the size or value of a company, the outcome of an audit is based on the application of legislation to the facts of each case.The CRA does not systematically track taxpayer or representative contact and as a result is unable to provide the requested information. Question No. 2193—Mr. Matthew Green: With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office concerning artificial intelligence, since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (v) the value of the contract related to the poll?Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2023, the Privy Council Office has not obtained any polling data concerning artificial intelligence.Question No. 2194—Ms. Laurel Collins: With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office concerning grocery affordability, since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (vi) the value of the contract related to the poll?Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information requested is publicly available via Library and Archives Canada and can be found at the following link: https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/privy_council/index.html.Question No. 2201—Ms. Jenny Kwan: With regard to the opening of a First Home Savings Account (FHSA): (a) how many licensed FHSA issuers have been approved by the government to date; (b) how many FHSAs have been opened to date; (c) are individuals who own residential property or properties that are not their principle residence considered a first-time home buyer for the purpose of opening an FHSA; and (d) do the individuals in (c) qualify to open an FHSA, and, if so, how many have opened an FHSA?Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, as of December 13, 2023, the date of the question.With regard to part (a), the first home savings account, FHSA, legislation does not require the CRA to license or approve financial institutions that wish to become FHSA issuers. They must meet the eligibility requirements found in the definition of qualifying arrangement under subsection 146.6(1) of the Income Tax Act. Part of those requirements involves submitting a specimen plan containing required documentation that conforms to the requirement of the act for review and approval by the CRA. To date, 29 unique FHSA issuers submitted one or more specimen plans that have been approved by the CRA.With regard to part (b), the CRA will be unable to provide information about the number of FHSAs that have been opened to date until all FHSA annual information returns have been processed. Financial institutions will only start filing these returns after December 31, 2023. The returns are due by the end of February 2024.With regard to part (c), for the purposes of opening an FHSA, a first-time homebuyer is an individual who did not, at any time in the current calendar year before the account is opened or at any time in the preceding four calendar years, live in a qualifying home or what would be a qualifying home if located in Canada as their principal place of residence that either they owned or jointly owned, or that their spouse or common-law partner at the time the account is opened owned or jointly owned.An individual who owns residential property or properties that are not their principal residence at any time in the current calendar year before the account is opened or at any time in the preceding four calendar years would be considered a first-time homebuyer for the purposes of opening an FHSA.With regard to part (d), to open an FHSA, an individual must meet all of the eligibility criteria as outlined on the CRA website entitled “Opening your FHSAs”: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/first-home-savings-account/opening-your-fhsas.html#h-1. An individual needs to meet all of the above conditions to open an FHSA. If individuals do not meet all of the conditions above, they are not a qualifying individual and cannot open an FHSA.In the context of the administration of the FHSA program specifically, information about individuals who own residential property or properties that are not their principal residence will not be collected by the CRA.Agreements and contractsAgriRecovery ProgramAitchison, ScottAlbas, DanAllegations of fraud and fraudAllison, DeanAnand, AnitaAngus, CharlieApplication softwareAquacultureArtificial intelligenceAshton, NikiAssociate Minister of National DefenceAtwin, JenicaAudits and auditorsAuto theftBank accountsBank of CanadaBarlow, JohnBarrett, MichaelBarron, Lisa MarieBatteriesBattiste, JaimeBerthold, LucBibeau, Marie-ClaudeBlaney, RachelBloc Québécois CaucusBoulerice, AlexandreBragdon, RichardBrock, LarryBrunelle-Duceppe, AlexisBudget cutsCanada Revenue AgencyCanada Student Grants and LoansCanada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity AgreementCanadian Broadcasting CorporationCanadian ForcesCanadian Human Rights CommissionCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCannings, RichardCaputo, FrankCarbon pricingCarbon taxCarrie, ColinCermaq Canada Ltd.Chambers, AdamChampagne, François-PhilippeChiang, PaulChild sexual abuse and exploitationCivil and human rightsClimate Action IncentiveCollins, LaurelCommittee powersCommunity Media Advocacy CentreComputer systemsConflict of interestConservative CaucusConsultantsConsumer priceCorrectional facilitiesCostsCOVID-19Crime and criminalityCryptocurrencyDavidson, ScotDavies, DonDefenceDeltell, GérardDeputy Prime MinisterDeputy Prime MinisterDiabetesDisability tax creditDowdall, TerryDreeshen, EarlDrug use and abuseDuguid, TerryDuncan, EricElectoral reformEllis, StephenEmployment insuranceEpp, DaveEventsExportsFalk, TedFarming and farmersFarmsFindlay, Kerry-Lynne D.FirearmsFisheries licencesFood and drinkForeign investments in CanadaForeign policyForeign studentsFreeland, ChrystiaFuel oilGallant, CherylGazan, LeahGC StrategiesGender-based Analysis PlusGender-based violenceGenuis, GarnettGold, MarcGoods and services taxGovernment assistanceGovernment contractsGovernment policyGrants and loans for studentsGreen economyGreen, MatthewGreenhouse gasesGuilbeault, StevenHealth care systemHepfner, LisaHigh-frequency railHoback, RandyHolland, MarkHome ownershipHousingHughes, CarolHydrogenImmigration policyImmunizationIncome and wagesIndigenous Business DirectoryIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsIndoor heating systemsInformation disseminationInquiries and public inquiriesIntellectual propertyInternetJulian, PeterJustice systemKelly, PatKmiec, TomKPMGKramp-Neuman, ShelbyKurek, Damien C.Kusmierczyk, IrekKwan, JennyLabour forceLalonde, Marie-FranceLantsman, MelissaLayoffs and job lossesLebouthillier, DianeLegal proceedingsLegal servicesLegislationLewis, LeslynLiberal CaucusLobb, BenLobbying and lobbyistsMacAulay, LawrenceMacGregor, AlistairMaguire, LarryMaloney, JamesManitobaMarouf, LaithMathyssen, LindsayMazier, DanMedia and the pressMedical and assistive devicesMedical researchMeetings and assembliesMelillo, EricMétis Nation of OntarioMilitary facilitiesMilitary operations and eventsMilitary vehiclesMilitary weaponsMiller, MarkMinister of Agriculture and Agri-FoodMinister of Energy and Natural ResourcesMinister of Environment and Climate ChangeMinister of FinanceMinister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast GuardMinister of HealthMinister of Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipMinister of Innovation, Science and IndustryMinister of National RevenueMinister of TransportMinister of Veterans AffairsMinisters' Regional OfficeMorantz, MartyMuys, DanNational Action Plan to End Gender-Based ViolenceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research CouncilNavyNeedle exchange programNew Democratic Party CaucusNon-disclosure agreementsNoormohamed, TaleebO'Connor, JenniferOil and gasOld Age SecurityOliphant, RobertOrder in Council appointmentsOversight mechanismPandemicParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and YouthParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian HeritageParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous RelationsParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with DisabilitiesParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official LanguagesParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic DevelopmentParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign AffairsParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous ServicesParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of CanadaParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and SeniorsParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National DefenceParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity)Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for WaterPassports and visasPatzer, JeremyPensions and pensionersPetitpas Taylor, GinettePfizer CanadaPharmacarePharmaceutical industryPharmaceuticalsPhilippinesPhoenixPort of MontrealPostal servicesPregnancyPrescription drugsPresident of the Treasury BoardPrime MinisterPrivy Council OfficePublic healthPublic opinion pollsPublic Service and public servantsQ-1945Q-1950Q-1953Q-1954Q-1955Q-1957Q-1958Q-1959Q-1960Q-1971Q-1972Q-1974Q-1976Q-1983Q-1984Q-1988Q-1989Q-1992Q-1993Q-1994Q-1995Q-1998Q-1999Q-2001Q-2004Q-2005Q-2007Q-2008Q-2011Q-2016Q-2017Q-2018Q-2020Q-2021Q-2027Q-2028Q-2031Q-2036Q-2037Q-2038Q-2040Q-2041Q-2046Q-2054Q-2057Q-2058Q-2059Q-2060Q-2062Q-2066Q-2067Q-2073Q-2079Q-2080Q-2090Q-2091Q-2092Q-2094Q-2097Q-2098Q-2105Q-2106Q-2112Q-2115Q-2118Q-2119Q-2122Q-2129Q-2130Q-2133Q-2136Q-2139Q-2141Q-2142Q-2143Q-2144Q-2145Q-2146Q-2149Q-2150Q-2153Q-2154Q-2158Q-2162Q-2163Q-2167Q-2168Q-2170Q-2172Q-2174Q-2178Q-2179Q-2183Q-2184Q-2192Q-2193Q-2194Q-2201Raymond Chabot Grant ThorntonRedekopp, BradReferences to membersReligionReligious discriminationRemote communitiesRempel Garner, MichelleRenewable energy and fuelReport 3, Hydrogen's Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas EmissionsRisk managementRoberts, AnnaRodriguez, PabloRoyal Canadian NavyRuff, AlexRural communitiesSamidounSchmale, JamieSchoolsSearch warrantsSecurity checksSenate and senatorsSheehan, TerryShipley, DougSidhu, ManinderSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSocial networking sitesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSoroka, GeraldSouthwestern OntarioStellantisSte-Marie, GabrielStrikebreakersStubbs, ShannonSupermarketsSupply managementSustainable Development Technology CanadaTask forcesTax avoidanceTax exemptionTax refundsTaxationTax-Free First Home Savings AccountTelephone systems and telephonyTorontoTrade agreementsTrudeau, JustinTuberculosis in humansUkraineUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action PlanUppal, TimVecchio, KarenVeteran and Family Well-Being FundVeteransViersen, ArnoldWagantall, CathayWahpeton Dakota NationWarkentin, ChrisWestern CanadaWilkinson, JonathanWilliams, RyanWorkplace health and safetyWorld Economic ForumWritten questionsZarrillo, BonitaZuberi, Sameer8165864816586581658668165867816586881658698165870816587181658728165941816594281659438165944816594581659468165947816594881659498165950816595181659528165953KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMessage from the SenateInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1730)[English]I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-13, an act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other acts, and Bill S-14, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations.Government billsIndigenous rightsMessages from SenateNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other ActsS-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing RegulationsSenate billsSenate passage8123957CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDanMazierDauphin—Swan River—Neepawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1340)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I have always appreciated the hon. member's solidarity with indigenous peoples and the work that he does to meet the needs of his constituents.One of the things that seems quite important about this particular modernization of this free trade agreement is the chapter on indigenous peoples and trade.I think that these are important acknowledgements about what we need to do for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, we have been hearing about causes trumping these kinds of important issues. I wonder if the member can speak to what the difference is, in terms of advocating for human rights, indigenous rights, as well as how fighting for a cause might not be as effective as what we are seeing today.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811330781133088113309RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for her important and wonderful voice here in this Parliament, constantly reminding us about the rights of indigenous people. It gives more than just words and thoughts to their rights, and actually puts those rights into action in our agreements and our laws.Yes, I am very happy that we have a chapter here on indigenous rights in this agreement. It speaks to the Tatar people of Ukraine, as well as the indigenous people here in Canada, and that these types of chapters will be in further agreements.We had the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we have recognized here in Canada. British Columbia has laws. We have to make sure that, every day, we think of what those rights mean and how we make our laws and decisions here to uphold those rights.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811331081133118113312LoriIdloutNunavutJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous ServicesInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1950)[Translation]Madam Chair, I am finally taking the floor this evening in this take-note debate on indigenous services in Canada.I would first like to acknowledge the exceptional work done by my colleague from Manicouagan, who is currently vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I have no doubt that she would have had far more to say than I do in this take-note debate. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou also had a lot to say. It is interesting to discuss these issues with them.I am taking the floor tonight with great humility, in my capacity as the status of women critic for the Bloc Québécois and as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Unfortunately, indigenous women and girls are disproportionately affected by numerous issues. In particular, I am thinking about the problems surrounding resource development in western Canada and the issue of human trafficking and modern slavery. Our committee will soon be studying the idea of creating a “red dress alert” to try and tackle violence against indigenous women and girls. We conduct study after study, yet one question still gets repeated far too often: Why these women?Last week, I met with representatives of native friendship centres, who were here on the Hill to make us aware of the important work they are doing for indigenous communities, particularly with respect to promoting languages and passing on their culture and traditions. I want to commend Édith Cloutier and the members of the Val‑d'Or Native Friendship Centre, who do vital work and with whom I have had constructive discussions. I hope to have a chance to go visit them on site soon to better understand their reality.We need programs that are tailored to the culture of indigenous families. We also need to respond to the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls by providing adequate, stable, equitable and ongoing funding for indigenous-centred community health and wellness services that are accessible and tailored to the culture of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ persons.We must respond to the calls of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.With regard to the rights of indigenous people to better economic outcomes, they also need better social outcomes and support for their community infrastructure. Indigenous people, including seniors, women, girls and indigenous people from diverse communities, need access to appropriate services, as well as to infrastructure that meets their social and economic needs, such as safe housing and clean drinking water, and that promotes hygiene, health and social security.We need to ensure that funding for economic development respects the right of indigenous partners to self-determination. We need more entrepreneurship initiatives for indigenous women. We need to increase the supports available to women and improve the social and economic security of indigenous women entrepreneurs. That is another study that we are conducting at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, a study on women's economic empowerment. Of course, indigenous women are under-represented in entrepreneurship. This study looks at that.I am aware of all the work that still needs to be done. We need to think about the relevance of the Indian Act in 2023.We need to think in terms of additional legislation on the road to reconciliation. These amendments will help acknowledge, protect and support missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, notably by seeking to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples to give their free and informed consent as part of decision-making processes that affects them—and that must be comprehensive—in order to eliminate gender discrimination in the Indian Act and ensure equal rights.Our committee is particularly interested in gender-based analysis plus, which, incidentally, should lead us to reflect on the impact our policies have on indigenous women and girls.Some of the most recent crime statistics were released in 2020, and they indicate that the homicide rate among indigenous people is still seven times higher than among non-indigenous people. The fact that the rate remains so high is a human rights failure for Canada. The completion of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls should not be seen by the government as an end point, but as a starting point. These murders are proof that we are still at square one.Between 2004 and 2014, while homicide rates were falling across Canada, the number of murdered indigenous women and girls was six times higher than among non-indigenous women and girls. This calls for a new relationship in equal partnership with indigenous people.In conclusion, we must recognize the root causes of this violence and support indigenous people in their recovery, promote gender equality and help empower women. We also need a nation-to-nation partnership with indigenous peoples, and the Bloc Québécois has long promoted that idea. Those are the hopes that I bring to this debate.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indigenous ServicesGirlsGovernment Business No. 32HomicideIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMissing personsNational Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and GirlsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWomen81093638109364SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous ServicesInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (2100)[English]Madam Chair, I am pleased to note that my colleague from Alberta has risen on this very important topic. Speaking of Alberta, given that the member mentioned this in his response, we have a circumstance of first nations' rights being under attack by the provincial government of Alberta, and we have a lacklustre federal government that is unwilling to protect the treaty and inherent rights of Treaty No. 6, Treaty No. 7 and Treaty No. 8 in regard to the unconstitutional sovereignty act that the United Conservative Party of the province is ramming through and forcing first nations to accept. Will the member join members from Treaty No. 6, Treaty No. 7 and Treaty No. 8 in their near unanimous opposition to the terrible, unconstitutional and racist policy that is the sovereignty act?AlbertaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indigenous ServicesGovernment Business No. 32Historic treatiesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsTake-note debates8109522ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous ServicesInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (2100)[English]Madam Chair, I thought the member was going to talk about Bill C-53.Nonetheless, I would note that the Alberta government has been one of the few governments in this country to put together a fund so that indigenous communities could have an equity stake. They can use that fund to pursue equity stakes in major energy projects. This has brought economic reconciliation to first nations across northern Alberta, ensuring that all Canadians get to participate in the economy and ensuring prosperity for everyone.When people can take home a powerful paycheque, it gives them the freedom to live their life in the way they feel is necessary. I will never apologize for ensuring that we can have full economic reconciliation in this country.AlbertaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indigenous ServicesGovernment Business No. 32Historic treatiesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsTake-note debates810952381095248109525BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachBlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton Griesbach//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous ServicesInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais: (2100)[English] Madam Chair, this member has been here a long time, and he should know and understand that the colleagues I have, my indigenous brothers and sisters and my relatives across northern Alberta are in a particular condition of poverty right now. That poverty has long been represented in the province, and people's needs have not been served by the ill wishes of corporations that continue to take our lands for granted and continue to pollute our waters. As a matter of fact, we have seen some of the largest oil spills just recently. Chief Allan Adam has made those spills very clear. In Cold Lake, for example, we are seeing the seeping of their tailings pond there as well. The issue that is most important and on the top of first nations' minds is this: When faced with these terrible circumstances related to our land, the members only speak about their own interests, their interests for their political, narrow power grab. When it comes to first nations, Métis and Inuit people in this country, we never hear about the constitutional rights that these people have.Could the member verify that there are, in fact, treaty rights in Alberta, and those rights are directly impacted by the illegal sovereignty act?AlbertaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indigenous ServicesGovernment Business No. 32Historic treatiesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsTake-note debates8109526810952781095288109529ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous ServicesInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (2105)[English]Madam Chair, I am not exactly sure what the member is getting at. What I know is that Alberta's interest in ensuring that the oil patch continues to operate and brings prosperity to all Canadians is an imperative.In Stephen Buffalo's article, he noted: ...the government is cutting our feet out from under us again. Over the past decade, Ottawa slowed pipeline development, passed legislation that hampered resource development, imposed increasingly strict controls on fossil fuel development, and created new levies and taxes to thwart our efforts.These are indigenous leaders who are trying to bring prosperity to their communities. I do not know why the member wants to stand in the way of that.AlbertaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indigenous ServicesGovernment Business No. 32Historic treatiesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsTake-note debates8109530810953181095328109533BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachGaryAnandasangareeHon.Scarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous ServicesInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (2220)[English]Mr. Chair, I thank the member for what I believe to be a kind of passion for the support of indigenous people. However, it is important to understand that, when we speak of indigenous people, particularly first nations on the west coast, it is a perspective of being a guest, a settler or even a trespasser at times. Does the member recognize that where he is from, where he lives and where he plays, is a place of unceded territory, and that the conditions present for the many nations on the west coast are largely because of an occupation of Canada? Would the member be clear in his response as to whether he understands the difference between unceded territory and ceded territory? Would he support first nations' call for jurisdiction and rights in relation to those lands, even if they fall in the way of a resource project, at which time they are most important?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indigenous ServicesGovernment Business No. 32Historic treatiesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsTake-note debates81096968109697BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous ServicesInterventionMr. Brad Vis: (2220)[English]Mr. Chair, I am a proud Canadian. I was born in Canada, and I acknowledge the Canadian state. The Crown had signed contracts with many of the first nations that I represent, and the Government of Canada has a duty to uphold the agreements it signed with the first peoples of this land on their traditional territory. This is why I am pleased that our leader, the member for Carleton, has put forward a policy that would allow first nations to shape the direction in which natural resources are developed in the future. They are calling for the rights to those assets, and they should have access to them.I painted some very bleak pictures, but just the other day, the Leq'á:mel First Nation actually received a settlement of $75 million. It had fought for over 20 years to receive this, going back to those original agreements that were signed when they were put on reserves in the first place. We have a ton of work to do, but the words that I spoke tonight were directly informed by my constituents in the Stó:lō territory, the Secwepemc territory and the Stswecem'c territory. I took those words, and I put them in Parliament at their request. Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indigenous ServicesGovernment Business No. 32Historic treatiesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsTake-note debates81096988109699BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89339RandeepSaraiRandeep-SaraiSurrey CentreLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SaraiRandeep_Lib.jpgStatements by MembersMétis Nation British ColumbiaInterventionMr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, Métis Nation British Columbia, MNBC, represents the section 35 rights of over 24,000 Métis citizens, advocates for over 98,000 self-identified Métis and represents 39 Métis chartered communities across British Columbia. MNBC strives to promote a strong future for the Métis people in British Columbia, where the rich Métis culture, heritage and languages thrive. Métis communities achieve strong socio-economic outcomes and Métis rights as an indigenous people are recognized. On April 13, 2017, the Prime Minister, Métis Nation president Chartier and the president of the MNBC governing members signed the Canada-Métis Nation Accord during the first Crown-Métis Nation Summit in Ottawa, marking a significant step toward a renewed government-to-government relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect and partnership. I am pleased to have an organization like MNBC headquartered in my beautiful riding of Surrey Centre. Today, its members are here in this gallery advocating for their people.Indigenous rightsMétisMétis Nation British ColumbiaStatements by Members8068729806873080687318068732EricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1225)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his interest in the north and the Arctic. I am not sure how genuine it actually is.With respect to this act, the Investment Canada Act, when it comes to ensuring we are doing better at protecting individuals and the land, a lot of what we have to do in these pieces of legislation is prevent the acquisition of certain things. For example, in Nunavut there is a mining company that is not owned within Canada, and a lot of damage is being caused by this mining companies to our lands and our territories. What we need to do is make sure that there is free, prior and informed consent so that indigenous peoples can and will have a say in ensuring that legislation, such as the Investment Canada Act, can have a positive impact on them.Does the member agree that ensuring free, prior and informed consent should also be included in acts such as these?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIndigenous rightsNational securityNorthern CanadaReport stage798510979851107985111BobZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesBobZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72035BobZimmerBob-ZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZimmerBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act InterventionMr. Bob Zimmer: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I would go back to what I started off with saying, which is that the NDP is really the no development party.I will quote an MLA from Nunavut, who said, “if adopted, [the member for Nunavut's] plan would impede the growth of mining in the territory and make it harder to increase Inuit employment in the mines.”What the member for Nunavut is doing is preventing this infrastructure investment, the very thing the bill is talking about doing. It is encouraging investment so that the infrastructure gets built, especially in places where it is already lacking in the north. All the member is doing is causing less infrastructure development and less infrastructure to get built.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIndigenous rightsNational securityNorthern CanadaReport stage798511279851137985114LoriIdloutNunavutAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1240)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the member a question similar to the one I asked the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. When I asked him the question, rather than responding to it, he resorted to mudslinging against me and using my constituents against me.While indigenous peoples are doing what they can to protect our assets, we are being violated. Indigenous women are being violated for protecting their lands, for protecting their assets. Does the member agree that this act, the ICA, needs to be amended so that there is free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples when it comes to mining activities?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMining industryNational securityReport stage79851427985143JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act InterventionMr. John Brassard: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I believe that all Canadian interests should be protected, including those of indigenous communities.As I said earlier, the national security interests of this country become paramount as we debate bills like this. As Canadians, as stewards of our land, protecting northern resources and northern offshore resources becomes critical. If we are going to be serious about the protection of our national interests as they relate to foreign investment, there should be a fulsome discussion around the cabinet table to discuss all aspects of that. This would include the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations as well, because there are certain things that this minister could bring to the table. Let us not just leave it with one minister.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMining industryNational securityReport stage79851447985145LoriIdloutNunavutLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgStatements by MembersLouis RielInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to honour Louis Riel, a man who continues to inspire generations of Métis leaders in Canada and the respect of all Canadians. Riel was a father of the Métis Nation and the founder of Manitoba. He was a political leader who fearlessly fought for the rights of all Métis citizens at a time when his people faced persecution and oppression because of their culture, values and way of life.Today, in front of the House, we have Bill C-53, which would recognize the rights of Métis in Canada. I call on everyone to reflect on the importance of Métis in Canada and support the rights and recognition of Métis people. In recognizing Riel's unwavering commitment to the vitality and prosperity of Métis in Canada, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan will be hosting a reception this evening in the Speaker's lounge. I hope that colleagues in the House will join the Métis Nation in celebrating the incredible life and legacy of Louis Riel.EventsIndigenous rightsMétisMétis Nation of SaskatchewanRiel, LouisStatements by Members797123679712377971238SeanCaseyCharlottetownToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate about changes to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.I will start by stating again our full support for Ukraine in the war against Russia, which started with an illegal and unjustified invasion on Ukrainian territory in February of last year. Our support is not only in response to some of the atrocities committed by Russian forces in the region but also is a firm stance in favour of international law and a rules-based order that Ukrainians are very literally on the front line of today. It is important that when we choose our allies, we choose allies that are committed to those values and to the application of international law and that we hold them to high standards when it comes to their observance of international law in what they do.There are many ways we can support allies. Of course, Canada has sent various kinds of aid, whether financial or military, to Ukraine, but being a helpful trading partner in times of strife is also something that is important. However, at the high level, while we are very committed as New Democrats to supporting Ukraine, details do matter, which is why there are established procedures for the House and departmental guidelines for ensuring that parliamentarians have time to do their job of proper scrutiny.We know that sometimes, under the auspices of good causes, governments have been known to sneak a few things in, which is why the department's own policy on tabling treaties in the House of Commons requires 21 sitting days between the tabling of the text of the treaty and the tabling of enabling legislation. Given that the text of the treaty was tabled on October 17, just a few days ago, normally that would mean that we would not be seeing enabling legislation until November 22. Instead, it has come much more quickly. It has been about a week since the text of the treaty was tabled, and we find ourselves in the second day of debate. This is a contravention of the department's own guidelines on tabling treaties in Parliament, a document that, as New Democrats, we take very seriously because we take the work of this place seriously. One of the practical consequences is that, even though we are on the second day of debate about changes to an international trade treaty, caucuses have not had the opportunity to meet since the bill was tabled, so it is a very tight turnaround. To ask parliamentarians to be speaking with authority on just a few days' turnaround to such a large document with some important implications and a lot of detail does not manifest in spirit, and in this case not even in the letter, the government's words about taking Parliament seriously as part of the trade process. I think this is an important thing for Canadians to know and understand. Often in this place, there are debates that touch upon the role of Parliament and the seriousness with which government takes Parliament, and I think this is one of those examples. These are the times not because it is a big controversial thing but precisely because it is not. We know that the government had signed this treaty well before it was tabled in the House of Commons. There were opportunities to bring Parliament into the loop and follow the appropriate policy, but for whatever reason, the government chose to take a pass on that as it too often has in the past.For those in government who mean it when they say that they take this place seriously, we would exhort them to talk to their colleagues in cabinet to make sure they are following, at the very least, the established procedures for conducting these kinds of debates and discussions in the House of Commons. When they get good at, at least, following through on their own commitments and their own established policies, then we can talk about how to do it better. There certainly are ways to do it better, ways that involve the legislature much earlier on in the process, and build a tighter mandate for enabling legislation when it hits the floor of the House.There has been a lot of talk already about some of the language in this agreement. I thank the previous speaker for pointing out that flowery language in preambles and elsewhere, if not accompanied by proper enforcement mechanisms that have teeth that would catch the attention either of our own government or the governments with which we are entering into treaties, does not really amount to much.(1240)I am going to lay out what I think is a small but symbolic test of the government's commitment, not just on its process for trade treaties but also in the context of this particular one. In some of the flowery language, there is talk about an indigenous chapter and indigenous rights. I know the government also had flowery language on that file when it came to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement.However, I moved an amendment to the enabling legislation that would be a non-derogation clause for indigenous rights. It just said that nothing in that legislation, nothing in the agreement, would impinge on the already established rights of indigenous people in Canada. When I did this, I watched the Liberals vote with Conservatives to not have such a clause, just a reminder that indigenous people do have rights in this country and that nothing the Liberal government does in the context of an international trade treaty could undermine that or take away some of those existing rights.I was disappointed at the reticence of the government members to endorse that as a basic principle and to put it in the legislation. Now we see flowery language about indigenous rights. Let us be sure that, at a minimum, we are including that non-derogation clause in this enabling legislation. That is an important point.I want to talk a little about one of the issues that I know certain Conservative colleagues have raised in respect of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and, since the war began more largely, the supply of Canadian oil and gas to Ukraine. I want to point out that, regardless of whether someone supports more natural gas and oil development in Canada for export to Ukraine, when Conservatives talk about this, they are implying that we should have a greater role for government in deciding who the customers of Canadian oil and gas companies are. I do not find that particularly offensive, in principle. I think that is a conversation we should be having. We should talk about what a reasonable level of extraction for oil and gas is, in barrels per day or barrels per year, and we should have a conversation about the best way to use those finite resources. They are finite because they are not renewable resources and because, if we are doing it right, we should have some kind of cap on how much extraction could happen in a year. This should be devised with our climate commitments in mind.Oil and gas becomes a very precious resource indeed, as Canadians already know, with the prices they are being forced to pay. Conservatives would have us believe this is because of carbon tax, but, in fact, if we look at the record profits that oil and gas companies have been experiencing over the last number of years, price gouging is actually a much bigger concern, or should be a bigger concern, for Canadians.Whatever government is taking in the form of a carbon tax and delivering back to Canadians in the form of a rebate is a hell of a lot less than what oil and gas companies are taking out of their pocket and sending off to international tax havens. That is costing Canadians a heck of a lot more.It is rich for the Conservatives to get up and pretend that, somehow, they are in support of talking about how a public regulatory framework could guide export relationships and contracts for the oil and gas industry. That is not something they support. They support getting more oil and gas out of the ground faster. They support those companies selling it wherever they can make the best buck. However, for the government to get involved and actually say that we should not be buying oil and gas from these countries, that we should be exporting oil and gas to those countries, invites a lot more public involvement in the oil and gas industry than I think they have the stomach for.This is a debate that I welcome. The best, most efficient and most prosperous use of finite oil and gas resources is something that, from many perspectives, we should be talking about. However, I do not believe this is a conversation they are serious about having. In contexts such as this, the Conservatives use it to score cheap political points, and Canadians should pay attention and not take them at their word on it.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasSecond readingStages in the legislative processTrade agreementsUkraine79684957968496CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, any time we talk about Ukraine, I want to send my thoughts and love to the people of Ukraine.I want to thank the Comox Valley Ukrainian Cultural Society in my riding that is doing a lot of advocacy for Ukrainians who are here in Canada and helping those who are in war-torn Ukraine now. All treaties limit a nation's freedom to legislate. This free trade agreement includes provisions to ensure Canadians can still pass laws to protect the environment, promote gender equality and protect labour and indigenous rights.Could my colleague speak about how important these provisions are in all free trade agreements? We saw the Conservatives sign free trade agreements that did not allow those provisions and actually overrode indigenous rights and constitutionally protected rights here in Canada.Could my colleague speak about how important those provisions are to ensure that Canadians are protected?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEnvironmental protectionGovernment billsIndigenous rightsLabour lawSecond readingTrade agreementsUkraine79686127968613796861479686157968616Judy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1787Judy A.SgroHon.JudyA--SgroHumber River—Black CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SgroJudyA_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionHon. Judy A. Sgro: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, every agreement that goes forward must have all of those requirements. I would like to see that entrenched as much as possible in every piece of legislation that we do. Any work that we do with other countries around the world should be concerned with what the human rights impacts are and how we protect the environment, as well as the indigenous communities.We have an opportunity to put that in legislation, and I think it should be in all the documentation that we do.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEnvironmental protectionGovernment billsIndigenous rightsLabour lawReciprocitySecond readingTrade agreementsUkraine79686177968618GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am of course very proud to be the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona.Today, we are talking about the free trade agreement with Ukraine. As every member of the House knows, we are an immense ally of Ukraine. Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence in 1991, and, of course, Canada is home to the third-largest population of Ukrainians in the world, third only to Ukraine and Russia. As members would know, many people of the Ukrainian diaspora reside in my riding, in my province and certainly across the Prairies. Therefore, I am glad to see that we are debating this bill after the agreement was delayed by Putin's illegal war, the illegal invasion that Putin and the Russian Federation have made against the Ukrainian people.Trade agreements are very important. They are an important part of our relationship with Ukraine. They are an important part of our relationship with our allies. It is vital that we have strong trade relationships with Ukraine, now more than ever as Ukraine fights for its freedom and builds more, better and stronger relationships with the west.Russia's illegal invasion and genocidal war against Ukraine has had a profound impact on Canada. It has had a profound impact on the Ukraine-Canada trade relationship. We have seen exports to Ukraine fall by nearly a third since the war started, and it is important to have a trade agreement that would restore those exports once Ukraine is victorious in the war against Russia.However, trade negotiations must be transparent, and Canadians and parliamentarians have the right to know both the costs and the benefits of proposed trade agreements before they are signed. The current Liberal government has failed in this regard. We were given this legislation very late last week. We are debating it in the House on Monday and Tuesday. We have had no time to discuss this with our colleagues at caucus, despite the fact that this agreement was negotiated in April and signed in September. There was ample opportunity for the government to give us more time to discuss this trade agreement with our colleagues and our caucuses. I hope the Liberal government reflects on that. Certainly from my perspective, that could and should been done better and would have shown more respect for parliamentarians and for the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement.The importance of transparency in trade deals is very apparent as well. We have seen this. In 2014, under Stephen Harper, we learned about a secret trade deal that the Conservatives had negotiated with China, which had been signed two years earlier in Russia. That trade agreement with China was ratified without the participation of Parliament, and the consequences and the lack of transparency will be with us for decades. Chinese interests now control significant parts of our natural resources industries. Cheap Chinese steel produced from coal from Alberta is undermining our coal sector. Canadian grocery stores are full of Chinese food products with few or no environmental or human rights standards associated with them. We have spoken in the House a bit today about some of the comments we have heard from the Conservative Party about this legislation's being woke, which is absolutely absurd. There should never be a trade relationship that Canada has that does not involve our looking at human rights, at environmental protections and at Canadian jobs and the impacts on Canadian workers. The success of the trade deals that we negotiate as a country can never be measured purely by trade and purely by corporate profit. They have to be measured by a number of different things.I sit beside the good member for Edmonton Griesbach, who is an absolute champion for indigenous people in this country, for Métis people in this country and for Inuit people in this country. For him to have to sit here and listen to folks say that adhering to UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, is woke is absolutely shameful.We sat in the international human rights subcommittee meeting today. We met with a Honduran, Elvin Hernandez, who is a human rights investigator. He spoke about the Canada free trade agreement with Honduras and about how it did not help the people of Honduras.(1705)He said that no one looked at human rights when they negotiated it. There was no conversation at that time to look at human rights. He talked about the impact it has had on women, children, indigenous people, folks in the community who have stood up for environmental rights and people in the community who have stood up for human rights. Because of the free trade agreement we negotiated, those rights were not protected. It is something to keep in mind.We also heard from Robert McCorquodale, who is the vice-chair of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. He said that if we do not look at human rights when we do this important work, we put people at risk. It is something we really need to do and something that, from my perspective, is the furthest thing from being superfluous, or whatever the Conservatives are trying to say with their insensitive woke comments.We need a trade deal that is good for Ukraine and that is good for Canada. This renegotiated deal with Ukraine includes chapters that would ensure both Canada and Ukraine maintain their right to regulate in key areas such as environment, health, safety, indigenous rights, gender equality and cultural diversity. This is very important. I welcome the provisions for temporary entry for those conducting business in either country. I like the idea of removing barriers from entry for business people, professionals and their spouses. That will lead to stronger economic and social ties with Ukraine and stronger economic benefits for Canadians. I also welcome the labour standards provisions in this agreement. It is vital we protect labour rights.When we look at trade agreements, we always have to consider labour rights and the workers who depend on those rights. This agreement does this with a few different things we are pleased to see, such as the sections that respect labour laws, the import prohibition on goods made in whole or in part with forced labour, a commitment to the content of all core international labour organization conventions and a stand-alone article on violence against workers. These are important things to have as part of our agreement.I am disappointed in how the government brought this agreement forward. I am disappointed I have not had the opportunity to sit with my colleagues and discuss this agreement, as would be the norm and as would be expected. While I am disappointed in the lack of transparency we have seen in the development of this agreement, I do support a trade agreement with Ukraine. I do think it needs to happen.I am going to need to take some time to look at this one and see whether I can provide support for it, because this is important work, and I do not take this work lightly. I am also looking very forward to seeing more Ukrainian products on the shelves in the stores in Edmonton. We have a large Ukrainian population, and my name is not very Ukrainian, but I can eat Ukrainian food with the best of them. I know my way around a cabbage roll, as everyone in Edmonton does.I am extraordinarily excited to see Ukrainian products in food stores like K&K Foodliner, a local food specialty store right in my own riding of Edmonton Strathcona. I hope this agreement will mean greater economic ties between our countries and more made-in-Ukraine products in our local stores.Let us support Ukraine. Let us help Ukrainians rebuild their country. Let us work together as friends for the benefit of both countries.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCivil and human rightsGovernment billsIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationLabour lawSecond readingTrade agreementsUkraine7969146KodyBloisKings—HantsBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (1745)[English]Madam Speaker, for the first time in our history, we have seen a free trade agreement that takes into account reconciliation, particularly the rights of indigenous peoples, and reaffirms the parties' commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Would the member support, in the future, our country supporting similar provisions within future free trade agreements, namely with the United States?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsSecond readingTrade agreementsUkraine79667977966798SophieChatelPontiacSophieChatelPontiac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110225SophieChatelSophie-ChatelPontiacLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChatelSophie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMrs. Sophie Chatel: (1745)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I think that it is always a good idea to take the best parts of an agreement and include them in new agreements.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsSecond readingTrade agreementsUkraine7966799BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111023Lisa MarieBarronLisaMarie-BarronNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarronLisaMarie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIndian ActInterventionMs. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, and he spoke about this, first nations, Métis and Inuit continually have to go through the court system to have their rights recognized, including with this bill. It is tragic that people would need to go through the court system to have their basic rights met. It sounds like the member agrees it is unfair for indigenous people to need to go through this court system to have their rights recognized. I am wondering what the member would suggest we change about Canada's political and legal system so indigenous people no longer need to do this.C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)Government billsIndian RegisterIndigenous rightsSecond reading79638747963875GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersIndian ActInterventionMr. Gary Vidal: (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, from a personal perspective, and on behalf of Conservatives, one of the things we would say in response is that we need to eliminate the “Ottawa knows best” approach and the control imposed over people across the country by this outdated and archaic Indian Act, but we need to do this much quicker. We need to get to a place where first nation, Inuit and Métis people across the country all have the ability and the right to determine their own future, to true self-determination. That is the only path where we are going to get past all of the litigation, all of the lawsuits and all of the court cases and where we actually empower indigenous people across the country to control and dictate their own futures and their own destinies.C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)Government billsIndian RegisterIndigenous rightsSecond reading79638767963877Lisa MarieBarronNanaimo—LadysmithNathalieSinclair-DesgagnéTerrebonne//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIndian ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1300)[English]Uqaqtittiji, before the Indian Act, first nations, Métis and Inuit thrived and passed on intergenerational love from generation to generation. The Indian Act is an attempt to erase indigenous peoples from the lands we now call Canada.Bill C-38 is about status. It could have been about addressing discrimination to the fullest extent. I struggle to support Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act. I am conflicted and disappointed to witness yet another form of incremental change proposed by the Liberal government.As the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group have clearly stated, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”. This bill does not meet this minimum standard. For decades, first nations have fought for their rights to be upheld. If Bill C-38 is passed as it is, discrimination against first nations women and their families will continue. There are two reasons I support getting this bill to committee. Number one, while experts say it does not go far enough, this bill is needed, and number two, the failings of this bill to respect the rights of indigenous peoples will show, through public discourse at committee stage, that amendments are necessary.Bill C-38 was tabled because of a court case, Nicholas v. Canada. It is not because the government is taking a proactive, co-operative approach to reconciliation. Introducing this bill is the minimum requirement set out in that case. After years of discrimination caused by enfranchisement in the Indian Act, 16 courageous plaintiffs sued the Canadian government in June 2021. They agreed to pause proceedings on the condition that legislation be introduced to address this inequity.The Liberals' commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples is abysmal. If their commitment was real, Bill C-38 would be fulsome. It would have addressed all discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. Incremental changes are not sufficient to ensure the advancement of indigenous peoples' rights.I acknowledge that the Indian Act must be abolished. It is a complicated assimilative tool going back generations. The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to abolish the act. Bill C-38, like previous court cases, makes amendments that are narrow in scope. Future court cases will be imminent if amendments are not made to this bill. Discrimination will be allowed to continue without the ability to seek reparations.The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to undertake the full-scale reconciliation needed to adhere to international law as the governing party. The following background will be the tip of an iceberg. All parliamentarians must commit to learning more about the Indian Act and how it continues to implement the genocide of indigenous peoples.The Indian Act was established in 1867. John A. Macdonald understood the strength of first nations, Inuit and Métis as a threat to his causes. He had to find a way to weaken them. The Indian Act was the tool to continue the process of genocide against the first peoples who thrived on the lands we now call Canada. The Indian Act is a long-ago piece of legislation that was introduced in 1867. The act remains today.Since its inception, the Indian Act has continued to deny equality for first nations. The Indian Act allows discrimination without justification. The Indian Act denies women status and therefore rights by gaining status. The Indian Act introduced residential schools, created reserves and imposed a band council system. The Indian Act also tells first nations who can have status and who cannot.(1305)Before the creation of bands by this act, indigenous peoples had their own forms of governance. I am thankful for the strength of those who maintained their governance. I am thankful to Inuit elders. I am thankful to hereditary chiefs. I am thankful to the Wet'suwet'en. I am thankful to the Saysewahum family and the many others who keep indigenous legal orders alive.The Canadian government has known about sex-based inequities in the Indian Act for decades. Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2011 and Bill S-3 in 2017 have attempted to eliminate sex-based inequities. None of these bills worked to the fullest extent; what they did was complicate indigenous identity for some and not for others.The Indian Act continues to divide indigenous peoples against each other. With each amendment, the Indian Act becomes more complex and confusing to navigate for indigenous peoples. Indeed, I am told by many how confusing it is to know if they have status, how to get status and if their children will be able to get it. They ask, “What are the implications of being removed?” It is a shame that in 2020, the Minister of Indigenous Services tabled one of three reports after Bill S-3 to amend the Indian Act was passed. The final report made recommendations that are not being addressed in Bill C-38 by the Minister of Indigenous Services today. As of 2020, there were over 12,000 applications for status still needing review. The special Bill S-3 processing units created in 2016, as of February 2023, have 1,770 files in progress and 3,990 files in the queue. The bill before us would do nothing to address this backlog. First nations are waiting up to 18 months for a decision by Indigenous Services Canada. This is unacceptable.Bill C-38 would address enfranchisement, deregistration, loss of natal band membership and certain offensive language. These are long-awaited amendments that indigenous peoples have demanded for decades. Enfranchisement is a particular genocidal policy and a clear example of Canada's attempts to assimilate indigenous peoples. Enfranchisement was either voluntary or involuntary. Women were enfranchised when they married a non-indigenous man between the years of 1869 and 1985. Other examples of enfranchisement included going to university, becoming a doctor or lawyer, working as a minister, seeking to vote and if one sought freedom from residential schools. Amendments introduced in 1985 attempted to remove enfranchisement. Obviously this did not work.Bill C-38 would still discriminate against women and children who were involuntarily enfranchised. Descendants are unable to transmit entitlement to registration to the same extent as families that were never enfranchised. Those who were enfranchised as a band or collective have no entitlement to register under the Indian Act today. I will now turn to deregistration, which provides for removing status from membership. There can be any number of reasons to deregister. These provisions would keep the safety of not impacting the children of those who may have deregistered. (1310)The third component of Bill C-38 is on natal band membership. Bill C-38 would provide a legal mechanism to re-affiliate women to their natal bands. This amendment would serve to allow for membership to be reinstated on a band list based on specific conditions. It would address reinstatement of membership for a group of individuals who were originally prevented from being reinstated based on oversight.Finally, the bill would amend outdated language, which is a small but important step. The offensive language regarding first nations peoples who require dependency on others would be amended. The offending definition of “mentally incompetent Indian” would be replaced with “dependent person”.Bill C-38 would address these cases, and it is estimated it would impact around 4,000 people. Many more would remain discriminated against.The Liberals had a chance to remove discrimination from the Indian Act once and for all. Bill C-15, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, became law in Canada. The Liberals had a chance to introduce that bill so that it would be in alignment with international law. Instead, they are introducing more piecemeal legislation. The past court challenges, Descheneaux v. Canada, McIvor v. Canada, and Matson v. Canada, make it clear. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples makes it clear. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group makes it clear. So many more make it clear. The Liberal government's pattern of reluctant piecemeal changes in response to litigation is unjust.There is no justification for Canada to ignore, and indeed infringe on, indigenous people's rights. Parliaments would debate again after the passage of Bill C-38 why it is not okay to keep disrespecting indigenous peoples and infringing on their rights.Two other major issues not addressed are the second-generation cut-off and the ability to seek reparations. The second-generation cut-off in section 6(2) is not addressed in Bill C-38. This is shocking, given how much attention has been paid to this section in past works. In its Bill S-3 review, the ministry of Indigenous Services Canada reported on it. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group in its works reported on it. The Senate committee on indigenous peoples reported on it. They all recommended to remove provisions related to the second-generation cut-off.If bands reject second-generation cut-off, it is because they are not being properly resourced by Indigenous Services Canada to meet the needs of their increasing membership.Section 6(2) is sexist, and it is problematic. Who a child's mother is, is usually readily apparent. Who the father is, is not always apparent. Whether the father acknowledges his paternity, and this can be counted as the second-status parent for purposes of eligibility for status, is essentially his decision. The two-parent rule continues Canada's program of forced assimilation. Maintenance of the two-parent rule would fulfill the genocidal intention of the Indian Act, getting rid of “the Indian problem”.Until this rule is amended, hundreds of thousands of indigenous people, mostly women and their descendants, will be discriminated against.First nations children were robbed of their mothers. First nations children continue to be robbed of their mothers. The current child welfare system continues to separate indigenous peoples from each other. The Liberals say they will consult on second-generation cut-off. Consultation should not be necessary. Discrimination is discrimination. No amount of consultation will result in the justification of it. The government must interpret the rule of law as adhering to international human rights laws and the charter.(1315)We are told by the Liberals that the public portion of this consultation will not begin until 2024. It will be much longer before legislation is drafted and presented before the House again. This tactic to delay is a denial of the rights of indigenous peoples. We should not have to wait for discriminatory provisions to be removed. There is no justification for discrimination to be allowed to continue.Another form of oppression is preventing indigenous peoples from seeking reparations. Bill C-38 includes specific clauses that will not allow victims of these policies to seek reparation for the discrimination they have experienced. First nations women and children will continue to be harmed, yet they will not be able to seek reparations, even if discrimination is found. In past bills, there were related provisions legislating that governments are not liable for harms done under the act. Persons are prevented from seeking claims against the government for discrimination caused by the implementation of the Indian Act.These injustices remain in Bill C-38. According to human rights laws, Canadians are allowed to seek reparations. Why can first nations not do so?Bill C-38 is a flawed proposal. While it addresses some injustices in the Indian Act, discrimination against first nations would continue. Bill C-38 continues the Liberal incremental approach to reconciliation.The Liberals' interpretation of Nicholas v. Canada is about status. Bill C-38 must not just be about status; it must be about addressing discrimination and violations of basic human rights. It must be about reconciliation. I ask this again: Why is it that when Canadians experience human rights violations, they are allowed to seek reparations, when first nations are not?I hope that Bill C-38 can be salvaged. I hope that, at committee, we hear from experts explaining why improvements must be sought to ensure that first nations' rights are on par with Canadian human rights.BacklogsC-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)Cultural assimilationDiscriminationFirst NationsGovernment billsGovernment compensationIndian RegisterIndigenous rightsMarriage and divorceNon-status IndiansPersons with disabilitiesPublic consultationSecond readingStatus IndiansWomen79642347964235796423779642547964255Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1720)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I would like to note that the member's party does not do a really great job with its promises for reconciliation. I am glad to see that this legislation talks about engaging indigenous peoples. This is great to see in this bill. One concern I do have is its terrible record of engaging or not engaging indigenous peoples, including recognizing collectives of peoples as indigenous when they are not. Because of that, I ask how the government will make sure that, when it is engaging with indigenous peoples, they are actually section 35 rights-holding indigenous peoples.Atlantic CanadaC-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsEnergy and fuelGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPublic consultationSecond reading79570567957057GeorgeChahalCalgary SkyviewGeorgeChahalCalgary Skyview//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110882GeorgeChahalGeorge-ChahalCalgary SkyviewLiberal CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChahalGeorge_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation ActInterventionMr. George Chahal: (1720)[English]Madam Speaker, that is an important question. An important part of the work we do is working with and alongside indigenous communities across Canada. Working with the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada, it is going to be at the forefront of the work that is done to consult and work alongside indigenous communities.Atlantic CanadaC-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsEnergy and fuelGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPublic consultationSecond reading7957058LoriIdloutNunavutElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais: (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report on indigenous rights and justice, entitled “Indigenous Lobby Day 2023”, by the Canadian Labour Congress. It calls for safe drinking water for indigenous communities, immediate action on missing and murdered indigenous persons and honouring residential school children and their families. I ask for the consent of the House to table this report.Indigenous rightsRequesting tabling of documents7939581GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusHon.Greg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsInterventionThe Speaker: (1545)[Translation]All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.Some hon. members: Nay.Decisions of the HouseIndigenous rightsRequesting tabling of documents79395827939583BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, I have to say I agreed with everything the parliamentary secretary said. Unfortunately, the only thing that makes the Liberal climate record look good is the complaining from the Conservatives suggesting that we should do nothing.I note that the parliamentary secretary is wearing an orange shirt for Orange Shirt Day and reconciliation. The government is pursuing the Trans Mountain pipeline, and a Crown corporation has broken a sacred promise to the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, changing its plans to go through the first nation's territory and destroy its most sacred area. The National Energy Board CER just made the decision to do what TMX wants and, yet again, violate UNDRIP. Could he comment on that?Carbon taxClean Fuel RegulationsCost of livingIndigenous rightsOil and gasOpposition motionsTrans Mountain pipeline79326367932637Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes]InterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden: (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague and friend is doing okay. I can hear in her voice that she is a little under the weather. I wish her a quick recovery.The member underscores it perfectly. I hope she does not mind it if I borrow her earlier idea that if one does not believe in climate change, one might not believe in gravity either. It is so important that we continue to stand up for what is right. That includes truth and reconciliation, climate action and justice across our country, three things that the Conservatives consistently seem not to care about.Carbon taxClean Fuel RegulationsCost of livingIndigenous rightsOil and gasOpposition motionsTrans Mountain pipeline79326387932639ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89300JonathanWilkinsonHon.Jonathan-WilkinsonNorth VancouverLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilkinsonJonathan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation ActInterventionHon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)(1025)[English] moved that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-49. Second reading He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to commence debate on Bill C-49 to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.I am here today to deliver on the Government of Canada's commitment to working in close collaboration with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia to establish firm foundations for a thriving offshore renewable energy sector in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. This legislation is an important part of our country's future as we work to fight climate change by reducing carbon emissions and seizing the economic opportunities that can come from a transition to a low-carbon future.Around the world, businesses large and small, and governments, are in a race to reduce carbon emissions and to seize the extraordinary economic opportunities associated with a low-carbon transition and, of course, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Global financial markets are playing a key role in this investment shift through their investment decisions. Successful businesses interpret and adapt to changes in the environment in which they operate. It is what their shareholders expect; it is what their employees depend upon.The science of climate change is clear. The major cause of increasingly severe and frequent weather events and wildfires is, of course, climate change. Similarly, the science is clear about what must be done to avert the worst impacts of climate change. As a global community, we need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and we need to make meaningful progress by 2030. We cannot get to net zero by 2050 if we begin our journey in 2040.[Translation]In 2019, Canada was one of the first countries to commit to achieving net zero by 2050, and we subsequently committed to meeting ambitious interim targets along the way.That was just four years ago. Today, 80 countries are committed to achieving net zero. Progress has been made both here in Canada and around the world, but we all need to do more. Commitments are meaningless unless they are backed up by plans and actions. That is why Canada has developed one of the most detailed and, I would even say, one of the most comprehensive climate plans in the world.Increasingly, governments are not the only ones taking action. Global financial markets are playing a crucial role in the transition to a low-carbon future through their investment decisions. The smart money, looking for long-term gains, is moving away from assets that will underperform in a low-carbon world.[English]Governments are certainly no different. To effectively serve their citizens, they must also respond to changing circumstances and then take decisive actions. The economic future of Canadians depends on our making the right choices to ensure that Canada will thrive in a low-carbon world. The good news is that Canada is very well positioned to take advantage of these opportunities. It is up to us as a country to make the smartest possible choices. Canada can choose to be a leader in this global economic shift or to let it pass us by. Going slowly and just hoping for the best is a choice, and a much riskier one; in fact, I believe it is a terrible gamble.There are really two paths we can take. The first path accepts that climate change is a scientific reality that we can and must address. It understands that the world at large is moving in that direction, creating a shift in investment and innovation. The first path calls for a thoughtful plan for the future that acknowledges where the world is and must be headed and that seeks to take full advantage of the economic opportunities that are available through the transition to a low-carbon economy.The second path starts with shrugging off the damage that climate change has already caused: the dramatic floods in our towns and cities, dried-up rivers, melting glaciers and the wildfires in our forests that folks here and across the country know very well. It pretends that climate concern is a fad that will fade and that we do not really need to do anything to keep our economy healthy for the long term. The second path presents, as I said, a terrible gamble that is effectively betting against the environmental imperatives that are all around us. It is one that would thus lead to both environmental and economic devastation.This federal government has chosen the first path. There are five key things that we must prioritize if we are to seize the historic opportunities and go down this path. First is identifying and seizing key economic opportunities in every region of the country, which are made available via the global shift to a net-zero economy. These opportunities are in areas from critical minerals to batteries and EV manufacturing, from hydrogen to biofuels, and from small modular reactors to renewable sources of energy and a wide range of clean technologies. Second is a thoughtful approach to Canada's oil and gas sector and its resources, for which there will continue to be demand, albeit less demand, in a net-zero world. Third is building out a clean, reliable and affordable electricity grid. Fourth is advancing economic reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Finally, we must make more efficient and effective our regulatory and permitting processes.(1030)Bill C-49 is about creating a clean electricity grid, seizing the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future and about the opportunities this entails for economic reconciliation with indigenous peoples.As part of our broader plan, we need to build more clean power, certainly a lot more. While we are focused on deploying clean energy to reduce electricity-sector emissions, we must also expand the total amount of power on the grid. As we electrify much of the transportation and building sectors with electric vehicles, heat pumps and other technologies, we will need new clean power to meet this rising demand.An abundant supply of clean energy is also at the core of accessing critical economic opportunities, like we have seen with Air Products in Alberta, Volkswagen in Ontario or Ford's new battery cathode facility in Bécancour. This all demands a decarbonized grid, but also a much larger grid. In fact, we will need to double, or increase by more, the size of our existing grid by 2050. Offshore wind offers opportunity for Atlantic Canada to not only feed the need for significant additional renewable energy for the electricity grid, but also would provide a major export opportunity associated with the production of zero-carbon hydrogen.Bill C-49 is a critical piece of legislation to enable our offshore power potential to be realized, not only to meet federal climate targets, but also to achieve provincial power and economic plans. Last fall, Nova Scotia set an offshore wind target with a goal of providing seabed land leases of up to five gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, with the intention of using most of that power to support the production of hydrogen that will be used in Canada or exported. That is enough energy to power 3,750,000 homes.Newfoundland and Labrador has high ambitions as well. During my last visit to St. John's for the Energy NL Conference, there was extensive interest from the private sector, workers and local levels of government in the opportunities presented by offshore renewables, including hydrogen production.With regard to the hydrogen opportunity, it is an economic opportunity for Canada. It is also an opportunity to help our friends in Europe in their efforts to enhance energy security and to accelerate the move toward a low-carbon future. It is something that we discussed when Chancellor Scholz and Vice-Chancellor Habeck visited us last year, and it is something on which we continue to work actively with our friends in Germany.Newfoundland's energy minister, Andrew Parsons, has said of Bill C-49 that he is “pleased that the federal government is moving forward legislative amendments to modernize the Accord Acts to enable new clean energy opportunities, grow the economy and protect the environment. This is consistent with [his] government's commitment to achieving net zero by 2050.”Nova Scotia's ministers Halman and Rushton said that we need “modern, forward-looking solutions to achieve [climate goals].” They stated that “Amending the federal Accord Act is an important step so that we can safely and responsibly pursue renewable energy projects like offshore wind.”Today, we are here to talk about a potential $1-trillion global industry, offshore wind. Canada must move rapidly to seize our share in this global economic opportunity. We know that we are in a race for investment, and that is why, in partnership with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, we have been working on this legislation while concurrently preparing for its implementation.(1035)[Translation]The proposed amendments to the accord acts are key factors in unlocking this potential. As we all know, the development of major projects requires a stable, predictable and credible legislative and regulatory framework, as well as oversight provided by a predictable and credible regulatory authority. We have both.We have the accord acts, and we have the offshore regulators that are the result of enduring federal and provincial partnerships that have existed for more than three decades. The two historic Atlantic accords were signed in the mid-1980s, first between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, then between Canada and Nova Scotia. These are historic accords that laid the foundations for the current system of joint management of the offshore accords. Under these historic accords, both provinces became equal partners with Canada in managing offshore energy, with revenues going to the provinces.[English]They also established two autonomous boards that were tasked with regulating offshore oil and gas projects. Through this bill we would expand their mandate to include the regulation of offshore renewable energy. The boards are already well accustomed to interpreting offshore energy legislation and enforcing standards that each project will be expected to meet.It is time to look to the future and move forward with these important amendments. The accord acts are informed by years of engagement and collaboration with our joint management partners, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. There are several things these amendments would do. First, they would modernize parts of the land tenure process for existing offshore activities to better align with the international best practices and keep pace with emerging technologies. Second, they would leverage the boards wealth of expertise and modernize the accord acts so that the boards can take on the important responsibility of regulating Nova Scotia's and Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore renewable energy projects, very much including wind projects. This would allow the boards to implement and administer the proposed legislative frameworks around offshore renewables and ensure that best practices around land rights management are adopted specifically around land use planning, bidding processes, issuing licences for seabed use and providing authorizations for the development of offshore renewable projects. The amendments would ensure that the accord acts align with the Impact Assessment Act, ensuring that the roles and responsibilities of regulators and the Impact Assessment Agency are further clarified for all parties and stakeholders. Also, with regard to the government's duty to consult with indigenous peoples, the amendments specify that the government would be able to rely on the offshore energy boards to consult with indigenous peoples and make accommodations to mitigate any adverse impacts to treaty rights and aboriginal rights. This legislation is a critical part of Canada's ongoing work in the fight against climate change and it aligns with the actions taken by some of our peer countries. Several countries have taken the step of creating or broadening the authorities of existing offshore energy regulators. This is true for the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway and Australia.Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are working to fight climate change and to seize the economic opportunities that can come from a transition to a low-carbon future. They are promoting the use of low-cost and low-carbon electric heat by the installation of heat pumps. They have joined with the Government of Canada on the Regional Energy and Resource Tables to ensure they are well placed to capitalize on economic opportunities, and they are initiating new, innovative, renewable energy projects. They are part of a push that is happening across the country to encourage renewable energy and clean fuels as well as create a thriving energy economy. As I mentioned off the top, there is an alternative to our plan for the future. This is what I referred to earlier as the “second path”, which is one of hoping for the best. In my mind, this path ignores the very clear evidence as to how climate change is undermining the health and safety of people and of the planet. Burying one's head in the sand will lead to environmental devastation and economic stagnation as the world, very much including global investors, simply looks elsewhere. Some in this country will try to tell us that one can fight climate change by simply relying on technology. I know that the Conservative leader is often fond of using the tag line “technology, not taxes”, by which he seems to imply that we can simply hope on technology to save us. However, I will tell members that is not a plan. That is a blind hope that comes from someone who has no background in technology, no background in energy and no background in climate issues. I certainly am very well aware, given the time I spent in the technology industry, of the power of technology, but technology is not a climate plan nor is it a plan for the economy. A true plan requires thoughtful regulation, thoughtful investments and, yes, a price on carbon pollution. This “hope for the best” approach will lead the Canadian economy down a path to obsolescence and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Canada's energy sector. Such an approach would create uncertainty and dissuade investment from coming to Canada, which is, of course, the opposite of what we need. Simple tag lines in place of serious policy do not serve Canadians well, which is why we are here today with serious policy that would create good jobs, fight climate change and unlock the full economic potential of the offshore. Certainly, passing Bill C-49 would allow Canada to compete with our peer countries to seize our share of a massive global market opportunity. On the other hand, opposition to this bill would hold back our potential, prevent job creation in Atlantic Canada and send the wrong message to Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we act in the best interests of the economic and environmental well-being of Atlantic Canadians by supporting Bill C-49. I sincerely hope that no one in this House will decide to go down the wrong path instead of working together to pass this legislation to bring our offshore into being.In conclusion, all of these changes make sense. Offshore wind energy can and will contribute to this government's goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. It is a key part of decarbonizing the electricity sector and transitioning our economy towards electrical power, establishing our hydrogen sector and providing new, sustainable jobs in the offshore energy sector. I am confident that this bill is and will be a critical element and a key driver to achieving the future we all envision in this House, one that is sustainable, affordable and prosperous for all Canadians.Atlantic CanadaC-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCarbon neutralityClimate change and global warmingEnergy and fuelEnvironmental assessmentFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesHydroelectric powerHydrogenIndigenous rightsNatural disastersOffshore technologyRegulationRenewable energy and fuelScience and technologySecond readingWind energy7920857CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation ActInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1050)[English]Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Lakeland, and Canadians everywhere, who want life to be more affordable, and also want energy and food security, which is the most important economic and geopolitical question facing the free world.Unfortunately, Bill C-49 is another step in a long line of Liberal laws and policies since 2015 that appears destined to drive investment out of Canada with more uncertainty, red tape and extended and costly timelines.Hopefully, this time the Liberals will actually listen to cautions and analysis during debate and committee consideration to prevent the rather ridiculous current spectacle they are now caught in, claiming to want to reduce permitting and regulatory timelines even though they have been in government for eight years, and are actually talking about the extra red tape, confusion and potentially endless timelines they themselves imposed through Bill C-69, which Conservatives and then municipalities, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents, and all provinces and territories did warn about at the time. As always, the Liberals figured they knew best, and they sure did create a heck of a broken mess.Ostensibly, the bill would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to become the regulators and add offshore renewables to their mandates, while creating a regulatory regime for offshore, wind and other renewable energy projects that currently exist for offshore petroleum operations.It is a reasonable and necessary initiative, and Conservatives are glad to see the inclusion of the provincial governments as required partners in final decisions on this joint jurisdiction. I might note that is a principle the Liberals often abandon when it comes to other provincial governments with which they disagree. However, it is both unfortunately and unsurprisingly clear that Bill C-49 would also subject offshore renewable energy to the same web of uncertain regulations, long and costly timelines and political decision-making that has driven hundreds of billions of dollars in private sector energy investment, hundreds of businesses and hundreds of thousands of energy jobs out of Canada and into other jurisdictions around the world.Bill C-49 also includes provisions that could impose a full shutdown and ban on offshore oil and gas development at any time. That is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland's key industries, risks undermining the rights of indigenous communities and local communities to meaningful consultation, and ignores the work and aspirations of other locally impacted communities and residents. The Liberals have already threatened offshore activity in Newfoundland and Labrador with a minister saying that the decision on Baie du Nord was the most difficult one they had ever made. Baie du Nord would have provided more than 13,000 jobs overall; $97.6 billion in national GDP; $82 billion in provincial GDP, more than 8,900 jobs, $11 billion in taxes and $12.8 billion in royalty revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador; $7.2 billion in GDP and more than 2,200 jobs for Ontario; $2.6 billion and more than 900 jobs for Quebec; $3.1 billion in GDP and almost 700 jobs for Albertan. Like the usual pattern under the government, the private sector proponent has put that project on hold for three years because of uncertainty.As written, the bill has many gaps. The Liberals must clarify, sooner than later, a number of practical implications. For example, will the offshore boards need more resources for technical expertise or personnel, or more funding to fulfill the additional responsibilities? If so, who will pay for it? What is a realistic expectation of when the regulators would be fully ready for the work outside of their current scope? What about the responsibility for health and safety regulations for renewable energy projects at sea, which are currently the job of the respective offshore boards on offshore rigs and under the department of labour on land? These obligations should be clearly defined jurisdictionally in the bill.What about environmental considerations relating to offshore renewable projects? The boards, the truth is, currently have no experience in activities around wind, tidal and other sea-based energies that may disrupt ecosystems and seaweed growth; harm sea birds, whales, fish stock, lobster stock; or interfere with organisms that live on the sea bed, like anemones, corals, crabs, sea urchins and sponges. What provisions are needed for the regulators to adequately assess risks to key habitat and vulnerable species?(1055)I cannot imagine, nor would I ever suggest, that the NDP-Liberals will add upstream emission requirements as a condition for such approvals, like it did, along with downstream emissions, in a double standard deliberately designed to kill the west to east pipeline that could have created energy self-security and self-sufficiency for Canada, by refining and exporting western resources on the Atlantic Canadian coast for export. European allies and Ukrainians definitely would appreciate that. However, it would certainly be a significant hurdle if they did, given what is really involved in the manufacturing of steel and concrete for offshore renewable projects, which create a lot of hazardous waste on the back end, for example. If the Liberals actually cared about the cumulative impacts, like they always say they do, they would clarify all of that in this bill also. The Liberals must account for these considerations. At this point, after eight years, Canadians should be skeptical if the government says that it will work out the details later or in regulations after the fact. That has always been a disaster under those guys, no matter the issue.On top of these unanswered questions, the reality is that the bill would triple the timeline for a final decision on alternative energy projects and would give political decision-makers the ability to extend that timeline potentially indefinitely. If this all sounds familiar, a lack of details on crucial issues, uncertainty around roles, responsibilities or requirement, and timelines that actually have so many loopholes for interference that no concrete timelines really exist at all, that is because it is. This is what the Liberals did in Bill C-69, which the Conservatives warned would help prevent any major pipeline projects from being approved or even proposed in Canada since it passed in 2019. It has become a gatekeeping roadblock to private sector proponents in all areas of resource development and the pursuit of major projects in Canada.The reality is that companies will not invest billions in building energy infrastructure in Canada's uncertain fiscal and regulatory framework, where excessive and duplicative red tape means there is no consistency or certainty in the assessment process, no clear rules or a path to completion, and no guaranteed return on investment, which can all be lost at the whim of a government minister's unilateral decision. As much as the Liberals wish it were true, alternative energy projects are not in a separate magical category from oil and gas, where they are somehow immune from these basic economic and fiscal considerations, except for those publicly funded through subsidies or paid for by utility ratepayers, definitely a significant proportion of renewable and alternative energy to date, especially outside of Alberta, where it is done by the private sector primarily. The fiscal and regulatory framework is a crucial and definitive aspect of what private sector proponents politely call the “lack of a business case” every time a major project is halted or abandoned after years and millions of dollars of working toward it, usually moving their focus and tragically their money, jobs, innovation, initiative, creativity and expertise to other countries. The Liberals have already created these same adverse conditions for wind, solar and tidal as well. Let us take the Pempa'q tidal energy project in the Bay of Fundy. It would have provided clean, green energy to Nova Scotia's electrical grid and could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts, while bringing in $100 million in investment and significantly reducing emissions. However, after repeated delays, a tide of Liberal red tape and “Five years of insurmountable regulatory challenges” the proponent withdrew, and it folded. Sustainable Marine was not the only victim of multiple layers of red tape that involved departments. Other renewable projects, like a pulp mill that would have created biodegradable plastics from their waste stream, left Canada because the Liberals told the proponents that the approval phase under their gatekeepers would take 20 years.The bottom line is that energy companies, like any company, need certainty to invest, whether in the oil sands, natural gas, critical minerals, pipelines, hydrogen, petrochemicals, wind or solar farms or hydroelectricity. Proponents need concrete timelines, consistent, well-defined and predictable regulatory measures. They need to be confident that a government will respect jurisdictional responsibilities, be willing to enforce the rule of law and take action if necessary for projects after approval so proponents can know that if they follow the rules, meet the conditions and act in good faith, they will be successful.Companies and the regulators also need to account for possible risks posed to local activities, most notably the impacts of offshore wind development and other technologies on the livelihoods of Atlantic fishers and lobstermen.(1100)In this case, all impacted parties need to be involved in the consultation process from the get-go. Unfortunately, the Liberal's Bill C-49 creates the opposite for both alternative energy sources and offshore oil and gas. When it comes to crafting anti-energy legislation, the Liberals, with their NDP power broking coalition, just cannot seem to help themselves. Sections 28 and 137 of this bill give the government the power, as I mentioned before, to completely end any current offshore drilling for oil and gas, as well as any offshore alternative energy development. Obviously, that is an immediate threat to the sector because of the uncertainty, even for existing operations, and it risks any future projects in these provinces by designating prohibited development areas.Notably, the bill states that any activity may be suspended in those areas. That obviously includes offshore petroleum drilling and exploration, but the language could also include offshore wind and other alternative energy development. One thing that is predictable is this pattern because it is similar to a previous Liberal bill, Bill C-55, which allowed a government minister to unilaterally designate any marine area in Canada as a prohibited development zone.The Liberals must answer whether their increasing targets and the language in Bill C-49 would cancel and/or prohibit both traditional and renewable energy projects if located in those areas. What are the restrictions? How could developers make investment decisions if the areas where they operate may suddenly be declared prohibited?The Liberals are so comfortable with their nearly decade-long pattern of piling on layers of anti-energy, anti-development and anti-private sector laws, policies and taxes on Canada's key sectors that they hinder both traditional sources of energy, which they recklessly want to phase out prematurely, and stand in the way of the renewable and new technologies they purport to want.This discussion cannot be removed from the context of Canada still operating, or rather more accurately not operating, under the rules and red tape the NDP-Liberal government imported into this bill.Bill C-69 completely erased the concept of having any timelines for approving energy infrastructure, and instead allowed for limitless and indefinite extensions of regulatory timelines, as we warned. Unfortunately, this just creates a swath of potential maybes on project applications because of the potential for suspensions and delays, and the uncertainty about measures for applications and outcomes.With Bill C-69, as many Canadians said at the time, the Liberals might as well have hung a sign in the window that said, “Canada is closed for business”. What is clear, and should be stunningly and frankly, through this total travesty, clear to all Canadians by now, is that clear timelines and requirements, as well as predictable rules and responsibilities, provide certainty for private sector proponents, which benefits the whole country.After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canada ranks 31st among peers in the burden of regulations, as of 2018, and is less than half as competitive as the OECD average in administrative burdens on energy project start-ups. Canada is second-last in the OECD for construction permits, only ahead of Slovakia, and 64th in the world for building permits.The Liberals touted creating certainty and predictability for energy companies with clear rules and regulations to follow, but the actual bill created a massive new web of poorly defined criteria for companies and gave cabinet ministers the power to add any criteria to the list that they wanted at any time. There is no predictability or consistency. Bill C-49 is an extension of that pattern.Another concerning part is the provisions that specify the regulators in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as the parties responsible for indigenous consultation for offshore oil and gas and affordable energy projects. I must say that Conservatives believe in greater authority and autonomy for provinces to govern their own affairs. We want less Ottawa. Conservatives believe in smaller governments and a shift of power to individuals and local communities. The many indigenous communities where I am from, and those from across the country, who are reliant on and depend upon traditional and alternative energy development, all say the same thing.(1105)However, I want to caution the NDP-Liberals that this section may invite court challenges if it is not clarified, which would create even more costly delays in an already drawn-out and unpredictable process. Through years of extensive legal challenges, precedent and judicial decisions on major energy infrastructure, courts have emphasized that it is the Crown's duty to consult indigenous people and that a failure on the part of the government to ensure a two-way dialogue, and that actual decision-makers are at the table during the consultation process, is what has overturned approval decisions.That was the case with the Liberals' approval of the Trans Mountain expansion under their own process. Indigenous consultation was overturned and the minister had to spend months meeting with indigenous communities to redo it. Of course, they could have also done that with the northern gateway pipeline before that, and they would have saved everyone time and money later on with TMX. Instead, the Prime Minister vetoed northern gateway, blocking exports from the west coast to countries in Asia that desperately need our energy and killing all of the equity and mutual benefit agreements for the 31 indigenous communities along the pipeline that supported it, but I digress.As currently drafted, this bill explicitly delegates the regulators as responsible for indigenous consultation. It is silent on the Crown's particular duty to consult, and it also shifts the power of final decision-making to federal and provincial government ministers.On top of the fact that indigenous leaders often consider a federal minister specifically as the appropriate decision-maker to engage with them, if current or future governments rely too much or exclusively on the regulators for all assessments not captured by the Impact Assessment Act's consultation process, as is suggested in this bill, this section risks court challenges to proposed and approved projects in the long run and jeopardizes future offshore renewable and petroleum projects.The impact of the uncertainty created by the Liberal government cannot be overstated. It takes Canada out of the global competition for energy development, punishing the best in class, and cedes market shares to dictators and regimes with far lower environmental and human rights standards. It costs Canada billions of dollars in investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it robs Canadians and Canada's free and democratic allies of many irreplaceable opportunities, of energy security and of hope for the future.I believe the impact on provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia deserves special attention. Anyone who has worked in Alberta's oil patch has no doubt worked together with many Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians. Certainly, that is where my own family came from. My mother was from Newfoundland. My father was from Nova Scotia. My grandmother was the first female mayor of Dartmouth, and I am a first generation Albertan.My own constituents have been hit hard by the hostile, divisive NDP-Liberal government. Other than the people of Saskatchewan, our neighbours who are often interchangeable citizens based on the free enterprise policies of our respective provincial governments at any given time, the people most concerned about the damage done to Alberta are consistently Atlantic Canadians.I wish that more of our neighbours could hear directly from Atlantic Canadians, who are always effusive in their reverence for Alberta and our main industries. Atlantic Canadians share with Albertans a feeling of distance and neglect from Ottawa. They are concerned about the exact same consequences of NDP-Liberal policies, and the skyrocketing costs of living, as well as those of fuel and food prices. They are being forced to choose between heating and eating, and they are concerned about a reliance on energy sources, for which there are few affordable or immediate options. They are worried about how to make ends meet and are wanting to hope for the future.Thousands of people from Atlantic Canada, every year, come to Alberta to support their families and communities through the array of diverse opportunities offered by Alberta's globally renowned energy and renewable energy sectors. Alberta has steady work and high-paying, quality jobs that contribute revenue to all three levels of government for the public services and programs that Canadians rely on.That impact was unprecedented. In 2014, for example, nine out of every 10 full-time jobs created in Canada were created in Alberta, and every job in the oil sands creates two indirect and three induced jobs at home and in other regions and provinces.While public enemy number one for the NDP-Liberal anti-energy and anti-private sector policies during the last eight years has been Alberta, the truth is that the costly coalition's approach hurts the whole country, especially Atlantic Canadians.While Albertans and Atlantic Canadians are inextricably linked and have helped to build each other's provinces, there is always a human cost to having to move away for work. Generations of parents, grandparents and great-grandparents spent a hundred years working hard to build lives, businesses, farms and futures for their kids. Now their children and their grandchildren are being forced to seek out opportunities elsewhere.Legacies left behind is the very real generational impact of anti-development and anti-resource policies. Conservatives, in conclusion, want to see the same opportunities. We want to see the same high-paying, quality jobs for people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as there are for those in Alberta and for every Canadian.Conservatives want families to be able to stay together, parents to be able to see their kids, cousins to know each other and people to be able to build upon legacies secured by generations before them.Atlantic CanadaBacklogsBay du Nord ProjectBureaucracyC-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsDrilling platformsEnergy and fuelEnvironmental assessmentFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFisheries and fishersGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsInvestmentLabour forceMarine protected areasOffshore technologyOil and gasPipeline transportationProvincial jurisdictionPublic consultationRegulationRenewable energy and fuelSecond reading7920901JonathanWilkinsonHon.North VancouverMarcSerréNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105918PatrickWeilerPatrick-WeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WeilerPatrick_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, today on National Indigenous Peoples Day, we recognize and celebrate the important contributions of indigenous peoples to our country, as well as the diverse culture, language and heritage of indigenous peoples.In my riding, I think of the work of the Lil'wat Nation to restore language to their education programs, the shíshálh Nation becoming the first self-governing nation in Canada and obtaining justice for day scholars, and the transformative developments of the Squamish Nation with the Senakw housing development, done in a way that highlights their heritage.While much work has been done on the road to reconciliation, much remains to be done together. Can the Prime Minister please update this House on the forthcoming release of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan?Indigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan788436078843617884362JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his hard work.Today, on National Indigenous Peoples Day, we released our action plan to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, developed in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis. The Conservative leader voted against that bill and associated himself with those who deny the realities of residential schools.Canada cannot go backwards. We must always choose to confront the truth and strive to right these wrongs.Indigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan788436378843647884365PatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryBlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton Griesbach//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Early Learning and Child Care ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (2130)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to appear this evening from my home riding in Nunavut. I am pleased to submit that the NDP supports passing Bill C-35. The NDP has, for a long time, fought for a national child care program that is enshrined in legislation.Before I get to the main aspects of my speech, I highlight and thank the MP for Winnipeg Centre for her great work, the MP for London—Fanshawe for the work she did on Bill C-311 in the 43rd Parliament and Olivia Chow for her work, in the 40th Parliament, on Bill C-373.New Democrats truly believe that every parent across Canada deserves access to affordable, high-quality child care wherever they live in Canada. That is why passing Bill C-35 is so important.My intervention tonight will focus on three areas at this stage of the bill. First, I will speak to some of the content of the bill. Second, I will highlight the inclusion of international instruments in Bill C-35 and the importance of acknowledging indigenous laws in implementing these important instruments. Finally, I will address some of the disinformation that has been shared by other members in the House.The content of Bill C-35 is important because it would set out a vision for the creation of a national early learning and child care system. It would ensure that there are principles that guide federal investments. These are important as they will show the willingness of this Parliament to invest in children, as they truly are the future and we must do what we can to keep it secured.Bill C-35 would establish a national advisory council on early learning and child care. This is such an important measure to ensure that policy-making and advocacy would come from experts in the field. It is truly my hope that the composition of this council would include indigenous peoples in Canada.It is great to hear at this stage that Bill C-35 has been improved in some areas through the work of the HUMA committee One such area is the strengthening of reporting requirements, specifically in areas where the minister responsible must report to Parliament. Another is to recognize that working conditions affect the provision of child care programs, and, as such, improvements were made regarding working conditions in this area.International instruments and indigenous laws are also important. I turn now to the incredibly great work that my NDP colleague, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, was able to do in ensuring that indigenous rights are protected and that international instruments are included in Bill C-35. Specifically, I outline the important inclusion of recognizing the rights established in both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These are meant to have Canada acknowledge Canada's international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.Finally, I highlight the prominent place for indigenous peoples to have free, prior and informed consent on matters pertaining to children. With June being National Indigenous History Month, I take every opportunity I can to make interventions that include indigenous history. What implementing the international instruments could look like is recognizing the existence of indigenous laws surrounding the raising of children. For example, in Inuit laws, there are three areas of laws that govern Inuit. I thank Jarich Oosten, Frédéric Laugrand and Willem Rasing for editing the book entitled Inuit Laws. The content of this book is based on interviews with Inuit elders: Mariano Aupilaarjuk, Marie Tulimaaq, Akisu Joamie, Émile Imaruittuq and Lucassie Nutaraaluk. I honour their great knowledge and their sharing it for us to use. What a privilege it is to share these names in the House.(2135) The laws described in this book are piqujait, maligait and tirigusuusiit. I describe the first two for this speech. As I stated earlier this month, these categories govern our behaviours and our relationships to each other and to wildlife and the environment.Piqujait, translated into English, means “behaviours that must be done as directed by a person of authority”. An example is piqujait from parents to children. In today's society, piqujait can also be used by child care workers when they are taking care of children in day care settings.Maligait is translated into English as “those that must be followed”. These differ from piqujait because they focus on the obligation to obey. A maligait in this system could be used to establish policies, regulations and instruments that could guide decision-making.I look forward to learning, in my role as indigenous critic, more about indigenous laws held by first nations and Métis so that I may speak to them. Even better, it would be great to see more first nations, Métis and Inuit across Canada taking up the challenge of representing their peoples in the House. I encourage more indigenous people to consider running in the next federal election so we can continue to make laws that reflect our existence.Finally, in addressing the disinformation that has been shared by other members in the House, I will talk about what has been shared mainly by Conservative members. I hope to remind Canadians of some of these issues. As I have outlined in my speech, Bill C-35 is not just about existing agreements; it is about much more than that. Conservatives have shared that Bill C-35 would not provide supports to parents to get access to child care. The Conservatives, at HUMA, introduced amendments to remove prioritization of non-profit and public child care. They argued that prioritizing these groups makes it unfair to for-profit child care businesses. This is entirely untrue. Prioritization is not elimination; prioritization is giving equity-seeking groups extra supports they have been excluded from for years. Including prioritization of non-profit and public child care would ensure that children get a more full spectrum of child care in Canada.In support of these arguments, I highlight two testimonies that were shared at HUMA in studying Bill C-35. The first is from Pierre Fortin, an emeritus professor of economics, who said, “There is no way to escape the conclusion that private markets for child care have, unfortunately, been a quality failure. I'm saying ‘unfortunately’ because I have defended private market solutions throughout my career, but a fact is a fact.” Second, I quote Morna Ballantyne, executive director of Child Care Now, who said, “Federal public funds should be directed to expanding the provision of high-quality early learning and child care, not to expanding opportunities to make private profit or to increasing the equity of privately held real estate and other business assets.”In conclusion, I am very excited to support Bill C-35. It gives me hope that children and parents will be better supported. With the passing of Bill C-35, decision-making would be founded on human rights and indigenous rights. Accountability and transparency would be monitored by a national council composed of experts from the field. This bill would indeed help ensure working conditions for child care workers.Qujannamiik from Iqaluit. My thoughts are with the many Canadians experiencing the forest fires across Canada.Advisory bodiesC-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in CanadaCare for childrenChildrenGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child CarePrivate sectorReport stageSubsidized day care7834750LeahTaylor RoyAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillMarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Early Learning and Child Care ActInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (2145)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-35 and will support the bill at third reading, even though it finds the bill to be ambiguous. The bill does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, which clearly states that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction. Although the bill states that the provinces will be able to certify child care services and determine the applicable criteria, it also states that every government in Canada will have to comply with the principles set out in the multilateral early learning and child care framework.This framework is full of good intentions and fine principles, but it is based on the federal government's supposed spending power, which Quebec does not consider legitimate or legal. One thing is clear: This bill was not tabled in the right Parliament.I will first go into more detail about why we will nevertheless vote in favour of the bill. Then I will explain the Quebec exception and end my speech with an historical overview.First, the bill excludes Quebec from this federalization of family policy for the next five years. In fact, the Government of Quebec will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of this centralist policy. In that sense, the bill respects the will of Quebec not to have the government interfere in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is a pioneer in child care services and a model of success, to boot.Nevertheless, unlike Bill C‑303, the predecessor to this bill, the current version does not contain any wording on exempting Quebec. Indeed, Bill C‑303 stated the following:4. Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to the education and development of children in Quebec society, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and, notwithstanding any such decision, shall receive the full transfer payment that would otherwise be paid under section 5.The agreement concluded with the Quebec government spans a period of five years. Enshrining Quebec's full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Quebec and Ottawa in case the federal government ever wants to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions as it does so well.Passing this bill would also enable Quebec to recover significant amounts that could be used to reinforce its network and improve working conditions for workers in the sector.By allowing Quebec to withdraw with full compensation, Bill C-35 takes into account these two opposing trends in federal-provincial relations. That sort of consideration is rare at the federal level.Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as the guarantor of social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. Quebec rejects that type of interference. It would be interesting if Bill C-35 were consistent with the previous version in recognizing that the Quebec government's child care expertise is unique in North America. In fact, the international community acknowledged that in 2003.The OECD, in its study of child care in Canada at the time, mentioned the following:[It is] important to underline…The extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America....none of these provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families....In short, to come back to Bill C-35, public officials said that the bill was drafted with respect for the provincial and territorial jurisdictions and indigenous rights.They also stated that the bill did not impose any conditions on other levels of government. That was the main concern of some provincial governments during the consultation process. Any provision seeking to ensure that the provinces shoulder their share of the agreement would be part of the individual bilateral agreements signed with each province and territory, agreements that must be renegotiated every five years, as I mentioned previously.Here are some interesting figures to think about. Access to low-cost regulated child care could lead to the addition of 240,000 workers to the Canadian labour market and a 1.2% increase in the GDP over 20 years. In Quebec, the money would also serve to strengthen the existing network of early childhood education services, which is grappling with a shortage of teachers.After the committee completed its work, it became clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected. (2150)Throughout the study, Quebec was cited as a model. It may not be perfect, but the Quebec model was cited on numerous occasions as being a model to emulate. However, at the amendment stage, when the time came to recognize Quebec's expertise in the bill, we saw the three other parties dismiss this reality out of hand. The same thing happened to our amendments giving Quebec the option of completely withdrawing from the federal program with full financial compensation. The only place the other members were even remotely willing to mention Quebec's expertise was the preamble, which is the only place where those words would ultimately have no concrete effect on the bill.Although Quebec does not get the option of completely withdrawing from this program with full compensation, an agreement to that effect had already been concluded between Ottawa and Quebec. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind. The members of the Liberal government who spoke to the bill also mentioned several times that the Liberals intended to keep working with Quebec on this file. The current agreement also pleased Quebec since it did not interfere with any jurisdiction and gave the Quebec government total freedom to spend the money in whatever sectors it wanted.Third, let us rewind to 2022, when Quebec celebrated 25 years of the family policy. On January 23, 1997, Quebec's family policy was unveiled by education minister Pauline Marois on behalf of the Parti Québécois government. It was a visionary policy that reflected the changing face of Quebec, including the increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, the growing presence of women in the workforce and the troubling rise in job insecurity. This forward-thinking policy has allowed Quebeckers to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance and more generous maternity leave and parental leave, and it has extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers or workers with atypical schedules.This model is an asset. It is a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation, as studies show that every dollar invested in early childhood yields about $1.75 in tax revenues, and that every dollar invested in health and in early childhood saves up to $9 in social health and legal services. Early childhood education services have also been a giant step ahead for education in Quebec. They help improve children's chances of success and keep students from dropping out. They have a positive effect on early childhood development, help identify adaptive and learning difficulties early on, and ensure greater equality of opportunities for every young Quebecker, regardless of sex, ethnic origin or social class.In conclusion, we also believe that a true family policy is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Parental leave, income support and child care networks must be integrated into a coherent whole. In our opinion, to be efficient, this network and all these family policies must be the responsibility of the Government of Quebec alone. The Constitution clearly indicates that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction.One last thing: As the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has noted in more than one report, including the report on intimate partner violence I spoke about earlier in connection with another bill, by providing quality day care that is affordable and accessible to all, we are providing women with an opportunity to fulfill their professional ambitions without compromising their family responsibilities.What is more, this bill seeks to enhance day care services by providing a safe and protective environment for young children and especially for mothers who are seeking to escape intimate partner violence. What we in the Bloc Québécois are saying is, let us do this with respect for the expertise, but above all, for Quebec's jurisdiction. We will be voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑35.I will end with an interesting economic fact. According to the work of Pierre Fortin, Luc Godbout and Suzie St‑Cerny, between 1998 and 2015, with Quebec's child care services taking care of all these young children, mothers' labour force participation rate increased from 66% to 79%. We implemented this feminist measure. Yes, early childhood education is a feminist policy that made it possible for women to return to the labour market, to become emancipated and to provide equal opportunities for young children.C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in CanadaCare for childrenDomestic violenceFederal-provincial-territorial fiscal arrangementsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsIndigenous rightsLabour forceOpting out provisionProvince of QuebecProvincial jurisdictionReport stageSocial policyStatus of womenSubsidized day careWomen7834788LoriIdloutNunavutGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.): (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I also want to acknowledge the impact colonial practices have had on indigenous peoples, from overincarceration to overrepresentation in foster care and missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. Today, we begin third reading on Bill C-21, a bill that has been greatly improved through consultation with Canadians and indigenous peoples and in co-operation with the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. I wish more Canadians watched what happens at committee. It has been my experience throughout my time in this place that legislation has been improved at committee, and Bill C-21 is no exception. The bill we have before us today reflects that work.Before talking about the bill itself, I would like to talk about some of those changes. The member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia is an exceptional parliamentarian, and I have had the pleasure of working with her for three and a half years now. She introduced important amendments, including the requirement for a possession and acquisition licence, or PAL, to purchase, transport and export or import cartridge magazines. This was an ask made by a number of stakeholders, but none more loudly or more courageously than the Danforth Families for Safe Communities.Their story is tragic and well known, but we all know that the gun used that night on Danforth Avenue was a legally imported handgun that had later been stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan. The Danforth shooter then walked into a sporting goods store and legally bought seven magazines for his gun, with no questions asked, simply because a PAL was not required for him to buy them. That will no longer be possible now that these amendments have been adopted and once the bill becomes law. Let us think about that. Prior to these amendments, people did not have to prove that they had licences to purchase and own firearms in order to buy the thing that literally holds the bullets. That changes now. This major amendment was passed unanimously. To be clear, it will not affect those licensed to carry a firearm. It will ensure that those who are not licensed to possess a firearm cannot legally buy cartridge magazines. Requiring gun owners to show their licences to purchase magazines just makes sense. People do not need magazines if they do not have licences to own a gun. We also heard from the airsoft industry that the bill went too far and that the industry was willing to work with the government to regulate its sport. An amendment initiated by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford passed, so the clause deeming airsoft guns to be prohibited devices was removed from the bill. Thanks go to the airsoft community for working productively with our government to find a compromise that would ensure public safety is upheld while allowing the sport to be regulated. Gun control is a women’s issue. The Canadian Women's Foundation notes that the presence of firearms in Canadian households is the single greatest risk factor for the lethality of intimate partner violence. Access to a firearm increases the likelihood of femicide by 500%. The Ontario coroner's death review panel said that 26% of women who were killed by their partner were killed using a firearm. I have heard from such groups as the Lethbridge YWCA, which told me that every single woman who came to its shelter had been threatened by a partner with a firearm. They are among the nearly 2,500 women victimized in this way over the last five years. Intimate partner violence accounts for nearly 30% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada, and that number rose during the pandemic. In my riding and across the country, such local organizations as Halton Women's Place are helping to shine a brighter light on the dangers of gun violence.Over the last eight years, as a country, we have also become more aware of the role that coercive control plays in abusive relationships. When firearms are added to the mix, it is a recipe for continued physical, emotional and psychological abuse. In coercive control, a man might use a gun to control a woman without ever pulling the trigger. Such control is real, and it happens every day. An Oakville resident sent me a note that stated, “Let me just say that you can endure the physical and emotional abuse, but when he pulls out a double-barrelled shotgun, loads it and tells you he is going to kill you, then you know true terror. Thank you for looking out for the victims before they become statistics.”(1645)Our government has been advocating for women and will continue to do so. Through Bill C-21, we are taking additional steps to support survivors of intimate partner violence who have been threatened with or who have been on the receiving end of violence with a firearm.The Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party and Green Party all put forward amendments to strengthen the intimate partner violence provisions of Bill C-21. The National Association for Women and the Law tweeted on Monday that they were “pleased that virtually all the amendments [they] proposed were adopted, some unanimously!” These amendments will make women safer.During the clause-by-clause process, we included an amendment to further define a protection order. A protection order:...is intended to include any binding order made by a court or other competent authority in the interest of the safety or security of a person; this includes but is not limited to orders that prohibit a person from: (a) being in physical proximity to an identified person or following an identified person from place to place; (b) communicating with an identified person, either directly or indirectly; (c) being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place; (d) engaging in harassing or threatening conduct directed at an identified person; (e) occupying a family home or a residence; or (f) engaging in family violence.Protection orders are imperative to keep women safe. By setting minimum standards in the bill, people who have been subject to a protection order will now be ineligible to hold a firearms licence. We know that when a woman leaves an abusive partner, the first day is the most dangerous and violent. That is why there is an amendment to ensure that firearms are removed within 24 hours.I thank the National Association of Women and the Law for their leadership on these amendments. Because of these changes in the bill, we will save women’s lives.I am particularly pleased that the red-flag provision of the bill remains, ensuring that those concerned about a firearms owner being a danger to themselves or others can now apply to a judge for an order to immediately remove firearms from an individual who may present such a danger. Dr. Najma Ahmed from Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns stated this:We support the proposed “red flag” law. Family members, physicians and concerned individuals must have access to an efficient process to quickly have firearms removed from someone who may be at risk to themselves or others.In Canada, suicide accounts for about 75% of gun deaths. A gun in the home increases adolescent suicide rates by threefold to fourfold. Evidence from other jurisdictions shows that “red flag” laws are effective in reducing firearm suicides.Most people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. This is why restricting access to lethal means saves lives. Suicide attempts with a gun are almost uniformly fatal.The provision will also ensure that women who cannot go to the police have another tool to remove the firearm from their home. To support these new red-flag provisions, Public Safety Canada will establish a program to help raise awareness among victims about how to use the new protections. A guide about how to submit an application to the courts and the protections available could be developed, and the program would fund services to support individuals’ applications throughout the court process. It would support the most vulnerable and marginalized groups, including women, people with mental health issues, indigenous groups and other racialized communities, to help make certain that the red-flag laws are accessible to all, particularly those who may need it most. The government would also make available $5 million through a contribution program to ensure support and equitable access.It is also important to state unequivocally that the fiduciary duty of peace officers under common law continues in force, notwithstanding the ability for any person to make an application for an emergency prohibition order. Simply put, police will still be required to do their job of removing guns from dangerous individuals. As I said, it just provides one additional tool for people to use, especially if calling the police is not an option.In addition, an important amendment introduced by the government is a non-derogation clause. It states Parliament's intent that: The provisions enacted by the Act [following Bill C-21] are to be construed as upholding the [aboriginal and treaty] rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.Nothing in Bill C-21 would take away from section 35 rights; the Constitution still remains the law of the land. (1650) While I know that he opposes the bill itself, I appreciate the way the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound worked with all parties to include an amendment that further spells out what has already been allowed in practice. Namely, ensuring that anyone with a handgun is able to temporarily store their firearm with a business or individual who also possesses an RPAL for any reason. This includes if an individual recognizes that they are experiencing a mental health crisis and do not want to have access to their firearm. This example was one that was particularly important to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and to many of whom he spoke, including some veterans. I commend him for the way he conducted himself and the important addition he made to clarify the provisions related to the authorizations to transport in the Firearms Act. It is unfortunate that all members of the Conservative Party were not as constructive.In particular, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe chose to politicize the requirement for a PAL to buy a magazine and attacked me while I shared the Danforth Families for Safe Communities' story. The member proceeded to post our exchange on social media saying that I had compared every hunter in Canada to the Danforth shooter, and that every single hunter should take note of what I think about them.That is not what I said, but thanks to this member's misrepresentation, my direct messages have been filled with threats and misogynistic comments that use language I cannot repeat in the House. This kind of disinformation is typical of the Conservative Party throughout the debate.The Conservative public safety critic and others continue to spread the false claim that Bill C-21 is targeting hunters. This is fearmongering. I have noticed that the Conservative Party prefers this approach of spreading fear to make Canadians fearful of leaving their homes, using our parks or taking public transit, and fearful of each other. We are focusing on protecting Canadians and doing the hard work it takes to keep them safe. Conservative politicians prefer to fearmonger and speak in catchy slogans, rather than taking action to prevent crime, keep women safe and remove weapons designed for the battlefield from our streets.I would now like to turn to other provisions found in Bill C-21. Canadians have been calling upon successive governments for reform and stronger gun control, and in May 2020 we took additional action through an order in council to ban over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms, including the AR-15. As U.S. Major General Paul Eaton, retired, has said, “For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war.” These weapons, designed for the battlefield, have no place on Canadian streets. I have a question for the Conservative Party: Would it make the AR-15 legal again? Through Bill C-21, we are building on the work done in 2020 to offer a prospective technical definition to ensure that, in addition to the weapons banned in 2020, no future similar weapons will ever be able to enter the Canadian market. Furthermore, the Minister of Public Safety has committed to taking action through regulation to take the burden away from firearms owners to make manufacturers responsible for classifying firearms. This responds to recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission. Doctors for Protection from Guns called the definition “A victory for science, public health, and Canadian values...to permanently ban future models of assault weapons.” In addition, we are implementing a national freeze on handguns to prevent individuals from bringing newly acquired handguns into Canada, and from buying, selling and transferring handguns within the country, a freeze which, through regulations, has been in effect since October 2022. It was actually Ken Price of the Danforth Families for Safe Communities who was one of the first proponents of implementing a national freeze on handguns. When Ken testified at committee he stated: In summary, there's clear evidence on the association between access to handguns and endemic gun violence, and access to semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines and multiple mass shooting events. There is good evidence that the restriction of access to these weapons reduces endemic gun violence and reduces the number of victims of multiple mass shooting events. Ultimately, it's a choice society has to make. What guns are permissible? What should we allow access to? What level of gun violence are we willing to accept in our community?Our government is making that choice with Bill C-21. We cannot and will not tolerate gun violence in our communities, while we continue to respect those who hunt for sustenance, sport or tradition.(1655)Bill C-21 would also address illegal smuggling and trafficking at the border by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools for law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border security measures. Chief Evan Bray of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police testified at committee in support of these provisions, saying: “With regard to firearms smuggling and trafficking, we support the implementation of new firearms-related offences, intensified border controls and strengthened penalties to help deter criminal activities and to combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, thereby reducing the risk that illegal firearms find their way into Canadian communities and are used to commit criminal offences. The CACP welcomes changes that provide new police authorizations and tools to access information about licence-holders in the investigation of individuals who are suspected of conducting criminal activities, such as straw purchasing and weapons trafficking.”We need to remember that Bill C-21 would take a multipronged approach that addresses gun violence. This would include increasing penalties for illegal gun smugglers, freezing the sale of handguns, taking action to address the proliferation of ghost guns and introducing measures that make it safer for women to leave abusive relationships.I am very proud to be part of a government that has passed Bill C-71, and that now, hopefully, will pass Bill C-21. I have heard from Canadians who applaud what we are doing with this bill. They have thanked us for our work on this, saying that guns and ease of access will never be more important than human lives and public safety, and that the bill would protect thousands of people’s lives.Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control, who has been working on this issue for over 30 years, said: No law is ever perfect but Bill C-21 is a game changer for Canada and should be implemented as soon as possible. The law responds to most of the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission and the demands of the Coalition for Gun Control...which, with more than 200 supporting organizations, has fought for stronger firearm laws for more than thirty years. I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the work that PolySeSouvient has done for over 30 years to make our country safer. Its advocacy work grew from the misogynistic slaughter of women at Polytechnique in 1989, and I have the utmost respect for their dedication to gun control.I want to close by giving special thanks to the Liberal, Bloc and NDP members of the public safety committee, who worked together, at times into the wee hours of the night, to ensure that the bill we have before us is better than when it started. I thank the New Democratic Party and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and the Bloc Québécois and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I also have to give a special shout-out to Sarah Thomas, Conor Lewis and all the staff, without whom we as members could not do our jobs. I thank the minister and his team for their herculean efforts on this bill, and the Prime Minister, for making gun control a central policy of our government.We will vote on this bill tomorrow. It will be a legacy for this government, one that I am incredibly proud of.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Court ordersDisinformationDomestic violenceFirearmsFirearms permitsGovernment billsHandgunsIndigenous rightsLaw, justice and rightsRestricted firearmsSeizure of assetsSmugglingThird reading and adoptionViolent crime778653177865327786533KamalKheraHon.Brampton WestMarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague when I was on the public safety committee and I absolutely share her joy in the victory that we were able to achieve for the airsoft community. I too have received many thanks from communities in my own riding and across British Columbia. That indeed is a good thing that the committee was able to achieve.The member was there on the committee with me back in November of last year when those 11th-hour, ill-advised amendments dropped in the committee's lap and caused all of this uproar. If she will remember correctly, in December, one of the leading voices against those amendments came from indigenous communities. It culminated when the Assembly of First Nations came out with a very rare unanimous emergency resolution that its members were against the amendments. I have heard from many people in indigenous communities who have explained why they have depended on semi-automatic rifles to protect themselves when they were out hunting wildlife.Can the member explain this for colleagues in the House? Is it her understanding that current makes and models of rifles and shotguns are not affected by Bill C-21? Can she also elaborate as to why it was important to insert an amendment in this bill that would recognize the rights that are upheld under section 35 of the Constitution Act?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Government billsGun controlIndigenous rightsLaw, justice and rightsThird reading and adoption77868327786833KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud: (1900)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very good point. I enjoyed working with him in committee and I hope he will come back after the study of Bill C‑21.The government's mistake in this whole story was to move these famous amendments without doing the necessary consultations ahead of time. Hunters and first nations communities apparently were not consulted before these amendments were tabled. I think that was the first mistake.Then, the Bloc Québécois proposed pressing pause on the study and inviting witnesses to committee who did not have the chance to be heard. That is when we heard from first nations communities, who told us exactly what the member just said.I think it was important to reiterate in the bill the fact that these rights are being respected. We do need to reassure people, because there are still all sorts of rumours circulating about Bill C‑21 that are not entirely true.One thing that is entirely true is that first nations communities are going to continue using firearms for hunting, for their subsistence. Bill C‑21, in its current form and as it will be passed, will have no impact on that. I think that it is important to reiterate that for the first nations communities. There are two in my riding, and I am sure they will be pleased with how things unfolded for Bill C‑21.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Government billsGun controlIndigenous rightsLaw, justice and rightsThird reading and adoption77868347786835778683677868377786838AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordClaudeDeBellefeuilleSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1900)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill C-21 at third reading.I say that with a bit of amazement because I cannot believe we have actually made it to third reading. This bill received first reading in this House on May 30 of last year. We got through second reading in fairly short order, but at committee stage, things really got lost and all hell broke loose, so to speak. I remember participating as the NDP's public safety critic. We had scheduled eight witness meetings to look at the first version of this bill. Things were going along quite well. There were some disagreements around the table, but there was not any of the friction that suggested there would be a major catastrophe in the making.That all changed in November when we arrived at the clause-by-clause portion of the bill. Before that meeting started, every party was responsible for reviewing the witness testimony, reviewing the briefs that had been submitted, and working with legislative drafters to put together our amendments. Once those were submitted to the clerk, as is the normal course of things, the clerk then distributed them to all committee members.It was quite a surprise when we saw just how big the amendment package was and just how expanded the scope of the bill was going to be. Most of the amendments came from the government. There were a couple in particular that completely sent the committee off its rails.The amendments landed on our laps at the 11th hour. It was obvious that there had been no warning to committee members. The Liberal members of the committee were introducing those amendments on behalf of the government. They read them into the record, but I do not think they actually had a clue as to the monumental nature of the amendments.It was clear that the amendments were not backed by any witness testimony because of the significant nature of how they were changing the bill. We, as committee members, never had the opportunity to question witnesses on the bill taking shape.That completely derailed things. That started in November 2022, and it is only just recently that the committee stage of the bill was finally able to complete its job. That is an incredible amount of time for one committee to be occupied with a single bill.If we look at the mandate of the public safety and national security committee, it is one of the most important committees. It is responsible for reviewing the policies and legislation of multiple agencies, whether it is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Officer of the Correctional Investigator or the RCMP.There are two other bills. Bill C-20 is going to provide an important oversight body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-26 is going to seek to upgrade our cybersecurity infrastructure. Both of those bills have been held up because of the shenanigans going on with Bill C-21.I listened to the debate all day yesterday when this bill was going through report stage, and today when it was going through third reading. Unfortunately, because of some of the speeches in this House, there is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people have the wrong idea of what is included in this bill.My Conservative colleagues do make a big deal in their speeches about standing up for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, and I take no fault with that. I proudly stand here and say the same thing. It is troubling because it is alluding to something that is actually not in the bill. That illusion for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities is that their rifle or shotgun, if it is semi-automatic, is going to be prohibited by this bill.Let me clearly say this for the record: That is not the case. Bill C-21 is not going to do that. If someone has a current make or model of a rifle or shotgun, they are licensed and legally own that firearm, after this bill receives royal assent, they will continue to be able to use it.(1905)That is a fact. So far, when I have brought it up in questions, my Conservative colleagues have been unable to refute that. I have challenged multiple Conservative MPs to name one rifle or shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21. In every single instance, they have deflected and swerved away to go back to comfortable talking points, because they cannot do it. I will tell colleagues why. It is because I am not reading Conservative talking points. I am going to actually read from the text of the bill.In the new section that is going to add to the definition of a prohibited firearm, it mentions that it is:...a firearm that is not a handgun and that(i) discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,(ii) was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more, and(iii) is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force...The last point is one that everyone seems to skip over, but it is the key part.Current makes and models are not going to be affected by Bill C-21. Future makes and models that come into the market after this bill receives royal assent will be affected. However, current owners will not be affected by Bill C-21.Conservatives will then seek to muddy the waters even further. I have heard a lot of reference to the firearms advisory committee. They say that the minister is going to bring this back and staff it with Liberal appointees, who are going to make suggestions about what firearms should be prohibited and then act on the suggestions. I have a news flash for my Conservative colleagues. This is a power that the government already has. It does not need a firearms advisory committee.I would direct my Conservative colleagues to the existing section 84(1) of the Criminal Code. It says right there that the government can change the definition of what a prohibited firearm is when it mentions “any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm”. “Prescribed” is the key word there, because that means it can be done by cabinet decree. If they do not believe me, how did the government get the authority in May 2020 to issue an order in council? Here, 1,500 makes and models were done through the Canada Gazette under existing powers. All this ballyhoo over a firearms advisory council, as well as all the hoopla that we have heard in this House about the dangers of that council coming into being, is a complete red herring. It is smoke and mirrors. This is a power the government already has. In fact, I would rebut them on that argument by saying that if the minister currently has that power to do this unilaterally through an order in council cabinet decree, would it not be a good thing to have an advisory council to at least talk to the minister about how maybe that would not be a good idea?If we can ensure that the advisory council has indigenous representation, representation from the hunting community and representation from the sport shooting community, in my mind, that is a good thing. I will let them continue to say that, but they know they cannot argue with me on those facts. Again, I am reading from the bill and from existing provisions of the Criminal Code. If they are going to try to muddy the waters, they can try to argue their way out of it, but the facts cannot be changed.I want to turn to something more positive, with the airsoft community. Last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting the Victoria fish and game club. I do not know if colleagues have been to Vancouver Island, but in the middle of my riding is the Malahat Mountain. It is the big mountain that separates the Cowichan Valley from the city of Langford and the whole west shore. It is the traditional territory of the Malahat people, but on top of it is where the Victoria fish and game club is, on a beautiful property. Right beside it, there is an amazing forest setting for the club's airsoft games. I went out there with one of my constituency assistants on a weekend. They invited us to come and see a match. We got to don the referee uniforms, so that we could walk out in the middle of a pitched battle. I think one of my constituency assistants accidentally got shot.(1910)It was so fun to see how much fun these players were having, to talk to them about how passionate they were about their sport and to really understand that this is more than a hobby for them. This is something that allows them to get out into the great outdoors with their family and friends.They were really worried about Bill C-21 because of a section in the bill that would basically turn their airsoft rifles into prohibited devices. I invited some of them, with other colleagues around the committee table, to come to committee, to submit briefs and to say their piece. I have to say that the representatives of the airsoft industry, the manufacturers and the players associations did themselves proud. They made a good argument, and they convinced those around the committee table. They did what is done in a democratic system. They fought for change, and they achieved it.The NDP amendment that was put forward to delete the offending sections from the bill was passed. That is a victory for the airsoft community. All they are asking for is not the sledgehammer approach of legislation that was in the original version of Bill C-21, but a regulatory approach. They are more than willing to work with government on the regulatory approach. That message was heard, and that is something that all parliamentarians can celebrate.Let me turn to the handgun freeze and the amendment that we put forward as an attempt to expand the exceptions of the handgun freeze to allow for other sport shooting disciplines. As the bill is currently written, at this third reading stage, the only exemptions that exist are limited to people who are at an extremely elite level. They are Olympic athletes and Paralympic athletes. I use the terms “exemptions” and “exceptions” interchangeably. After speaking to members of my community who participate in the International Practical Shooting Confederation and speaking to members who are in single-action shooting as well, I felt that these people are athletes. They train for what they do. They are passionate about their sport. They deserve to have exemptions as well. Therefore, I put forward an amendment to try to expand that. That amendment almost passed. There was a little bit of confusion on the Liberal side when that amendment came to a vote.When I tuned in to watch the committee hearing at that stage, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Liberal member for Kings—Hants speaking in support of our amendment. It was a wonderful surprise to see, except that when it came to a vote, unfortunately, he abstained. It resulted in a five-five tie; of course, this had to be broken by the Liberal Chair. We came really close.I have received a lot of flak from certain sectors of society for my stance on this. That is okay; I can take it. I am not going to apologize for standing here and making an attempt to fix the bill on behalf of my constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport. To those who are arguing against that, I would simply point to the submission that was given to our committee by none other than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They said:We believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practise their sport.That is what I was basing my amendment on, as well as the interventions made by my constituents. We tried our best at committee to make that change. Unfortunately, because of the votes falling the way they did with the Liberals and Bloc, it did not pass.I will give another reason. The top IPSC competitors were telling me that they shoot about 50,000 rounds of ammunition a year. That is an incredible amount. We have to understand that a handgun is essentially a mechanical device. If someone is shooting it 50,000 times a year, it will break down. Sometimes, handguns have to be replaced. In my mind, it was unfair, not allowing an exception for an athlete of that calibre to have the means to be able to replace a tool that they use to compete.We may have lost this particular battle, but what I would say to members of those sport shooting disciplines is that I will continue to pursue this issue. I will find other avenues to fight to make sure that their sport has an exemption.(1915)We have completed the report stage part of the bill, but there has been some controversy from some women's groups who were unhappy with the red-flag provisions of the law, and I understand that. When I approached the committee hearings on this, I understood the controversy that existed around red-flag provisions. There were some women's groups that felt that adding this extra layer of bureaucracy through the court system did not serve women or other people who were in vulnerable situations where firearms might be present. They felt that we should have a properly equipped and responsive police force, and I agree with them. I will turn critics' attention to members of the National Association of Women and the Law, because when Bill C-21 was reported back to the House, they made some public tweets, which are all up there for people to read. They said that with all the amendments that were proposed, these are some of the ways that the bill would make women safer: “The provision on licence revocation when someone has committed violence is now strengthened and clarified. A licence must be revoked when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual may have engaged in family violence.” They also said, “people who have been subject to a protection order will now be ineligible to hold a licence if they ‘could pose’ a threat or risk to the safety of another person. This way, safety comes first.” That is the onus test. They went on to say, “The Bill had no timelines for reacting to danger and domestic violence. Thanks to the adoption of our recommendations, there is now a statutory duty to act within 24 hours. This will protect women at the critical time of separation, when risk of violence is at its highest.” A lot about the bill has been subsumed by the debate over hunting rifles, shotguns, airsoft and the handgun freeze. However, it is important for us to realize that, in the heart of the bill, there are actually some very important measures, which have now been improved by the committee. I have worked with members of the National Association of Women and the Law, and I respect the submissions they have made. If they are willing to come out and publicly endorse the bill in this way, I am glad to have their support as a stakeholder, and I give it a lot of credence.I also want to talk about ghost guns, which relate to another “unsung hero” part of the bill. We heard from law enforcement, and I want to read into the record the testimony that came from Inspector Michael Rowe, who is a staff sergeant in the Vancouver Police Department. He said:In addition to what is already included in Bill C‑21, I would ask this committee to consider regulating the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts used to manufacture ghost guns, such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. These parts are currently lawful to purchase and possess without a licence, and they can be purchased online or imported from the United States. The emergence of privately made firearms has reduced the significance of the currently regulated receiver and increased the importance of currently unregulated gun parts that are needed to finish a 3-D-printed receiver and turn it into a functioning firearm. That is the request coming from law enforcement. We know that this is a growing problem, and they asked for a specific legislative fix to the problem. I am proud to see that the public safety committee delivered on that request from law enforcement.Much has been said about indigenous communities. They are, of course, the ones who led the way in opposition to the bill. I remember, back in December, when the Assembly of First Nations came out with a unanimous emergency resolution opposing those eleventh-hour amendments that were made by the Liberal government. They said that the amendments went against the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They helped us to understand, as parliamentarians, that these are not toys or hobbies; rather, they are a way of life. In some indigenous communities, they are necessary for the protection of life. I am glad to see that the committee listened, and no current make or model of a rifle or shotgun that is currently in use in indigenous communities is touched by Bill C-21. The committee went further and added a clause, which now references section 35 of the Constitution Act to show that indigenous rights are upheld. (1920)I will conclude by saying I can honestly go back to the hunters, farmers and indigenous communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and tell them their currently owned firearms are safe. I am glad we were able to force the government's hand on this matter.Advisory bodiesAir gunsC-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Canadian Firearms Program Advisory CommitteeDisinformationDomestic violenceFirearms permitsGhost gunsGovernment billsGun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsLaw, justice and rightsShooting sportsThird reading and adoption7786895KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59293RonMcKinnonRon-McKinnonCoquitlam—Port CoquitlamLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKinnonRon_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSitting ResumedInterventionMr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): (1950)[English]Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoyed the speech by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I might differ on a few quibbles, but by and large I really appreciate his treatment of the matter.It is an honour to join this discussion on strong, new federal firearms legislation and to join the voices of those supporting the progression of Bill C-21 through Parliament. The committee on public safety and national security has done the remarkable and arduous job of scrutinizing this bill. I would like to thank colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their constructive deliberations and collegiality. We would not have gotten this done without their invaluable co-operation, and every one of us has a stake in it.We have heard from members who described the impact of gun violence in their communities. We have heard from survivors. We have heard from those who work with the government on many matters of public safety. They all make the point that we cannot lose another life to gun violence in this country. That is why I am so proud to be part of a government that cares about moving forward.We know that, working with parliamentarians across the aisle and with Canadians at large, we can pass Bill C-21 as a package of reforms that would broadly enhance firearms safety throughout Canada. This would be the strongest firearms legislation we may ever see as parliamentarians. It would introduce stiffer sentencing for trafficking and new charges for illegal manufacturing of ghost guns and for altering the magazine or cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity. It would set out new wiretapping authorities for police to stop gun violence before it happens.Bill C-21 would introduce a national freeze on handguns, and that would mean that the vast majority of individuals would no longer be able to transfer, that is buy, sell or import handguns into Canada. This would end the growth of handguns in Canada. This bill is also significant in how it would address the role of guns in gender-based violence, a pernicious issue we simply cannot ignore. It would prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands. Individuals with a restraining order against them, whether previous or current, would no longer be able to obtain a firearms licence.New red-flag laws would allow courts to order the immediate removal of firearms from individuals who may be a danger to themselves or anyone else. Additionally, yellow-flag laws would allow chief firearms officers to suspend an individual's firearms licence if the CFO receives information calling into question their licence eligibility.The identity of vulnerable people who provide information to the courts would be protected. Let me be clear that there would be no obligation for victims to use these laws. These provisions would not remove any current tools. They would be there to offer additional protection, additional tools in the tool box.The unwavering goal of this legislation is to protect Canadians, particularly those who are most at risk. Statistics show that victims of intimate partner violence are about five times more likely to be killed if a firearm is present in the home. I would like to share a few more important statistics with my colleagues. We know that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of homicides and suicides. Handguns are the most commonly used firearms in homicides, and suicides by firearm accounted for 73% of all firearm deaths in Canada between 2000 and 2020. Fifty-eight per cent of crime guns are traced to domestic sources that are predominantly from straw purchasing and theft.Reducing the number of guns in our communities would mean reducing the number of victims of gun violence. Making handguns unavailable for transfer and restricting their importation just makes sense. However, as we have said from the beginning, we are not targeting responsible handgun owners or those using firearms for purposes like hunting or sport shooting; this is about tackling violent crime and preventing senseless, tragic deaths.(1955)We know that no single initiative will end the complex issue of gun violence. This bill is but one part of our comprehensive approach. We have seen far too many tragedies, including those recently in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. We have seen close to 16,000 incidents of violent crime involving firearms in Canada since 2010. We have been clear that firearms designed for war, capable of rapid reloading and discharge that can inflict catastrophic harm, have no place in our communities. We have also been clear that we fully respect and recognize the traditional and cultural importance of hunting for indigenous communities. The government recognizes the importance of consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples to ensure consistency of federal laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill also includes a specific clause that clearly states that nothing in this definition is intended to derogate from the rights of indigenous people under section 35 of the Constitution. It must be emphasized that guns that have already been designed and manufactured when the bill would come into force would not be affected. Other than so-called ghost guns, no existing rifle or shotgun whatsoever would be affected by this bill.We would also be re-establishing the Canadian firearms advisory committee to independently review the classification of firearms on the current market with a diverse membership from across the country. This independent panel would be charged with making recommendations to the government about the classification of firearms and what constitutes reasonable use for hunting. It is our goal to keep communities safe. I am confident that Bill C-21 would get that balance right. As we have said from the beginning, no single program or initiative can end gun violence. That is why this is just one of the many initiatives we are deploying, alongside border measures, investments in community infrastructure and banning assault-style weapons to keep our communities safe.Since 2015, we have focused on the social causes of crime with programs like the $250-million building safer communities fund so that we can tackle gun crime and support community-led projects. We have also invested over $1 billion, since 2016, into the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence, which provides funding to provinces and territories to reduce gun and gang crime in our communities and enhances the capacity of the RCMP and CBSA to detect and disrupt gun smuggling. That is on top of the over $40 million provided annually through the national crime prevention strategy, which invests in community-based efforts that prevent youth involvement in crime and help address the risk factors that have been known to lead to criminal activity.Federal officials have met with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues to talk about the ways in which we could all make certain modifications to the bail system so that we can address specifically the challenges around repeat violent offenders who have used either firearms or other weapons, and this is how we will keep our communities safe through collaboration, discussion and multipronged approaches. Bill C-21 is a key piece of this puzzle.I want to thank all members once again for their constructive input. I encourage all members to join me to today in making sure Bill C-21 moves forward.BailC-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Court ordersDomestic violenceFirearmsGovernment billsGun controlHandgunsIndigenous rightsLaw, justice and rightsSeizure of assetsThird reading and adoptionViolent crime7786972MichaelCoteauDon Valley EastDaveEppChatham-Kent—Leamington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSitting ResumedInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (2130)[English]Uqaqtittiji, for a party that touts contemporary messages to its constituents, I am surprised by the outdated messaging that this member has shared during his intervention in talking about the G-4 and G-46 amendments, which have been removed. I would ask the member if he realizes that there are updated amendments regarding indigenous peoples' rights in Bill C-21. How does he plan to educate his constituents, whether they are indigenous or not, on section 35 and how that has been incorporated in Bill C-21?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Government billsGun controlIndigenous rightsLaw, justice and rightsThird reading and adoption77872097787210RichardLehouxBeauceRichardLehouxBeauce//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104653RichardLehouxRichard-LehouxBeauceConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LehouxRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSitting ResumedInterventionMr. Richard Lehoux: (2130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I think that we are going around in circles with this question. Yes, targeted firearms could be used by members of indigenous peoples, hunters or farmers, especially in my region.I understand that people are concerned, and they have questioned me many times about this issue in the past few weeks. We cannot blame them for being afraid that, in the end, the firearms that were included in a previous amendment and were removed could be put back in. What is to stop the current government from banning them again once the law is in effect?I find it difficult to understand why my NDP colleagues always blindly support a government that has the impertinence to often change its mind. What is to stop it from changing its mind again?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Government billsGun controlIndigenous rightsLaw, justice and rightsThird reading and adoption778721177872127787213LoriIdloutNunavutKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersRed Dress DayInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (2200)[English]Madam Chair, I do appreciate the opportunity to once again participate in this very important conversation. I do appreciate the words from my colleague from Lakeland. They were very wise, indeed.I would like to have her conversation focus now on removing the “Ottawa knows best” mentality that has been in existence for 150-plus years. We all know, or we all should know, the devastating impacts of that policy by successive governments. How can we get to the point where indigenous communities are charting their own path in a true nation-to-nation relationship?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeGirlsGovernment Business No. 24HomicideIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMissing personsRed Dress DaySexual and gender minoritiesTake-note debatesWomen77332067733207ShannonStubbsLakelandShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersRed Dress DayInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs: (2205)[English]Madam Chair, I believe that successive generations of government policies that have been barriers to indigenous people and indigenous communities, in almost every aspect of their lives, have led to the disproportionate challenges today.My own view is that more top-down, big-government bureaucracies and money getting lost in layers of administration is actually not making any change. I think the emphasis should be on the bottom up. It should be on indigenous-led and -directed initiatives, programming and organizations, and I think that the federal government, over generations, has proven that. In very core ways, it has failed indigenous people, and that is because there are layers of bureaucracy and barriers to indigenous people and communities being able to control their own lives and to be able to be self-determining, to be able to be self-sufficient and to have opportunities and hope for the future.However, the key thing is that I think any and all changes must be driven by indigenous communities, indigenous leaders and indigenous organizations, for indigenous communities.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeGirlsGovernment Business No. 24HomicideIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMissing personsRed Dress DaySexual and gender minoritiesTake-note debatesWomen773320877332097733210JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (2100)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today, as always, here on the territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation. To them I say meegwetch.We are here tonight to debate Bill C-47. Bill C-47 is not the budget. The budget is a different document. It is related, of course, but Bill C-47 contains those legislative changes that are necessary in order to have the measures in the budget, not all of them but some of them, move ahead. The measures in the budget that are simply allocations of funds that do not require legislative changes will not be found in Bill C-47, and so I find myself strangely in the position, having studied Bill C-47, of thinking I might vote for it, even though I could not possibly vote for the government's budget. The budget has much in it that I could not support, such as increased subsidies for fossil fuels disguised as carbon capture and storage, and the use of fossil fuels to create hydrogen, thus taking what should be a green fuel and making it a fossil-fuel source again. However, the budget implementation act is not that. Let me go over what it is.The budget implementation act is 429 pages in four parts. The longest part, part 4, has 39 different divisions. They are wide-ranging and cover many different things. In that, let me confirm that this is an omnibus bill, but it is not an illegitimate omnibus bill. It is nothing like Bill C-38 of spring 2012 when the previous administration under Stephen Harper destroyed 70 different acts in one bill with changes that had not been forecast in the budget. That was an illegitimate omnibus bill. This one is a reasonable omnibus bill, because in order to implement the budget, multiple things need to be changed. For instance, part 1 of this very long bill deals with the Income Tax Act and such things as creating a deduction for tradesmen's tools and going on to divorce and that separated parents can open up a joint registered educational savings plan for their children. There are such things, as we have heard about, related to the new program to cover dental care and changing the tax rules so that CRA can disclose personal information about Canadians so that they can get their dental care. Part 3 deals with air traveller security changes. I could go on and on, because it is 429 pages. By division 39, at the end of the bill, we have changes to the Canada Elections Act to deal with the protection of personal information. This is a wide-ranging bill. It even touches on foreign policy. This next one is good, and I think Conservatives would want to vote for it too. At division 5 of part 4, we remove Russia and Belarus from the most favoured nation tariff treatment.I want to devote the time I have remaining to talk about one of the longer sections, which relates to issues I have been working on for years and some of which I was ecstatic to see. This deals with division 21, the oceans protection plan.The budget itself has two references to our oceans. They are both found on page 135, and they are remarkably brief. One says that we are going to protect Canada's whales. Now, this is basically a dressed up repackaging of new money to such departments as Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada, Environment Canada and Parks Canada for what the budget claims will be continuing to protect endangered whales and their habitats. That is just fine and dandy, but that is not in the budget implementation act, which is just as well, because I have rarely been as furious, disillusioned or angry.(2105)[Translation]I am absolutely distraught by the government's April 20 decision to approve this terrible project that goes against the interests of endangered species.[English]On April 20, what did the government do just in time for Earth Day? It approved a disastrous project that likely spells the extinction of the southern resident killer whale, our Fraser River chinook salmon and numerous other species, including the western sandpiper. It is a project called Roberts Bank on the Fraser River estuary. It will result in basically covering in concrete over 70% of that flood plain habitat. It is an outrage. It is not in the budget implementation act, but it puts the lie to the budget is going to have a section that protects whales. Right. It is hypocrisy writ large. I see other friends from British Columbia nodding. We know. This is an outrage.The next part of the budget that deals with oceans is, I think, where we see most of the over 60 pages in the budget implementation act, for what is called the division that deals with the oceans protection plan. That probably relates to this one line item of cleaner and healthier ports. Budget 2023 proposes to provide $165.4 million over seven years to establish a green shipping corridor program to reduce the impact of marine shipping on surrounding ecosystems, and there is more to it.What do we find in the budget implementation act and how is it relevant to what I just read? I have to say there is a lot in here that is just playing catch up with time passing. This bill deals with things such as oil-sourced pollution. Where there is pollution caused by a vessel, we are increasing how much the shipper, the owner of the ship, might have to pay. I do not think it is enough, by the way. It has changed from what was said in the Marine Liability Act, which is already on the books. Believe it or not, in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injury, it was a $1-million limit. This budget implementation act moves it to a $1.5-million limit and so on. That is one specific area.There is another specific area that I want to mention briefly because I really think it is important. At page 241 of the budget implementation act is a section which says that under the Marine Liability Act, in terms of costs that the vessel owner and company must be responsible for, under the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention, they will now be required to compensate indigenous peoples for economic loss in relation to hunting, fishing, trapping or harvesting rights under section 35 of the Constitution. It is a better recognition of indigenous rights.There is much here but I do want to concentrate on what was, for me, what I have been hoping for, for some years. Ironically, about a week before the budget implementation act came out, I wrote to the Minister of Finance, Minister of Transport, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister of Environment to ask if we are ever going to see any measures to implement the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. Are we ever going to see the promised vessel remediation fund? Is it going to be in the budget implementation act? Surprise, it is. It is found at section 430, page 277 for anyone reading the budget implementation act at home. I have to wonder about their lives if they are reading the budget implementation act at home, especially if they are reading it out loud to their children. It will certainly put anyone to sleep.It is very exciting because we passed the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act four years ago, in March 2019. We were excited on that day that we got it done. Most people here who do not live in coastal areas would not know what a hazard it is to have an abandoned vessel, somebody's old sailboat. They are fibreglass. If somebody owns them and they are moored in the harbour, moored in navigational lanes, getting rid of them is really hard.In Atlantic Canada, it is not so hard, because over the course of the winter any abandoned boat will be smashed to bits and gone by spring, but if someone lives along the coast of the Salish Sea or along British Columbia's coast, the boats are there almost forever. In a time when we have the horror of people who are inadequately housed, many people who are homeless will move onto these vessels and live there. They are unsafe.Once we got the act passed, we thought we had solved the problem, but then the government refused to act. I have constituents who say there is an abandoned vessel and ask if we will do something. The Coast Guard, DFO and Transport Canada all pass the buck and do not move the vessel. The problem is they do not have the money, they say.Now we have this new fund. Details will come out on how it is going to work in regulations, but I could not be more pleased that we now have a vessel remediation fund and additional powers for the Minister of Transport. There are other related measures in Bill C-33 which we have not yet debated in this place but maybe, just maybe, the budget implementation act, at long last, will allow us to implement the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.(2110)With that I will close. Abandoned vesselsAction Plan for Clean WaterBudget 2023 (March 28, 2023)C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023Canada's Oceans Protection PlanEndangered speciesEnvironmental protectionGovernment assistanceGovernment billsIndigenous rightsInternational Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996Maritime safetyOceansOil and gasPolluter-pay principleRoberts BankSecond readingTransportation safetyWater qualityWhales7709226KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonScotDavidsonYork—Simcoe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1100)[English]Uqaqtittiji, the budget allocated almost a billion dollars to persuade indigenous peoples to exploit their lands.There are too few of the 338 MPs who will work to protect indigenous peoples' rights. That is why I say now, directly to Inuit, first nations and Métis, that their inherent rights are being violated, infringed upon and exploited. I say to the families of the MMIWG, the survivors and families of residential schools, families who were forced off the lands and into settlements and to indigenous peoples and their lands that were, and continue to be, stolen, that they must protect and defend indigenous peoples' lands. To indigenous peoples who are homeless, living in overcrowded or dilapidated housing conditions, and to all Inuit, first nations and Métis, I say that too few of MPs will stand up for their rights and I plead with them to protect their rights, speak up and demand justice from their MPs.Indigenous rightsStatements by Members77031667703167AnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [International Trade]InterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.): (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, the member posed some questions earlier with respect to identifying issues that were much broader than just one particular part of the world. In fact, there are human rights violations occurring throughout the planet for which people need to be held accountable.I know him to also be a strong advocate for indigenous rights. What has changed in the last four to five years is that we have attorn to the international convention UNDRIP. We have also domesticated that agreement by passing legislation in this chamber, on which he, I and many others in this chamber voted. With respect to UNDRIP, it talks to specific rights that are ascribed to indigenous people.I want to put one of those rights to him and ask him whether that kind of promise and legislation can help fulfill the protection of human rights violations that relate to indigenous communities abroad. Article 26, paragraph 1, in the text of UNDRIP says, “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”Does that kind of legislative mechanism, which is now passed into law in Canada, provide him with some of the potential for enforcement of the rights of indigenous persons abroad who are affected by Canadian enterprises that are operating and violating their rights?8510-441-193 "Prohibiting the Importation of Goods Linked to the Use of Forced Labour and Developing a Related Strategy"Canadian companiesConcurrence in Committee Reports No. 22Forced labourImportsIndigenous rightsStanding Committee on International Trade7647670764767176476727647673CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [International Trade]InterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, we certainly need to have a fair playing field, and one of them is the rights of indigenous people to participate in resource development and the right to say no.We cannot have armed gangs, threats and intimidation, like we saw with the horrific allegations against Hudbay Minerals in Guatemala. There has to be legal accountability for such measures.In Canada, for example, the Ring of Fire, could be a massive benefit, economically, but the Neskantaga First Nation, which has gone 28 years without clean drinking water, has not been consulted by anybody on this. This is highly problematic.We have the opportunity in Canada to create a standard for the development of critical minerals by using high environmental standards, indigenous consent, indigenous support, and we cannot allow that to be weakened. This should be the Canada brand that allows us to meet the challenges of an environmentally sensitive future. We need to be pushing for this.8510-441-193 "Prohibiting the Importation of Goods Linked to the Use of Forced Labour and Developing a Related Strategy"Canadian companiesConcurrence in Committee Reports No. 22Forced labourImportsIndigenous rightsStanding Committee on International Trade7647674764767576476767647677ArifViraniParkdale—High ParkRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89535OmarAlghabraHon.Omar-AlghabraMississauga CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlghabraOmar_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada ActInterventionHon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.)(1000)[English] moved that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-33. Second readingHe said: Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me just take a moment to pay tribute to our friend and former colleague Marc Garneau, who resigned this week from his seat as a member of Parliament. Marc Garneau was a member of Parliament who served with dignity and pride. He served Canadians throughout his career in various roles. I know he will be deeply missed by his constituents and certainly by his friends and colleagues here in the House of Commons.Today, I am building on the work that he started when he was the Minister of Transport. I just want to acknowledge and recognize the work he has done. It gives me great pleasure to build on a lot of the excellent work that he did.The last three years have been extraordinarily hard on Canadians and on global and domestic supply chains. From global inflation to delays for many products, Canadians have been impacted by a global phenomenon experienced by the rest of the world. Global challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, labour shortages and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, as well as extreme weather events, have all contributed to major supply chain disruptions.Our government remains focused on supporting Canadians during these unprecedented times. Whether it was support during COVID or targeted initiatives to help Canadians weather its lingering impacts, we have been there and we will continue to be there. Our government's priority continues to be making sure that Canadians have access to the goods they need, when they need them, at a reasonable price.(1005)[Translation]Our government is here for Canadians.[English]That is why we continue to take action to strengthen our supply chain, which will help reduce cost pressures on the transportation of goods. This in turn will help make life more affordable for Canadians.One of the many ways we are taking action is with Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act. Bill C-33 would modernize Canada's transportation system, making it more sustainable, competitive and resilient. Canada's transportation system is the backbone of our economy. Our primary modes of transport, which are marine, air, rail and road, are interdependent, and a disruption in one can impact the entire supply chain.[Translation]Our transportation system drives our economy.[English]That is why Bill C-33 seeks to modernize our ports and secure our railways, because an efficient and reliable supply chain is key to building an economy that works for all Canadians.In January 2022, I hosted a supply chain summit and created a national supply chain task force. The mandate of the task force was to provide ideas on how we could strengthen our supply chain. Last fall, I shared with Canadians the report from the supply chain task force. It consulted extensively with industry and labour representatives across the country on priority areas for immediate and long-term actions to reduce congestion, improve reliability and increase resilience within Canada's transportation supply chain. It also met with representatives in the United States to understand how we could improve supply chains across our shared borders. The recommendations outlined in the task force report will inform the national supply chain strategy that our government has been working on. Ensuring our supply chains are strong has always been a top priority for me and for our government. That is why Transport Canada has initiated two separate reviews since we came into government: the ports modernization review and the Railway Safety Act review. With both reviews now complete, we are able to advance concrete and immediate actions to modernize how our ports and railways respond to the evolving demands on our transportation infrastructure.The bill I am proposing today is a demonstration of the government taking action to directly support two key modes of transportation that connect us domestically and to world markets.[Translation]With this bill, we are taking real action.[English]This modernized framework for port governance, railway safety and security, and the transportation of dangerous goods will be used for decades to come. Through Bill C-33, I am proposing an ambitious set of reforms to the marine transportation system.This includes significant reforms to the governance of Canada's port authorities and improvements to marine safety and security through changes to the following legislation: the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Customs Act. In a constantly changing world, ports, as key hubs for trade, need a modern framework to better respond to increasingly complex challenges. Bill C-33 would provide them with these tools.Additionally, I am proposing amendments to the Railway Safety Act to improve the safety and security of Canada's railway system. Resilient railway operations need a modernized legislative framework to maintain safe, secure, efficient and reliable services that not only foster economic growth but also benefit all Canadians. Collectively, these measures would keep our supply chains resilient and competitive.[Translation]These measures help our supply chains stay strong.[English]Finally, our government is proposing changes to the Canada Transportation Act to enhance the overall movement of goods across Canada, and to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act to enhance and clarify the safe and secure transportation of dangerous goods in Canada.I will start by focusing on Canada's ports.The proposal before us today is the result of four years of work and stakeholder engagement. Importantly, it takes into account the many lessons learned from the challenges that have hit our transportation network over the past few years. The changes being advanced are focused on six areas: competitiveness, investment, governance, indigenous and local communities, environmental sustainability, and marine safety and security. This bill proposes to ease congestion in our ports; advance reconciliation and enhance structured, meaningful engagement with indigenous people; act on risks posed by climate change; and promote a resilient system that is safe and secure.I would like to first focus on the measures that would advance competitiveness.This bill would increase competition by improving the flow of goods through our ports. This was a key ask from stakeholders, who stressed that collaboration is key to improving fluidity, encouraging investment and expanding port capacity. Additionally, industry-led recommendations from the supply chain task force called for new enabling authorities to facilitate leasing land and transporting containers inland and for regulations and legislation to empower our government to take actions that decongest ports.To better position our strategic ports and support national supply chain performance, the bill would amend the Canada Marine Act to expand the ability of ports to govern and manage traffic, including marine vessel traffic and anchorage use, which are often a source of concern to coastal communities. In support of this traffic-management mandate, our government would establish information- and data-sharing requirements with ports and port users to improve the efficiency of their operations. We will ensure the shared data are appropriately protected.This framework would also support the work our government is doing to develop a national supply chain data strategy. This proposed legislation would expand the operational scope of port authorities, enabling them to move operations inland and away from congested urban areas, which would reduce the impacts these operations can have on local communities.The ability of Canada's port authorities to rise to these new challenges and improve supply chain fluidity is dependent not only on new authorities proposed in this bill, but also on their financial capabilities to invest in infrastructure and take action. The current rules put rigid limits on port borrowing, which ultimately inhibits growth. To facilitate timely and more predictable access to funding, port borrowing limits would be reviewed every three years. These regular reviews would also hold ports accountable to responsible debt repayment to limit financial risk to Canadians.(1010)Proposals in this bill would also improve investment in ports by providing greater clarity and predictability to private investors who have been key to the development of the world-class ports we have today. Specifically, this bill proposes to amend the Canada Transportation Act so that transactions at ports with a value of more than $10 million would be eligible for review by the Minister of Transport. This would ensure these investments meet Canada's competition and national and economic security objectives. This bill would allow our government increased flexibility to act quickly to mitigate security threats to supply chains and further their resiliency during times of emergency.The recent devastation to rail corridors resulting from flooding on the west coast illustrates the need to have tools to respond when the safety or the security of supply chain operations is under threat. Specifically, this legislation would enable swift intervention in exceptional circumstances caused by disruptive events, such as pandemics, extreme weather and the actions of a hostile state actor. With these new powers, I, as the Minister of Transport, would be enabled to send a notice to the responsible authority and direct measures to be taken to restore supply chain fluidity.I would now like to focus on measures that seek to update the governance structure of Canada port authorities. These measures would provide ports with the tools necessary to meet current and future challenges.Let me be clear. The arm's-length nature of ports remains an essential part of their operations and will be maintained. This feature is key to ensuring our ports are seen as credible partners in the global market. However, consultations with stakeholders and local communities identified that the governance structure could more effectively balance national, local, economic and socio-environmental considerations. That is why I am proposing changes that would better frame the relationship between government and ports while enhancing efficiency and transparency and preserving port authority autonomy.These measures involve providing the Minister of Transport with the ability to designate the chairperson of the board from among the board members and in consultation with the board. This measure would ensure Canadian port authorities and our government are aligned on how we deal with the increasing complex economic, social and environmental issues facing our ports.Prairie provinces play a crucial role in supporting a competitive Canadian economy, with ports representing the gateway that connects them to the rest of the world. Given the interdependence between the two, the bill would increase the prairie provinces' representation on the boards of the Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay port authorities. This would reflect their growth and importance to the Canadian economy and would mirror similar structured changes previously made to the board of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.In addition, a series of amendments would improve board performance, accountability and transparency.First, I am proposing to broaden the pool of prospective board candidates by expanding the list of eligible persons to serve as directors. Currently, the exclusion criteria are far too broad and exclude individuals whose employment would not present conflict, impacting the eligibility of highly qualified candidates. This would enable port authority boards to access a wider selection of highly qualified candidates and would further facilitate their success.Another improvement being proposed through the bill is a requirement for Canada port authorities to undertake a review of governance practices every three years. These reviews would evaluate the effectiveness of board governance practices, such as assessments of conflicts of interest and record-keeping practices. The results of these assessments would be shared with Transport Canada and would inform future policy measures as needed.(1015)Furthermore, legislation would provide the authority to make regulations pertaining to the governance of Canada's port authorities. This authority would enable the government to keep governance requirements up to date, recognizing the importance of working with port authorities, indigenous groups and stakeholders as part of the regulation-making process. As I have noted, a key challenge to port governance is in aligning their national mandate with local realities. As part of the engagement process, we heard about the importance of a strong relationship between port authorities and local, notably indigenous, communities. Indigenous communities stressed that more could be done to recognize indigenous rights, including increasing efforts to address issues and consider interests raised by indigenous communities.[Translation]It is important to work with indigenous peoples.[English]This bill would create more opportunities for port authorities to work together with indigenous groups and for local communities to improve responsiveness and transparency in port management of economic, environmental and social issues. This change of approach starts with a proposed amendment to the Canada Marine Act that would explicitly provide distinction and recognition for indigenous groups within the legislation, setting the stage for better port-indigenous community engagement. Building on this, and as a complement to the ability to designate the board chair, and a suite of measures to improve internal port governance, proposed changes would see ports being required in law to establish three new advisory committees: one with indigenous communities, one with local stakeholders and one with local governments. These groups would be designed to structure engagement, enable ongoing dialogue and inform port planning and decision-making. Indigenous peoples, municipalities, communities and industry groups also stressed that ports should also be leaders in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building greener infrastructure and operations. Aligning with our government's climate agenda, new reporting requirements in Bill C-33 would have ports better integrate environmental considerations in their planning, specifically in their financial reporting, to better account for and mitigate environmental risks. In addition, our government is proposing important new measures to ensure ports establish targets, monitor progress and publicly disclose the results of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and mitigate climate-related risks.I will now turn my attention to port security.Our government recognizes that securing our ports is critical, not only to the integrity and competitiveness of our gateways but also for the safety of all Canadians. Bill C-33 proposes significant improvements to enhance the safety and security of the marine sector while strengthening our supply chain. Once in place, this legislation would give Transport Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency the authorities needed to enhance timely screening of containers and to build a more secure and efficient marine transportation system at the same time. I will speak briefly to what Bill C-33 seeks to strengthen in the safety and security of Canada's railway and movement of dangerous goods regulation. A resilient, fluid rail supply chain must be underpinned by its safety. To maintain our rail sector as one of the safest and strongest in the world, we need to ensure our regulations remain up to date. There is so much in this bill that would further improve the resiliency and safety of our ports and rail network. I look forward to engaging with my colleagues in this chamber to ensure that we advance this bill. I look forward to my colleague's feedback and questions and to passing this bill.AccountabilityAdvisory bodiesBoard of directorsC-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActCanada-United States relationsCommunities and collectivitiesDistribution and service industriesFinancingFreight transportationGovernanceGovernment assistanceGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesHazardous substances and hazardous productsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMaritime safetyMaritime transportationOperational reviewsPolitical appointmentsPort authoritiesPort of Thunder BayPorts and harboursPrince RupertRail transport safetyRegulationSecond readingShipping containersTransportationTransportation infrastructureTransportation safety7627818DanMuysFlamborough—Glanbrook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsTerritorial Lands ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)(1215)[English]Bill C-326. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-326, An Act to amend the Territorial Lands Act.She said: [Member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following text:] ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔩ, ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒃᐳᖓ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᓐᓄ ᓂᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᕋᒪ.ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᓇᓕᒧᓕᕆᐊᖃᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᖅᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᖢᑎᒃ, ᓯᕗᓂᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᓂᑰᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᐱᔪᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᓄᓇᓕᕆᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓂ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑕᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓄᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᓂᓕᒫᖏᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᓕᓐᓂᓕᒫᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᐱᙳᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᔭᕐᒪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑎᒋᐊᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᑦ.ᖁᔭᓕᕗᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᓐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᖅᔪᐊ Edmonton Griesbach−ᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐲᒻᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᑦᓴᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᕙᑦᑐ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᐸᖕᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ.[Inuktitut text interpreted as follows:]Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to my bill. The Territorial Lands Act needs to align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Free, prior and informed consent must be used when developing on indigenous lands. Indigenous people’s rights must be upheld at all stages of government, from beginning to end. This bill will ensure that governments meet this important international standard. I thank the experts I worked with and my NDP colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for seconding my bill and who continues to advocate for indigenous rights, as I do. [English](Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)C-326, An Act to amend the Territorial Lands ActGovernment landsIndigenous languages in proceedingsIndigenous rightsIntroduction and First readingInuktitutMining industryPrivate Members' Bills7628190762819176281937628194762819576281967628197762819876281997628200CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsTerritorial Lands ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a deep respect for the member and indigenous languages. However, going forward, it would be advantageous if we were provided with some sort of translation so we know what is being talked about on the floor.C-326, An Act to amend the Territorial Lands ActGovernment landsIndigenous languages in proceedingsIndigenous rightsIntroduction and First readingMining industryPoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsTranslation and interpretation services7628201LoriIdloutNunavutCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105908LaurelCollinsLaurel-CollinsVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CollinsLaurel_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, generations of indigenous people have experienced and continue to be impacted by violence at the hands of Canada's colonial systems. Geraldine Glattstein is a constituent in my riding and an indigenous woman from Panama who has been using her platform as a filmmaker to shine a light on the ongoing genocide in Canada. Geraldine's “our missing sisters” initiative focuses on the Highway of Tears and aims to honour the lives of those who were murdered and those who have gone missing, but also to engage Canadians broadly in our collective responsibility. For too long, the work of reconciliation and fighting for indigenous rights has fallen to indigenous people. We must all take on this work. It is critical that the government step up and implement all the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. As we honour the lives of those we have lost, we must also take immediate action to stop the ongoing violence against indigenous people.GirlsGlattstein, GeraldineIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsStatements by MembersViolence against women762159076215917621592AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessDepartment of Public Works and Government Services ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1745)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I rise for the last time today, on national Have a Heart Day.Before I begin, I wish safe travels to all of the delegates who attended the Northern Lights trade show here in Ottawa last week. It is an important event that promotes the great work that Nunavummiut are doing to support Canada’s economy. It is a great event to showcase the beauty and talent that artisans from the NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavut have.I extend my congratulations to all the participants and winners of the Arctic Winter Games in Woodland, Alberta. I have heard great stories of triumph, heartache and celebration. I thank the volunteers who have devoted their time to the success of youth to achieve their best in such events.I thank my NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for sponsoring Bill S-222 in this place. It is a step in the right direction to help eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. The government has the responsibility to do its part. We must all do our part to reduce emissions. We must all do our part to protect the environment. This bill, while short, has important implications. There must be a fine balance between keeping forests and reducing reliance on harmful materials.Over the last 20 years, I have driven back and forth between Ottawa and New Brunswick to visit family. I have noticed major changes over those 20 years. Roads have improved. Communities have grown, and forests of trees have been decimated. Although I know that I cannot live in remote wooded areas for long periods of time, I know how important trees are. I know that we must find solutions to replacing harmful products, such as plastics and other materials known to accelerate climate change. As Canadian businesses and organizations are shifting to more sustainable practices, this bill helps to ensure that the federal government will work toward those concerns. We are often asked to stretch the limits of our knowledge to learn about important issues that constituents are concerned about. In this speech, I stretch my limits in attempting to understand how mainstream society consumes resources.The aim of this bill is to allow the federal government to use wood for improvements to infrastructure. By using wood in the repair and building of federal infrastructure projects, Canadian businesses can be better supported. In 2013, production in the forest sector contributed $19.8 billion, or 1.25% to Canada’s real gross domestic product. With the decline of the forestry industry in recent years, there is an opportunity to revitalize this sector while protecting the environment.In my riding, although we are not manufacturing wood, families rely on wood for homes, heating and other projects. We rely very much on the import of wood from our neighbours to the south. I use this seat to make sure that concerns are brought forward, my constituents' questions are answered and their needs are met. As the critic to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, my job is to amplify the voices and the concerns that indigenous peoples have. I meet with indigenous communities, chiefs, elders and advocates who are asking the government to listen and take meaningful action to repair the damage it has done. This is important work, but the government must also stretch itself. It needs to be putting in the hard work to make sure Canadians are heard and this is acted upon. In Budget 2017, the government provided Natural Resources Canada with $39.8 million over four years, starting in 2018–19, to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. We are calling on the government to make good on its promises and be true to its word. (1750)This is important, especially in the context of the federal government’s relationship with the indigenous peoples of Canada. The government has promised to protect indigenous people's lands, consult with indigenous communities and work toward reconciliation. Too often, this does not occur. The government must take the issues being raised by Canadians more seriously. The government has promised greener solutions to address climate change.All too often, I have watched the government break promises it has made to indigenous peoples and to Canadians. All too often, the government has taken minimal or incremental steps that improve the lives of indigenous peoples. The Liberal government has said that there is no relationship more important than that with indigenous peoples. Protecting and upholding indigenous people's rights is a responsibility of the government.The bill is silent on this important matter. How will indigenous people's rights be respected? How will this amendment increase tenure for first nations communities? How will first nations management be guaranteed?It is my hope that amendments will be made to acknowledge that Canada is founded on indigenous people's lands, and provisions must account for that. As Canada continues to work toward a better future, indigenous people must be heard and their land rights must be upheld.Indigenous governance and management must be included. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be included. No development of any kind should exclude the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people. Building materialsClimate change and global warmingEnvironmental protectionFederal governmentForestsGovernment contractsGreenhouse gasesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPrivate Members' BillsS-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood)Second readingSenate billsWood7578440757844175784427578443LucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, every community deserves to feel safe, and that is what Bill C-21 was originally intended to do: end handgun violence. Instead, the Liberals introduced amendments at the eleventh hour that would make it harder for indigenous people, farmers and hunters to support their families and put food on their tables. Today, the Liberals finally dropped the amendments that the Assembly of First Nations said would go against its treaty rights.Will the minister apologize for the mess he made with these amendments?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Indigenous rightsLaw, justice and rightsOral questions75550067555007Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.): (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, we are committed, and we promised Canadians that we would take action on gun violence. On the particular amendments the hon. member has referred to in Bill C-21, an important bill that would deal with gun violence, I will acknowledge there was not enough consultation. There were not enough conversations with indigenous peoples across the country. That is why we are committed in our committee to listening to the concerns and to making sure that our legislation is one that will protect public safety and keep Canadians safe. I look forward to working with the hon. member.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Indigenous rightsLaw, justice and rightsOral questions7555008AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgStatements by MembersBill NamagooseInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (1400)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, a remarkable man from my riding is one of the 49 people who were invested into the Order of Canada on December 13. Bill Namagoose, who served as the executive director of the Cree Nation Government for 35 years, was invested into the Order of Canada for his significant contributions to the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee and to the advancement of indigenous rights across the country.Mr. Namagoose accepted this honour in the spirit of reconciliation. He served as the band manager of the Waskaganish Cree First Nation from 1978 to 1988 and as chief of that nation from 1983 to 1984. He helped build a relationship between the Cree nation, Quebec and Canada, which he considers his proudest achievement. He also participated in the peace of the brave negotiations and the creation of the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government.I do not have enough time to list all of the wonderful things this man has accomplished.I congratulate Mr. Namagoose for this richly deserved honour, and I wish him a happy retirement.Indigenous rightsNamagoose, BillOrder of CanadaStatements by Members7551793755179475517957551796HeathMacDonaldMalpequeSergeCormierAcadie—Bathurst//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is not what he is doing. He is banning firearms that, in many cases, are not even semi-automatic. These are firearms that have to be re-chambered every single time. They are deliberately created for hunting and sustenance.The Assembly of First Nations has unanimously spoken against this ban on hunting rifles, as have numerous experts and now members of his own caucus. They all agree that his ban does not target weapons that are designed to kill people. It targets weapons that are for the legitimate Canadian tradition of hunting.Will he announce he is backing down from attacking our hunters today?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions751670575167067516707JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have heard clear concerns from first nations, Métis and Inuit partners. Our intent with this legislation is to target guns designed for the battlefield and not the ones commonly used for hunting. As I have mentioned, the Minister of Public Safety is taking the time to get this right, and that means consulting with partners to make sure we are not capturing weapons we should not be.Part of that process is showing up to meet with indigenous leaders. That is something the leader of the official opposition failed to do last week when he had an opportunity to sit down with AFN chiefs.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions75167087516709PierrePoilievreHon.CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting with first nations leaders from across the country, and they have been unanimous in their desire to protect their millennia-old tradition of hunting. That requires, in the modern sense, the use of hunting rifles. The Prime Minister's government has tabled 300 pages of banned hunting rifles before a Canadian parliamentary committee. He is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, targeting the legitimate hunting tools of rural people and first nations.Why does he not put that money into securing our borders and fighting crime instead?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions75167107516711JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government that the Leader of the Opposition was a part of, before we took office in 2015, cut close to a billion dollars from our border services and police services across the country.We, on the contrary, have been investing to restore that funding, even as we move forward with close to a billion dollars for keeping our communities safer. We also have invested massively in our border protection. We ensured, for example, that last year we were able to collect double the number of illegal firearms trying to cross our borders than the year before.We will continue to protect our borders. We will continue to protect Canadians. We will continue to move on gun control.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions751671275167137516714PierrePoilievreHon.CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105854TaylorBachrachTaylor-BachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BachrachTaylor_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersIndigenous Rights and TitleInterventionMr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1415)[English][Member spoke in Gitsenimx] [English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the landmark Delgamuukw-Gisday'wa court ruling, and to pay tribute to the strength and tenacity of the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en. With Delgamuukw, these two nations changed the legal landscape in Canada forever and blazed a trail that so many have since followed. For the first time, our highest court said that oral histories can be evidence and that aboriginal title in Canada has never been extinguished by colonization.Mishandling of the original trial left Chief Justice Lamer unable to affirm title on appeal, so he implored Canada to do the hard work of negotiating in good faith. Twenty-five years later, so much of this work remains to be done.For their part, the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en remain determined to realize the full potential of their rights and title. As the late Earl Muldoe, who held the name Delgamuukw, stated in 1997, “If you take a bucket of water out of the Skeena River, the Skeena keeps on flowing. Our rights still flow and they will flow forever.”AnniversaryGitxsan NationIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsLanguage other than official languageStatements by MembersWet'suwet'en First Nation751399875139997514000751400175140027514003BrendaShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111023Lisa MarieBarronLisaMarie-BarronNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarronLisaMarie_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMs. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, people deserve to know they are safe from gun violence in our communities. Bill C-21 was an opportunity to limit handguns and protect victims of domestic violence, but instead of protecting people, the Liberals made a last-second change that would unfairly impact hunters, farmers and indigenous people and the tools they use for food security and protection.Concerned constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith want to know when the government will listen and clean up this mess.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Farming and farmersGun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions75142047514205JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraMarcoMendicinoHon.Eglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoHon.Marco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionHon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that we are indeed listening to indigenous peoples. Last week, I spent the better part of a morning consulting and engaging with indigenous leaders right across the country to make sure we protect indigenous traditions, including as it relates to food security. We are creating space for indigenous-led initiatives when it comes to public safety, and we are going to make sure the language of Bill C-21 aligns with our government's priority, which is to take those guns that were designed for the battlefield off our streets and protect indigenous traditions at the same time.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Farming and farmersGun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions75142067514207Lisa MarieBarronNanaimo—LadysmithNikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook Aski//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/36037NikiAshtonNiki-AshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AshtonNiki_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberals could not be more out of touch with northern and indigenous communities. Indigenous leaders at the AFN unanimously oppose the Liberals' amendment to Bill C-21. This amendment is a threat to indigenous and northern ways of life. It is a slap in the face for communities that depend on hunting and trapping to live, people who are facing some of the highest costs of living right now. Bill C-21 was meant to be important legislation to deal with handgun violence, but the Liberals have chosen to play cheap political games.Will the Liberals withdraw the amendment, stick to the main bill and stand up for northern and indigenous peoples, who are struggling right now?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Farming and farmersGun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions75142087514209MarcoMendicinoHon.Eglinton—LawrenceDanVandalHon.Saint Boniface—Saint Vital//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89045DanVandalHon.Dan-VandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VandalDan_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionHon. Dan Vandal (Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, we will always respect hunters, sport shooters, and indigenous peoples and their traditions. Our government has been extremely clear. We are not targeting hunting rifles. We are not targeting shotguns. This is about guns that were used at Polytechnique and the mosque attacks in Quebec City and South Simcoe. This is to create safer communities for all Canadians.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Farming and farmersGun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions75142107514211NikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, opposition to the Liberals' proposed ban on hunting rifles and shotguns is growing. Yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations issued a declaration opposing Bill C-21 because it attacks treaty hunting rights. The Liberal government claims that there is no relationship more important than that with indigenous peoples, but it failed to consult with first nations, Métis and Inuit. When will the Liberals admit that they failed to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and scrap Bill C-21?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions75009977500998AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, for more than 20 years I have been going to the Assembly of First Nations. I have been a part of the resolutions. I have been a part of drafting those resolutions. I have been a part of voting on those resolutions. I applaud the proactive advocacy of first nations when they hear something that they do not quite understand, but I want to make it clear that first nations' hunting rights will always be respected by this government. We know it is a constitutional right. We know there is a constitutional element to this. We will get it right and indigenous hunters will continue into the future.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions75009997501000DaneLloydSturgeon River—ParklandChrisLewisEssex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, Nunavummiut need to hunt to feed their families and to protect themselves from dangerous predators, such as polar bears. Bill C-21 was about getting handguns off the streets, but now with this last-minute amendment, the Liberal government has shown how out of touch it is with the daily lives of Nunavummiut. My community is worried and confused.When will the government stop playing political games and ensure indigenous communities can protect themselves from dangerous predators like—C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions75010587501059AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, we have heard from many northern MPs, who live in different realities from many of us in urban centres. We know there have been concerns. There has been some misinformation on Bill C-21. We know the committee added two extra meetings to make sure we are getting it right, because we always want to make sure we are respecting indigenous hunting rights. Our government will continue to do that. We know it is a constitutional right, but it is also the right thing to do.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions7501061AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessNational Ribbon Skirt Day ActInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (1335)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would first like to take this precious opportunity to wish happy holidays to all the staff of the House, my fellow members, the interpreters and my constituency office team, Lynda, Mélanie, Jenny, Nancy and Éric.It is an honour to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill S-219, which creates a national ribbon skirt day to be held every year on January 4. The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of the bill, given that it aligns with our party's general position and our commitment to being an ally of first nations. It also aligns with the process of reconciliation with indigenous peoples.Much like the orange shirt and the red dress, the ribbon skirt has become a very powerful symbol for indigenous peoples and for indigenous women. A symbol of femininity and, quite frankly, resilience, this simple and humble garment is in itself a political manifesto. Although they should not have to do so, these women are putting themselves out there and loudly expressing their right to exist by wearing the ribbon skirt. The ribbon skirt is a centuries-old symbol of womanhood, identity, adaptation and survival. It is a way for women to honour themselves and their culture. It represents a direct connection to Mother Earth and her sacred medicines. What is extraordinary is that with this symbol that is now recognized by this bill, these women are telling the whole world that despite all the tragedies and attempts at cultural genocide, they are still there, standing strong. They are alive and proud to be who they are.Designating this day would pay special tribute to these indigenous women as life-givers entrusted with traditional knowledge to care for their families, communities and the environment. Celebrating this symbol would be a way to recognize the fact that indigenous culture, tradition and ceremony, including ties to language and the land, are critical to the vitality and well-being of Canada's first peoples.Throughout the debate on this bill in the Senate, the sponsor of Bill S‑219 generously shared statements received at her office. One of them, from Isabelle Susanne Kulak, a young 10-year old indigenous girl, represents the essence of this bill. She explains that for her, a ribbon skirt symbolizes strength, resilience, cultural identity and femininity. She says that when she wears a ribbon skirt, she feels sure of herself and proud to be an indigenous girl.In fact, it is a matter of pride, including among young people, to be able to wear the skirt to honour their kokum, or their grandmothers, and their mothers. Ms. Wapistan, who came to testify at committee, explained that when a person wears a ribbon skirt, “it is about honouring ourselves as indigenous women and honouring our grandmothers and our mothers who wear the skirt every day.”We are living in an era of reconciliation. It is important to include the indigenous cultures and traditions in public spaces in order to facilitate this reconciliation and allow the expression of their pride. We also recognize that not all indigenous peoples wear the ribbon skirt. Nevertheless, the spirit of this national ribbon skirt day is to celebrate indigenous women, pillars of indigenous communities across Canada. The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to being an ally to the first nations. The principle of this bill makes it possible to take one more small step forward toward reconciliation by responding to article 15.1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It also refers to calls for justice 2.1 and 15.2 of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.The Viens commission was given a mandate in my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and, still today, very little has been done to help missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. This is still a problem. I still see posters in my riding when I travel from Val‑d'Or to Chibougamau and around northern Quebec, so a lot of work still needs to be done. These two calls for justice line up with what the Bloc stands for, which is reconciliation. That is defined as the establishment of a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.(1340)Specifically, call for justice 2.1 in the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls calls “upon all governments to acknowledge, recognize, and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their cultures and languages as inherent rights, and constitutionally protected as such under section 35 of the Constitution”.I am almost done, but before I wrap up, I just want to pay my respects to the friends, families and communities of the four indigenous women who were the victims of a despicable person. Let us hope that reconciliation will be stronger than hate and that people will come to realize that, while we have our differences, we are all human beings.In closing, the bill refers to “traditional knowledge”. We must never forget that women have managed to preserve that knowledge. That is a fine example of resilience. I hope we all approach this initiative with sincerity as a way of showing these women and their communities that they are no longer alone.Cultural heritageHomicideIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMissing personsPrivate Members' BillsS-219, An Act respecting a National Ribbon Skirt DaySenate billsThird reading and adoptionViolence against women7501336CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, just moments ago the Assembly of First Nations, which represents indigenous people across Canada, issued a declaration publicly opposing the Liberals' Bill C-21. This Liberal hunting gun grab is not only a threat to the livelihood of hunters, trappers and sport shooters but a violation of the treaty hunting rights of all first nations.When will the Prime Minister end his attack on law-abiding hunters and indigenous treaty rights and stop Bill C-21?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions74969227496923JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthVanceBadaweyNiagara Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88867VanceBadaweyVance-BadaweyNiagara CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BadaweyVance_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, today Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, alongside the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, requested two urgent meetings to be held immediately.The premise behind this is to work together with the Bloc and the NDP. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to be part of the problem versus being part of the solution.The mission here is to get guns off the street—C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions749692474969257496926DaneLloydSturgeon River—ParklandRaquelDanchoKildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88867VanceBadaweyVance-BadaweyNiagara CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BadaweyVance_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity, as well, to thank the Bloc, and in particular its MPs, those who are on the committee and the one who brought the motion forward. I thank them for that, and I also thank the NDP.The key here is that we work together with different organizations and different members of the House to ensure, once again, that we get those dangerous weapons off the streets.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions74969407496941AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingDaneLloydSturgeon River—Parkland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, consultation at this late stage in the process is an act of bad faith by the government. It is a slap in the face to reconciliation. The government needs to go back to the drawing board and consult with first nations and hunters across this country before coming up with any new legislation on this matter. It is black and white. The Assembly of First Nations knows it; the Conservatives know it, and all other parties know it. The government denied it for weeks, saying it was not going after hunting rifles and shotguns, but now it is finally admitting it. It knows it was misleading the House. When will the government stop going after law-abiding hunters and sport shooters?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions74969427496943VanceBadaweyNiagara CentrePamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government has been very clear that it is not targeting the guns commonly used for hunting. I applaud the members of the Bloc—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions74969447496945DaneLloydSturgeon River—ParklandAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, I applaud the members of the Bloc and the NDP for working with us to try to come up with solutions while the Conservative Party is just looking for problems. The committee is doing the important work it needs to do on this legislation. I invite the hon. members from the Conservative Party to join us in finding solutions and supporting our emergency motion for a meeting to invite witnesses to come to committee.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions7496947AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingScotDavidsonYork—Simcoe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government's proposed amendment to Bill C-21 has become a textbook case on what not to do. This change was brought in at the 11th hour, with no consultation and no testimony. It has distracted from the original purpose of the bill, and it hurts rural communities. Hunters, farmers and indigenous communities are outraged that some of the rifles and shotguns they use to provide for their families could be banned. The Minister of Public Safety blindsided Canadians when he made this mess. How is he going to fix it?C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions74969537496954PascaleSt-OngeHon.Brome—MissisquoiPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearmsInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging the good work the hon. member does on the public safety committee and the perspective he brings forward.We will not be banning any guns that are commonly used for hunting. We spent two hours at committee today, getting very technical answers on what is included in the bill and the types of guns that are being considered under this legislation. I look forward to working with the hon. member, and in fact all members of the House, to make sure we get this legislation right.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsOral questions74969557496956AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88748JamesMaloneyJames-MaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaloneyJames_Lib.jpgStatements by MembersFirearmsInterventionMr. James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was born in Thunder Bay, and one of my fondest memories is the time spent with my dad and two brothers walking through the bush on a beautiful fall day. I am proud to say that I am hunter. I would not trade those memories for anything, and I would not want to deny anybody else the opportunity to make them. This is in no way inconsistent with the legislation before the House that would keep our streets and communities safe from unlawful gun and gang activity.Hunting is one of the oldest traditions in Canada. It is a tradition that involves and promotes the safe use of firearms. Hunting also provides food security to many Canadian families and indigenous communities. A safe and sustainable practice of hunting in Canada not only respects our past but recognizes the importance of indigenous Canadians, for whom it is a way of life. I am committed to making sure that we find the right balance.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)Gun controlHuntersIndigenous rightsStatements by Members74830617483062GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerDanMazierDauphin—Swan River—Neepawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to start my speech again. I meant the Prime Minister and his party. However, I would reference that the parliamentary secretary was using a prop in his speech yesterday, and I did not call him out for that. I will simply leave that there.I also note that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague for the constituency of Louis-Saint-Laurent. There was one conversation that I found somewhat troubling here yesterday. In that conversation there seemed to be some fairly significant opposition to the idea of economic reconciliation. I have a whole host of quotes from committee testimony. The conversation led to not only addressing past wrongs and not only addressing how we deal with those today. It was also about how to truly address the future so that indigenous people in this country have everything that is required to prosper, to succeed and to see that reconciliation that is so absolutely essential.I find it concerning that this seems to have become a hang-up with some on the left in this country. I pose a very general question to all those who are listening: Why is there so much opposition by certain political entities in this country to the idea of ensuring that indigenous peoples in this country are given every tool necessary to succeed and to prosper?I hope it would be the goal of every single member of this place. I am so pleased that in my home province of Alberta there are many examples where first nations and band councils have partnered in resource development, whether that be traditional oil and gas or not. It was wrongly suggested yesterday that Conservatives only talk about resource partnerships when it comes to oil and gas. However, I had the opportunity to meet with a band that is not in my constituency, but just a little way to the south. It is in the process of going through significant red tape and unfortunate barriers that exist in building a solar farm.There are some incredible innovations and advancements being brought about through indigenous creativity, ensuring indigenous people are truly a part of Canada's economic future. I note the importance of that meaningful reconciliation.When it comes specifically to Bill C-29, which addresses calls to action 53 through 56 in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, we have highlighted through the course of Bill C-29 the importance of the democratic process. I highlighted a number of concerns, and many of my colleagues did likewise, over the course of debate at second reading. We fulsomely debated it then and sent that bill to committee.What we saw at committee was truly the parliamentary process at work. I believe the Conservatives brought forward about 20 amendments, including one on what I hope was an oversight in addressing call to action 56. Instead of having the Prime Minister respond to the council recommendations, it would have been the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. The TRC was very clear one way. The bill mistakenly, I hope, referred that responsibility to someone else.However, Conservatives were very productive and saw, if I remember correctly, 17 of the 20 amendments passed at committee. They are amendments that would make the bill stronger, to help address some of the concerns we heard from stakeholders and to help ensure that meaningful reconciliation can take place.There are certainly some things that can continue to be worked on, and I dare to challenge anyone who says we have everything perfect as it stands now. However, I was incredibly disappointed yesterday when one particular amendment was passed at committee, including with the support of one member of the Liberal party. The Liberals passed an amendment yesterday at report stage of the bill that removed a national indigenous organization, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.(1630)There are members who may not be aware of some of the history surrounding why this is important. Specifically, there is the Daniels decision and a long court case between groups of indigenous people, including non-status Indians. That is important, because often the conversation circles around those who have status, but there is a whole host of indigenous peoples in this country who do not necessarily have that status card from the government. However, yesterday, the Liberals specifically included an amendment, which passed at committee, to have the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples removed from this council. I will highlight why that is concerning. Liberals often, including today, say how important it is to have a diversity of voices at the table. However, the Liberals may find some of the positions that CAP holds to be inconvenient, along with some of the things its members say in regard to being critical about the government. However, just because they are critical about the government does not mean that they should not have their voices included. I believe it was the Native Women's Association that was also included through a Conservative amendment. I am very disappointed to see that move against a whole host of indigenous peoples from this country. That includes many who do not fit the typical stereotype associated with those who may live on reserves and have that card from the government that suggests they are a particular member of a band or not. It is that “or not” that is absolutely key.We have heard from so many across the country, especially since our Conservative Party leader has done a huge amount of outreach into indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast. They have a sense of hope and opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, sees and articulates the potential that truly exists for Canada's indigenous people. I am excited to be a member of a party that looks for those opportunities for meaningful reconciliation and would ensure that Canada's indigenous peoples are truly given every opportunity afforded to them to succeed and prosper in Canada. C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationCongress of Aboriginal PeoplesCourt ordersDaniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)Government accountabilityGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMétisNational Council for ReconciliationNon-status IndiansOil and gasSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption7469435Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105186EricMelilloEric-MelilloKenoraConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MelilloEric_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC): (1020)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to join the debate today on Bill C-29, the truth and reconciliation council. It has been an honour for me as the member for Kenora representing northwestern Ontario, which includes 42 first nations across three treaty territories as well as the Métis homeland, to work on this bill throughout the committee process.I am pleased that the vast majority of the amendments brought forward by the Conservative Party have been adopted and implemented into Bill C-29. As well, other parties have been able to improve this legislation, so far, moving forward. Generally, we have been working together quite well at committee, notwithstanding a couple of hiccups. I will speak a bit more to those towards the end of my comments.I first want to take a step back and look at the need for the truth and reconciliation council. I believe it is important that we are turning from nice words of reconciliation to action. I think we have a government that has said, more or less, all the right things over the last seven years that it has been in power, but that there has not always been the proper follow-up to ensure true reconciliation is being met and is moving forward.I believe this council could serve as an accountability mechanism for that, to ensure there is that oversight, so to speak, on government, and to ensure that not just this government but future governments would live up to the rhetoric, so to speak, when it comes to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples.This is important because we are in a situation where we have a government that, I would say, very clearly measures its success based on how many dollars it can spend. If we ask a question about almost anything in the chamber, the government tells us how many dollars it spent to address it. It says, “Look at us. We spent more money than anybody else. Clearly we care the most and we are doing the most. Therefore, that is the right approach.”However, on this side of the House, we believe we should be measuring outcomes. We should be measuring the results those dollars are actually achieving. That is where there is a major gap. That is where I believe we need to take more action to ensure that we are actually following through.I want to look to a report from May of this year, from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It indicated that since 2015 there has been a significant increase in funding to Indigenous Services Canada. I believe there was an over 100% increase. However, the highlights of the Parliamentary Budget Officer report said: This increase in expenditure did not result in a commensurate increase in the ability of the organizations to achieve the targets that they had set for themselves. The government is spending more to achieve worse results. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also said that Indigenous Services is having trouble actually matching what it is spending with its own performance targets, essentially throwing money out the window in many cases.I want to turn to another quote from Ken Coates in The Globe and Mail. He said, “Put bluntly, Canada is not getting what it is paying for—and what's worse, the massive spending is not improving lives in Indigenous communities.” That is a great cause for concern. I think that should concern everybody in the chamber and everyone across the country.We have a system where, in many ways, the Liberal government is creating this appearance of progress by announcing all the funds they are funnelling through Indigenous Services, but the lives of indigenous peoples are not actually improving.We see that across the north as well when it comes to nutrition north Canada. That is, of course, the government's flagship program to address food security across the north, particularly in the territories but also in the northern parts of the provinces, including in my riding of Kenora, where there are many communities that fall within the jurisdiction of nutrition north Canada.Every single year the government has increased the spending on this program. It has increased the subsidy. It has put more resources towards it, but every single year it has been in office, the rates of food insecurity across the north have risen. The government is literally spending more, again, to get worse results. We see that especially across the north where in places like Nunavut over half of the population is food insecure. We have heard those concerns from many members on all sides of the House for a number of years now. It cannot just be addressed by more money.(1025)We know that dollars in government investment are often necessary and are often an important part of the solution, but time and again we have seen these reports that show that more money is not going to solve the problem. We need to actually have a structural overhaul to Indigenous Services Canada to ensure we are getting value for those dollars and that indigenous people are seeing that value.I want to speak a bit about the boil water advisories as well because that is another area where the government has made some progress. I have said that before and I will say it again. The Liberals have made some progress. We have seen in my riding some communities that have had water advisories lifted, that are moving forward and are having much success with that, but that is not universal. There are many other communities where the government, in large part, is getting in the way. Neskantaga in my riding has been under a boil water advisory for many years. Just a couple of years ago, it actually had to evacuate because the water plant malfunctioned altogether. The government has put $25 million toward supporting a new water treatment plant in Neskantaga. It is not for lack of money being allocated. Indigenous Services Canada is putting up barriers and making it difficult for those funds to actually reach the community. That is why, in part, we are seeing the boil water advisory persisting to this date. Those are the structural issues I am talking about.The Auditor General as well has previously stated that there are systemic issues in the Indigenous Services bureaucracy; that longer wait times are leading to higher costs of projects, for example; and that Indigenous Services often tries to dictate to communities how those dollars should be spent, when the communities know best where the dollars should go. One of the most troubling things is that Indigenous Services Canada is not allowing indigenous communities across the country to guide their own destinies. The department is dictating to them and oftentimes getting it wrong.That brings me to the overarching point of why I was sharing these concerns. Of course these are concerns that would be addressed in part through Bill C-29, which is why I am speaking positively about the legislation. I do think Bill C-29 is necessary and this council would help us achieve better goals for indigenous people. However, I want to talk about the reasons why I feel that is necessary. That is why I was sharing those structural concerns, and it comes back to what the Conservative Party is standing on. We have currently a Liberal government in office that is, as the reports frequently allude to, spending more and getting less. It is the government itself, through the silos it has created in Indigenous Services with the lack of flexibility to allocate funding where communities see best, that is actually continuing to perpetuate challenges across the north. We are seeing it in northwestern Ontario and across northern Ontario. That is why I want to talk about what the Conservative Party would do.The Conservative Party would respect the rights of indigenous communities to guide their own destinies. We would empower communities to have self-determination, to have more freedom and to make those decisions for themselves. We stand here ready as a partner and ally to move forward on prosperity, on projects, on infrastructure and on social supports that are necessary to see these communities thrive. For too long, we have had a government that is getting in the way, that is bloating the bureaucracy and that is not meaningfully addressing the needs that will advance reconciliation. Those are the thoughts I wanted to leave on a final note. I wrap it up with the fact that Bill C-29, this council for reconciliation, should serve as an accountability mechanism for the government to ensure it is not throwing money into the wind but that it is actually getting meaningful results with the dollars it is spending.BureaucracyC-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationDrinking waterFood supplyGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsGovernment expendituresGovernment servicesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationNorthern CanadaNutrition North Canada programReconciliation with indigenous peoplesReport stage7464662JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (1035)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to take the floor in the House and, today, I am doing so at the report stage of Bill C‑29.As we all know, the adoption of this bill will allow for the establishment of an apolitical and permanent indigenous-led national council for reconciliation to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples in response to calls to action 53 to 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs studied Bill C‑29 and produced a report that includes the amendments made to the bill. These do not change the spirit and intent of the bill.The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle underlying Bill C‑29, and will support its adoption in its current form, since, as I said in a speech here in the House last week, the Bloc Québécois is a vocal advocate for nation-to-nation relations between Quebec, Canada and first nations.Giving indigenous peoples a stronger voice and allowing them to be heard in the reconciliation process is entirely in line with our position. As members know, the Bloc Québécois has always worked with indigenous nations at the federal level to strengthen and guarantee their inherent rights. It is also working to ensure that the federal government applies the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in its entirety in its own jurisdictions.The Bloc Québécois has also come out in support of indigenous nations receiving their due, and we will continue to apply pressure on the federal government to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.Lastly, let us not forget that, on June 21, 2021, the Bloc secured the unanimous passage of a motion to ensure that indigenous communities have all the resources needed to lift the veil on the historical reality of residential schools and to force the churches to open their archives. This bill is a step forward in this regard.As I mentioned earlier, this bill follows up on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 to 56. As members will recall, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established through a legal agreement between residential school survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives and those responsible for creating and running the schools, in other words, the federal government and church authorities.It is important for us, here, to remember these calls to action, and that is why I am taking the liberty of reading them, as they are the reason for Bill C‑29. Call to action 53 reads: We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal Peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation.Call to action 54 reads:We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.Call to action 55 reads:We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation....Call to action 56 reads:We call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to formally respond to the report of the National Council for Reconciliation by issuing an annual “State of Aboriginal Peoples” report, which would outline the government’s plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois is fully and firmly in favour of these calls to action, which is why we support this bill. We also support Bill C‑29 because of its major components, including the positive goal to establish a national council for reconciliation to advance efforts towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples.Members will note one thing that keeps coming up in this bill, specifically all the entities that the national council for reconciliation will monitor and on which it will make recommendations.We can see that the council's current purpose is to monitor the progress being made towards reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada and to recommend measures to promote, prioritize and coordinate efforts for reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada.(1040)First, we need to understand what “all sectors of Canadian society” means.I assume that all Canadian Crown corporations will be under the council's scrutiny, but that raises questions. Will the council also monitor and investigate federally regulated private businesses? Would an independent airline be included in the mandate to monitor and make recommendations?The very broad scope the bill allows the council appears to give it great latitude in its activities, but that could also make it less effective when it could be focusing on government corporations and bodies rather than on private businesses. The government must set an example, so it is important to pay special attention to its entities.The other element to look at is the monitoring of “all governments in Canada”. The intention is to monitor provincial and territorial governments. Although indigenous affairs fall under federal jurisdiction, first nations issues also relate to many areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as health and education. There seems to be a desire to disregard jurisdiction and allow the council to monitor all government activities in Canada.I would remind members that the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Quebec, known as the Viens commission, was set up to determine the underlying causes of all forms of violence, discrimination and differential treatment towards Indigenous women and men in the delivery of certain public services in Quebec.In his report, the commissioner issued 135 recommendations to the Government of Quebec. These calls to action apply to all of the services the government delivers to indigenous peoples, such as justice, correctional services, law enforcement, health, social services and youth protection.In the interest of independent and impartial monitoring, the Quebec ombudsman was mandated to follow up on the implementation of the recommendations made by the Viens commission. The ombudsman has established an advisory committee comprising first nations and Inuit members to foster collaboration and ensure that the Viens commission’s calls to action are translated into measures that meet the needs of first nations and Inuit representatives.Another committee, made up mainly of university researchers and representatives of civil society, was also set up to independently document the implementation of these calls to action. The committee, which was based out of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, released its first report in 2021.The national council for reconciliation is another body tasked with monitoring progress and making recommendations, in addition to the two similar bodies already at work in Quebec. It is worth asking whether there will again be overlap between their mandates or whether the council will focus on federal issues in Quebec, analyzing only issues that fall under federal jurisdiction. I certainly hope there will be no overlap.Lastly, we know that the national council for reconciliation will have to conduct investigations, since its mandate is to monitor and make recommendations. That means it will need investigators and analysts. I would be curious to see the current forecasts concerning the number of employees the council will need in order to carry out its mission properly.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationDownload responsibilityFederal jurisdictionFederally regulated employers and employeesGovernment assistanceGovernment billsGovernment servicesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsInquiries and public inquiriesNational Council for ReconciliationProvince of QuebecPublic Service and public servantsRacial equalityReconciliation with indigenous peoplesReport stageResearch and researchersState-owned enterprisesUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue7464690EricMelilloKenoraJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, the member opposite just mentioned a very critical part of this act that I hope will benefit the dialogue of all members of Parliament on this incredibly important topic.The Constitution of Canada was mentioned several times in defence of the government, as to why it chose three national organizations. The Constitution under section 35 is explicit. It says that we will protect and affirm the existing aboriginal inherent treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis. Not once does it make mention of the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council or the ITK. These three national organizations were, in many cases, incorporated after the Constitution in 1982 was ratified.The question really is about why the government chose those three national organizations. It cannot use the Constitution, because that is not what it says.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationReport stage746489974649007464901KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Ken Hardie: (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, my hon. friend's question does a far deeper dive into the issue than I am capable of making. I will defer to our scholar on this issue, the parliamentary secretary.I can say that we are challenged here. Even the process we are going through today and even the government funding still represent the vestiges of a colonial approach to these communities across the country. We need to take steps to break with that and really start treating these people with the dignity and the independence they deserve.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationReport stage74649027464903BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachBobZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for truth and reconciliation. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.At the outset, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of many of my colleagues from different parties, including the member for Sydney—Victoria, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the member for Northwest Territories, the member for Nunavut, the member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for Edmonton Griesbach and others, who, over the many years we have been here, have been inspirational in their work and advocacy as we make sure that as a government, we move forward on reconciliation.Reconciliation is multi-layered, is often complex and is an issue that will take generations to achieve in Canada. Canada has gone through 154 years of colonialism and deeply rooted legislation that often disempowered and displaced first nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada. We have gone from having over 90 indigenous languages to only a handful being spoken today. We have seen the horrific results of residential schools and the intergenerational trauma they have created, and the lasting effects of the hurt and loss. We saw this with the unmarked graves, starting last year, and I suspect we will see it again and again as we unpack this deeply hurtful issue over the next few years. Parliament recently acknowledged what happened with residential schools as genocide, and that, too, is a very important aspect of moving forward and speaking truth to power.As we look at establishing the national council for reconciliation, it is important to look at history. In 2015, when we took office, the commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission presented their findings, with 94 calls to action. That was in December 2015. They outlined the bare minimum that needs to be done in order for our path to reconciliation to move forward. Since then, we have seen a number of different initiatives, including the report of the MMIWG, the missing and murdered women and girls report, and the calls to justice, as well as several other very important findings, including the unmarked graves. These things put additional responsibilities on the government and on all Canadians to address.The 94 calls to action are an all-encompassing set of guidelines for the federal government, provincial governments and in some cases municipal governments, as well as organizations, particularly national indigenous organizations, and all Canadians. It is important to recognize that reconciliation is not a journey that can just be undertaken by Canada as a government. It needs to be an all-of-Canada effort that includes all stakeholders.When we talk about reconciliation, oftentimes we talk about what Canada is prepared to do, but it really comes down to how much trust and confidence indigenous people can have in this process. What we have seen in the last seven years is that while we have moved ahead on a number of very important initiatives, we have often seen this relationship be two steps forward and one step back because there is a lot of unpacking to do. As we approach and encounter these issues, it is important that as a government we double down and recommit to working harder to ensure we move forward on this process.(1210)It is an imperfect process. It is an imperfect set of ideas that often may need reflection, and in that I am pleased to share with the House some of my experiences over the past seven years working across party lines with the members opposite. I do want to start off with our work on Bill C-262, which was a private member's bill brought forward by my friend Romeo Saganash. It essentially called for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and I was fortunate to work with Mr. Saganash over the couple of years he was actively advocating for Bill C-262. We travelled a fair bit in our committee work and spoke to many individuals: young people, elders, band councils and indigenous organization members. The enormous support the bill had across Canada with indigenous people was remarkable. However, we saw that the same level of commitment was not here in Parliament. Over time, sadly, Bill C-262 did not pass, but we were able to get Bill C-15 through Parliament in 2021, and basically it is calls to action 43 and 44, and it was able to pass. The second part of UNDRIP is the implementation of a national action plan, and our department is working very hard with indigenous partners and national indigenous organizations, as well as rights holders and many others, to make sure we have an action plan that can really address a review of laws and move us forward on this path.One of the things that has really humbled me is the work we have done on indigenous languages. There is an act, Bill C-91, which was passed in 2019, and it was a critical moment in Canada because, when we talk about language, it is so fundamental to all of us. Often, I look at the passion with which my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois address the issue of bilingualism and language, and the passion with which many of my colleagues on this side speak to the need to protect the French language.I think it is so critical to ensure that linguistic minorities are protected across Canada, but often missing in that conversation is the need to protect and save the many indigenous languages that existed prior to Confederation. In many ways, those languages are in their last stages. Medically speaking, they are on life support because we have so many languages that are at a point of being lost permanently. I know the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London spoke about Oneida Nation on the Thames, and that is one of the groups we met during the development of Bill C-91. It was devastating to see that only a handful of people were able to speak that language, which shows how important it is that Bill C-91 is there. As well, we, along with the support of the New Democratic Party, repealed mandatory minimum penalties just last week, and we implemented the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.These are some measures that speak to the work that has been done, but there is a lot more to do, and I believe the national council would be a very important tool for us to measure objectively what work we need to do. It would measure and report back to the House, as well as to Canadians, on the need to fill in the gaps and to make sure we fulfill all the commitments in the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.I look forward to questions and comments from my friends, and I thank them for this opportunity to speak.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesC-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesC-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationC-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languagesColonialismFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationReconciliation with indigenous peoplesReport stage74649567464957BobZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, whom I have had the pleasure of working with on the status of women committee. I appreciate working with her tremendously.One of the observations I have made of the Conservatives' contributions to the debate today is their complete focus on economic reconciliation. I read something from the Yellowhead Institute that basically said the focus, including by the Liberal government, is on things like economic reconciliation.I do not feel they have demonstrated the same sort of respect for indigenous nations that make other decisions about their lands outside of resource extraction. This goes to free, prior and informed consent regarding how they wish to use their lands. It is one thing to talk about economic reconciliation and respecting indigenous people's rights to make decisions about their own affairs, but I have not seen that demonstrated in practice.Does my hon. colleague respect nations that choose not to participate in resource extraction on their own lands and territories? Does she support that?C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationExtractive industryGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsLand managementNational Council for ReconciliationReport stage7465125746512674651277465128MichelleFerreriPeterborough—KawarthaMichelleFerreriPeterborough—Kawartha//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110604MichelleFerreriMichelle-FerreriPeterborough—KawarthaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FerreriMichelle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Michelle Ferreri: (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, I also enjoy working with the hon. member on the status of women committee.As I said in my speech, I think the discussion always has to be about listening to the people who are coming to the table. We cannot make a decision about somebody's area or reserve without their input. If there is no desire or wish to have economic prosperity or self-autonomy, we have to listen. If there is, we have to listen.What we put forward in our amendment is that this is included among all the other things. It is a key factor in self-autonomy, and that is what we are asking for. We also added other amendments, so I hope she sees them as well.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationExtractive industryGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsLand managementNational Council for ReconciliationReport stage746512974651307465131LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88867VanceBadaweyVance-BadaweyNiagara CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BadaweyVance_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.It is a pleasure to begin report stage debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.We have concluded an in-depth, detailed study on Bill C-29 at the INAN committee. Over the past month, a total of 32 witnesses gave their testimony during seven meetings on Bill C-29. Witnesses included representatives from national indigenous organizations and indigenous groups. The members of the transitional committee were also invited as witnesses. We worked together in a collaborative spirit and listened to the many witnesses with open minds.During clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, 41 amendments were proposed and 26 were adopted to strengthen the bill in terms of diversity, representation, transparency and accountability. These amendments respect the council as an independent indigenous-led organization. The vision of the council was set forth by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the interim board, and the transitional committee has been strengthened, not changed. I would like to highlight some of the key amendments that were made by the committee to this bill.Many of the amendments that have been adopted focused on strengthening the composition and representation of the board of directors of this council. The original bill outlined that the board should include first nations, Inuit and Métis, as well as other people here in this great nation; other indigenous organizations; youth, women, men and gender-diverse people; and people from various regions of Canada, including urban, rural and remote regions. Amendments have been adopted that include two directors from the territories to ensure representation of the north.All parties submitted amendments to have the Native Women's Association of Canada nominate a director to the board in recognition of the need to respect women's voices, contributions to policy and research, and, more broadly, to respect reconciliation. This includes the implementation of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls calls for justice.There was also broad consensus that the committee must include representation of elders and survivors of residential schools and their descendants, in recognition of the knowledge they carry and the origins of the National Council for Reconciliation, in the TRC calls to action. We know that elders are central figures in indigenous cultures and, equally as important, individual communities. Survivors and their descendants are important voices in the advancement of reconciliation.Finally, the committee added representation for indigenous persons with French as their first or second language learned.These amendments ensure that the board of directors is representative of the diversity and plurality of indigenous peoples.The bill has also been updated to recognize that the revitalization and celebration of indigenous languages is part of reconciliation and, more importantly, the resurgence of reconciliation. The functions of the council now include protecting indigenous language rights. This includes supporting the participation of indigenous peoples in the work of the council through translation and interpretation services. As members will recall, the House passed the Indigenous Languages Act to preserve, promote and revitalize indigenous languages throughout this great country. Ronald E. Ignace was appointed as the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages. These amendments align with our government's commitment to implementing the Indigenous Languages Act in order to reclaim and strengthen indigenous languages. (1325)It would be the national council's work to monitor, to evaluate, to conduct research and to report on the progress being made toward reconciliation. To do so, it would need to access information from all levels of government as outlined in call to action number 55. The original bill included the development of an information-sharing protocol that would obligate the government to share with the council information that would be relevant to its purpose. Establishing this protocol through legislation is an innovative tool to hold the Government of Canada accountable for supporting the council's needs to efficiently as well as effectively implement its mandate, while also preserving its independence from government. It would be developed within six months of incorporation of the council.Another amendment has been adopted, which requires the government to provide the council with the information identified in the Truth and Reconciliation call to action 55, such as the number of indigenous children in care compared with non-indigenous children and data on comparative funding for education, health indicators and the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the justice and the correctional systems. Like other amendments adopted at INAN, this respects the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, the legislation would obligate the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to table the council's annual report in both Houses of Parliament and, as amended, the Prime Minister to formally respond to the council's report. This responds to call to action 56, which calls on the Prime Minister to formally respond to the report of the national council for reconciliation by issuing an annual state of aboriginal peoples report, which would outline the government's plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation. It is important that the council's report leads to action. The Government of Canada is committed to reconciliation, but recognizes the important role of other levels of government and sectors in supporting this work.Finally, I would like to discuss the amendment that was introduced today. As I previously mentioned, the bill now includes a provision to ensure inclusion of indigenous persons whose first or second language is French. The government is proposing revised wording to the amendment in clause 12 to remove the term “mother tongue” as it is a gendered term. This would ensure that the wording is clear so the council would know how to interpret and implement it.Before I conclude, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and to express my sincere appreciation to the residential school survivors once again for sharing the truths of their experiences. Without them, we would not be where we are today. I would encourage each and every member of this Parliament and our colleagues who worked together to bring this forward to move quickly to pass this important legislation and to move forward once again with reconciliation.Board of directorsC-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFrenchGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationMother tongueNational Council for ReconciliationReconciliation with indigenous peoplesReport stageWomen7465145MichelleFerreriPeterborough—KawarthaGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very honoured today to rise on behalf of survivors, community members and elders who had to unfortunately live through the traumatic experience of Canada's horrific residential schools.Today we are talking about an issue that is living in the hearts of children, their parents and their grandparents. Today throughout this debate we heard from the government about the importance of finally tabling this much awaited legislation, legislation for which survivors and their families have been calling for years now. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission travelled across our country, spoke to survivors and families about the importance of finally building an independent body that would be tasked with seeking justice on behalf of indigenous families that are still with us today.That is the need and goal of the call to action we are speaking of today.We also heard from the Conservatives. We heard about the need for economic reconciliation. Although much of what they are advocating for ignores the reality and plight of survivors, I do recognize the need to see true economic opportunities for indigenous people, but they must go beyond resource extraction. They must truly need indigenous people and their values, and truly lead to a better outcome for indigenous people led by them through self-determination processes.This work is real. Right now, people across the country are deciding in their families, with their kids, in public schools and even in churches. They are having discussions with regular everyday folks about what it means when we say “reconciliation”. When I say “reconciliation”, it is important that we understand where I am coming from and where members from indigenous communities are coming from when we use that language. Reconciliation implies there was at some point some kind of conciliation that took place in Canada. It is important to recognize that indigenous people have often found themselves in the back seat of government decision-making.Something we must avoid at all costs in legislation is the prescriptive use of government control to insist who sits at the table to guide, and maybe in some ways influence, the nature of the independent purpose of the legislation.Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is new for some Canadians, but not all Canadians. Some might remember what happened in the late seventies and early eighties as indigenous people across the country organized. They built new organizations. They fought for their voice. They brought their voice into this place to demand justice, that the rights of indigenous people, their inherent and treaty rights, would be protected. We are not far from that moment in our history. Canada is a very young country, but what is needed is truly concrete action rather than words.This is not only indigenous people saying this, it is Canada's top Auditor General. She stated just last week, “In 2011, at the end of her mandate as auditor general of Canada, Sheila Fraser summed up her impressions of the government's actions after 10 years of audits and related recommendations on First Nations issues with the word 'unacceptable'.” Five years later her predecessor, Michael Ferguson, used the words "beyond unacceptable".She further said, “We are now into decades of audits of programs and government commitments that have repeatedly failed to effectively serve Canada's Indigenous peoples... It is clear to me that strong words are not driving change.” She has said, “Concrete actions are needed to address these long-standing issues, and government needs to be held accountable.”Those are not the words of the New Democrats. Those are the words of Canada's Auditor General, by which I stand firmly.The age of accountability is upon us. Indigenous people are done waiting. Indigenous people are done asking. Indigenous people are now demanding that the government take seriously and earnestly the words of its own Auditor General in echoing the facts of the failures of the government almost 10 years ago. Those words are still being echoed by the Auditor General today. We must do better.(1340)By better, I point to some jarring statistics. Before I do that, I want to mention that when we use numbers in this place, it has to be founded with the earnest understanding that those numbers represent people, real children, people in each and every one of our communities. There is not one MP in the House who does not and is not affected by the policies of this place, in particular the policies directed at indigenous people and, most important, children. Canada's history in the prosecution of children continues still today.Statistics Canada said that a 2021 census showed that indigenous children accounted for 53.8% of all children in foster care. This has gone up since the 2016 census, which found that 52.2% of children in care under the age of 14 were indigenous.If I asked the government this question, which I have today, it will simply deflect and say that the provincial governments are responsible. However, that does not stop the advocates, the strong members like former Chief Norma Kassi, who said, “The doors are closed at the Residential Schools but the foster homes are still existing and our children are still being taken away.”These are real truths, truths that may not be spoken in this place but are spoken across the country every single day, including in the courtrooms. The very honourable Cindy Blackstock, a champion and true warrior for indigenous people, fighting for the most vulnerable children, said:...the last residential schools closed in 1997. That trauma echoed forward and then these First Nations children and families had fewer public resources to be able to deal with it. But they were often judged by Canadian public who didn’t know any better...And that perpetuated the cycle of racism and the cycle of trauma.What she is telling us is that members of Parliament must listen earnestly to the fact that if we do not act now, this will continue generation after generation. That is how deep these wounds truly are.We can think about the mistreatment of indigenous children, not just the residential school period but also in the sixties scoop, of which I am an intergenerational survivor. The sixties scoop was not all that long ago, and it affects families every day. Some family members we never meet. I have never met all my family members. This is not a rare story. This is a common story of many people from coast to coast to coast.It gets even worse. Many face mistreatment, even now as we speak, such as physical, sexual and spiritual abuse. There are at least 14,100 maltreatment incident investigations for indigenous children, according to the Canadian child welfare research portal's most recent statistics. If we are not talking about the basic principles of justice in this place for the most vulnerable people in our society, what are we truly doing here? There are 14,000 children who are malnourished in Canada and we are talking about who gets to sit on a national board for reconciliation.I challenge the government to go far beyond rhetoric, far beyond tabling legislation, but I agree with the fact that I need to use this opportunity to echo that more must be done. This is barely the first step to ensuring the government truly does what must be done. We know these children will continue to need our support. They will continue to need indigenous people. They will continue to need their language. They will continue to need access to land. That is critical to our people's rebuilding.I want to thank my hon. colleagues for debating this very serious topic. I hope we can unite the House, not just for the principles of fairness found within this legislation but toward justice for indigenous people, not just today but every single day in the House. That is my hope.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationCare for childrenChild abuseChildrenEconomic developmentFoster careGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationRacial equalityReconciliation with indigenous peoplesReport stage7465178VanceBadaweyNiagara CentreJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1720)[English]Uqaqtittiji, it has been interesting to participate in the debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.We have heard from all parties their positions and questions regarding the disparities, they say, of indigenous peoples. While the New Democrats have focused on highlighting the ongoing violations of indigenous peoples' rights, others have chosen to focus on the potential composition of the national council for reconciliation.In my final speech on this matter, I will clarify the position stated by the New Democrats. This party has been guided by advocacy from indigenous peoples in making its position, and we stand by it.First, on clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-29, about the composition and nominating bodies, clause 9 states the board would consist of nine to 13 directors and clause 10 only names four nominating bodies. This creates opportunities for five to nine directors who could come from other indigenous groups. I think it is important that there is representation from many nations across Canada with the independence that is necessary for this council.I remind all indigenous peoples and groups that, if they feel the bill does not ensure their voices would be heard through the composition of the board, there would be opportunities to be heard, be it through nominating to the board through the nomination process, providing advice through advisory councils or, as outlined in the bill, reaching out to the council directly.I thank key witnesses who spoke at committee. Zebedee Nungak spoke passionately about how decolonization needs to be the end goal of this process. Okalik Eegeesiak emphasized, “Reconciliation must come from a balanced approach, mindset and foundation, with mutual respect and equitable resources.” Karen Restoule highlighted the importance of revitalizing indigenous laws and the importance of upholding indigenous rights.The Native Women's Association of Canada plays an important role to advise and support indigenous women across the country. Indigenous women continue to fight for their rights, and with high rates of violence toward them, reconciliation should address the multiple concerns these communities have.An amendment the New Democrats made was to ensure the inclusion of important advice to be drawn from survivors, elders and indigenous legal professionals. We have heard in this debate that it is important to ensure that survivors and elders are the centre of this work. The amendments by the New Democrats assure this. Currently, across the nation the rights of indigenous persons are violated, infringed upon and attacked. Often indigenous peoples are deprived of their rights, including basic rights such as housing.We saw recently, in the Auditor General's report on the government's responses to emergency preparedness, that indigenous families in the Peguis first nations have been evacuees for 10 years after a flood.Indigenous peoples are often deprived of the right to self-determination, accessible housing, educational opportunities and access to their own lands. This council will lead the conversation on what nations want to see and need from the government to move reconciliation forward. For the council to do its job effectively, it will need access to information on both a provincial and federal level. It is important that it is granted access within the legal limits to report on what is happening to indigenous communities. It will be important to see the council work to consistently protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples with its recommendations.(1725)It is because of the New Democratic Party's recommendations and amendments that the council will use a rights-based approach to its work on advancing reconciliation.It is important we do not lose sight of what this legislation has the potential to do. First nations, Métis and Inuit have voiced for years and advocated for years for solutions that can work in indigenous communities.The work of this national council for reconciliation will be important as it will ensure a non-partisan approach to hearing what the issues are and the work that needs to be done as it will monitor government programs and policies. It is vital that reconciliation be on the minds of all Canadians.I remind all indigenous peoples and groups that hope to be heard that those opportunities remain. The work has started to ensure that indigenous peoples lead the way in reconciliation through the creation of this council. There has been great work already completed and more great work that needs to continue.As a country, we have a lot to learn regarding reconciliation. I have spoken to members of Parliament from New Zealand who visited us in Canada. One member of Parliament asked how we will know when reconciliation is complete. My response to that question is reconciliation will only be complete when indigenous peoples say it is complete. This is not something that should be determined by governments.Indigenous communities need to see action from the government that shows it is listening to what communities are saying. Governments must follow the lead of indigenous peoples, especially on matters related to reconciliation, decolonization and to the indigenization of laws, policies and programs that are to impact indigenous peoples.In conclusion, Bill C-29 leaves me with a sense of hope that it will lead to measurable outcomes. While this bill is not the only solution to addressing the injustices experienced by indigenous peoples, it will ensure the advancement of reconciliation needed for all Canadians.Board of directorsC-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationReconciliation with indigenous peoplesStatus of womenThird reading and adoption7465807746580874658097465810LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessNational Ribbon Skirt Day ActInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (1650)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill S‑219, an act respecting a national ribbon skirt day.This bill had already been introduced in the last Parliament by the same sponsor, a non-affiliated senator from Manitoba, Senator Mary Jane McCallum. It was Bill S‑227 at the time. As we know, it died on the Order Paper when the 2021 election was called.Passing this bill would create a national ribbon skirt day to be held every year on January 4, although it would not be a statutory holiday.The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill S‑219, given that it aligns with our party's general position. We are committed to being an ally of first nations, particularly by favouring nation-to-nation dialogue. It also aligns with the process of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Moreover, it respects Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.By way of background, I would like to explain that a ribbon skirt is a deeply symbolic garment, a bit like the orange shirt that symbolizes recognition of residential school survivors. Ribbon skirts are long skirts decorated with coloured ribbons on the lower portion. Different nations have their own colours and designs, but one thing they all have in common is that they speak to an unshakable pride. Much like the Scottish red tartan kilt, each nation has its own pattern. The ribbon skirt is a centuries-old spiritual symbol of womanhood, identity, adaptation and survival. It is a way for women to honour themselves and their culture. It represents a direct connection to Mother Earth and its sacred medicines.Designating this day would also pay special tribute to indigenous women as life-givers entrusted with traditional knowledge to care for their families, their communities and the environment.Celebrating this symbol would be a way to recognize the fact that indigenous culture, tradition and ceremony, including indigenous ties to language and the land, are critical to the vitality and well-being of Canada's first peoples.During the debate on Bill S‑219 in the Senate, the bill's sponsor was generous enough to share some statements her office had received. I believe it is important that these words be heard here in the House of Commons as well. That is why I am going to read them.The first statement is from a 10-year-old indigenous girl from Saskatchewan. She says the following: My name is Isabella Susanne Kulak and I would like to start off by telling you what the ribbon skirt means to me. The ribbon skirt represents strength, resiliency, cultural identity and womanhood. When I wear my ribbon skirt I feel confident and proud to be a young indigenous girl.When I was 8 years old I was gifted my very own ribbon skirt from my auntie Farrah Sanderson. I wore it with pride and honor to my traditional ceremonies and pow wow's. On December 18th 2020 it was formal day at Kamsack Comprehensive Institute where I attend school, so I chose to wear my ribbon skirt just like my older sister Gerri. When I got to school a teacher assistant commented on it and said it didn't even match my skirt and maybe next formal day I should wear something else like another girl was wearing and pointed at her. Those words made her feel pressured to be someone she was not. She eventually took off her skirt as she felt shamed. She added:Today I no longer feel shamed and I feel proud and powerful enough to move mountains because I know that people from around the world are standing with me. I am very grateful to be Canadian, to be Indian and to represent my people by wearing my ribbon skirt proudly! Thank you to Senator McCallum and to all the people who supported me from around the world, from Canada and from all the First Nations across the nations of the earth. (1655)The chief of the Cote First Nation, the home of Isabella Kulak, also shared a statement with the senator's office. He said, and I quote:On behalf of Cote First Nation, we are honored to have January 4th as National Ribbon Skirt Day across our great Nation. Bella Kulak has demonstrated the importance of sharing our culture to other nations. Our First Nations, Metis, Inuit women are a symbol of life givers and their resilience in looking after the home fires is our strength to move forward. We thank Senator McCallum for bringing forward such a recognition and encourage all Parliamentarians to offer their support for this bill in the year of Truth and Reconciliation. Meegwetch from the Saulteaux First Nations of Treaty 4 Territory.These testimonies confirm that Bill S‑219 deals with an initiative that is very important to many indigenous peoples and communities.This is what the sponsor of the bill had to say:[T]his bill aims to provide social justice for Bella and other young Indigenous youth who must struggle against racism, colonialism and gender violence in their day-to-day lives. By keeping this request for a national day of recognition situated within a framework generated from and led by the Cote reserve, it ensures that the families' and communities' tradition and intergenerational knowledge is secure while they're navigating modern Indigenous struggles. This also helps to resist the colonial images of Indigenous women, girls and transgender peoples. The acts of resistance by women — including mothers, aunts, grandmothers, sisters and friends — against ongoing violence and colonialism is very important, as their resistive acts are models for young Indigenous girls. They are acts against cultural genocide. Both mother and daughter are no longer willing to leave their spirits at the door and are ready to take that challenge to a different level that is bringing ceremony to everyday living, not only in their home but taking it to the outside world.The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to being an ally to the first nations. That is why it is voting in favour of this bill in principle, since it responds to article 15.1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and it partially responds to call for justice 15.2 of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. When I travel from town to town in my vast riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, I often see posters with photos of missing girls. That also happens in Val‑d'Or. It is unbelievable. In Lac‑Simon, there are the Kitcisakik, Mistissini, Waswanipi and Oujé‑Bougoumou communities. We have to protect these young girls. We also see photos of these missing girls on social media, and it is unfathomable. For the families who are looking for their daughters, it is hard to imagine that this is still happening in this day and age, especially when it comes to indigenous women and girls.There are also two paragraphs that line up with what the Bloc stands for. Our party advocates for reconciliation, which is defined as the establishment of a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. Furthermore, Bill S‑219 refers to call for justice 2.1 of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which calls “upon all governments to acknowledge, recognize, and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their cultures and languages as inherent rights, and constitutionally protected as such under section 35 of the Constitution [Act, 1982]”.By supporting the creation of national ribbon skirt day, the Bloc Québécois is reasserting its position as an ally of first nations, because this day will highlight a distinctive element of indigenous culture in Canada and stimulate public dialogue about national history.Cultural heritageIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMissing personsPrivate Members' BillsReconciliation with indigenous peoplesS-219, An Act respecting a National Ribbon Skirt DaySecond readingSenate bills7450476AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertNikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook Aski//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersPublic Complaints and Review Commission ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, who knows of what she speaks when talking about the abuse of indigenous women and indigenous people in a disproportionate fashion.I will briefly say this. My own experience with the RCMP officers, when they led me away while arresting me for violating the injunction to protect the Texas pipeline company Kinder Morgan, was that they were kind. They asked if I would take their arm, as they did not want me to slip in the mud. When I saw the arrest of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, who were thrown to the ground with a knee in the back, I realized that not only were their actions different, but these were different police people, different RCMP officers. Sure enough, it turns out there is a branch of the RCMP that is typically using more brutal force against indigenous protesters than it would use with a settler culture MP standing on indigenous lands. When the hereditary chiefs were on their own land, UNDRIP was being violated by the way they were treated. I would ask for the hon. member's comments on that.C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instrumentsComplaintsGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementPublic Complaints and Review CommissionRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceSafetySecond reading74403807440381LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPublic Complaints and Review Commission ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague on her re-election as the leader of the Green Party.This is certainly not my personal opinion, but in terms of systemic racism that is perpetrated by police forces, particularly against BIPOC, Black, indigenous and people of colour, has been noted not just nationally but also by the international community at the level of the United Nations, including the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instrumentsComplaintsGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementPublic Complaints and Review CommissionRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceSafetySecond reading74403827440383ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsLaurelCollinsVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105908LaurelCollinsLaurel-CollinsVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CollinsLaurel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPublic Complaints and Review Commission ActInterventionMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her powerful speech.I also wanted to bring up our colleague, the member for Nunavut, who made me aware that there are children being bused back and forth, waiting 40 minutes to go through customs every day, just in order to attend school. I wonder if the member can speak to the need for the creation of an external oversight body for the Canadian Border Services Agency, to ensure that travellers are protected and that indigenous rights to mobility are better protected, so children do not have to spend too much time going through Canadian border services.C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instrumentsCanada Border Services AgencyChildrenComplaintsGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOversight mechanismPublic Complaints and Review CommissionSafetySecond reading744038474403857440386LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPublic Complaints and Review Commission ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is another example of how indigenous people's rights in this country are consistently trampled on daily, including their mobility rights. Absolutely, we need to have independent oversight. That is certainly something we have called for. It also speaks to the need to have indigenous representation and indigenous oversight to look at matters of human rights, which the government agreed to uphold with the adoption of Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, to see the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instrumentsCanada Border Services AgencyChildrenComplaintsGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOversight mechanismPublic Complaints and Review CommissionSafetySecond reading74403877440388LaurelCollinsVictoriaAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105811TakoVan PoptaTako-VanPoptaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanPoptaTako_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActInterventionMr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other legislation.This initiative is welcomed because the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since 1999, and much has happened since then. I do not want to overstate the significance of what is going on here. This draft bill streamlines a program that is already in place and has been working effectively for many years. This is more about the administration of a program than bold, new ideas about the environment.I want to talk about a couple positive things with this draft legislation. The preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would read, “every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment”. The preamble of the legislation would also recognize, “the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.We have no arguments with these broad, aspirational statements, but that is what they are. They are broad, aspirational statements. There is nothing in the bill that gives substance to these statements. In fact, we are going to have to wait two years to see the government's implementation framework to see what the government considers to be a healthy environment.This is typical Liberal Party virtue signalling. It is devoid of substance. This is what Canadians have learned to expect of the Liberal Party: lofty words with little substance.Another positive thing in this bill is that the government listened to stakeholders, and that is always welcomed. There were experts were familiar with the benefits and risks of chemicals used in the everyday life of Canadians. Toxic substances need to be used in a safe manner, and we need to listen to experts. Bill S-5 preserves the risk-based approach to chemical management as opposed to the hazard-based approach. My understanding of the distinction is that the preferred risk-based approach focuses on actual outcomes. It does a risk-benefit analysis.Clearly, not all hazards can be removed out of our lives, but they can be managed, and that is what this bill does. That is a good thing, and we accept that. The bill also continues the tradition of being fact-based and evidence-based. We need to follow the science, use a precautionary principle, and make decisions based on the best evidence available at the time. Generally, we accept these principles. All government decisions should be based on facts, not on ideology. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a fairly poor record.For example, if we take Bill C-21, which is the bill that would ban all handguns in Canada, that bill is being studied at the public safety committee right now. The public safety committee has just finished a study on reducing gun and gang violence in Canada. We heard from more than 40 witnesses who are experts in the field, and not one of them said that the problem was handguns owned by lawful gun owners.As a matter of fact, what we were told was that the vast majority of guns and firearms used in crime in Canada were smuggled in from the United States of America. The U.S. is the largest gun manufacturing economy in the world, with whom we share the largest undefended border with in the world. Admittedly, this creates a big problem for Canadians, but taking the frustrations out on lawful gun owners is not the solution to this problem.Wanting to stay positive, I am now going to turn to the Conservative Party's record on the environment. It is well known that Canada's most successful pro-environmental prime minister was the Conservative, Brian Mulroney. In the 1980s, acid rain was a big problem in both Canada and the U.S. Our great lakes were dying off. The environment was suffering. Fish stocks were in decline.Mr. Mulroney claims that his biggest and proudest achievement was the Canada-U.S. air quality agreement, which finally broke the back of acid rain. This achievement was not about virtue signalling. It was about achieving real, measurable results. It took real effort. It took co-operation with our neighbours. It took political will and stamina. It took the common-sense approach that Conservatives prefer.(1605)We understand that global climate change is in fact global. We need to work with our allies, our trading partners and all peoples on this planet, as we did with the acid rain agreement.Take plastics, for example. With the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the bill we are talking about today, plastic manufactured items would be listed as toxic. We knew this was coming, and here is what our Conservative Party campaign platform from last year contained: “To meaningfully contribute to tackling ocean plastic, we must recognize that plastic is a global problem”. Further on, our platform said, “The current government’s approach has been heavy on slogans but light on action. Declaring plastics ‘toxic’ isn’t helping our environment but is driving jobs out of Canada.” Again, this is common sense, not the flash and bang that we learned in a high school drama class. Let us get down and do the work.The same goes for the Liberal Party's carbon tax, which ignores the international threats to our global environment. The Liberals want Canada to produce less carbon, so their solutions is to leave our natural resources in the ground and let other countries rack up carbon debits, to produce less natural gas and let Russia fill the void in Europe and to produce less oil and make Saudi Arabia and Venezuela happy.It would be one thing if the Liberals' version of a price on pollution actually had the desired effect, but despite a lot of pious talk on emission reductions, Canada is falling further behind. Now the Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax. How high does it have to go before we will actually start to see our emissions come down? Maybe in a few years' time we are going to see what effect the tripling had. Maybe it is going to have to be tripled again after that. Canada is a big and cold country. We are going to consume energy just to survive and operate.More and more people, admittedly, live in urban ridings and can take public transit, like those in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, where I am very happy to say the squeaky wheel got the grease and we got a commitment that the SkyTrain will come to Langley. However, many people living in rural areas simply do not have that choice. Ask a family in rural B.C. if they will pull their kids out of hockey because the price of gas is too high. Of course they will not. They will take the pickup truck, see the price at the pumps and be reminded why they are so irritated by the federal government. Then they will drive the 100 kilometres to a hockey tournament. This is what we do. This is how we live.I want to end on a positive note. I will be supporting this draft bill, not because I support the government's failed environmental program but because the bill would streamline the administration of an important part of the federal government's work, namely the management of risks and hazards in our natural environment. We all want a healthy environment, and the Conservatives like the idea of things being managed in the most efficient way possible. This modest bill is a step in the right direction.Acid rainAir qualityCanada-United States Air Quality AgreementCarbon pricingCarbon taxCivil and human rightsEnvironmental healthEnvironmental protectionGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPlasticsRisk managementS-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActSecond readingSenate billsToxic substances73829877382988ZiadAboultaifEdmonton ManningAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of parents and individuals in Alberta who are concerned about an incident that took place in April 2010, when the superintendent on the board of an Alberta school division moved to permanently ban Métis students from attending nearby Alberta public schools. These families and their children have faced immense levels of barriers since this time, including an inability to graduate from high school, in addition to collateral damages related to their mental health and well-being.Indigenous rightsPetition 441-00777School boardsSchool choice73566507356651BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersJudges ActInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay. Today I am particularly thinking about the Cree communities in upper James Bay, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Peawanuck, Kashechewan, Moosonee and Moose Factory, plus the people who have been spread across Canada, all of whom connect back to a horrific institution called St. Anne's residential school.It is important, as we talk about the act to amend the Judges Act to reflect on one of the darker decisions of the Supreme Court, its refusal to look at the miscarriage of justice that was committed against the children at St. Anne's, giving no reason or explanation. When we talk about amending the Judges Act, I think of a great parliamentarian, Rona Ambrose, who spoke up about the need for judges to get basic and legal education in dealing with sexual assault, because we have seen a number of really bad decisions, which have been referenced here. However, it is also important that our judiciary understands the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the obligations of Canada, and that includes the courts, to address issues in terms of the equity and rights of indigenous peoples. If we look at the cases of St. Anne's residential school, it is clear that any indigenous person looking at this would wonder how it is possible to get justice in Canada. It is not a complex issue. I will talk about a really powerful woman, Evelyn Korkmaz, who suffered horrific sexual violence as a child at St. Anne's, and the collusion of the Grey Nuns, who covered it up. When she went to the hearings to tell her story, the first thing the adjudicator told her was that he was a proud member of the Knights of Columbus. They were there to adjudicate crimes against the Catholic Church and the first thing she was told by the adjudicator was that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus. Then he told her he knew the nuns of St. Anne's, that he knew that order and that they were good women. She said she knew right then that she was not going to be believed. In any other court process, that case would have been thrown out, but not in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. One of the reasons the adjudicator did not believe Evelyn Korkmaz's story of the horrific sexual violence was that the other defendant in the case, Canada, had the legal obligation in the hearings to prepare the evidence. The adjudicator looked at the evidence supplied by the Department of Justice Canada and it said one line: that there were no known incidents of sexual abuse at Fort Albany Indian residential school. What was not told to the adjudicator was that the justice department had 10,000 pages of police testimony and witness names of rape, torture, violence and forced abortions on children in that evil institution. I think of this man who goes by the name of H-15019. He suffered horrific sexual violence. He went into the hearings to expose Father Lavoie and the justice department lawyers said he was not believable because Father Lavoie was not in the institution when the man claimed he was. As proof, they presented a two-page person-of-interest report, which was their legal obligation, on all the known potential perpetrators. A two-page person-of-interest report said Father Lavoie was not there. What the justice department was sitting on were 2,472 pages on a sick evil man who, through four decades, raped multiple generations of children. The case of H-15019 was thrown out, and when they tried to have his case reopened, the justice department and the federal government forced this case to the B.C. superior court, even though this happened in Ontario. Why would they do that? They did that because they knew that the survivors did not have the money to go to the B.C. superior court. How could anyone claim that this was a just process? What happened in that case was that, after the justice department decided to suppress the evidence, it shut the hearings down and denied justice. This is not a very complex issue.(1310)Multiple legal battles went on for 10 years and, finally, Parliament called on the government to settle with the St. Anne's survivors. The former minister sent, on March 18, 2021, a request to have the cases of St. Anne's reviewed. We thought, finally, there would be justice. That is all the survivors wanted. They wanted to review what had happened with the suppression of evidence.However, if we read the report, the request for direction sent by the federal government, it did not ask the courts to review this to get justice for children whose rape and torture had been suppressed. It did this because it said that people speaking up about St. Anne's was making the government look bad. It is right there in its request for direction. Do we know who it blamed for making the government look bad? It blamed former senator Murray Sinclair, because he said that there cannot be reconciliation without justice for St. Anne's, as well as Dr. Pamela Palmater, who raised issues about what happened at St. Anne's. Edmund Metatawabin, the survivor of the abuse, who speaks for the survivors, his name is in the government request for directions, saying that he is making the government look bad for the abuse that he suffered. Interestingly, of course, I am in there for about 30-some pages, but I do not mind that.However, Osgoode law professor Jennifer Leitch was named by the government as making them look bad because she wrote, “The government’s non-disclosure raises significant concerns about the scope of the information available to the adjudicators; the claimants’ abilities to establish abuse allegations and the scope of the compensation.” A professor of law said that this is a flawed process.The instructions given to Justice Pitfield to look at this excluded many of the horrific cases and he was directed that he was not to talk to the survivors. What kind of justice system is that? He examined 427 cases and he came back in his preliminary and he said that 81, at least, had a serious need for re-examination. That is 20% of those cases falsely adjudicated.However, in the final report, he said, no, it was just 10, student on student, with no blame to clergy, no blame to staff, no blame to government and no involvement with survivors. Of course, the survivors took this to the Supreme Court.When I talked to the survivors yesterday about the fact that the Supreme Court would not hear their case, they said that they were not surprised because this was a never a fair fight. They went with pro bono lawyers. There were days where they could not afford their own bus fare to get to the hearings, yet Canada spent millions of dollars on lawyers to shut this down. It was never a fair fight.This is why I refer to this when we are talking about Bill C-9. I am not questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court. I am questioning the lack of understanding of the obligation, in this time, to understand the obligations under truth and reconciliation to say that we have a higher level of justice to attain here.One of the fundamental arguments of the government was that the survivors were not entitled to procedural fairness. Procedural fairness has been ruled by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. What it meant was that the fact that they did not bother to supply any evidence and they lied in hearings, that was okay, because the survivors were not entitled to the basic principle of procedural fairness. If we look at the evidence that the government brought forward as to why procedural fairness was not a right, they put it under sealing orders so that people could not see it. What is this, Soviet-style justice?Phil Fontaine, who signed the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, wrote that they would never have signed this agreement if they were giving away fundamental legal rights under this process, which would give them fewer rights than they would get in court. Of course, Canada ridiculed Mr. Fontaine's response and said that this issue of procedural fairness was completely irrelevant.It is completely relevant. On this day, the day after the Supreme Court has shrugged and said that, whatever happened at St. Anne's, whatever happened with judges who misread the reports because they were lied to by the justice department, whatever is said about perpetrators of horrific abuse, and we have many of their names, such as Bishop Leguerrier and Arthur Lavoie, those men got away, and the survivors are still living with injustice. They deserve better in this country.They never asked for huge compensation. They asked the government to sit down and recognize that what was done to them was one of the most horrific, evil acts ever committed against innocent children. Those innocent children have had their legal rights undermined time and time again by a system that wanted to shut this process down.(1315)If we are talking about amending the Judges Act, we have to look at what happened at St. Anne's and why there was no understanding on the judge's part of the need to hold this government and the justice department of Canada to account.AccountabilityC-9, An Act to amend the Judges ActComplaintsFederal judgesGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsJustice systemPolitical appointmentsSecond readingSex offencesVictims of crime735673073567317356732GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88867VanceBadaweyVance-BadaweyNiagara CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BadaweyVance_Lib.jpgStatements by MembersMétis NationInterventionMr. Vance Badawey (Niagara Centre, Lib.): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, in October 1873, Métis leader Louis Riel was elected to this House. Riel was never allowed to take his seat, but his election continues to resonate with the Métis. Riel inspired generations of Métis leaders who fought for the nation and its citizens. The Métis Nation of Saskatchewan marked a milestone achievement with the transfer of the Batoche National Historic Site from the federal government this past summer, a pivotal step toward reconciliation. I would like to recognize the representatives of the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, who will be hosting a reception for MPs today, and to thank them for their unwavering commitment to the future of the Métis nation, Métis in Canada and the advancement of all indigenous peoples and rights holders.Indigenous rightsMétisMétis Nation of SaskatchewanRiel, LouisStatements by Members735212873521297352130JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestFrankCaputoKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' Business National Ribbon Skirt Day ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1835)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I welcome members back from break week. I had the wonderful privilege of going home to Iqaluit and then on to two of my communities, Taloyoak and Kugaaruk.Bill S-219, an act respecting a national ribbon skirt day, is about preserving a cultural world view and the importance of ribbon skirts. It provides an opportunity for us to recognize indigenous cultures and the prominence of indigenous women. By passing the bill, we would increase opportunities to discuss the realities of indigenous women in Canada. New Democrats support the bill and will be suggesting some amendments. All indigenous cultures since time immemorial have valued women the same way that we do men, children and elders. Through Christian and government colonization, indigenous women have become especially oppressed and subjected to atrocities. This has led to the ongoing genocide of all indigenous peoples, which must be redressed. First nations, Métis and Inuit have different ways of showing respect in their communities to indigenous women. Inuit in Canada and internationally symbolize the strength of women through tattoos, a practice I am proud to see resurging after having been banned by the Catholic and Anglican churches. In Taloyoak, I had such a wonderful visit with a beautiful Inuk women named Elizabeth Lyall. I thank her for feeding us delicious Inuit food during our visit. She talked about how important it is to have dreams. I honour her for having met each of her dreams and for still looking to make new dreams to help her family, friends and community. She truly inspired me, and I thank her.I value the role given to me as critic for indigenous issues shortly after I was elected as a New Democrat. Before this time, I had limited exposure to first nations and Métis cultures. Since taking on this important role, I have felt privileged to learn much more about Métis and first nations. This morning, for example, I agreed to be a witness in the Moose Hide Campaign, which is a grassroots approach to addressing the violence against indigenous women by creating opportunities for men, and everyone, to appreciate the indigenous women in their lives. Through the bill before us, I have learned about the importance of ribbon skirts, and I thank the sponsor of the bill. Ribbon skirts have an important meaning for first nations and Métis women. The skirt is a symbol of strength, pride and hope. First nations and Métis women make their ribbon skirts to represent a direct connection to Mother Earth and her sacred medicines. I have learned that ribbon skirts in recent years have represented causes, including missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. For many first nations and Métis, wearing a ribbon skirt shows the strength of the lived experience of indigenous peoples here in Canada.In addition to the cultural significance, this is also a matter of respecting indigenous rights, especially when so much has been done to indigenous peoples. Too many of us lost our identity, dignity and right to self-determination. It is important that action continues to be taken for indigenous peoples to be supported in regaining our strength for the indigenous peoples we are.Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states, “Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information.”Education is critical for Canadians to learn about the realities of how indigenous peoples were and continue to be treated. Systemic racism still exists. Indigenous peoples are subjected to discrimination and chronic underfunding, and they are still forced to live under colonial laws that ignore their inherent rights to govern and manage their own lands and laws. (1840)Canadians need to learn more about indigenous heritage and culture to gain understanding of the lived experience of many indigenous women across Canada. In the 2015 National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, data showed indigenous women are four times more likely to be murdered or kidnapped than any other Canadian.Cultural heritageEducation and trainingIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPrivate Members' BillsS-219, An Act respecting a National Ribbon Skirt DaySecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWomen73482847348285JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89258JohnAldagJohn-AldagCloverdale—Langley CityLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AldagJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActInterventionMr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.): (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and good friend, the member for Winnipeg South, for sharing his time today. I also thank members of the House for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning.I am really pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill S-5, strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act, particularly to government proposals and Senate amendments relating to a right to a healthy environment in the bill.Before I get into the substance of our proposal and the Senate amendments, I would like to remind the House that it has taken decades of work to get to where we are today. Discussions relating to a right to a healthy environment have been taking place domestically for many years, with many Canadians, civil society organizations and indigenous leaders advocating for a recognition of a right to a healthy environment at the federal level. There have also been discussions with industry associations supporting recognition in the preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, as it is commonly called.I would also like to acknowledge the important contribution of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to these discussions. It is a committee that I was part of and that recognized the need to update the CEPA legislation. I would like to recognize the work of the committee under then chair Deb Schulte, and colleagues Will Amos and Mike Bossio, who also played key leadership roles in this study.In 2017, our committee called on the federal government to strengthen CEPA to provide greater protection to human and environmental health from toxic substances and unanimously recommended, among other things, that the preamble of CEPA be amended to explicitly “recognize a right to a healthy environment”. I commend our committee for the insights and ideas put forth over the years to enhance the protection of the environment and human health for present and future generations of Canadians. All those efforts brought us to this point today.The government is proposing to strengthen the protection of all Canadians and the environment from pollution and harmful substances through the amendments proposed in Bill S-5. To that end, the government has proposed to recognize in the preamble of CEPA that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under the act. This is the first time that this right has been proposed for inclusion in a federal statute in Canada. This is huge.Recognition of a right to a healthy environment under CEPA is a significant milestone in and of itself. However, the government is doing more to elaborate on this right and its implementation for the purposes of the act. The red chamber made amendments to this part of the bill, as members know, and I look forward to building further on those amendments.The bill, as amended by the Senate, would include specific requirements of the government with respect to a healthy environment under the act. First is a duty on the government to protect that right when administering the act, subject to any reasonable limits. Second is a requirement to develop an implementation framework to set out how that right would be considered in the administration of the act. Among other things, the framework must include consideration of the principles of environmental justice, the idea of avoiding adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations; non-regression, the idea of continuous improvement in environmental protection; and intergenerational equity, the idea of meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. These provisions would mark the first time that the federal government has introduced legislation requiring that it elaborate on the consideration of the principles of environmental justice and non-regression in the administration of an act.The framework must also elaborate on the reasonable limits to which that right is subject, resulting from the consideration of relevant factors, including social, health, scientific and economic factors. The consideration of factors reflects the fact that no right is absolute, but it must be meaningful and considered in context.Moreover, the bill would require that the implementation framework on the right to a healthy environment be developed within two years of the amendments coming into force. This would ensure that our commitment to implement this right is delivered on a timely basis while, at the same time, allowing for meaningful input and engagement from all parts of Canadian society, including indigenous groups, civil society organizations and industry. As transparency is key to fostering dialogue and moving forward on environmental protection, the implementation framework would also be published, so it would be available to all Canadians, and it would be reported on to Parliament annually. The implementation framework is expected to set a path for a progressive implementation of a right to a healthy environment under CEPA and to evolve over time, based on the views of Canadians and the experience gained by the government. It is expected to provide relevant and persuasive guidance to officials to inform the decision-making processes under the act, and is part of interpreting and applying the act. (1020)Third, this bill contains a requirement to conduct research, with studies or monitoring, to support the government in protecting this right. This is intended to ensure the government and future governments can make decisions about how to protect this right based on scientific evidence. This requirement must contribute to efforts to address environmental justice issues. For example, it should involve the collection and analysis of data to identify and monitor populations and communities that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks from toxic substances and the cumulative effects of such substances. In turn, this could lead to new thinking on how to better protect such populations.These requirements would allow for meaningful recognition, with the opportunity for Canadians to have input into how this right would be considered in CEPA and the path toward its progressive implementation. Applying the lens of a right to a healthy environment to the administration of CEPA is expected to encourage new thinking about how to protect populations that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks and provide continued support for strong environmental and health standards, now and in the future.In addition to these new provisions on a right to a healthy environment under CEPA, there would be a number of complementary changes to the act to assist in addressing environmental justice issues in Canada.Certain populations and communities face greater exposure to harmful substances and combinations of substances. They are in areas of concentrated pollution, sometimes referred to as pollution hot spots. Under the bill to amend CEPA, decisions under CEPA would need to consider vulnerable populations, groups of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances. In addition, our duty to make decisions and exercise powers under CEPA would expressly include protecting the health of vulnerable populations. This would be done, in part, through consideration of available information regarding vulnerable populations in risk assessments.The Minister of Health would be required to conduct biomonitoring surveys, specifically in relation to the health effects of substances. These biomonitoring surveys could focus on vulnerable populations. These new research requirements are intended to be complementary to the research requirements related to a right to a healthy environment, and the data and information they generate might lead to new thinking on how to better protect all Canadians from pollution and substances. These new research requirements are also expected to contribute to our efforts to better understand real life exposure, including exposures in vulnerable populations, and would assist in providing environmental and health protection for all.Finally, the preamble of CEPA would confirm the government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which received royal assent on June 21, 2021, and which provides a framework to advance implementation of the declaration at the federal level.The COVID-19 pandemic has not only revealed, but has also further exacerbated, social, health and economic disparities for indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and other racialized and religious minority Canadians and their communities. We cannot delay efforts to make Canada more just, more inclusive and more resilient. We see these proposals as one of the means to combat inequities in environmental protection in Canada, such as the increased health risks of more vulnerable members of society that can result from the exposure to substances and the cumulative effects from a combination of substances.These proposals would help advance discussions so that the vulnerability and the impacts of real life exposure are taken into account in environmental and health protection under the act. As the bill moves through the House, we are committed to engaging with colleagues in the days and weeks to come to move forward in support of strong environmental and health standards now and into the future.I must point out that Bill S-5 would be a strong start to updating CEPA. The Senate amendments are strong and must be accepted. However, I believe further amendments, which I hope to see seriously considered at committee, are in order. I recognize CEPA is complex legislation. It would be difficult to update in one effort. I would like to see updates addressing marine dumping, establishing air quality standards and implementing stronger citizen action. If these issues could be addressed, the legislation would be further strengthened, either now or in the future.Bill S-5 would go a long way to updating CEPA. More can be done, both now and in the future. I encourage all MPs to ensure we leave a positive legislative legacy as we update CEPA for the first time in more than 20 years. I look forward to thoughtful debate, the strengthening of amendments and a timely passage of this important legislation.BiomonitoringCanadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Environmental lawEnvironmental protectionEqual opportunitiesGovernment billsHazardous substances and hazardous productsIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationMedical researchPublic consultationPublic healthS-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActScientific dataSecond readingSenate billsSplitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVulnerable persons7324009TerryDuguidWinnipeg SouthElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, this second annual National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, 2022, has been historic for the Siksika Nation in Bow River. The ambition of the Siksika people is reflected in their legendary late chief, Chief Crowfoot. A fierce warrior, wise diplomat and chief among chiefs, Crowfoot was steadfast in his negotiation of Treaty No. 7 in 1877 between the Blackfoot Confederacy and the Crown. His ceremonial regalia from the signing was on display in an English museum for decades. This spring, it was returned to its rightful home at Blackfoot Crossing, the site of the signing of Treaty No. 7. Direct descendant Chief Ouray Crowfoot, together with his council, led the campaign to return the regalia. Growth and progress in Siksika Nation, like taking control of policing and a future palliative care facility on the nation, are tangible actions towards self-determination, reminding us that reconciliation is a shared agreement to live and prosper together.Indigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationSiksika NationStatements by Members730683273068337306834SoniaSidhuBrampton SouthAnnieKoutrakisVimy//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (1800)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her statement of solidarity, especially in relation to September 30, which many members of the House are aware is the day when survivors in the past have taken the opportunity to talk about the pain and trauma, particularly related to residential schools.My question is in relation to a comment the member made related to government being too big, and I hope that reference was not made in terms of the protection for indigenous people. As we all know, the right to prior, free and informed consent of indigenous nations to any resource project is a critical step and foundation to indigenous peoples' rights here on this land. Would the member agree that the right to prior, free and informed consent should stand, especially in the face of resource projects? C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationExtractive industryGovernment billsIndigenous land claimsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationSecond reading73055727305573MichelleFerreriPeterborough—KawarthaMichelleFerreriPeterborough—Kawartha//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110604MichelleFerreriMichelle-FerreriPeterborough—KawarthaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FerreriMichelle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Michelle Ferreri: (1805)[English]Madam Speaker, it is really important we have the advice and consultation needed by the people who are responsible. Looking at the government, I have seen time and time again that decisions are made without consulting the people who are affected by them most. If we do not have for indigenous, by indigenous consultation at the table, that representation to make decisions, we will never get a path forward to truth and reconciliation. C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationExtractive industryGovernment billsIndigenous land claimsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationSecond reading7305574BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNathalieSinclair-DesgagnéTerrebonne//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1845)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for mentioning frequently that indigenous peoples have been engaged in this whole process. Indigenous peoples have frequently experienced being deprived of their rights and their rights being infringed. The 94 calls to action frequently talk about the importance of implementing UNDRIP. I wonder if the member could explain why Bill C-29 does not have any mention of implementing UNDRIP.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples73056607305661YvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones: (1845)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for all the work she has done in pushing for, supporting and advocating for the implementation of both UNDRIP and all recommendations in the TRC report.This particular process falls within the purview of what we are doing with UNDRIP. As members know, UNDRIP is very important to us. We have accepted it. We are leading a process with indigenous governments and groups across Canada and will ensure that everything we do as a government will fall under the purview of what is expected under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples73056627305663LoriIdloutNunavutÉlisabethBrièreSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/36037NikiAshtonNiki-AshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AshtonNiki_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, with Orange Shirt Day fast approaching, we are going to see once again a government that talks a good game about respecting the rights of indigenous peoples but does not follow through. For clean drinking water, deadline after deadline has been missed. On overcrowding and homes in disrepair on first nations, there has barely been a dent, and for all the government's public commitments that communities must lead their own searches for the unmarked burial sites of their children, communities are saying that the government is dragging its feet instead of supporting them.Can the government explain why, when it comes to really supporting indigenous communities, its answer is no?Government accountabilityIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOral questions73015777301578CarolynBennettHon.Toronto—St. Paul'sMarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88660MarcMillerHon.Marc-MillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MillerMarc_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Marc Miller (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, as an update for the House, I think folks would appreciate knowing that there are about 91 communities that have now received funding to do searches on their own time, at their own pace. It is something we obviously have to respect as a government.If the member opposite has a community in mind that needs to be brought to my attention, I would ask her to please do so. I will ensure that the funding is provided expeditiously.Government accountabilityIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOral questions73015797301580NikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1640)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his very thoughtful speech and his statement. I really appreciated it.I do agree with the member that there are some gaps in this bill and I think we are going to need to make sure amendments are made. I wonder if the member could share with us whether one of the gaps is that it does not take a rights-based approach to ensuring that indigenous rights are being protected and better served in Canada?C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationSecond reading72981527298153GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMr. Gary Vidal: (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work my colleague and I do together on committee. I look forward to the work we can do.Our team has a number of ideas that we are going to put forward as amendments. We are going to be listening. If you have some ideas, we are more than happy to consider those and work together to improve this bill.Let us be fair; this is a good starting point. There are some ways we could improve this bill and move it a little farther down the road to advance reconciliation for all people across our country. I am happy to work with you on any of the ideas you would put forward.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Council for ReconciliationSecond reading729815472981557298156LoriIdloutNunavutChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C‑29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.I am especially grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate because I am a member of the Huron-Wendat nation, the first Huron-Wendat to be elected to the House of Commons. Like the minister, I too was present when the survivors' flag was raised on Parliament Hill a few weeks ago. With us was my colleague from Manicouagan, who is the Bloc Québécois's indigenous affairs critic. We are still a very long way from having fully measured the tragic consequences of a vicious colonial regime.We need to acknowledge a historical fact. The meeting of two worlds, of indigenous nations and European empires, heralded a brutal culture shock, to say the least. In the name of introducing peoples deemed inferior to the glories of civilization, nations were expropriated and crushed. For those nations, the freedom promised by westerners was actually, more often than not, oppression. The bill before us today responds to calls to action 53 to 56 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was established through a legal agreement between residential school survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives, and those responsible for creating and running the schools, in other words, Ottawa and religious authorities.The commission's mandate was to ensure that all Canadians were aware of what happened in residential schools. The commission has documented and provided us with a great deal of new information about survivors, their families, communities, and anyone else who was ultimately directly affected by the residential school experience, including former students who were first nations, Inuit, or Métis, as well as family members, communities, churches, former residential school staff, government officials and other Canadians. A tremendous amount of investigative and research work was required.Let us not forget that from 2007 to 2015, Ottawa paid money, $72 million, to support the work of the commission. The commission members spent six years all across the country to hear more than 6,500 testimonies. They also held seven national events in different regions of the country to mobilize the Canadian public, raise public awareness about the history of residential schools and the scars they left, and share and commemorate the experiences of former students and their families.In June 2015, the commission held its closing event in Ottawa, at which time it released the executive summary of its final report in several volumes. The summary outlines 94 calls to action and recommendations to promote reconciliation between Canadians and indigenous peoples.As is the case in many bills, the intention is often commendable, but at times the devil is in the details. In this case, I would like to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑29. The Bloc Québécois is a vocal advocate for nation-to-nation relations between Quebec and first nations. Giving indigenous peoples a stronger voice and allowing them to be heard during the reconciliation process is entirely in line with our position. Remember, the Bloc Québécois is a political party that supports Quebec's independence. In our opinion, this is the best way to achieve a new partnership between nations: a new regime that will no longer have any ties to the racist system of the Indian Act, whose very name is insulting. In fact, my status card says “CERTIFICATE OF INDIAN STATUS”. This is not a card from the 1950s. It is from 2012 at the earliest, not that long ago. Do not be fooled. That term is as insulting and disrespectful as the N-word and, yes, they are absolutely comparable.(1705)The term Indians is just as insulting to first nations. For the Bloc, international relations start at home, in our own country. The Bloc Québécois is working with indigenous nations at the federal level to strengthen and guarantee their inherent rights. It is ensuring that the federal government applies the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in its entirety in federal areas of responsibility. The Bloc has also come out in support of indigenous nations receiving their due, and we will continue to apply pressure on Ottawa to ensure it responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.On June 21, 2021, the Bloc secured the unanimous passage of a motion to ensure that indigenous communities have all the resources needed to lift the veil on the historical reality of residential schools and to force the churches to open their archives. We could say that this bill works towards that and it is one reason why we will support it.We also announced that we want to ensure that there will be predictable and sustainable funding for programs to help residential school survivors heal, such as the health support program that was specially designed for that purpose. This bill would establish a council to provide ongoing follow-up for this file. The bill provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, an independent, non-political, permanent organization. The minister stressed that earlier. This organization, whose mission is to advance efforts for reconciliation with indigenous peoples, must be led by indigenous people. It responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action 53 to 56. I am going to read them, because they are important.Call to action 53 reads as follows, and I quote: We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation.That is a good start.Call to action 54 reads:We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.Call to action 55 reads:We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation.Call to action 56 reads: We call upon the prime minister of Canada to formally respond to the report of the National Council for Reconciliation by issuing an annual “State of Aboriginal Peoples” report, which would outline the government’s plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation.Naturally, we are fully and firmly in favour of these calls to action. Earlier, the minister thoroughly explained the organization's mission, its mandate, its governance structure and representativeness on the board. That was all well explained, and the bill is fairly straightforward. We also applaud the obligation to table a report in Parliament and the government's obligation to respond to that report. We approve of all that and have no issue with any of it. Nevertheless, some questions remain unanswered, and I urge the House to pay close attention to these issues. The first is funding. The 2019 federal budget included an envelope of $126.5 million to establish the national council for reconciliation, including $1.5 million in first-year operational, or start-up, funding, but we have no information about ongoing funding or how long that envelope is supposed to last. Details about how this is actually supposed to work are lacking.Another lingering question is that of the scope. One thing that recurs frequently in this bill is all the entities the council will monitor in order to make recommendations. We can see that the council's current purpose is to “monitor...the progress being made towards reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada” and to “recommend measures to promote, prioritize and coordinate efforts for reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada”.(1710)First of all, what does that mean? We would like to understand what is meant by “all sectors of Canadian society”. Crown corporations, surely, would be included. There are Crown corporations in Canada that could be scrutinized by the council, and government departments, too.Will federally regulated private businesses also be subject to monitoring and investigation? Would an independent airline, for example, be included in the mandate to monitor and make recommendations?The scope is very broad. It is perhaps a little too vague in the bill. The bill gives the council a great deal of latitude in its activities. This is not a problem in itself, but it could also undermine the council's effectiveness, because we think it could narrow its focus on government entities, rather than on private businesses. This is not to say that private businesses should be ignored, but rather, if there is one thing that should be looked at, it is the government, because the government needs to be held to a higher standard. Focusing on the government, then, only makes sense.The other thing we need to keep an eye on is the monitoring of all Canadian governments. The bill refers to “governments” in the plural, so we see that there is a desire to monitor the provincial and territorial governments. Although indigenous affairs currently falls under federal jurisdiction, the challenges affecting first nations also relate to many provincial jurisdictions, such as health and education. We see here that the government wants to disregard jurisdiction and allow the council to monitor all government activities in Canada, including those of the provinces and Quebec.I must admit that that is an irritant for us because we cannot support a federal council that would seek to put Quebec on trial. We are going to keep a close eye on that aspect of things, even though we are in favour of the principle of the bill, as I said earlier. This aspect does not change that support, but it is something members should be aware of.The Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Québec, otherwise known as the Viens commission, was put in place to determine the underlying causes of all forms of violence, discrimination and differential treatment of indigenous men and women in the delivery of certain public services in Quebec. In his report, the commissioner made 135 recommendations to the Government of Quebec. The report contains 142 recommendations in all, but seven of those were not for the Government of Quebec. We are left with 135 recommendations involving the Government of Quebec. These calls to action apply to all of the services that the government provides to indigenous peoples, such as justice, correctional services, law enforcement, health care, social services and youth protection.The Government of Quebec announced $200 million in its 2020 budget to implement the commission's calls to action. Since October 2020, $125 million has been invested in enhancing, ensuring the sustainability of and improving public services, in addition to implementing cultural safety measures.In the interest of independent and impartial monitoring, the Quebec ombudsman was given the mandate to follow up on the implementation of the recommendations set out in the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Québec. The Quebec ombudsman has established an advisory committee that includes first nations and Inuit people in order to promote collaboration and ensure that the Viens commission's calls to action are translated into measures that meet the needs of first nations and Inuit representatives.Another committee, made up primarily of university researchers and people from civil society, was also created to independently document the implementation of these calls to action. It operates out of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and its first report was published in 2021. This is a great model to follow, in our opinion. We applaud all of Quebec's efforts in this area.(1715)Getting back to the current bill, it could be said that despite what I just stated about what Quebec has already done, we may be seeing the establishment of another body to provide oversight and make recommendations in addition to the two that already exist in Quebec. Therefore, we can wonder if there will be overlapping jurisdictions, meddling in jurisdictions by Ottawa, or if the council will focus just on federal issues in Quebec by analyzing only matters under federal jurisdiction.The council will be responsible for providing oversight and making recommendations. To that end it will need investigators and analysts. For the committee to properly carry out its responsibilities in this era of labour shortages, it will also be interesting to know the number of staff that this council will need. In short, despite our support, there are many grey areas as I have just mentioned.In conclusion, it is time to leave behind the rhetoric, crocodile tears and symbolic acts and to take action. Quebec's motto is “Je me souviens” or “I remember”. Today, let us remember. We owe it to the victims of these repugnant acts that in many respects we have barely uncovered or understood.I will end my speech by saying tiawenhk, which means thank you in the Wendat language.C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationColonialismCrown corporationsDiscriminationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment accountabilityGovernment assistanceGovernment billsGovernment expendituresIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationInquiries and public inquiriesNational Council for ReconciliationProvince of QuebecProvincial jurisdictionPublic Service and public servantsSecond readingState-owned enterprisesTruth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada7298208JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Council for Reconciliation ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout: (1720)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I would like to first thank my constituents in Nunavut for putting me here, for putting their trust in me. I will continue to work hard to ensure their needs are being met and to ensure their voices are being heard.I also extend a warm welcome back to all the MPs. I hope they had a good summer, and I am hopeful that we will make changes that will have positive impacts for indigenous peoples and for Canada, in general.I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the New Democrats on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. The basis of this bill stems from important recommendations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. I honour it for its work. I truly believe that when the commission made its calls to action, it did so founded in the knowledge that systemic changes would be made.This bill has the potential to advance reconciliation efforts for Canada and for people who call Canada their home. However, the language of this bill requires amendments for clarity. The wording of this language is not strong enough for the important role it has. It does not reference the important legal obligations enshrined by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and case law.There seems to be a disconnect between indigenous-led recommendations and how the government will implement these changes. Without a clear process in place, communication and actionable change can fall through the cracks, as they have done for decades. New Democrats will propose changes so that indigenous peoples take the lead on reconciliation and the government, to implement recommendations made by the council that will be created. The government needs to hear the voices of indigenous communities and implement changes based on the solutions offered to it.Indigenous peoples know what changes need to be made. Indeed, the Government of Canada has been told where the disconnections are. Canada must now continue to reconcile its relationship and perceptions with indigenous peoples. Indigenous people have completed a lot of research and advocacy on reconciliation. The government's response must acknowledge this work and be guided in its actions going forward. The many areas requiring reconciliation demand that this council be created so that reconciliation is acted on, measured and maintained.Before I turn to some of these areas, I will share a personal story. I have spoken in this House about government interference in my life. This summer, I was reminded of some of this interference. I was contacted by a former teacher, and she emailed the following: “Did you attend grade 5/6 at Maani Ulujuk School in Rankin Inlet for part of the school year? I taught grade 5 and 6 and had a student in my class, a lovely little girl, who one day was suddenly called to the office by social services and put on a plane with her mother (and maybe brother) and sent somewhere, if I recall, Pond Inlet. I never heard after what happened to her. Was that you? It would have been 35 years ago.” The sad fact, in addition to this, is that this was not the first time I was taken out of a class to be flown to yet another community.Having shared this, I ask members, what does reconciliation mean? Unfortunately, my story as an indigenous person is not unique in Canada. Unfortunately, my story is too common among indigenous peoples.(1725)Compensation for the confirmed discrimination against first nations children in the foster care system continues to be fought by the federal government. Changes in housing accessibility and affordability, employment opportunities based on their existing strengths, and language accessibility for federal services are areas of great concern. Mental health services need to be highlighted across Canada. Processes that have worked and proved to be successful are those run through indigenous practices, and they could be acknowledged. Social justice support for victims of crime and funding in support of such services can be acknowledged through this process. The needs of indigenous persons are important. They are the needs that they see and speak to.There need to be mechanisms for stronger language and incorporating indigenous laws. Many Canadians recognize the two official languages of Canada as only French and English. With many federal and territorial services being translated into only these two languages, many people are left out of conversations. These conversations are essential and need to include those who speak languages that are indigenous, including Inuktitut. The public should learn more about indigenous cultures through their viewpoint, which is critical to educating the next generation to prevent future atrocities like those that have occurred here in Canada. By learning history through indigenous perspectives, there is a bright future in which Canadians can know and learn from the past.We support the passing of this bill to help support indigenous-led reconciliation. Bill C-29 would offer support in facing what has happened here in Canada. Too long has Canada ignored the voices of indigenous peoples. Too long has there been inequality in safe, accessible housing and meaningful infrastructure. The Government of Canada must take a rights-based approach to ensuring that efforts toward reconciliation have positive impacts on indigenous peoples. We will, at debate, push for the use of such instruments. There are 94 calls to action. These calls to action must be used as a framework for reconciliation. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be implemented in all its intents. Many elements of UNDRIP are incredibly important when speaking about reconciliation within Canada. In particular, I want to highlight the focus on education, health, and social and economic security. Article 21 states: Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including...housing, sanitation, health and social security.Finally, another instrument that must be drawn upon is the landmark Supreme Court decision in Haida Nation. This important case stated that reconciliation must be enacted honourably. Haida Nation states:The controlling question in all situations is what is required to maintain the honour of the Crown and to effect reconciliation between the Crown and the Aboriginal people with respect to the interests at stake.I have tried to respond to the former teacher who reached out to me. I was so touched by the fact that my long-forgotten memory of such government interference was indeed real. It felt so long ago that I wondered if it was a memory that I had made up.(1730)I now stand here among members, having been elected by my constituents in Nunavut. As an indigenous MP, with my unique experience and voice, I stand among members as an equal. I plead for us to be the parliamentarians who stop the deprivation of indigenous people's rights and who respect, protect and govern based on indigenous people's strengths. In creating this council, the federal government must implement its recommendations. With a clear plan and process in place, Canada can start to move in a new direction, a direction that acknowledges the past and seeks justice for the future—C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliationEducation and trainingGovernment billsHaida NationHealth and social servicesIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsJustice systemMental healthNational Council for ReconciliationSecond readingSocial supportTruth and Reconciliation Commission of CanadaUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples72982757298276Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1000)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual progress report on the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.8560-441-1292-01 Report on the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesDepartment of JusticeIndigenous rightsStanding Committee on Indigenous and Northern AffairsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples7259210ManinderSidhuBrampton East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessNational Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1335)[English]Uqaqtittiji, my dad completed suicide when I was very young, but I was very fortunate to have several different father figures with several different families throughout Nunavut. I would love to wish them a happy Father's Day. I also wish a special one to my husband Allan. As a blended family, we were able to raise nine children together, so happy Father's Day to Allan. I am privileged to stand here as we celebrate and acknowledge that this is National Indigenous History Month, especially since next week, on June 21, many people across Canada will be celebrating National Indigenous Peoples Day. Having said this, I want to call attention to education by insisting that all governments and educational institutions in Canada implement the TRC's calls to action 6 through 12 and 63 to 66, which focus on education. I also want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for introducing this bill. Its predecessor, Bill C-230, died on the Order Paper. I will outline briefly how opportunities for environmental racism have been perpetuated by Canada and implemented in Canada’s constitutional and legal framework for dealing with lands in Canada.The violation of the indigenous inherent right to lands is the strongest form of colonialism. This practice by Canada has negatively impacted indigenous peoples. This colonialism has happened for hundreds of years, from the time of first settlers to present-day Canada. This is evident with case law leading to the current landmark case on the land title of Haida Nation. We cannot deny that there is conflict between colonial Canada and many of the first nations that have had to go through the courts to have their rights and title recognized.Before settlers arrived in what is now known as Canada, indigenous peoples thrived. They managed the environment and the wildlife, ensuring a pristine and balanced environment. Since the arrival of settlers that led up to the Constitution Act in 1867, indigenous peoples have been robbed of their lands. However, indigenous peoples can reclaim lands in one of four ways. Rather than explaining the Constitution Act, I will simply state that sections 91(24), 92 and 35 create the opportunities for environmental racism to be perpetuated. There are many cases dealing with rights and title, including Calder, R. v. Sparrow, Delgamuukw, R. v. Marshall, the Tsilhqot'in case, Clyde River, Haida Nation and Carrier Sekani. These cases lead to opportunities for environmental racism to be perpetuated. While these important cases have advanced indigenous rights and title to lands, the courts have ensured that these rights are limited and incremental.Another instrument is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted in the United Nations in 2007. Canada was one of four countries that voted against it. It was not until 2016 that Canada finally endorsed UNDRIP. It was finally in the last Parliament that legislation related to UNDRIP received royal assent here in Canada. I will specifically and quickly say that article 32 states:1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territoriesI am going to give a quick example of the impacts of environmental racism.When environmental racism seemed to reach its peak in Nunavut, in February 2021, a group of hunters from Arctic Bay and Pond Inlet marked a shift in how Inuit voice their concerns. While this group was hunting, it happened to be at the same time the Nunavut Impact Review Board was holding one of its technical hearings on the proposal by the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation to expand its current mine.(1340)During this time, Inuit who attended the hearings felt unheard. The questions they posed to Baffinland were not being answered, and the Nunavut Impact Review Board was continually limiting the number of questions the Inuit could ask throughout the proceedings. The hunters, having heard reports about the suppression of Inuit voices, took the drastic action of impeding access at two points of the mine. Baffinland, rather than working with Inuit, chose to close the mine and impose a court-ordered injunction. Because of the courage of what is now known as the Nuluujaat Land Guardians and that of hunters and trappers organizations such as the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, which represents the regional interests of the Inuit, the Inuit changed their position. They went from being willing to support phase two to outright rejecting the phase two proposal in its form at the time. Inuit, indeed, have been willing to work with Baffinland to ensure Inuit employment and ensure proper environmental protection, adaptation and mitigation. They just were not heard to the extent they should have been. On March 13 of this year, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, within its statutory mandate, recommended to the Minister of Northern Affairs that Baffinland's proposal to expand its current mine in phase two should not proceed. It said, “These potential significant adverse effects cannot be adequately prevented, mitigated, or adaptive managed under proposed mitigation, adaptive management and monitoring programs and/or revisions (to the project certificate).” The Minister of Northern Affairs has 90 days from March 13 to decide whether he will accept the Nunavut Impact Review Board's recommendation. While I very much appreciate the work of my forefathers, the fact that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement ended up with a provision that allows the federal government to have the final say is more than environmental racism.Since the Nunavut Impact Review Board's decision, Baffinland has requested an emergency decision by the Minister of Northern Affairs to expand the current project beyond its scope. Now Baffinland has issued notices that it will lay off its workers, choosing profits over labourers. While the price of iron ore has dipped, it is projected to continue to rise and remain stable. There is another aspect to this. The fact that four ministers have been invited to hear directly from the most impacted community and have refused is more than environmental racism. The fact that the Minister of Northern Affairs will decide the fate of the lands, impacting directly the environment and the Inuit who have lived there since time immemorial, necessitates the passing of this bill.While this bill will be another form of chipping away at the current system, it will still ensure that indigenous peoples are engaged in the development of a national strategy. That is why the NDP supports the passing of this bill. Finally, passing this legislation will ensure that Canada complies with article 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is such an important international instrument that Canada has an opportunity to show leadership on. Baffinland Iron Mines CorporationC-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justiceColonialismIndigenous land claimsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsInuitPollutionPrivate Members' BillsRacial equalitySecond reading724962572496267249627CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessNational Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice ActInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about the bill brought forward by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Bill C-226, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.Before I speak about the bill, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Lenore Zann, the former member for Cumberland—Colchester, because it was her important work on this bill in the previous Parliament that really kick-started this process. I am really happy that we get to stand today and continue the work that she started on it.I would also like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for carrying forward that important work and reintroducing this bill.Returning to Bill C-226, the bill proposes to develop a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and advance environmental justice in consultation with any interested persons, bodies, organizations or communities, including representatives of governments in Canada and indigenous peoples.The minister would be required to develop a strategy within two years of the bill receiving royal assent and to report on its effectiveness every five years.The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is mandated to develop an environmental justice strategy and examine the link between race, socio-economic status and exposure to environmental risk. Given the important objectives of this bill and its clear alignment with the government's commitment as declared by the Prime Minister, we support this bill.It is important to also recognize that, while the development of our environmental justice strategy reflects a new approach, it is well aligned with a broader range of Government of Canada policies and initiatives. In fact, there are a number of complementary efforts under way that will support environmental justice for all Canadians and inform the strategy developed under Bill C-226. For example, the government introduced Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act, in the Senate on February 9. Bill S-5 aims to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly referred to as CEPA, with a particular focus on recognizing a right to a healthy environment as provided under that act and strengthening Canada's chemical management regime. If it is passed, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Health will be required to develop an implementation framework to set out how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of CEPA. Among other things, the implementation framework would elaborate on principles to be considered in the administration of CEPA, such as environmental justice, which includes avoidance of adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. The framework would also elaborate on non-regression, which generally refers to continuous improvement in environmental protection. Canadians would have an opportunity to participate in the development of the implementation framework.In addition, the ministers will be required to conduct research studies or monitoring activities to support the government in protecting the right to a healthy environment. This requirement could provide valuable information as the government moves forward on environmental justice issues. For example, it could include the collection and analysis of data to identify and monitor populations and communities that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks as a result of greater susceptibility or greater exposure.Additional amendments proposed in Bill S-5 would recognize in the preamble the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing risks related to chemical substances, as well as the importance of minimizing the risks of exposure to toxic substances and the cumulative effects of toxic substances.The amendments would also set out requirements for a number of new elements, including requiring that the Minister of Health conduct biomonitoring surveys that may relate to vulnerable populations, ensuring that vulnerable populations and cumulative effects are taken into account when developing and implementing the new plan for chemical management priorities, and requiring that the ministers consider available information on vulnerable populations and cumulative effects when conducting and interpreting risk assessments.The proposed bill reflects the need to better understand the link between race, socio-economic status and exposure to environmental risk. This government has prioritized science and evidence-based decision-making, and this is a key component in setting a course for environmental justice.(1350)In short, good information is crucial for providing the evidence-based foundation needed to enable informed policy actions. Ensuring that our policy actions are based on facts, science and evidence will strengthen our capacity to achieve the outcomes we strive for.For example, it is important that science and how we manage risks from chemical substances systematically account for potential adverse impacts on vulnerable populations. The government will continue to consider available information on vulnerable populations when assessing risks related to chemical substances under CEPA, a practice that would be codified with Bill S-5.In addition, in this context, biomonitoring data are an important source of information on levels of exposure for vulnerable populations, as well as on combined exposures to multiple chemicals. For example, the maternal-infant research on environmental chemicals research platform has been used to collect data on pregnant people and children. Furthermore, the issue of cumulative effects of toxins may be especially problematic for indigenous peoples. In support of world-class scientific research and monitoring, the government provides funding for the northern contaminants program. It aims to reduce and, where possible, eliminate contaminants from the Arctic environment while providing information to northerners about contaminants in traditional country foods to allow them to make informed decisions about their food use.Further, I would also like to make note of the recently released 2030 emissions reduction plan that sets the stage for continued emissions reductions and highlights the importance of cutting emissions as a means to fight inequality in communities more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This plan also reflects the importance of engaging with indigenous peoples, and pursuing equality and justice in economic and sectoral transitions that will support emissions reductions. In addition to these efforts, our existing legislation and policies continue to assist in advancing environmental justice. In August 2019, the Impact Assessment Act came into force and put in place better rules for federal assessment of major resource projects. The Impact Assessment Act reflects values that are important to Canadians, including early, inclusive and meaningful public engagement, partnerships with indigenous peoples, timely decisions based on the best available evidence and indigenous knowledge, and fostering sustainability for present and future generations.The Impact Assessment Act provides more and earlier opportunities for participation by indigenous peoples, historically marginalized communities and all Canadians. Public participation provisions across the act would help to ensure the participation was meaningful and that in particular indigenous peoples have the information, tools and capacity they need to contribute their perspectives and expertise to project reviews.For example, the planning phase would ensure early discussions and dialogue with indigenous groups and the broader public. Canadians want to know that industrial and resource development activities are appropriately planned and properly regulated in ways that account for the full range of impacts on Canadians, including on communities that are experiencing marginalization. The Impact Assessment Act would ensure robust oversight and thorough impact assessments that take into account both positive and negative environmental, economic, health and social effects of a project, including potential cumulative effects.To understand how projects may impact diverse groups of people differently, the act requires that a gender-based analysis plus, GBA+, be applied to the assessment of project effects. The act also expressly requires that decision-making processes recognize and respect indigenous rights and knowledge. The act ensures that the effects within federal jurisdiction of projects are reviewed fairly and thoroughly in order to protect the environment and support economic growth. Budget 2022 contained impact summaries for each new budget measure in terms of gender, diversity and other factors as part of our continued commitment to GBA+. In conclusion, we see the bill and the activities proposed by the bill as another way to advance and make progress in equality and diversity, which are fundamental to creating a thriving, successful and inclusive country. I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for bringing forth this important bill, and I am very pleased to say that we will be supporting it.ArcticC-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justiceEnvironmental assessmentEnvironmental monitoringEnvironmental protectionGender-based analysisGreenhouse gasesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsInformation collectionJustice systemPollutionPrivate Members' BillsPublic consultationRacial equalitySecond reading7249657LoriIdloutNunavutMikeMorriceKitchener Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88849IqraKhalidIqra-KhalidMississauga—Erin MillsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KhalidIqra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2022-23 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice]InterventionMs. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.): (2130)[English]Madam Speaker, before I begin, I will let you know that I am sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Granville.I am pleased to stand today to speak to the work by Justice Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It is a key piece to reconciliation, ensuring the effective implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples.This initiative is a key priority for our government. It brings to light the commitment made in the 2021 Speech from the Throne to implement the declaration at the federal level. It also supports the directions in Justice Canada's mandate letter to prioritize the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and to work with indigenous people to accelerate the joint development of an action plan to achieve the goals of the declaration.The main estimates include $3.3 million to support broad and distinctions-based engagements with indigenous peoples and to develop an action plan by June 2023 as well as annual progress reports to Parliament for the 2021-22 and then 2022-23 fiscal years. Budget 2021 provided short-term funding to Justice Canada, which was $5.8 million over two years through to March 2023, to support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in consultation and co-operation with indigenous people.Budget 2021 also provided $23.6 million over two years to CIRNAC to support indigenous participation in the engagement process, including support for indigenous-led consultations. On December 10, 2021, the government launched a broad and inclusive engagement process with aboriginal peoples and a call for proposals for funding for aboriginal participation in the process, including support for aboriginal-led consultations.The call for proposals closed on April 15 of this year, and 151 projects were approved in whole or in part. The department ensured that the participating groups reflected first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples across Canada. Regardless of whether or not a particular indigenous governing body, representative organization, group or community has received funding, there will be a number of avenues for them to contribute their perspectives on the UNDA implementation.Timelines are tight. The UNDA put in place a two-year time frame to complete the action plan by June 2023. The plan must include a broad suite of measures, including, but not limited to, measures to tackle violence and discrimination against indigenous peoples and measures to promote understanding through human rights education. Funding is available to communities, nations and organizations across the country to support the participation of partners in the engagement process, with a focus on supporting indigenous-led work to identify priority areas for the implementation of the UN declaration. Budget 2022 proposes to provide $65.8 million over five years starting in 2022-23, and $11 million ongoing, to Justice Canada and Natural Resources Canada to accelerate work to meet legislated requirements under the UNDA, including the co-development of an action plan with indigenous partners.While the details of the budget are still being reviewed, we expect that part of this investment will be to support indigenous capacity going forward. This generational work will help advance reconciliation and forge stronger and renewed nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown and government-to-government relationships.The main objective of this funding that is received is to support both departments' capacity to advance reconciliation through a three-year funding for the reconciliation secretariat. It is also to provide capacity funding directly to indigenous groups, organizations and communities to enable them to collaborate with the department on shared justice priorities, including developing an indigenous justice strategy.(2135)As emphasized in the Speech from the Throne 2021, the government remains highly committed to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and accelerating the work on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people's calls for justice and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This funding supports key government priorities, including the implementation of the direction in the justice minister's mandate letter from 2022 to develop, in consultation and co-operation with provinces, territories and indigenous partners, an indigenous justice strategy to address systemic discrimination and the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system.Of this funding, $13.2 million will enable the department to build its capacity, which had never previously been funded, to work in co-operation with indigenous governments and representatives in order to continue to develop the relationships needed for reconciliation over the next two years. Importantly, $11 million or 45% of this funding has been provided directly to indigenous groups to support indigenous-led engagement within communities and organizations over the next two years and collaboration with the department on an indigenous justice strategy to develop solutions to justice-specific barriers that indigenous people face, including systemic racism and overrepresentation in the justice system.Policies, programs and legislative initiatives based on the lived experiences of indigenous peoples will benefit first nations, Inuit and Métis people as they seek to reduce contact with the mainstream justice system, promote access to fair and equitable treatment in the justice system and revitalize indigenous legal systems. The departmental funding will also support department-led engagement sessions with key stakeholders to ensure that a broad spectrum of indigenous voices and perspectives is fully reflected in the indigenous justice strategy. Provinces and territories will be key partners in this work on the indigenous justice strategy, as they are responsible for the administration of justice all across Canada. Accordingly, the Department of Justice will anticipate leveraging existing federal-provincial-territorial partnership fora to engage jurisdictions, while also using the new departmental funding to convene regional dialogues that involve provincial and territorial governments. Further to reforming the mainstream justice system, this is another area of work that is expected to be advanced under the indigenous justice strategy. The main objective of this initiative is to increase the Department of Justice's capacity to continue to lead negotiations with indigenous groups on the administration of justice in order to ultimately support those indigenous groups in fully achieving their self-determination. This essential initiative responds to a number of key government commitments, including implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically call to action 42, and the National Inquiry into the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report.The Minister of Justice's 2022 mandate letter commits to advancing the priorities of indigenous communities to regain jurisdiction over the administration of justice in collaboration with the provinces and territories and to support the revitalization of indigenous laws, legal systems and traditions. I am running out of time, and I have a lot more to say on this topic, but I will say that after over 150 years of top-down direction for indigenous peoples in our country, it is high time that we really invested in building that people-to-people relationship, ensuring the empowerment of indigenous communities all across Canada and ensuring that self-determination and self-governance are a priority.Department of JusticeIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023Splitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples72178787217879721788072178817217882721788372178847217885FrankCaputoKamloops—Thompson—CaribooFrankCaputoKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersShannen KoostachinInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary youth leader, the late Shannen Koostachin of Attawapiskat First Nation, who died 12 years ago tonight in a terrible highway accident in northern Ontario. Shannen was only 15 at the time, but in her short life, she launched the largest youth-driven children's rights movement in Canadian history. Shannen had never seen a real school. Children on her reserve were being educated in deplorable conditions, but Shannen stood up and challenged the negligence of the Canadian state. “School should be a time of dreams,” she said. She said that very child deserves the right to go to a safe and comfy school. Shannen never lived long enough to see the beautiful Shannen’s dream school in Attawapiskat, but since her death, youth from across Canada have carried on the Shannen’s Dream campaign for equal education rights. Shannen has been recognized as one the 150 most important women in Canadian history. That is a powerful legacy for a girl who just wanted to go to a real school. On this anniversary, we remember and miss you, Shannen. I miss you, but we know your spirit lives on.ChildrenIndigenous rightsKoostachin, ShannenSchoolsStatements by Members7200373720037472003757200376RenéArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheYves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, has the minister read the Supreme Court's Donald Marshall decisions I and II?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023Marshall decisionMi'kmaq7195697JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, yes, I have.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023Marshall decisionMi'kmaq7195698RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, if so, then the minister knows that as it says in the government's mandate letters, this is the most important relationship. Can the minister tell the House whether the Marshall decision applies to Canada or just to Atlantic Canada? Atlantic CanadaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023Marshall decisionMi'kmaq7195699JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, the Marshall decision was respecting the Mi'kmaq community in Atlantic Canada, and it was based on a peace and friendship treaty signed—Atlantic CanadaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023Marshall decisionMi'kmaq7195700RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, Marshall I states that the indigenous right to participate in the unregulated fishery of 1761 is a right to participate in the regulated fishery of today. Why, then, for at least the last three years, has the DFO allowed out-of-season lobster fishing in southwest Nova Scotia?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLobstersMain estimates 2022-2023Mi'kmaqNova Scotia7195702CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, I am not clear which fishery the member is referring to. The Supreme Court ruling was that the Mi'kmaq communities have a right to moderate livelihood fisheries and food, social and ceremonial fisheries.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLobstersMain estimates 2022-2023Mi'kmaqNova Scotia7195703RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, it was the lobster fishery in southwest Nova Scotia. They were fishing out of season in the summer. Will that happen again this summer?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLobstersMain estimates 2022-2023Mi'kmaqNova Scotia7195704JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, many of the indigenous people are doing FSC fisheries, which they are entitled to do. We do have enforcement personnel for—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLobstersMain estimates 2022-2023Mi'kmaqNova Scotia71957057195706RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, the government has not published in the Canada Gazette the three rights and reconciliation agreements, either before or after they were signed. The government has had three years to do this. The government refuses to release these agreements. Why is this minister ignoring the Fisheries Act and breaking the law? What are you hiding?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237195719JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, gazetting is not required for rights and reconciliation agreements. Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237195722CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, there is no exception in the law in the section of the Fisheries Act. It does not say that indigenous agreements are not published; it says that all the agreements the government signs have to be published in the Canada Gazette. Why is the minister ignoring the law?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237195723JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, RRAs are not subject to that.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237195724RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, Nova Scotia first nations now hold more than 10% of all licences but represent only 2.9% of the population. What percentage of licences need to be held by first nations to satisfy the Marshall decision?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries licencesIndigenous rightsLobstersMain estimates 2022-20237195734JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, the Marshall agreement does not set a limit, so when nations come forward and request to have access to a moderate livelihood fishery in a particular fishery, we, on a—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries licencesIndigenous rightsLobstersMain estimates 2022-20237195735RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, the Chrétien government created the Marshall response initiative and spent more than $600 million buying licences for boats and first nations. Did this not satisfy the Marshall Supreme Court decision?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries licencesIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237195737CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, we will continue to work to satisfy the Supreme Court decision.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries licencesIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237195738RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, if the Marshall response initiative did not satisfy the Marshall decision, then why did Prime Minister Chrétien call it the Marshall response initiative?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237195739JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, I will just go back to the fact that relations with indigenous Canadians and reconciliation are of a high priority.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237195740RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2025)[English]Madam Chair, wow. I guess the minister knows a lot about the science when she shuts down a fishery.Has the Minister read the 2005 Supreme Court decisions known as the Bernard and the Stephen Marshall cases?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023Marshall decision7195758JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2025)[English]Madam Chair, no, I have not.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023Marshall decision7195759RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2025)[English]Madam Chair, I am surprised. The Marshall decision narrows the definition of the right to hunt, fish and gather. Can the minister tell members how the decision did that?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023Marshall decision7195760JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2025)[English]Madam Chair, what I do know is that indigenous communities have been left out of fisheries for many decades, if not generations, so I am proud to be—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023Marshall decision7195761RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Dave Epp: (2200)[English]Mr. Chair, what is the current status of the Walpole Island and Kettle and Stony Point first nations' interests with respect to indigenous fishing, either for sport or for commercial purposes?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237196096JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2200)[English]Mr. Chair, on that specific question and specific nation, I cannot answer, but the engagement reconciliation with indigenous communities is a high priority for our government, and we are proud of the number of fishery opportunities that we—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237196097DaveEppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Gord Johns: (2405)[English]Mr. Chair, that is not a commitment. I am hoping the minister can commit to that.In terms of reconciliation, how long does the department intend to exclusively continue using the fishery to satisfy treaty rights?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237196548JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2405)[English]Mr. Chair, I missed some of the words the member said.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237196549GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Gord Johns: (2405)[English]Mr. Chair, how long does the department intend to exclusively continue to use the fisheries to satisfy treaty rights?I have spoken to the minister repeatedly, asking her to ask the minister of CIRNAC to supply funds for reconciliation so that reconciliation does not fall on the backs of a small group of fishers and it is shared by all Canadians. Maybe she can speak to that.We have talked about it in relation to the west coast crab fishers. Maybe she can talk about whether she has had this conversation with the minister of CIRNAC.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-2023719655071965517196552JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2405)[English]Mr. Chair, we do get dollars for reconciliation. We have a large pot of money in these estimates that is for purchasing the boats, the gear and the licences for our “willing buyer, willing seller” policy.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237196553GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionMr. Gord Johns: (2405)[English]Mr. Chair, has the department worked with indigenous stakeholders to see if there are any other means by which to satisfy the right?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237196560Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23]InterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (2405)[English]Mr. Chair, “willing buyer, willing seller” is our approach and we do have funds to put that into effect.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2022-20237196561GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersRights of Indigenous PeoplesInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1415)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I rise to amplify the inherent rights of indigenous peoples in Canada. “Reclaiming Power and Place”, the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, found, “Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people are holders of inherent Indigenous rights, constitutional rights, and international and domestic human rights.”The report calls for the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Call for justice 1.2 states, “We call upon all governments, with the full participation of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, to immediately implement and fully comply with all relevant rights instruments, including but not limited to...UNDRIP”.Indigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsNational Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and GirlsStatements by MembersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples71236277123628FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellRhéalFortinRivière-du-Nord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1510)[English]Uqaqtittiji, one of the 231 calls for justice calls for the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government committed to doing so in passing Bill C-15, but in courts this week, federal lawyers now say UNDRIP is only an important interpretative aid in the process for discussions. Which is it? Will the Minister of Justice stand to confirm that the rights of indigenous people in Canada are indeed substantive, as stated in UNDRIP?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples7123812Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, UNDRIP is a foundational document that we feel will be transformative in restarting the reconciliation process and fulfilling the real promise of Canada, moving forward. I also point out that my predecessor minister of justice implemented a directive on litigation. We are doing our best every day to implement that directive. These are two measures that we feel will help build trust and help build the process of reconciliation as we move forward with implementing UNDRIP.Indigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples7123813LoriIdloutNunavutKevinVuongSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110538RechieValdezRechie-ValdezMississauga—StreetsvilleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ValdezRechie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMissing and Murdered Indigenous Women and GirlsInterventionMrs. Rechie Valdez (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): (2205)[English]Madam Chair, kwe, unnusakkut, tansi, hello and bonjour.I will be sharing my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria, whom I respect so much and who has taught me a lot about indigenous people and their culture.I am here today speaking to members from the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.Last week, I had the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to the impacts of gender-based violence within my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville. I also spoke in detail about the increase in targeted hate and violence in this country, and how budget 2022 was addressing these items. It is proven that violence and abuse can lead to poor physical and mental health, serious injuries and even homicide.Today, it is difficult talking about indigenous missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, but it is a topic that is much needed and necessary to help all of us learn and be a part of change.Culture is the foundation on which we build identity, our sense of self. In Canada, colonialism has robbed generations of indigenous people of their sense of knowing and of their community. It robbed indigenous peoples of their languages, spirituality, and ways of interacting with the land and in the world. It forcefully disconnected indigenous people from each other and their communities. It stripped indigenous women, girls, two-spirit, LGBTQQIA+ people of their vital role, undermining their inherent value and positioning in society.To heal, indigenous peoples must be able to reclaim, preserve and practice their culture. They have the wisdom and resilience to do this. However, it is the responsibility of the federal government to support this work with steadfast listening and actions that match our words.The Government of Canada is committed to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, truth, co-operation and partnership. Historic investments have been made to support indigenous priorities and their path to self-determination, but there is so much work to be done, and our government will continue to be there to work alongside indigenous peoples to address historic injustices. This evening, I would like to highlight some of the Canadian Heritage programming that responds to the calls for justice from the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls addressing the violence against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit, LGBTQQIA+ people. As the lead for the culture thematic for the federal pathway component of the national action plan, Canadian Heritage has worked closely with colleagues at other departments, portfolio organizations and indigenous partners on advancing this work. The culture theme for the federal pathway outlines three ways for us to do that. One is supporting the retention, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of indigenous languages, cultures and spaces. Two is strengthening opportunities for indigenous cultural expression, participation, promotion and representation in the arts, cultural industries and media. Three is addressing systemic anti-indigenous racism in the public and policy spheres to see lasting change. As we have talked about in this House this evening, we absolutely need lasting change.The government has shown its commitment and support for the culture thematic priorities through budget 2021 and budget 2022 investments. Budget 2021 provided $453.1 million over five years and $4.9 million per year ongoing for initiatives under the culture theme, and budget 2022 provided $25 million over three years. The funding has been used to support a number of activities. First, progress continues to be made on the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act, which responds to a number of calls for justice. Canadian Heritage will administer $275 million for the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act with $2 million in ongoing support. This funding supports the reclamation, revitalization and strengthening of indigenous languages as a foundation for culture, identity and belonging. This funding has been used to support various initiatives, including language and culture camps, mentor apprentice programs and the development of indigenous languages, resources and documentation. Ensuring that indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and LGBTQQIA+ people in Canada have meaningful access to their culture and languages is absolutely fundamental. (2210)Second, Library and Archives Canada was provided $14.9 million for the preservation of indigenous heritage. To further this work, budget 2022 proposed $25 million to support the digitization of documents related to the federal Indian day school system—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeCultural heritageGirlsGovernment Business No. 12HomicideIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMissing personsRacial equalitySplitting speaking timeTake-note debatesWomen7117063GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35897BlaineCalkinsBlaine-CalkinsRed Deer—LacombeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CalkinsBlaine_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, after she was defeated in the last general election, the former minister of fisheries issued temporary moderate livelihood lobster licences to four first nations for the lobster season that ends in May. The former minister had the right and ability to impose conditions on the fishery in return for the issuing of these licences, which would sell in today's marketplace for over $1 million.Did the former defeated minister put in place a condition that these licences were not to be fished outside the DFO's commercial regulated seasons for lobster fishing areas 33, 34 and 35, yes or no?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLobstersOral questions70451597045160JoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Joyce Murray (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know how important the lobster fishery and all fisheries are to the communities in Atlantic Canada as well as on the Pacific. I also know how important it is for reconciliation with indigenous peoples that they be able to satisfy their court-ordered or moderate livelihood fisheries rights.With respect to the question, I am happy to look into it for the member. We do our very best to work with indigenous peoples to satisfy their rights and work with harvesters to make sure they are included in any changes of quota that will affect them.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLobstersOral questions70451617045162BlaineCalkinsRed Deer—LacombeAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Business of Supply [Opposition Motion—Representation of Quebec in the House of Commons]InterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to the members' speeches, both this member and the members previous to this. New Democrats are firmly in support of ensuring we recognize Quebec and its unique situation, unique culture and unique language. I believe there is a lot more work that has to be done to ensure we continue to recognize nationhood, not just in Quebec but across Canada. I come from the Métis community and I have spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that our languages, the Michif language and the Cree language, continue to survive here in our native land and place.Could the member speak to the importance of ensuring that indigenous people are also granted this form of recognition in this country?Assignment of seats in the HouseElectoral boundariesIndigenous rightsOpposition motionsProvince of Quebec69940806994081RenéVillemureTrois-RivièresRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Business of Supply [Opposition Motion—Representation of Quebec in the House of Commons]InterventionMr. René Villemure: (1705)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton for his suggestion. Quebec is willing to recognize a nation from its inception. A nation sets itself apart through, and is defined by, its language, which reflects its culture.We are fully willing to recognize other cultures, nations and languages. We have always been in favour of that.I welcome his suggestion.Assignment of seats in the HouseElectoral boundariesIndigenous rightsOpposition motionsProvince of Quebec6994082699408369940846994085BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersShannen's DreamInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, the Parliament of Canada came together in an extraordinary motion of solidarity by unanimously passing Shannen's dream to end the systemic underfunding of first nation education.Shannen Koostachin had never seen a real school, but at the age of 13 she stood up to the brutal conditions in her home community of Attawapiskat First Nation and launched the largest youth-driven children's rights movement in Canadian history, forever changing the discussion about indigenous rights in Canada.Shannen Koostachin never lived long enough to see this historic vote in Parliament or the beautiful school that is in her community. She died in a terrible highway accident at 15, but is now commemorated as one of the 150 most influential women in Canadian history. If Shannen were here today, she would tell us that the fight is not finished. Yes, we have come a long way but children continue to have their rights denied through underfunding and a broken federal system.Shannen had a dream that all her little brothers and sisters could go to a comfy school and have their dreams realized. It is our duty to make Shannen's dream a reality for this generation.ChildrenIndigenous rightsKoostachin, ShannenSchoolsStatements by Members69911326991133699113469911356991136AngeloIaconoAlfred-PellanStéphaneBergeronMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgOrders of the DayEmergencies ActInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (1735)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to focus specifically on a concern of my constituents and of folks across the country. It relates to indigenous peoples' rights. I want the member to confirm, in plain, clear language, that invoking the Emergencies Act does not in any way, shape or form negate or restrict indigenous peoples' rights to access their lands and to even occupy their lands.COVID-19EmergenciesEmergencies ActIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPandemicProtestsStatutory debates6968435PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgOrders of the DayEmergencies ActInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke: (1735)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his staunch defence of his constituents.I have full confidence in members of cabinet, most notably the Minister of Justice, and the actions they are going to take in the coming days and weeks. I know they will be working diligently to ensure that the charter rights of all Canadians will be protected as they carry out the necessary actions to bring back law and order to the city of Ottawa, as they ensure that everything that needs to be taken care of in Ontario is indeed taken care of, and as I stated before, as they ensure that we no longer have blockades blocking key points of entry into our country.COVID-19EmergenciesEmergencies ActIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPandemicProtestsStatutory debates69684366968437BlakeDesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachGregMcLeanCalgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgOrders of the DayEmergencies ActInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais: (2155)[English]Madam Speaker, the government could have avoided this whole circumstance had it helped Canadians through this difficult time. Instead, it let inaction and partisanship guide it, and let those who sought to hurt our economy and our international reputation as Canadians by not acting sooner. All of this was done by the government, while Conservatives emboldened the occupiers, meeting with them as they stood shoulder to shoulder displaying Nazi and Confederate flags. The emergency we are facing was not a surprise.Organizers such as Pat King, who was first listed as the Alberta organizer for Canada Unity, has a known history of white supremacy and has previously been seen on videos saying white people have the strongest bloodlines. When talking about COVID restrictions in December, just one month before the protest, he said, “The only way that this is going to be solved is with bullets.” As much as I disagree, and as much as I condemn the statements of Mr. King and believe them to be hate-motivated, I respect every group's right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, but what we have witnessed here and across the country is certainly not that. As a matter of fact, I have been in many protests over the past decade, and I am a proud indigenous land defender myself. I am a true believer in public demonstration and community solidarity. It is absolutely fundamental and necessary to ensuring democracy, accountability and diversity of opinion in Canada. That being said, it is clear that the situation across the country, in particular in my home province of Alberta, at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, and in Ottawa, should have never gotten to this point. There is a combination of ill forces that have contributed to this current crisis, such as the lack of proper leadership to combat disinformation in our country. Hate, racism and terrorism funding are undeniable facts of the situation and are some things anti-racism groups across our country have warned us against for years.When we saw how fragile democracy was in the United States when the Capitol was attacked, we all thought it could not happen here. Here we are, three weeks into this, with hopes of finally restoring public order, which should have taken place a long time ago. We knew this was coming.I am sure those who have engaged in peaceful assembly, such as myself, have noticed the extreme difference in the standard of policing for indigenous land defenders and for organizations such as the ones we are seeing right now. It has never taken the use of the Emergencies Act to have police forcefully remove land defenders, often with violence. It is an unfortunate precedent that already exists in our country. I mean to say that regardless of the Emergencies Act, indigenous people have been subject to state violence since the inception of Canada and its laws, and we need to tackle that issue. From the evidence today and yesterday, I am pleased to see that police can, in fact, enforce public order without the use of bullets, tear gas, chainsaws or axes. To the police, I know many others will be watching.Over the past three weeks, Canadians have witnessed local and municipal police fail to uphold the most basic of bylaws and ordinances made to protect our economy, residents and transport corridors. Just last week, some members of the southern Alberta Coutts blockade were charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers after a weapons cache was found. It should never have gotten to that point. Armed violence and intimidation are not conducive to a free democracy, and instances such as this are likely in other parts of our country. I have heard from many Black, indigenous and other people-of-colour communities who are feeling scared right now. They are feeling intimidated for their immediate safety. I have spoken to health care professionals in Edmonton Griesbach. Nurses, doctors and health care aides are feeling the same way. Hate toward frontline health care workers over the past few weeks has resulted in hospitals telling their own employees not to wear any identifiable health care clothes due to the rise in attacks. This is Canada, my friends. This is right now. This is today. A truly free democracy is one that does not allow discourse to take a back seat to intimidation and violence. This is not freedom. This is not Canada. It is clearly hate.Lastly, without getting into the nuanced and complicated differences between Canadian civil rights guarantees and the rights of sovereign indigenous nations, please know that the use of the Emergencies Act does not in any way negate or dismiss indigenous people's rights and/or laws to access and occupy their own lands. (2200)The reasons I have outlined here are why my NDP colleagues and I have decided to support these very limited measures under the Emergencies Act. They largely include the coordination of local enforcement, as noted by the interim Ottawa police chief, and powers to investigate foreign and domestic financial influences that are fuelling this hate-motivated occupation. My entire caucus and I believe in reasonable limits, which include the barring of any use of the Canadian Armed Forces, and the upholding and non-suspension of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.It is with the utmost reluctance we do this for the betterment of our safety, for our country and for the survival of our democracy. We will be steadfast in monitoring these powers and have a clear path to revoke or, at any time, not support these powers that infringe on our civil rights and our democracy. The tool can never become the problem. Kinana'skomitina'wa'w.Caregivers and health care professionalsCOVID-19EmergenciesEmergencies ActExtremismHarassmentIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementPandemicPolice servicesProtestsStatutory debates6961583CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersRights of Indigenous PeoplesInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1415)[English]Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. This “freedom convoy” exposes the injustice that first nations, Métis, Inuit and people of colour experience in Canada. The convoy has the freedom to demonstrate unrestricted violence, mainly without punishment. On the other hand, indigenous peoples live in fear of reprisal for protecting indigenous lands, as they are met with violence by law enforcement.The CGL pipeline did not achieve the consent of the appropriate first nations to have their proposal approved. Since then, the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, who have the authority to consent, have been forced to defend their territory for the last seven years. I stand with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs. I call on the Liberal government to protect indigenous peoples' rights, as accorded in section 35 of the Constitution Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to uphold the rule of law.Qujannamiik.Indigenous rightsProtestsRacial equalityStatements by MembersWet'suwet'en First Nation69166746916675691667669166776916678ÉlisabethBrièreSherbrookeClaudeDeBellefeuilleSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Indigenous Affairs]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1810)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition on behalf of petitioners who are very concerned that Canada honour the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly in the context of the conflict over the Coastal GasLink pipeline in British Columbia. The petitioners support the territorial concerns of the Wet'suwet'en people and wish for their concerns to be heard by the government and that the construction be suspended until there is, in fact, an agreement that respects territory and UNDRIP.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 441-00140Wet'suwet'en First Nation6917290AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Indigenous Affairs]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1000)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually today to present a petition.The petitioners cite the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and they bring its principles to bear on the ongoing conflict on Wet'suwet'en territory, specifically that the hereditary leadership, recognized as legitimate leadership by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw decision, has not acceded to the ongoing building of a pipeline for fracked gas through their territories. They continue to object and they continue to be oppressed by police actions.The petitioners ask for the government to recognize UNDRIP, and act to protect Wet'suwet'en territory and the integrity of its sovereignty.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 441-00116Wet'suwet'en First Nation690893369089346908935JohnAldagCloverdale—Langley CityBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Supplementary Estimates (B), 2021-22]InterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (2200)[Translation]Madam Chair, I would like to talk about another subject: the comprehensive land claims policy.On February 14, 2018, the Liberal government announced a recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework to replace the policy at the time, the comprehensive land claims policy. Three years on, we are still waiting for that framework, and in the meantime, we passed Bill C‑15 to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would like to know where we are at on the policy. Business of supplyConsideration in a Committee of the WholeIndigenous rightsSupplementary estimates (B) 2021-202268746676874668MarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursMarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88660MarcMillerHon.Marc-MillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MillerMarc_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Supplementary Estimates (B), 2021-22]InterventionHon. Marc Miller: (2200)[Translation]Madam Chair, to answer that question, I would have to go into a lot more detail than my time here permits. It is a long-term process to get rid of past policies that are clearly both racist and colonial. The framework is there, but there has to be recognition of rights based on the paradigm and the community's needs. Progress is happening across the country, and we are respecting communities' priorities. That is what we will keep doing.Business of supplyConsideration in a Committee of the WholeIndigenous rightsSupplementary estimates (B) 2021-20226874669MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110476MikeMorriceMike-MorriceKitchener CentreGreen Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorriceMike_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP): (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petition no. 10686748, wherein the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to commit to upholding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action by immediately halting all existing and planned construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline project on Wet’suwet’en territory, ordering the RCMP to dismantle its exclusion zone and stand down, scheduling nation-to-nation talks among the Wet’suwet’en First Nation and federal and provincial governments, and prioritizing the real implementation of UNDRIP.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 441-00039Wet'suwet'en First Nation6870639MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsKamalKheraHon.Brampton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88958LeslynLewisLeslyn-LewisHaldimand—NorfolkConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisLeslyn_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMs. Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Marshall decisions are the most important Supreme Court rulings regarding indigenous commercial fishing rights. The former minister of fisheries admitted she had not read the decisions, and recently the new Minister of Fisheries said she was aware only of key elements.This is the government’s most important relationship with Canada’s indigenous peoples. Has the Minister of Fisheries read the Marshall decisions in their entirety, yes or no?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionOral questions686814068681416868142AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Joyce Murray (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, what I do understand is that the conservation, protection and restoration of abundance of our stocks are of primordial importance to our communities, our fishers and Canadians at large. Everything we do at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans underpins that.First nations have a Supreme Court-affirmed—Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionOral questions68681436868144LeslynLewisHaldimand—NorfolkAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Joyce Murray: (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would think that the Conservatives opposite would be interested in this answer, because it is important to all of us.First nations have a Supreme Court-affirmed treaty right to fish, and our government has never stopped working to implement that right.Everything we do at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is underpinned by conservation, protection and restoration of habitats and stock abundance. It is a priority to work with indigenous communities. My first trip was out to meet—Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionOral questions686814968681506868151AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/63908BernardGénéreuxBernard-GénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-LoupConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GénéreuxBernard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC): (1440)[Translation] Mr. Speaker, understanding the Marshall decisions should be the minister's top priority given that this is the government's most important relationship. The minister needs to know that the 1999 fisheries committee report clearly stated that the court confirmed the department's sole authority to regulate the fisheries and did not confer any right to a separate commercial fishery. Will the minister abide by that decision when implementing any future decision regarding commercial fisheries, yes or no?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionOral questions686815368681546868155AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayHon.Joyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Joyce Murray (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1440)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right of 35 first nations in Quebec's Gaspé region and Atlantic Canada to harvest for reasonable subsistence purposes. My department is working with communities to implement that right. I have visited the Atlantic coast, and I have talked with Mi'kmaq indigenous fishery leaders. That was good, it was important, and I will keep doing more of the same.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionOral questions686815668681576868158BernardGénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-LoupBernardGénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1820)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.I will be delivering my speech in Inuktitut, so I encourage members to put their earpieces on.[Member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following text:]ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ,ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒃᐳᖓ ᐃᓅᓪᓗᖓ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᖓ ᐅᕙᓃᒃᑲᒪ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᖅᔪᐊᖑᖃᑎᒐ Edmonton Griesbach ᒥ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᑕᖓᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖃᑕᐅᕗᖓᕙ. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓇᖅᓯᒪᓂᑰᒧᑦᑕᐅᖅ. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᖁᕙᓕᕗᖓ ᐃᓚᓐᓂ, ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓇᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ NDP ᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔨᒪᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕗᖓ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᑭᐅᓯᑦᑎᐊᒪᕆᑲᐅᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖏᒪᑕ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑯᐃᓐ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᖓᑦᑕ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᑎᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ.ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑲᔾᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᐊᓘᓪᓗᓂᓗ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᕕᑭᑦᑑᓂᖓᓐᓂ. ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᖓ ᐅᕙᓂ ᐃᒃᓴᕚᖅᐸᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ 44ᖑᔪᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᔪᐊᖑᔪᓂᒃ, ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᓪᓚᖁᓪᓗᒋ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔪᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐱᓐᓇᖅᑐᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᐃᓐᓇᐅᔭᕐᓂᐊᖅᖢᖓ ᓄᓇᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᓴᖏᓂᓕᐊᓘᓂᖏᓐᓂ.ᐃᓄᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔫᖃᑎᕗᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓗᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᕗᒍᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᑐᖃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓐᓄᒃ. ᐃᖃᐃᕗᖓ ᔮᓐ ᐊᒪᕈᐊᓕᒃ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᕐᒥᐅᑕᐅᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ, 1986ᒥᒃ. ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ “ 1947ᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᐳᖓ 1000ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂᒃ”. ᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᐱᕕᔾᔪᐊᖑᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᖑᕚᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᓱᒪᓃᓐᓇᖅ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕿᒃᖢᓂ ᐊᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᑭᓇᒃᑯ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑭᐱᓯᓚᐅᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ. ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᑖᑕᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᕋ.ᐃᓅᓯᕋ, ᐊᐃᑦᑖᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ, ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᒻᒪ. ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖄᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᑎᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᓯᐅᑎᑕᐅᒐᓱᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᓱᓕ. ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᑎᕗᑦ, ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᔪᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖅ, ᑕᐃᓱᒪᓂᑐᖃᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᒫᓐᓇᒧᓱᓕ ᐱᓂᖅᓗᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᒻᒪᕆᒃᐳᒍᓱᓕ.ᑕᐅᑐᖑᐊᖁᕙᓯ. ᐅᕙᓂ ᖃᐅᑕᒫᖅ ᐃᒃᓯᕚᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᓯ, ᓈᓚᒃᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᐅᔭᖅᓗᓯ ᐅᕙᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᐅᔭᖅᓗᓯ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ. ᑐᓵᔨᖃᕐᓇᓯ, ᑐᓵᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓇᓯ, ᕿᔪᐊᕐᔪᕋᓛᑐᐊᖅ. ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃ ᐅᖃᕐᓂᕈᕕᑦ ᓱᑰᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᔪᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᑯᑦ. ᑭᖑᓪᓂᖅᐹᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ ᒪᑐᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ 1996ᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᓱᒪᓂᑐᖃᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᓱᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓱᓕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᑯᓂᒃ ᑭᖑᕚᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖅᑐᓱᓕ. ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᐊᓯᐅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ. ᐱᕕᖃᖅᐳᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᕐᔪᐊᖑᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᑎᓕᐅᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖁᔨᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐋᕿᒃᓯᒋᐊᖁᔨᓪᓗᑕ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᔪᑎᒍᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓴᐳᓐᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ.ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᔨᖅᓯᓯᒪᒐᓱᖕᓂᖅ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓵᓚᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᐃᕆᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑭᐱᓯᔪᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᕙᒃᑲ ᑭᐅᔭᕿᐊᖃᕐᓂᒃᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑯᐃᓐ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᖓᑦᑕ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ.ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᑲᓇᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᖏᓚᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᓅᓯᖃᖅᐳᒍ ᓄᖑᑎᕆᔭᐅᒐᓱᓚᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔫᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᒐᓱᐊᕈᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᕋᓛᕐᓅᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᓵᕈᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᑎᐊᕙᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᓂᒥᒃ, ᐅᕙᓘᓐᓃ ᐱᓂᕐᓗᒃᑕᐅᓛᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐊᓚᒌᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ, ᕿᒻᒥᖏᑦ ᑐᖁᕋᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᕆᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ.ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᑕᕐᒥᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᐃᑦᑕᓪᓛᓗᖔ, ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒪᓂᖃᕐᒪᑕ, ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ.ᑐᓴᐅᒪᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᐅᔭᖅᐳᖓ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓐᓂᑕᐅᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᐃᑦᑖᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᖅᑐᒦᑦᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᓴᐱᕐᓇᑲᓴᒃᑐᖅ ᓇᓕᒧᔪᒥᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓴᓂᐊᓂᒥᒃ. ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᐅᕋᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᑎᐊᕙᒥ ᑭᖑᕚᒋᔭᒃᓴᓐᓄᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᒥᒃ.ᐃᒡᓗᑭᒃᓴᓗᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖁᖅᑐᒦᑦᑐ ᑐᖓᕕᐊᓪᓚᕆᒪᑕ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕈᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᓚᒌᒃ ᐃᒡᓗᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓈᒪᖏᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᓂ, ᖃᓂᒻᒪᑖᕈᑎᓕᒻᒦᑐᓂᒃ, ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᙳᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᖢᑎᒃ.ᑲᓇᑕ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐊᓘᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᕆᓂᒨᖅᑎᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕐᓇᕈᑕᐅᕗᖅ ᐃᒃᐱᓐᓂᐊᕆᑦᑎᐊᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑳᓇᑕ, ᖃᓄᐃᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐅᖃᕈᒪᒋᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓴᖏᓂᓕᐊᓘᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᖏᑎᒋᔪᓂᒃ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖁᑎᕐᔪᐊᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᙳᒻᒪᑎᑦᑎᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓂᐊᕈᑎ ᐃᓄᖕᓂ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖁᑎᕐᔪᐊᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᖅ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐃᒡᓗᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᓇᓕᒧᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᕐᔪᐊᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᑖᕋᓱᐊᓂᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓂ. ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔫᔪᒍᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᖃᑎᒌᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᕿᒃᓱᐃᑦᑎᐊᓪᓚᑖᖅᓗᑕ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᔪᒃᓴᕐᒥᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ 2022 ᐊᑐᕐᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᓛᖅᑐᓂᒃ.ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒦᖏᓐᓇᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᖃᕈᓐᓃᓚᐅᕐᓂᖓ ᖁᒃᓴᓪᓚᕈᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᕐᒥᒃ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᐃᓂᒋᓪᓗᐊᑕᖅᑕᖓᓐᓂ.ᖁᔭᓕᒍᒪᕙᒃᑲ ᐃᖃᓗᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓐ ᐊᒃᑑᐸᒥᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓕᓚᐅᒪᑕ. ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᑐᐊᕕᓇᑐᒃᑰᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒃ, ᓴᓂᑭᓗᐊᖅ, ᑲᖏᖅᑐᒑᐱᒃ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᑭᕐᕋᔪᐊᖅ, ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒋᔭᑦᑎᓂ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᑦ. ᐊᒥᓱᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᑎᐊᕙᖃᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᒦᑦᑐᑦ, ᑕᐃᒫᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ.ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᐃᓐᓇᓂᐊᒥᔪᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᒪᑕᒎᖅ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪ. Liberalᑯ ᓱᕋᐃᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓂᐊᓂᕋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᑦ ᐱᖃᓂᐊᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᐃᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᓂ. ᓱᕋᐃᖏᓐᓇᓗᐊᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᓂᖓᓐᓂ, ᐃᑲᔪᐊᓂᒃᓯᒪᔾᔭᖏᓚᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ.ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᓚᖅ. ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᕐᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᒃᐱᖕᓂᐊᕆᓪᓚᑖᖅᐳᖓ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᑦᑕ ᓈᒪᒃᓴᖃᑎᒌᓕᕐᒧᑦ. ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ, ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᐳᒍ ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᓂᖅᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᔪᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖁᑎᖃᕐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᓐᓇᓂᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᖅᔪᐊᖑᑎᓪᓗᑕ.ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕐᒪ ᐅᖓᑖᒍ ᐱᑕᖃᐅᒥᔪᖅ. ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᓛᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᓲᕐᓗ, ᓂᕿᖃᑦᑎᐊᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕆᐊᖃᓂᖓ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑕᐅᓲᑦ ᓂᐅᕕᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᑭᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᑎᑎᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᑦᑎᓂᒃ, ᒥᖅᓱᖅᑎᓂᒃ, ᓴᓇᖑᐊᖅᑎᓂᑦ, ᑎᑎᕋᐅᔭᖅᑎᓂᒃ, ᐃᖕᖏᖅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓇᑕᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓂᒪᓐᓇᕈᑏ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐳᕙᓪᓗᓂᖅ.ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᔨᒻᒪᕆᒋᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑯᐃᓐ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖄᓯᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᓗᒋᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᓪᓗᒋ ᐱᖁᔨᕗᖔᕈᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑐᖁᑕᐅᔪᕕᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᕕᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᖃᒃᓯᖃᑎᒌᖁᓕᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᔪᕕᓃᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑦᑎᖁᔨᓂᖅ ᐸᓯᔭᒃᓴᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑯᑎᒍ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓕᒧᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᖏᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, Wet’suwet’en ᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᖏᑦ, ᐃᓐᓇᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᒥᓐᓂ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓇᓱᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᒥᓴᕆᐊᖃᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᓂᐊᐳᖓ 1960ᖏᓐᓂ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐳᕙᓗᓂᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓂᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓗᐊᕐᖢᒋᑦ ᐃᓗᕖᑦ ᓇᓂᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᕕᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ 44ᖑᔪᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕕᔪᐊᒥᒃ.ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᕐᓗᓂᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᐃᓐᓇᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᒪᒥᐊᑦᑐᒦᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᓐᓃᖅᑕ ᑐᕌᖓᓚᐅᖅᒥᑕ ᓄᑖᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓂᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃᓗ. ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᕆᓯᑐᖅ ᓈᒪᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓕᕐᓂᒧᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᒪᕆᓗᓯ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᑦ.ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ[Inuktitut text interpreted as follows:]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today, an Inuk from Nunavut. Like my colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, said, I am here following extraordinary circumstances. I first thank my family, volunteers, Nunavummiut and the NDP for supporting me to be here. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to respond to the throne speech.Nunavut is a beautiful territory that spans millions of kilometres. I know the challenge of being here and of being heard. I am committed to ensuring that, with my seat in this 44th Parliament, Nunavummiut, first nations, Métis and Inuit are heard and are touted for the strength that exists in our communities.All indigenous people, Inuit, first nations and Métis have been here on these lands since time immemorial. The knowledge passed from generation to generation still exists in the first peoples. I remember and am reminded of John Amagoalik when he spoke to the Inuit Circumpolar Council in 1986. He said, “I was born in 1947, but I have lived a thousand years.” At that time, he was only 39 years old. In that statement, he showed the burden of holding knowledge and the need to pass it on for the future generations. Within that same speech, John Amagoalik named a few people who were known to have died by suicide, including my father. My life, unfortunately, is not a unique story. There are too many Inuit, first nations and Métis who share my story. Our stories of tragedy, of injustice, are not just history; we are still facing colonial acts of violence to this day.Imagine, sitting here every day, being forced to listen to me speak and me teaching those people here only in Inuktitut with no interpreter services, no devices, only a yardstick. Imagine me hitting members' hands with that yardstick each time I heard them speak English or French. This was the reality of first nations, Métis and Inuit in residential schools. It hurts us. We suffered a lot, going through the residential school system. The last residential school closed in 1996. That history is not long gone. It is still present today. Many first nations, Métis and Inuit still suffer from the intergenerational trauma imposed upon us by governments.(1825) Those governments are not long gone either, but now we have an opportunity as parliamentarians to instruct the federal government to do better, to ensure justice, to uphold indigenous rights.The attempt to hide this colonial history has driven far too many first nations, Métis and Inuit to addictions and too many, ultimately, to suicide. It is all of those too frequent stories of colonial violence that drive me to respond to the Speech from the Throne very critically. I wish to address it that way as an indigenous person.Canada's relationship with Inuit and indigenous peoples has been very fractured right from the beginning. We are still living through the realities of systematic government action that sought to destroy Inuit identity and our way of life and those of other indigenous peoples in Canada. The Inuit were forced into permanent settlements with the promise of jobs, housing, safety and education for children. Some were threatened with violence to move. Families were separated, sled dogs were killed and a way of life was irreversibly altered. Many elders are still alive today to recount those horrific events and, shamefully, many of those decisions that led to the violence and colonization of Inuit during that time are still being perpetuated to this very day.I often hear countless stories of heartbreak and hope. All too often, being in poverty prevents many from hopes of achieving a socio-economic status equal to that of Canadians across this country. Nunavummiut understand that there are incredible opportunities to make our communities stronger and a better place for the next generation.Overcrowded and mouldy homes are at the heart of too many of the challenges we face. Families are forced to live in unsuitable conditions, communicable diseases spread, elders are put into humiliating positions and gender-diverse individuals are forced to stay in dangerous positions.In a country as rich as Canada, we have traditional knowledge and custom knowledge. I would like to take the opportunity to work with members to look at our traditional, legal knowledge and philosophy of life, so that we can work together to solve our problems. If we are going to work together, then we need to approve the declaration of the indigenous people.I will shorten my speech as per your request.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneCivil and human rightsColonialismHousingIndigenous languages in proceedingsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsInuktitutRacial equalityTraditional knowledge6868767LeahTaylor RoyAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillMarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Indigenous Affairs]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am still a bit emotional about that wonderful display of unity in this place. I stand to present a petition from petitioners in my community and elsewhere who remain concerned that the Government of Canada is not following the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They are particularly troubled by the actions on Wet’suwet’en territory, where the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs and others are standing to protect all of us by keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Also, parenthetically, concerns have elevated recently due to the militarized actions in arresting protectors of the land, as well as journalists. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada, the people of Canada and the House of Commons to ensure that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is respected across Canada, particularly on Wet’suwet’en territory.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 441-00022Wet'suwet'en First Nation686619568661966866197HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP): (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my constituents in Edmonton Griesbach. I am truly honoured and so proud to have the opportunity to serve Edmonton Griesbach in this 44th Canadian Parliament and to represent the many communities that make our district great. I will never take this opportunity for granted. I also want to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin people. I want to especially thank Shannon Chief of the Algonquin nation who welcomed me during the swearing-in ceremony. It meant a tremendous amount to me to have that relationship with the Algonquin people.I am honoured to be the first openly two-spirit member of Parliament elected to this chamber. As a young indigenous queer person, I know that representation matters. Since being elected, I have received countless messages from young, indigenous and queer folks in my riding and beyond. Many shared touching stories about their lives and how important seeing my election was for them, to finally see themselves in government and to finally see themselves represented in this body. I am honoured they shared their stories with me and I hope to bring their voices and perspectives to this chamber, because the truth is that someone like me is not expected to be here. The fact that the residents of Edmonton Griesbach chose a queer brown kid from their streets to send me here still surprises me today. The fact that I survived and am here is a surprise at all in Canada. I am a kid who grew up in the Fishing Lake Métis Settlement, often one of the most forgotten and underserved communities in our country. I am here because of the strength of that community and the proud people who make that community great. I am proud to be bringing their stories here today.I am also in the chamber as an intergenerational survivor of the horrific residential school system and Canada's sixties scoop policy. To my kokum, my uncles, all the survivors and the many lost children, we remember them. I am here because of my birth mother Brenda, herself a victim of the sixties scoop, made the brave decision to call for support, saving me from the child welfare system, allowing me to grow up in my community with my culture, language, people, but, most importantly, my family, something indigenous people have been deprived of in this country. Not always having much, we always had each other, a gift that so many still today take for granted. Kinanaskomtinawaw packchi-wanis.As indigenous people, we need to expect better from our government and our leaders. We must ensure change is made. We must ensure we never allow these kinds of injustices to happen again. I hope my presence in this chamber can help bring us closer on our journey toward reconciliation, though I fear this throne speech does little toward that goal. For a government of over six years that says good words, but does not deliver on those words, that does not show up when it matters, this only breeds cynicism, not reconciliation. This needs to change if we hope to move forward as a country. Nor does this throne speech do much to support those in my home district of Edmonton Griesbach. It will do little to make the lives better on the ground in my communities. We are a district made up of strong, vibrant communities, a working-class district, a diverse district with one of the largest urban indigenous populations in Canada and home to some of the largest populations of new Canadians, but also a district with struggles. It has seen some of the highest child poverty rates in the country and is home to many of the unhoused in Edmonton, a number growing steadily. In many ways, we are a district in crisis: a housing crisis, an opioid crisis, a district seeing an alarming increase in hate crimes, especially towards hijab-wearing Muslim women, a district still feeling the impacts of the ongoing pandemic.These are some of the concerns I hear on the doorsteps again and again, yet this throne speech does little to address these issues. On housing there has been much talk by the government, but action is needed. Unhoused populations in Edmonton have doubled. Unhoused residents in my community are struggling, just as they were before, and even more now. The throne speech makes no commitment on “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing, something the Liberals have promised for generations now. I was born in the 1990s and this was promised before then.(1730)It is not solving the housing crisis we face in Edmonton Griesbach or across the country. Winter is here. It is cold, and we must do more now.There was no mention of the long-promised pharmacare or of dental care. Over and over on the doorsteps, I heard stories of those who could not afford their medication or who had to choose between food, housing and other needs just to pay their medical bills. Pharmacare is so desperately needed. It would change lives, and it would save lives. We know this. The government knows this. The government's own report shows this.Canadians support pharmacare. They need it, which is why the Liberals have campaigned on the issue time and again. The fact that we see no action to implement pharmacare, and no mention of it in the throne speech, is simply unacceptable. It is offensive to my constituents who deserve better. The government must do better.Climate action, good jobs and a just transition for workers are other critical issues ignored by the throne speech. Many in my district are still struggling to find employment. Those who rely on existing employment insurance are frustrated because the throne speech does nothing to help them. Many are worried about what the future might bring as the world continues to transition away from non-renewable resources. They have worked hard. I know that. I am a former oil and gas worker. They want to see a future that is possible for them and one that they are included in. They want to know that there will be good jobs in Alberta and in Edmonton for many years ahead.The Liberals campaigned on a just transition for workers. They promised to involve them in creating plans, because there can be no justice without involving those impacted by this transition. There can be no successful climate action without involving workers, yet this throne speech does nothing to ensure good jobs or a just transition for workers in my constituency. Again, nice words are not enough. We need to see action. We need to create good jobs.In addition, this speech does not recognize the long-standing blood donation ban that has stopped countless queer folks, including me, from giving blood. This is something the Liberals made promises on, campaigned on and even raised money on, but we continue to wait for action. Overall, this throne speech does little and says little. At a mere 24 pages, it is one of the shortest in recent history. There is no mention of the issues that matter most to the people I represent in Edmonton Griesbach. After decades of broken promises, including on affordable child care, I was pleased to finally see this happening in the throne speech; however, much work remains to have this be fully realized. It would do little to make life better for those I represent. People in my district feel left behind.It makes one wonder why we had an election at all, if the government was going to come back with so little. However, I am here to do a job. I am here to represent my constituents in Edmonton Griesbach and bring their voices to Parliament, and I am proud to be their voice. I will continue to push the government to keep its promises, and I will continue to push it to do better. It is what my constituents expect, and it is what Canadians deserve.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneBlood supplyClimate change and global warmingDiscriminationFamilies and childrenHomelessness and homelessHomosexual menIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsPharmacareRenewable energy and fuelSexual and gender minoritiesSocial housingSubsidized day careWorkers6866505Lisa MarieBarronNanaimo—LadysmithKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: (1525)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we have put in place measures that have made a real difference in helping Canadians access home ownership over the last few years. However, we definitely know that we have more to do.[English]One of the commitments we made during the election was a $4-billion housing accelerator fund for municipalities. That $4 billion will help them move faster in building supply, issuing permits and developing low-income and middle-class housing, creating the supply that is so needed to take the pressure off families and communities. This is in addition to the other initiatives we have had, whether it is the Canada housing benefit or the rapid housing initiative that has worked with municipalities.However, we will also do more. We will help families buy their first home sooner, with a more flexible and generous first-time homebuyer incentive and a new rent-to-own program, and by reducing closing costs for first-time buyers. These are all concrete, tangible solutions that will help move things in the right direction for Canadians. Even as the Conservative politicians these days are rending their shirts about the housing crisis, they offer no solutions. Indeed, the only concrete solution they had in their platform during the 2021 election was, get this, to give a tax break to wealthy landlords to help them sell their buildings. It really takes a federal Conservative to think we are somehow going to help people rent or buy homes they cannot afford by giving tax breaks to wealthy landlords. That simply does not work. What we have is a comprehensive plan that will indeed support Canadians in buying affordable housing and finding lower-priced places to stay. We are working on housing affordability.Every step of the way our focus has been on supporting Canadians, whether it is by indexing the Canada child benefit to the cost of inflation or through a child care program that is not only going to help families with their costs, but also get more women into the workplace while giving kids the level playing field they need to succeed. We are making investments for the longer term of our future. We are standing up for the middle class, and will continue to address the labour shortages by boosting economic immigration levels and investing in skills training.(1530)[Translation]Obviously, Canadians are concerned about the economy, and they want to know that we are there to help them. We are going to be there to do that, and we are going to be there to invest. However, there are other issues that Canadians expect us to work on, and that is exactly what we are going to do.Canadians want concrete action, and that is what we will do. They want us to take action on climate change, to innovate in new technologies and clean energy, and to create green jobs. They want us to build a more inclusive country and move faster on the path to reconciliation.We recognize that climate change exists. Furthermore, we have long recognized what the Conservatives refuse to recognize, even today in 2021, which is that we cannot have a plan for the economy if we do not have a plan for the environment.The Conservatives refuse to address climate change. They refuse to build an economic future for Canadians that will achieve net zero by 2050, not just for our country, but for our planet. We need to make the investments necessary to transform our economy in order to have lower carbon emissions, more innovation, more green jobs and, most importantly, green careers.Unfortunately, these are the issues that the Conservatives continue to block, from putting a price on pollution to capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector until they reach net zero by 2050. This is how we will prepare our economy, our industries, our workers and our energy needs for the 21st century.These are investments we are making, not only for the economy and jobs, but also to protect nature.When we took office in 2015, barely 1% of our coastlines and oceans was being protected by the Harper government. In just a few years, we brought that up to 14%, and we are on track to reach 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. The same goes for our lands, 30% of which will be protected by 2030.We know that protecting the environment means more than just preserving its beauty and resources for future generations. It also means taking meaningful action to fight climate change now. That is our vision. It means understanding that by protecting nature, wetlands, and our rivers, lakes and oceans, we can ensure a better future with less climate change, while making unprecedented investments to transform our economy the right way.As for reconciliation, we know that we need to build partnerships and that we need to find solutions to address climate change. In fact, we would not have been able to protect as much of our coastlines and oceans if not for the leadership of indigenous peoples and our partnerships with them. I am thinking specifically of the Inuit, who have shown a solid understanding of the fact that addressing climate change and spurring economic growth in their communities and across the country must go hand in hand.(1535)[English]I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition raising reconciliation in his address to Parliament a little earlier. One thing we can all do concretely in the House is work towards the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately, however, the Conservative Party voted against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the last Parliament. I hope that the indication by the Leader of the Opposition that reconciliation is important to him means that the Conservatives are going to change their approach on UNDRIP, and actually realize that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an important thing for Canada and the world to lead on. We will also continue to work with all parties in the House on these sorts of issues as we move forward. I want to respond to a few of the points the Conservative leader made in his approach this morning. Unfortunately, he did not really demonstrate all that much in the way of leadership as much as he tried to score cheap political points.We all know that the best thing for our economy is to put the pandemic behind us, yet the Conservative Party will not even confirm how many of its own MPs are vaccinated. That is simply not leading by example. We can hear from the members opposite that they hate it when people bring this up. At a time when we know the way through this pandemic is through vaccinations, they cannot be unequivocal on the need to get vaccinated and the need to lead by example. It is really disappointing. If the Conservatives had won in this past election, right now people would be travelling on planes and trains without the need to be fully vaccinated and would be putting Canadians at risk. That was a commitment the Conservatives had made to Canadians: that they would not have to be fully vaccinated to travel on a plane or a train.That is simply not the kind of leadership Canadians expected. It is certainly not the kind of leadership they chose. It is also something that would be bad not just for the course of the pandemic in our country, but indeed for the economy. The Conservatives continue to demonstrate that they do not understand that the best thing to do to grow our economy is to finish this pandemic.The members opposite have spoken a lot today about Canada's relationship with the United States as well. We will continue to stand up for Canadian interests. We will continue to stand up in the fight for the removal of softwood lumber tariffs, the fight to continue producing electric vehicles in Canada and the fight to continue making sure that our products, such as potatoes, continue to have access to the United States.When the Conservative leader talks about the fact that we are not doing enough to go at the United States, it reminds me of what he said when we stood up for steelworkers and aluminum workers against the last American administration. His comment was that those retaliatory tariffs were dumb. That was the word he used. He said that it was a dumb thing to push back against the United States when they were imposing tariffs on steelworkers and aluminum workers and threatening massive waves of protectionism.We did not listen to the Leader of the Opposition then. We went ahead in standing up strongly and firmly for Canadian interests, and that U.S. administration backed down. We protected our steelworkers and our aluminum workers, so members will understand that I am not going to take lessons from the leader of the official opposition on how to capitulate to the Americans. We will instead stand up strongly and firmly every step of the way.Our government is focused on concrete solutions that deliver results. We have one of the most successful vaccination campaigns in the world. This reminds us, again, of the complaints and the partisan, personal attacks made by members of the official opposition, the Conservative Party, that when we were getting our vaccines they were not coming fast enough, we did not do well enough and we were not covering Canadians. Here we are, with one of the top vaccination rates in the entire world, and the party that spent all its time complaining that we were not doing enough to get vaccines into this country is now the only party in the House that did not bother to get fully vaccinated. That sort of playing political games and scoring cheap rhetorical points while not actually following up on the substance of what needs to happen to keep Canadians safe is, unfortunately, par for the course for the Conservative Party of Canada.Despite all the talking down of the Canadian economy and our approach to supporting Canadians during the pandemic by the Conservatives, we have now recovered over 100% of the jobs we lost during the peak of the pandemic and have created new jobs on top of that. That is something that happened because we have been investing in Canadians and supporting small businesses across the country. Over the past few months I could not go into a small business or a restaurant across the country without someone telling me, “Thank you for that wage benefit,” or “Thank you for the support that you were able to give us to get through it.” In return, I thanked them for hanging in there and staying open, and now for getting going again. I say yes, we will continue to support them in fighting the labour shortage that we are facing. We had a year of closed borders to immigration when we were able to accept only a small number of people as immigrants. We now know that we have to get back to bringing people in to continue to grow our economy. We need to work on skills training. We need to give young people opportunities. We will continue to work not just to make sure people have jobs, but that jobs are filled. Growing the economy requires a government with a commitment to do what we have said from the very beginning: that every step of the way, we will have Canadians' backs.We continue to be there for the economy and for small businesses. We continue to be there for families, with the Canada child benefit indexed to inflation and $10-a-day child care. We will provide targeted support for the hardest-hit sectors, such as tourism. The leader of the official opposition talked about support for the tourism industry. I hope his party will work with us and we will get their support, because right now coming before the House we have Bill C-2, which will have targeted supports for the tourism industry. This is a sector that is very worried about what consequences the omicron variant might have for its industry and people's plans. We have a piece of legislation we are putting forward that would make sure we are there to support those industries that are hardest hit. It would make sure we are there to support small businesses or businesses that are facing challenges, but would also make sure that we have lockdown supports if provinces have to move forward with targeted measures. We will be there as a federal government, as we have been from the very beginning, to allow Canadians to make it through this health crisis knowing that their government has their backs and that we will bounce back and come roaring back stronger than ever. That is what is in Bill C-2 that we are moving forward. I certainly hope that the Conservatives and the other parties in the House realize that Canadians deserve a Parliament that is focused on them and is there to support them every step of the way.We are committed to establishing the Canada mental health transfer to expand the delivery of high-quality free mental health services. We know that Canadians, like people around the world, have suffered because of the pandemic. The isolation, the pressures, the anxiety and the challenges they have faced have left their mark, and that is why investing historic amounts in mental health supports across the country will go a long way to help Canadians.(1540)In the first days of this Parliament alone, we have introduced legislation to bring in 10 days of paid sick leave for workers in the federally regulated private sector and we will work with the provinces on echoing that across the country. We want to protect health care workers from unacceptable intimidation. We are going to ban conversion therapy. However, there is always more to do.(1545)[Translation]Of course, we know that there is always more work to be done, but Canadians expect us to work collaboratively and respectfully in the House of Commons.They fully understand that there are different points of view and that there will always be robust debate about how best to help and serve Canadians. I look forward to these discussions.However, Canadians expect to see parliamentarians who are there for them, who think every day about how to serve them better and how to provide them with support and growth that they can benefit from. That is what they expect, and that is what this government is prepared to do.I am reaching out to all parliamentarians with this Speech from the Throne, which focuses on concerns that we agree on. As I said, I look forward to the debates on how best to meet the expectations of Canadians.The key question is whether we will be there for Canadians. I can assure the House that on the government side, the answer is yes.Accommodation and hospitality servicesAddress in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneBenefits for childrenCanada Mental Health TransferCanada-United States relationsCities and townsClimate change and global warmingCOVID-19Customs tariff and customs dutiesGreenhouse gasesHome ownershipHousingHousing Accelerator FundImmunizationIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsLabour forceLabour shortageMental healthMetalworking industryMortgagesPandemicRent-to-Own ProgramSubsidized day careTourismUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6865391CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110476MikeMorriceMike-MorriceKitchener CentreGreen Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorriceMike_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petition no. 10672059.The petitioners call on the House of Commons to commit to upholding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action by immediately halting all existing and planned construction of the Coastal GasLink project on Wet'suwet'en territory and ordering the RCMP to dismantle its exclusion zone and stand down, schedule nation-to-nation talks between the Wet'suwet'en nation and federal and provincial governments, and prioritize the real implementation of UNDRIP.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 441-00010Wet'suwet'en First Nation68628236862824AlexRuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105854TaylorBachrachTaylor-BachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BachrachTaylor_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, last week, militarized police once again descended on Wet'suwet'en territory. The world watched as unarmed indigenous women were arrested at gunpoint. I have heard from dozens of indigenous leaders who are horrified by what happened. To the minister responsible for the RCMP, do the events of November 19 reflect his view of how Canada should engage with indigenous people on their lands and, if not, what is he going to do to review RCMP conduct?Indigenous rightsOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceWet'suwet'en First Nation68614896861490KarinaGouldHon.BurlingtonMarcoMendicinoHon.Eglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoHon.Marco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier this week, we expressed concern at the way in which the operation was conducted in the Wet'suwet'en territory. I have said that we are going to continue to monitor the case very closely. Of course, as members will know in this chamber, elected representatives do not direct operations; nor is it for elected representatives to adjudicate the merits of an individual case. That is a job for the courts. However, our job will be to ensure that there is alignment between the values and the principles that underscore the responsibilities of the RCMP and those operations. We will do that job.Indigenous rightsOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceWet'suwet'en First Nation68614916861492TaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersOrder Respecting the Business of the House and its CommitteesInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his well-thought-out speech. I was really moved at the beginning when he spoke about our shared concern about the climate crisis happening in British Columbia. We have just come off COP26 where the Prime Minister made great statements, yet we see the RCMP going with sniper rifles against unarmed indigenous people defending their territory.I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question, while I have the chance to be here with him. The climate crisis is here, and the Environment Commissioner has just given a damning report to the federal government on its failure to stand up and actually make moves on targets. Would the member explain whether or not he is standing with the Wet'suwet'en people in the face of the RCMP attacks?COVID-19Government and politicsGovernment Business No. 1Indigenous rightsPandemicPolice servicesProcedureRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceWet'suwet'en First Nation68616886861690KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersOrder Respecting the Business of the House and its CommitteesInterventionMr. Ken Hardie: (1625)[English]Again, Madam Speaker, out of respect for a person I do respect quite a bit, I will answer.The fact is that Dr. Suzuki issued a statement today in which he retracted his comments and apologized for them. We have to recognize that this gentleman is extremely passionate and sometimes passions get away from people. Lord knows, who among us has not been guilty of that from time to time? The story is now straight. Hopefully it has settled down and we can move on.COVID-19Government and politicsGovernment Business No. 1Indigenous rightsPandemicPolice servicesProcedureRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceWet'suwet'en First Nation68616986861699CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgSpeech from the ThroneHansard Insert[The Governor General spoke in Inuktitut as follows:]ᐅᓪᓗᖃᑦᓯᐊᕆᑦᓯ.[Inuktitut text translated as follows:]Please have a pleasant day.[Speech from the Throne, provided by the Governor General:]Honourable Senators,Members of the House of Commons,[The Governor General spoke in Inuktitut as follows:]ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᖁᖓ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᓐᖓᓱᑦᓯᐊᕆᑦᑎ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᕋᑖᖅᑐᓯ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓄᑦ. ᐃᓘᓐᓇᓯ, ᐃᓚᓯᓗ. ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᖃᑎᓯᓗ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓂᐊᕋᑦᓯ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ[Inuktitut text translated as follows:]I acknowledge your presence. I welcome those who are elected parties to the federal government, every one of you and your families. You and your colleagues will govern Canada’s future.[Speech from the Throne, provided by the Governor General:]Congratulations to each of you and welcome to all the new Parliamentarians who will together with their colleagues make their mark on Canada.I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.This land acknowledgement is not a symbolic declaration. It is our true history. In each of your own ridings, I encourage you to seek out the truth, and to learn about the lived realities in First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities. Although each community is distinct, we all share a desire to chart a way forward together towards reconciliation.The discovery of unmarked graves of children who died in the residential school system shows how the actions of governments and institutions of the past have devastated Indigenous Peoples and continue to impact them today. We cannot hide from these discoveries; they open deep wounds. Despite the profound pain, there is hope. There is hope in the every day. Reconciliation is not a single act, nor does it have an end date. It is a lifelong journey of healing, respect and understanding. We need to embrace the diversity of Canada and demonstrate respect and understanding for all peoples every day.Already, I have seen how Canadians are committed to reconciliation. Indigenous Peoples are reclaiming our history, stories, culture and language through action. Non-Indigenous Peoples are coming to understand and accept the true impact of the past and the pain suffered by generations of Indigenous Peoples. Together they are walking the path towards reconciliation. We must turn the guilt we carry into action. Action on reconciliation. Action on our collective health and well-being. Action on climate change.[The Governor General spoke in Inuktitut as follows:]ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᐅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᕗᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᒪᖃᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ.[Inuktitut text translated as follows:]We need to manage and oversee the reconciliation process. We need to better manage a healthier lifestyle. We need to take responsibilty for our environment.[Speech from the Throne, provided by the Governor General:]Our Earth is in danger. From a warming Arctic to the increasing devastation of natural disasters, our land and our people need help. We must move talk into action and adapt where we must. We cannot afford to wait. From the grief and pain of residential schools to the fear of threats to our natural environment to the profound impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, this past year has been hard on all of us. I want to thank all workers across Canada, especially those in health care, for their efforts to keep us safe and healthy, and offer my deepest condolences to those who have experienced loss of loved ones during the pandemic. It has touched us all, including those in this chamber who lost a cherished colleague just a few days ago, Senator Forest-Niesing. To her family and to all of you, my deepest sympathies. The pandemic has shown us that we need to put a focus on mental health in the same way as physical well-being because they are inseparable. As you begin this 44th Parliament of Canada, and as we recover from the effects of the pandemic and build a better relationship between Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous Peoples, I urge you to transform discussion into concrete results for us and for our country.[The Governor General spoke in Inuktitut as follows:]ᓈᓚᑦᓯᐊᕐᓗᑕᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖁᑎᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᑕᒫᓂ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕗᒻᒥ[Inuktitut text translated as follows:]We need to better comprehend what others are communicating to us. We all have different languages in our world.[Speech from the Throne, provided by the Governor General:]Collaborate with and listen to each other.Listen to the diverse voices who speak a multitude of languages and who shape this country.Confronting the hard questions will not always be easy or comfortable — and it will require conviction — but it is necessary. The outcome will be a sustainable, united Canada, for you, for me, for our children, and for every generation to come.OpeningAs we speak, British Columbians are facing immeasurable challenges as their homes, their communities, and their wellbeing are impacted by terrible flooding. But in a time of crisis, we know how Canadians respond. We step up and we are there for each other. And the Government will continue to be there for the people of British Columbia. In 2020, Canadians did not know they would face the crisis of a once-in-a-century pandemic. But, as always, no one should be surprised by how Canadians responded.We adapted. We helped one another. And we stayed true to our values. Values like compassion, courage, and determination. Values like democracy. And in this difficult time, Canadians made a democratic choice. Their direction is clear: not only do they want Parliamentarians to work together to put this pandemic behind us, they also want bold, concrete solutions to meet the other challenges we face. Growing an economy that works for everyone. Fighting climate change. Moving forward on the path of reconciliation. Making sure our communities are safe, healthy, and inclusive. Yes, the decade got off to an incredibly difficult start, but this is the time to rebuild. This is the moment for Parliamentarians to work together to get big things done, and shape a better future for our kids.This is the moment to build a healthier today and tomorrowPriority number one remains getting the pandemic under control. The best way to do that is vaccination. Already, the Government has mandated vaccination for federal and federally-regulated workers, and for everyone travelling within Canada by plane, train, or ship. It has also ensured a standardized Canadian proof of vaccination for domestic and international use. The Government is securing next generation COVID-19 vaccines, boosters, and doses for kids from 5 to 11. And around the world, Canada will continue working with its partners to ensure fair and equitable access to vaccines and other resources.To build a healthy future, we must also strengthen our healthcare system and public health supports for all Canadians, especially seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, vulnerable members of our communities, and those who have faced discrimination by the very system that is meant to heal.There is work to be done. On accessibility. On care in rural communities. On delayed procedures. On mental health and addiction treatment. On long-term care. On improving data collection across health systems to inform future decisions and get the best possible results.The Government will work collaboratively with provinces, territories, and other partners to deliver real results on what Canadians need.This is the moment to grow a more resilient economyThe best thing we can do for the economy remains ending the pandemic for good. But as we do, we should rebuild an economy that works for everyone. At the height of the lockdowns, the Government made historic, necessary investments so families could keep paying the rent and small businesses could stay afloat. Now, with one of the most successful vaccination campaigns in the world, and employment back to prepandemic levels, the Government is moving to more targeted support, while prudently managing spending. To ensure no one is left behind, support will be extended or added for industries that continue to struggle.At the same time, the Government will also continue making life more affordable for all Canadians. Inflation is a challenge that countries around the world are facing. And while Canada’s economic performance is better than many of our partners, we must keep tackling the rising cost of living. To do that, the Government’s plan includes two major priorities: housing and child care. Whether it is building more units per year, increasing affordable housing, or ending chronic homelessness, the Government is committed to working with its partners to get real results. For example, the Housing Accelerator Fund will help municipalities build more and better, faster. The Government will also help families buy their first home sooner with a more flexible First-Time Home Buyer’s Incentive, a new Rent-to-Own program, and by reducing the closing costs for first-time buyers. Supporting families will make life more affordable for the middle class and people working hard to join it. The Canada Child Benefit has already helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and will continue increasing to keep up with the cost of living.The Government will also continue building the first-ever Canada-wide early learning and child care system. By the end of 2022, average fees for regulated child care will be cut in half in most of the provinces and territories. And in some places, this will even happen as early as the start of the year. Families will save thousands of dollars.Four jurisdictions have not yet reached agreements on child care. Two are territories with unique infrastructure challenges, and the Government will keep working together to ensure we meet the needs of the North. The Government will continue working with the remaining two provinces to finalize agreements that will deliver $10-a-day child care for families who so badly need it.Investing in affordable child care – just like housing – is not just good for families. It helps grow the entire economy. And so does immigration.That is why the Government will continue increasing immigration levels and reducing wait times, while supporting family reunification and delivering a world-leading refugee resettlement program.This is the moment for bolder climate actionBuilding a resilient economy means investing in people. But the work does not stop there. After all, growing the economy and protecting the environment go hand in hand. By focusing on innovation and good, green jobs, and by working with like-minded countries – we will build a more resilient, sustainable, and competitive economy. As a country, we want to be leaders in producing the world’s cleanest steel, aluminum, building products, cars, and planes. Not only do we have the raw materials and energy to do that, most importantly, we have skilled, hard-working Canadians to power these industries.As we move forward on the economy of the future, no worker or region will be left behind. The Government will bring together provinces, territories, municipalities, and Indigenous communities, as well as labour and the private sector, to tap into global capital and attract investors.Canada will emerge from this generational challenge stronger and more prosperous.The Government is taking real action to fight climate change. Now, we must go further, faster.That means moving to cap and cut oil and gas sector emissions, while accelerating our path to a 100 percent net-zero electricity future.Investing in public transit and mandating the sale of zero emissions vehicles will help us breathe cleaner air.Increasing the price on pollution while putting more money back in Canadians’ pockets will deliver a cleaner environment and a stronger economy.Protecting our land and oceans will address biodiversity loss. In this work, the Government will continue to strengthen its partnership with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, to protect nature and respect their traditional knowledge.Creating the Canada Water Agency will safeguard that vital resource and support our farmers.And to address the realities communities across the country already face, the Government will also strengthen action to prevent and prepare for floods, wildfires, droughts, coastline erosion, and other extreme weather worsened by climate change. The Government will be there to build back in communities devastated by these events. This will include the development of Canada’s first-ever National Adaptation Strategy.[The Governor General spoke in Inuktitut as follows:]ᒫᓐᓇ, ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑎᒋᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓱᒃᑯᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕕᖕᒪᕆᖕᓂᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑑᑉ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕈᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᑦᓱᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐱᕈᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕗᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᖕᒥᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑎᓯᖏᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᒋᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᕿᒪᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᒻᒥᒐᑦᑎᒍᑦ.[Inuktitut text translated as follows:]Now, we have to work harder to assist people on environmental issues, climate change impacts, the pandemic and economic prosperity. We must not exclude anything in the process.[Speech from the Throne, provided by the Governor General:]This is the moment to fight harder for safer communitiesWhile we address climate change –While we fight COVID-19 and its consequences –While we grow our economy for everyone –We cannot turn away from other challenges.Gun violence is on the rise in many of our biggest cities.While investing in prevention and supporting the work of law enforcement, we must also continue to strengthen gun control.The Government has taken important actions like introducing lifetime background checks. The Government will now put forward measures like a mandatory buyback of banned assault-style weapons, and move forward with any province or territory that wants to ban handguns. During the pandemic, we have also seen an unacceptable rise in violence against women and girls. The Government is committed to moving forward with a 10-year National Action Plan on gender-based violence, and will continue to support organizations providing critical services. When someone in our country is targeted because of their gender, or who they love, or where they come from, the way they pray, the language they speak, or the colour of their skin, we are all diminished. Everyone should be – and feel – safe. The Government will continue combatting hate and racism, including with a renewed Anti-Racism Strategy.This is the moment to stand up for diversity and inclusionCanadians understand that equity, justice, and diversity are the means and the ends to living together. Fighting systemic racism, sexism, discrimination, misconduct, and abuse, including in our core institutions, will remain a key priority. The Government will also continue to reform the criminal justice system and policing. This is the moment to rebuild for everyone. The Government will continue to invest in the empowerment of Black and racialized Canadians, and Indigenous Peoples. It will also continue to fight harmful content online, and stand up for LGBTQ2 communities while completing the ban on conversion therapy. As Canadians, our two official languages are part of who we are. It is essential to support official language minority communities, and to protect and promote French outside and inside Quebec. The Government will reintroduce the proposed Act for the Substantive Equality of French and English and the Strengthening of the Official Languages Act. To support Canadian culture and creative industries, the Government will also reintroduce legislation to reform the Broadcasting Act and ensure web giants pay their fair share for the creation and promotion of Canadian content.This is the moment to move faster on the path of reconciliationThis year, Canadians were horrified by the discovery of unmarked graves at former residential schools. We know that reconciliation cannot come without truth. As the Government continues to respond to the Calls to Action, it will invest in that truth, including with the creation of a national monument to honour survivors, and with the appointment of a Special Interlocutor to further advance justice on residential schools. To support communities, the Government will also invest significantly in a distinctions-based mental health and wellness strategy, guided by Indigenous Peoples, survivors, and their families. Everyone in our country deserves to be safe.That is why the Government will accelerate work with Indigenous partners to address the national tragedy of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People.The Government will also make sure communities have the support they need to keep families together, while ensuring fair and equitable compensation for those harmed by the First Nations Child and Family Services program.Reconciliation requires a whole-of-government approach, breaking down barriers, and rethinking how to accelerate our work. Whether it is eliminating all remaining long-term drinking water advisories or implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Government is committed to closing the gaps that far too many First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities still face today.This is the moment to fight for a secure, just, and equitable worldThe last 19 months have underscored that we live in a deeply interconnected world. Canada must stand up on the pressing challenges of our time, through our own commitments and by increasing our engagement with international partners, coalitions, and organizations. In the face of rising authoritarianism and great power competition, Canada must reinforce international peace and security, the rule of law, democracy, and respect for human rights. Canada’s prosperity – and middle class jobs – depend on preserving and expanding open, rules-based trade and ensuring our supply chains are strong and resilient.At home, the Government will continue to protect Canadians from threats to our communities, our society, and our democracy.A changing world requires adapting and expanding diplomatic engagement. Canada will continue working with key allies and partners, while making deliberate efforts to deepen partnerships in the Indo-Pacific and across the Arctic. Increasing Canada’s foreign assistance budget each year, and investing in sustainable, equitable, and feminist development that benefits the world’s most vulnerable and promotes gender equality will continue to be priorities. We will always stand up for a brighter future for all.ConclusionThis decade is still young. With compassion, courage, and determination, we have the power to make it better than how it started. But that can only happen by standing together. Parliamentarians, never before has so much depended on your ability to deliver results for Canadians. That is what people expect and need from you. In addition to ending this pandemic, their priorities for this 44th Parliament are clear: a more resilient economy, and a cleaner and healthier future for all of our kids. I do not doubt that you will honour the trust that has been placed in you. Members of the House of Commons, you will be asked to appropriate the funds to carry out the services and expenditures authorized by Parliament. Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Commons, may you be equal to the profound trust bestowed on you by Canadians, and may Divine Providence guide you in all your duties.2021 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People National Action Plan: Ending Violence Against Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ PeopleAirline passengersArcticBenefits for childrenBlack CanadiansBritish ColumbiaBroadcastingCanada Water AgencyCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCanadian contentCarbon pricingCarbon taxCare for childrenCaregivers and health care professionalsChildrenClimate change and global warmingConversion therapyCost of livingCOVID-19Crime preventionCriminal justice systemDeaths and funeralsDemocracyDrinking waterDrug addiction treatmentEconomic prosperityEconomic recoveryEcotechnologyElectric powerEmployment statisticsEnvironmental protectionFarming and farmersFederally regulated employers and employeesFederal-provincial-territorial fiscal arrangementsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFirst Nations Child and Family Services ProgramFirst-Time Home Buyer IncentiveFloodsForeign investments in CanadaForest-Niesing, JoséeFresh waterGender-based violenceGreen collar workersGun controlHealth care managementHealth care systemHealth services accessibilityHome ownershipHomelessness and homelessHomicideHousingHousing Accelerator FundHuman remainsImmigration and immigrantsImmunizationImmunization recordIndigenous languages in proceedingsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous reservesIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsIndo-Pacific regionInflationInnovationInternational development and aidInternational relationsInternational tradeInuktitutLinguistic minoritiesLong-term careManufacturing industryMental healthMissing personsNational Adaptation StrategyNatural disastersOfficial languages policyOil and gasPandemicParliamentariansPersons with disabilitiesPolice servicesPreschool educationPrivate sectorPublic healthPublic Service and public servantsPublic transitRacial equalityRacialized communitiesRail passengersRefugeesReligious discriminationRental housingRural communitiesSafetySecurity checksSenior citizensSexual and gender minoritiesSexual discriminationShip passengersSocial benefitsSpeech from the ThroneSubsidized day careSustainable developmentTravel restrictionsTruth and Reconciliation Commission of CanadaUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeteransVulnerable personsWeb giantsZero emission vehicles6858370AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Conservative government chose to vote against the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In the year since, indigenous parliamentarians, including Romeo Saganash and I, among others, have worked diligently to rectify this mistake, resulting in our government's tabling and passing of Bill C-15.On National Indigenous Peoples Day, could the Minister of Justice please update the House on Bill C-15 and the work ahead to implement UNDRIP?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples68205066820507CarlaQualtroughHon.DeltaDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for his advocacy and effort in helping us to get to this momentous landmark. I would also like to salute and thank his father, Professor Sákéj Henderson, for all the work that he did in the development of the declaration.The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passing in both chambers is an important step on the path toward reconciliation. It is not, however, the last one. The real work begins once the declaration is adopted. We will continue to work with indigenous peoples across Canada and support the co-development of an action plan to implement and achieve the objectives of the declaration.We are building a better country for all our children and grandchildren.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples682050868205096820510JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgRoyal AssentInterventionThe Speaker: (2100)[English] I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:Rideau HallOttawaJune 21, 2021Mr. Speaker:I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Administrator of the Government of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 21st day of June, 2021, at 6:35 p.m.Yours sincerely,Ian McCowanSecretary to the Governor GeneralThe schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ and tissue donors); Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94); Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; Bill C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022; and Bill C-34, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesC-210, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ and tissue donors)C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022C-34, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2021-2022Messages to the Governor GeneralOathsOrgan donationPrivate Members' BillsRoyal assentSupplementary estimates (A) 2021-2022Supply billsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6821262AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingMonaFortierHon.Ottawa—Vanier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 733--Mr. Gord Johns: With regard to the court cases Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 1494; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 BCCA 237; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), (29 March 2012) SCC File No. 34387; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCCA 300; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), (30 January 2012) SCC File No. 34387; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General Trial decision (Garson J.) – 2009 BCSC 1494; BC Supreme Court Docket No. S033335; the Supreme Court of Canada’s file number 34387; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2021 BCCA 155; and all related cases: what are, including information from the Attorney General of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada, for each case, the (i) total amount spent by the Crown between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2021, (ii) total amount, adjusted for inflation, (iii) total spent by the Crown by category (travel, salary, supplies, etc.), (iv) total amount spent in each fiscal year from 2005 to 2021, (v) total payment that has been, or is projected to be paid by the Crown, and an explanation as to how this figure was calculated, (vi) date by which it will be or is projected to be paid by the Crown?Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the legal costs incurred by the government in relation to the various Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) matters identified in the question, at the British Columbia Supreme Court, court file number S033335, British Columbia Court of Appeal, court file number CA037704, Supreme Court of Canada, court file number 34387, and all related cases, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with the Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) matters referenced above, including at the British Columbia Supreme Court, court file number S033335, British Columbia Court of Appeal, court file number CA037704, and Supreme Court of Canada, and any related cases, between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2021, amount to approximately $19.6 million. This amount covers the costs associated with the numerous procedures that have been filed in these various matters over a period of 15 years. The services targeted here are litigation services as well as litigation support services. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs represent file-related legal disbursements and legal agent fees, as the case may be. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of May 5, 2021.Ahousaht First NationAttorney General of CanadaGovernment expendituresIndigenous rightsJohns, GordLametti, DavidLegal proceedingsLiberal CaucusMinister of JusticeNew Democratic Party CaucusQ-733Written questions681649168164926816493KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent over $20 million fighting the Nuu-chah-nulth people in court, denying their fishing rights. Last month, the courts reaffirmed the rights of these nations for the third time. The government has until Friday to appeal the court's decision. The last time I asked if the government would respect indigenous fishers' rights and let them get back on the water to support their families, the fisheries minister said that they were working with the Nuu-chah-nulth. Let me be clear that taking them to court is not the same as working with them.Will the justice minister respect indigenous rights, call off the government lawyers and confirm that he will not appeal this ruling?Appeals and appeals officersBritish ColumbiaFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsNuu-Chah-NulthOral questions680792268079236807924MarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard to ensure that we are able to make sure that first nations are able to exercise their right to fish as well as sell fish. We are going to continue to work with the Nuu-chah-nulth first nation to ensure these rights are upheld.Appeals and appeals officersBritish ColumbiaFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsNuu-Chah-NulthOral questions6807925GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniMikeKellowayCape Breton—Canso//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous LanguagesInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you will find the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: MotionThat the House:(a) support the unanimous consent motion adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 9, 2021, recognizing primarily that, (i) the Charter of the French Language explicitly recognizes the right of First Nations and Inuit to maintain and develop their languages and cultures, (ii) several Indigenous languages are threatened with extinction, (iii) the 11 Indigenous nations in Quebec have, like the Quebec nation, the right to live in their languages and to promote and protect them, (iv) the Government of Quebec has a responsibility to assume in this regard; and(b) call on the federal government to recognize its responsibilities and to deploy more resources to protect and promote Indigenous languages in Quebec and in Canada. Charter of the French LanguageGovernment accountabilityIndigenous languagesIndigenous rightsLeave to propose a motionOfficial languages policyProvince of QuebecResolutions68080036808004680800568080066808007680800868080096808010CarolynBennettHon.Toronto—St. Paul'sAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous LanguagesInterventionThe Speaker: (1510)[Translation]All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. I hear no dissent. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.(Motion agreed to)Charter of the French LanguageDecisions of the HouseGovernment accountabilityIndigenous languagesIndigenous rightsLeave to propose a motionOfficial languages policyProvince of QuebecResolutions680801168080126808013AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 681--Mr. Gary Vidal: With regard to the government's statistics on graduation rates of First Nations high school students: (a) what were the graduation rates of First Nations students who attended high school on reserve, broken down by province and year for each of the past five years; and (b) what were the graduation rates of First Nations students who attended high school off reserve, broken down by province and year for each of the past five years?Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ISC does not report on high school graduation rates of first nations students who attended high school on or off reserve, broken down by province and year.The department does, however, report in its Departmental Results Report, DRR, on national secondary school graduation rates for first nations students ordinarily resident on reserve who are funded by ISC. Here are the links to the DRRs for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20: 2017-18 DRR: www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1538147955169/1538148052804; 2018-19 DRR: www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1562155507149/1562155526338; 2019-20 DRR: www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1603722062425/1603722082047.Question No. 683--Mr. Gary Vidal: With regard to the government’s consultation process on Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: what are the details of all consultations the government conducted with individuals from First Nations, Metis Settlements, or Inuit communities prior to tabling the bill, including, for each consultation, the (i) type of meeting (in person, Zoom conference, etc.), (ii) names and titles of attendees, including who they represented, if applicable, (iii) date, (iv) location?Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice, with the support of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, has published a “What We Learned” report that is responsive to Q-683. The report can be found at www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/wwl-cna/index.html. As described in the report, a series of engagement sessions were held with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders, modern treaty signatories, regional indigenous organizations, indigenous women’s organizations and indigenous youth. These meetings were held virtually over the Zoom conference platform, largely between September 30 and November 6, 2020. The list of indigenous partners and groups that participated is also presented in the report. Question No. 693--Mr. Alex Ruff: With regard to the Universal Broadband Fund (UBF) program: (a) why was the Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT) 2.0 proposed project denied funding to the UBF program; (b) which of the government’s objectives did the proposed SWIFT 2.0 fail to meet; and (c) with SWIFT projects being a solution to address competition issues in Southwestern Ontario between Internet Service Providers (ISPs), how can SWIFT be a partner in achieving the government’s goal of having 98 per cent of Canadians access high speed internet?Ms. Gudie Hutchings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), since 2015, the Government of Canada has made $6.2 billion available for rural and remote Internet infrastructure to help ensure all Canadians have access to fast and reliable Internet, no matter where they live. With the proposed budget 2021, the now $2.75-billion universal broadband fund, UBF, will help the government achieve its goal of connecting 98% of Canadians to broadband by 2026 and all Canadians by 2030.The UBF is an application-based program and therefore requires that a project application be submitted in order to receive funding. The Government of Canada cannot provide the level of detail requested on any particular applicant under the universal broadband fund without disclosing proprietary third party information provided in confidence, and treated confidentially by the applicant. The program received a number of applications for southwestern Ontario, and announcements of successful projects under the rapid response stream are already under way. These projects can be found on the universal broadband website: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/139.nsf/eng/00021.html. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is still finalizing its assessment of rapid response stream applications and has begun assessing applications received under the “core” UBF. More announcements are forthcoming.In response to (b), the Government of Canada and Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology, SWIFT, share the same objectives of connecting rural and remote Canadians to the broadband Internet they need. Through the building Canada fund’s small communities fund, the federal and provincial governments are each contributing $63.7 million to SWIFT for a $209-million project, to install 3,095 kilometres of fibre, targeting 50,000 households and businesses by 2024. The Government of Canada recognizes the important role that SWIFT and other partners will play in closing the digital divide in Ontario.In response to (c), connectivity is a shared responsibility. While the Government of Canada is playing a leadership role by providing funding, it is imperative that all orders of government across Canada, as well as the private sector, Internet service providers and other stakeholders, lend support and resources to close the broadband gap and achieve the targets set out in Canada's connectivity strategy. The Government of Canada recognizes that a flexible and collaborative approach is important in engaging with provinces, territories and other partners to help achieve our goal of universal connectivity. SWIFT has already been an important leader and partner in this effort.Question No. 695--Mrs. Stephanie Kusie: With regard to the government’s decision to ban all pleasure craft in the Canadian Arctic Waters and cruise vessels in all Canadian waters until February 28, 2022: (a) why was the length of the ban not contingent upon vaccination levels of Canadians or related to vaccination requirements for those on-board the vessels; and (b) what role did the low level of Canadians vaccinated in January and February of 2021, due to the government’s inability to secure enough vaccines fast enough, have on the decision to extend the ban for an entire extra year?Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to minimize the introduction and spread of the COVID-19 virus in the marine mode, Transport Canada has chosen interim orders as the instrument of choice. In developing its interim orders, Transport Canada has worked in close collaboration with the Public Health Agency of Canada and consulted broadly with other levels of government, health officials, transportation industry stakeholders, provincial and territorial governments and indigenous and Inuit peoples. Transport Canada developed these interim orders taking into consideration the health situation throughout the country at the time and advice provided by public health experts. One of the primary reasons interim orders were used is that they enable the Minister of Transport to apply appropriate temporary measures while retaining the ability to rescind the prohibitions if it is determined that the pandemic has substantially improved and that the prohibitions are no longer needed. To inform any such decision, Transport Canada will continue to work with the Public Health Agency of Canada and local health authorities to monitor and assess the situation.Question No. 698--Mrs. Tamara Jansen: With regard to the Canada-British Columbia Early Learning and Child Care Agreement and the $10 per day Child Care Prototype Site Evaluation: (a) when did the Government of British Columbia share the results of this evaluation with the Government of Canada; (b) what were the findings of the evaluation; (c) what were the recommendations; (d) how can the public access the full report, including the website address where the report may be downloaded from; and (e) what were the specific findings of the evaluation regarding the feasibility of $10 per day childcare?Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to providing Canadian families with access to high-quality, affordable, flexible and inclusive child care. Budget 2021 has committed up to $30 billion over five years, with $8.3 billion every year, permanently, to build a high-quality, affordable, and accessible early learning and child care system across Canada. This funding will work towards cutting child care fees by 50% on average by the end of 2022, and achieving $10/day child care on average by 2026.In response to (a), the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development contracted R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. to conduct an evaluation and analysis of the British Columbia universal child care prototype sites or $10-per-day child care pilot. This evaluation was funded by the provincial government. ESDC was not provided with an official copy of the report prior to its release.In response to (b), (c), (d), and (e), the full report is publicly available on the Government of British Columbia’s website.Question No. 703--Mr. Alex Ruff: With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Operation HONOUR Tracking and Analysis System (OPHTAS) 2020's annual incident tracking report: (a) when was this report completed; (b) why was this report not published and released on the government’s website in the summer of 2020, in a similar timeline with the previous year’s reports; (c) who made the decision not to publish the document in the summer of 2020; (d) on what date was the Minister of National Defense or his office informed that the document would not be published in the summer of 2020, in line with the schedule of the previous years; (e) if the report has since been published, on what specific website is the document located; and (f) how is the OPHTAS report data fused with other department of National Defence or CAF reports, including the annual CAF Provost Marshall report, the Judge Advocate General Annual report, the Director General Integrated Conflict and Complaint Management annual report, and the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre annual report, in order to provide a consolidated view of sexual misconduct in the CAF?Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no room in the Canadian Armed Forces or the Department of National Defence for sexism, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, discrimination, harassment, or any other conduct that prevents the institution from being a truly welcoming and inclusive organization.National Defence understands that a culture change within the Canadian Armed Forces is required to remove a culture of toxic behaviour and to create an environment where everyone is respected and valued, and can feel safe to contribute to the best of their ability.To this end, the Minister of National Defence has appointed the Hon. Louise Arbour to lead an independent external comprehensive review of the culture and practices of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. This review will provide recommendations aimed at addressing systemic issues and creating lasting culture change within the organization.Additionally, the acting chief of the defence staff has appointed Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan to the newly created position of chief of professional conduct and culture, to lead efforts to promote culture change across the defence team, including the enhancement and consolidation of National Defence’s sexual misconduct tracking mechanisms. This will identify areas that require focused attention, and ensure that all reported incidents are addressed appropriately in a timely manner.Through these actions, National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces will move to eliminate harmful attitudes and beliefs that have enabled misconduct and will create an environment where all feel welcome.In response to part (a), the report was not finalized.In response to part (b), challenges and delays caused by COVID-19 forced National Defence to adjust the development, approach, and timelines to the 2020 report’s data release.In response to part (c), the normal release schedule for the annual Operation Honour sexual misconduct incident report is in the fall, using data pulled in the late spring from the Operation Honour tracking and analysis system, OPHTAS. The impact of the COVID-19 restrictions through the spring and fall of 2020 delayed the completion and release of the report.Due to the delays in the process, the previous approach of relying on data gathered in the spring was considered no longer sufficient to provide an up-to-date overview of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.Given the unexpected challenges and delays, the acting chief of the defence staff made the decision to combine the 2020 and 2021 reports.In response to part (d), as there is no legislative requirement to release this report, revised timelines were not communicated formally to the Minister of National Defence.In response to part (e), National Defence remains committed to openness and transparency, and will re-establish a regular reporting cycle for sexual misconduct incident data.National Defence anticipates the release of the 2021 report in the fall of 2021, which will provide a comprehensive overview using data from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2021.In response to part (f), several organizations within National Defence, such as the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Judge Advocate General, the director general of integrated conflict and complaint management, and the sexual misconduct response centre, have databases that are designed to support their mandates. These databases may capture certain data related to sexual misconduct incidents, such as information on investigations, charges laid, and trials. This information is made available in these organizations’ annual reports.The Operation Honour tracking and analysis system, OPHTAS, is the only database dedicated to tracking all sexual misconduct incidents reported through the chain of command. While there may be an intersection of sexual misconduct data in OPTHAS and other departmental databases, these databases are currently not linked, and a direct comparison of the information held within each cannot be made.National Defence is working to integrate all databases that record data related to sexual misconduct. This project will help achieve a more consolidated picture of sexual misconduct data, while respecting the legal privacy and confidentiality requirements of the various databases.Question No. 705--Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan: With regard to the processing of parents and grandparents applications in the 2020 intake by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada: (a) how many interest to sponsor forms were received; (b) how many of the interest to sponsor forms received were duplicates; (c) how many individuals have received invitations to apply; (d) how many applications have been (i) submitted, (ii) approved, (iii) refused, (iv) processed; and (e) what is the current processing time?Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), 209,174 interest to sponsor forms were received.In response to (b), 5,961 of the interest to sponsor forms received were duplicates.In response to (c), IRCC can confirm that the department sent out more invitations to apply, ITAs, than the target in order to come close to receiving 10,000 complete applications for the 2020 year.In response to (d)(i), IRCC can confirm that enough applications were submitted to reach the annual cap of 10,000 complete applications for 2020.IRCC cannot publicly release the number of ITAs that were sent for the 2020 parents and grandparents, PGP, process, as the data figures reveal a technique, which is applicable to paragraph 16(1)(b) under the ATIP act, which could compromise future ITA PGP processes.In response to (d)(ii), (d)(iii) and (d)(iv), zero applications have been approved, refused, or processed, as processing from the 2020 cohort has not started. IRCC cannot release the figure for how many applications have been submitted for PGP 2020, as, at this point in time, completeness checks have not been completed.In response to (e), the current processing times for permanent residence applications for the parents and grandparents category from April 2020 to March 31, 2021 is 28 months.Question No. 715--Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: With regard to the implementation of Orders in Council entitled “Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada Order (Prohibition of Entry into Canada from any Country Other Than the United States)” and Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada Order (Mandatory Isolation): (a) what specific direction was given to border agents regarding new and modified Order in Council provisions directly from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or his staff; (b) what procedure was followed ensuring the Orders in Council’s proper enforcement by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) agents; and (c) what specific direction was given to CBSA agents regarding non-application – requirement to quarantine, specifically for persons who must enter Canada regularly to go to their normal place of employment or to return from their normal place of employment in the United States?Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, works in close co-operation with the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, to implement and operationalize the travel restrictions and public health measures at the port of entry. The measures that have been implemented are layered, and together, aim to reduce the risk of the importation and transmission of COVID-19 and new variants of concern of the virus related to international travel.The regulatory framework that has been developed to minimize the risk of exposure to COVID-19 at the border is complex. At time of seeking entry, the CBSA officers are required to consider various facts and make multiple decisions related to a single traveller.While the border services officers, BSOs, are focusing on the eligibility to enter under an order, as well as their public health requirements, they are also assessing all relevant obligations under other acts or regulations including their admissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.The CBSA has issued a number of operational bulletins, shift briefing bullets, annexes and job aids to support officers in the decision-making process. As the orders in council, OICs have evolved over time, so has the guidance issued to frontline officers.All guidance is point in time and is updated on an ongoing basis as more clarity is required, or where there are changes to the OICs. The CBSA and PHAC regularly consult on interpretations of restrictions and public health measures and collaborate on adjustments and improvements where issues have been identified.With regard to part (b), every day, BSOs make over 35,000 decisions across the country and those decisions are made based on all laws and information made available to the BSO at the time of entry. To facilitate decision-making, the CBSA provides support to frontline BSOs through operational guideline bulletins, 24-7 live support access and regular case reviews. In addition, the CBSA conducts detailed technical briefings prior to the implementation of new or amended OICs to support the accurate implementation of new provisions and ensure clarity for frontline employees. The CBSA has also established a process to monitor decisions made by BSOs as they relate to the application of OICs for essential service providers and will continue to make adjustments or review the CBSA operational guidance to BSOs, as required. If the CBSA discovers that an incorrect assessment has been made at the border, it works with PHAC to rectify the situation.With regard to part (c), the operational guidance referenced in the response to part (a) of this Order Paper question includes passages specific to cross-border workers and how specific public health requirements within the OICs may apply in these circumstances.More specifically, in those instances, when assessing whether an exemption may apply, BSOs have been instructed to remain mindful of the following points. The traveller must be able to demonstrate that their purpose of crossing was specific to attending their normal place of employment. “Regular” is typically interpreted to mean daily or weekly, but a person able to establish a regular pattern of travel for this purpose could qualify. This exemption applies to persons who must cross the border regularly to go to their normal place of employment on either side of the Canada-U.S. border. There may be some circumstances where travel to another country could qualify, e.g., weekly or biweekly travel required. Those who are looking to establish that they must cross regularly must demonstrate to an officer that they will be crossing on a regular basis going forward when being processed. If the cross-border work involves medical care for persons over age 65, i.e., nurses, home care specialists, pharmacists etc., an individual request outlining the precautionary public health measures intended for interaction with this older age group must be submitted for determination of the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada.Officers are trained to reach a decision on the basis of the entirety of the information made available to them over the course of an interaction with a traveller. As such, information and circumstances beyond the items listed above will be considered by BSOs when determining a traveller’s admissibility to Canada, as well as in relation to any applicable exemptions from public health requirements.Furthermore, in an effort to assist cross-border workers who by virtue of their employment are required to enter Canada regularly, the CBSA has also published guidelines on its website.Question No. 720--Mr. Dan Albas: With regard to the Greener Homes initiative that was announced in the Fall Economic Statement, but is still not available for applications and has had a message on its website to come back in the coming weeks for months: (a) when will the program launch; (b) how will the retroactivity be implemented; (c) what will happen to people who believed they were eligible, but due to the lack of application information were denied; and (d) why was there such a major delay in opening this program?Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Canada greener homes grant initiative, announced in the fall economic statement, launched on May 27, 2021.With regard to part (b), to be eligible for retroactive payment, homeowners must document their retrofit journey and are asked to keep copies of all invoices both for the EnerGuide home evaluation and for their retrofit work. The home energy adviser will take before and after photos. Homeowners can access the online portal to register and submit this information for reimbursement, provided the retrofit measures undertaken are on the list of eligible measures.With regard to part (c), to be eligible for reimbursement, participants in the Canada greener homes grant initiative must obtain an EnerGuide home evaluation before the retrofit and then a post-retrofit evaluation once retrofit work is completed. Call centre operators and program officers are available to help homeowners navigate the program’s eligibility requirements. Should the homeowner not be eligible for reimbursement under the Canada greener homes grant initiative, program officers can assist in identifying other federal, provincial/territorial, municipal and/or regional programs for which the homeowner may be eligible.With regard to part (d), in the fall economic statement, the government committed to launching the Canada greener homes grant initiative during the spring of 2021. Government officials have been working in an expeditious manner since this announcement and the Canada greener homes grant initiative launched during the spring of 2021 as announced.Question No. 721--Mr. Dan Albas: With regard to the $2.3 billion over five years announced in Budget 2021 for conservation: (a) when will the ‘thousands of jobs’ be created; (b) where will the 1 million square kilometers of land be located; (c) has all the land been located; (d) have lands under provincial jurisdiction been identified and have provincial governments agreed; (e) what is the cost breakdowns for funds earmarked for partnerships with indigenous peoples; and (f) what is the total cost breakdown for how exactly this money will be spent?Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), millions of jobs rely on nature, including those in farming, fishing, forestry and tourism. Investment in conservation, therefore, is also an economic opportunity.Over the course of the next five years, the work announced in budget 2021 will generate jobs in nature conservation and management for Canadians. Arising out of partnerships with provincial and territorial jurisdictions and indigenous governments, organizations and/or communities, these jobs will be distributed across all regions of Canada, including in rural and remote areas and indigenous communities.With regard to parts (b), (c) and (d), the government is currently working to finalize a concrete and ambitious approach that would achieve protection of 25% of land and oceans by 2025, and set the stage for 30% by 2030. While not all of the specific locations are yet identified, we continue to engage with provinces and territories, indigenous organizations, foundations, the private sector and non-profit conservation organizations to get their views on how it can work together to achieve these ambitious targets. Specific efforts are ongoing and we will continue to work with provinces and territories to find mutually beneficial approaches to conserving land and addressing species at risk and biodiversity loss.The government is aware of specific landscapes and waterscapes that have been included in provincial, territorial and municipal land use planning, and other protected areas systems plans including the Natural Areas Systems Plan in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Plan Nord in Quebec, the Peel Watershed Land Use Plan in the Yukon, the Living Legacy protected areas plan in Ontario, and Nova Scotia’s Parks and Protected Areas Plan, among others.Parks Canada will continue work to complete negotiations with provincial and indigenous governments for the establishment of two new national park reserves in the South Okanagan-Similkameen, British Columbia, and in the coastal barrier islands of the Sandhills, Hog Island area, Prince Edward Island, and to identify and assess additional national parks with an emphasis on unrepresented regions and natural areas of importance to indigenous communities.With regard to part (e), we are not yet in a position to share the cost breakdown for how the money will be spent until such time as program details of the funding are finalized and approved by Treasury Board, including funds earmarked for the indigenous guardians program and other indigenous partnerships.The indigenous guardians program is a good example. Building upon the work initiated in budget 2017, which allocated $25 million over five years for an indigenous guardians program, budget 2021 provides additional resources to continue supporting indigenous peoples in opportunities to exercise responsibility in stewardship of their traditional lands, waters and ice, including preventing priority species at imminent risk of disappearing. The indigenous guardians program supports indigenous rights and responsibilities in protecting and conserving ecosystems, developing and maintaining sustainable economies, and continuing the profound connections between Canadian landscape and indigenous culture.Once these final allocations are confirmed, ECCC and Parks Canada will work in partnership with indigenous governance bodies to allocate resources and identify particular projects moving forward.With regard to part (f), we are not yet in a position to share the cost breakdown for how the money will be spent until such time as program details of the funding are finalized and approved by Treasury Board. Question No. 723--Mr. Brad Vis: With regard to the commitment on page 305 of Budget 2021 to implement a “Tax on Unproductive Use of Canadian Housing by Foreign Non-resident Owners”: (a) how many internal memos, presentations, or other similar type of documents were created by the government or hired consultants on this proposed tax; (b) of the documents in (a), what are their titles and when were they dated; (c) in which internal documents and when was it “estimated that this measure will increase federal revenues by $700 million over four years”; (d) what methodology was used to establish the $700 million figure in (c); (d) on what date will the promised consultation paper for stakeholders be released and to which stakeholders will it be distributed; and (e) how many days is the stakeholder consultation period scheduled to take place and on what date will it (i) begin, (ii) conclude?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, budget 2021 announced the government’s intention to implement a national, annual 1% tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate that is considered to be vacant or underused, effective January 1, 2022. The government indicated that it will release a consultation paper in the coming months to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the parameters of the proposed tax. The government also indicated that, moving forward, it intends to work closely with provinces, territories and municipalities.With regard to part (a), one internal memo was prepared by the department in relation to the proposal announced in budget 2021.With regard to part (b), the title of the memo referred to in part (a) was “Tax on Underused Housing” and was dated in 2021.With regard to part (c), the fiscal impact of the proposal was estimated when planning for budget 2021 and was presented in internal budget documents.With regard to part (d), the fiscal impact was calculated by applying a 1% tax on the estimated value of non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate considered to be vacant or underused. The value of the proposed tax base was estimated using Statistics Canada data on foreign-owned properties and residential property values, as well as information on British Columbia’s speculation and vacancy tax.With regard to part (e), the date of the release of a backgrounder has not yet been determined. However, budget 2021 indicated that the document would be released in the coming months.With regard to part (f), while the length of the consultation period has not been established, it would not be uncommon for consultations on proposals such as these to be open for public comment for 60 days.Albas, DanAlghabra, OmarAttorney General of CanadaBanBritish ColumbiaBroadband FundBroadband Internet servicesCare for childrenConduct at workConservative CaucusCOVID-19Damoff, PamDeputy Prime MinisterDocuments and types of documentsEnergy conservationForeign investments in CanadaFreeland, ChrystiaGrandparentsGreener Homes initiativeHallan, Jasraj SinghHousingHutchings, GudieImmigrant sponsorshipImmunizationIndigenous rightsInformation collectionJansen, TamaraKusie, StephanieLametti, DavidLiberal CaucusLightbound, JoëlMendicino, MarcoMinister of Environment and Climate ChangeMinister of FinanceMinister of Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipMinister of JusticeMinister of TransportNature conservationOperation HonourOrder in CouncilPandemicParentsParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic DevelopmentParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing)Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous ServicesParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National DefenceParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural ResourcesParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessProperty taxPublic consultationQ-681Q-683Q-693Q-695Q-698Q-703Q-705Q-715Q-720Q-721Q-723Research and researchersRetrofitRuff, AlexSelf-isolationSerré, Marc G.Sexual behaviourShips and boatsSouthwestern Integrated Fibre TechnologyStubbs, ShannonTravel restrictionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVandenbeld, AnitaVaughan, AdamVidal, GaryVis, BradWilkinson, JonathanWritten questions68081076808108KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnsHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 682--Mr. Gary Vidal: With regard to expenditures related to promoting, advertising, or consulting on Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by the government, including any that took place prior to the tabling of the legislation, since October 21, 2019, broken down by month and by department, agency or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount spent on (i) consultants, (ii) advertising, (iii) promotion; and (b) what are the details of all contracts related to promoting, advertising or consulting, including (i) the date the contact was signed, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the amount, (iv) the start and end date, (v) the description of goods or services, (vi) whether the contract was sole-sourced or was competitively bid on?(Return tabled)Question No. 684--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to fraud involving the Canada Emergency Response Benefit program since the program was launched: (a) what was the number of double payments made under the program; (b) what is the value of the payments in (a); (c) what is the value of double payments made in (b) that have been recouped by the government; (d) what is the number of payments made to applications that were suspected or deemed to be fraudulent; (e) what is the value of the payments in (d); and (f) what is the value recouped by the government related to payments in (e)?(Return tabled)Question No. 685--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to Corporations Canada and the deregistration of federally incorporated businesses since 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many businesses have deregistered their corporation; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of business?(Return tabled)Question No. 686--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to the government’s requirements for hotels being used as quarantine facilities: (a) what specific obligations do the hotels have with regard to security standards; (b) what specific measures has the government taken to ensure these security standards are being met; (c) how many instances have occurred where government inspectors have found that the security standards of these hotels were not being met; (d) of the instances in (c), how many times did the security failures jeopardize the safety of (i) the individuals staying in the facility, (ii) public health or the general public; (e) are hotels required to verify that someone has received a negative test prior to leaving the facility, and, if so, how is this specifically being done; and (f) how many individuals have left these facilities without receiving a negative test result?(Return tabled)Question No. 687--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to the government’s requirements for hotels to become a government-authorized hotel for the purpose of quarantining returning international air travellers: (a) what specific obligations do the hotels have with regard to security standards; (b) what specific measures has the government taken to ensure these security standards are being met; (c) how many instances have occurred where government inspectors have found that the security standards of these hotels were not being met; (d) of the instances in (c), how many times did the security failures jeopardize the safety of (i) the individuals staying in the facility, (ii) public health or the general public; (e) how many criminal acts have been reported since the hotel quarantine requirement began at each of the properties designated as a government-authorized hotel; (f) what is the breakdown of (e) by type of offence; (g) are the hotels required to verify that someone has received a negative test prior to leaving the facility, and, if so, how is this specifically being done; (h) how many individuals have left these hotels prior to or without receiving a negative test result; and (i) how does the government track whether or not individuals have left these hotels prior to receiving a negative test result?(Return tabled)Question No. 688--Ms. Nelly Shin: With regard to the requirement that entails individuals entering Canada for compassionate reasons to seek an exemption online, the problems with the Public Health Agency of Canada’s (PHAC) online system, and the resulting actions from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA): (a) what is the total number of international travellers arriving at Canadian airports who were denied entry, broken down by month since March 18, 2020; (b) how many individuals in (a) were (i) immediately sent back to their country of origin, (ii) permitted to remain in Canada pending an appeal or deportation; (c) what is the number of instances where the PHAC did not make a decision on an application for exemptions on compassionate reasons prior to the traveller’s arrival, or scheduled arrival in Canada; (d) of the instances in (c), where PHAC did not make a decision on time, was the reason due to (i) technical glitches that caused the PHAC to miss the application, (ii) other reasons, broken down by reason; (e) for the instances where the PHAC did not make a decision on time, was the traveller (i) still permitted entry in Canada, (ii) denied entry; and (f) what specific recourse do travellers arriving for compassionate reasons have when they encounter problems with the CBSA or other officials due to the PHAC not making a decision on time?(Return tabled)Question No. 689--Mr. Robert Kitchen: With regard to expenditures on social media influencers, including any contracts which would use social media influencers as part of a public relations campaign since January 1, 2021: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) campaign description, (iv) date of the contract, (v) name or handle of the influencer; and (b) for each campaign that paid an influencer, was there a requirement to make public, as part of a disclaimer, the fact that the influencer was being paid by the government, and, if not, why not?(Return tabled)Question No. 690--Mr. Robert Kitchen: With regard to all monetary and non-monetary contracts, grants, agreements and arrangements entered into by the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, with FLIR Lorex Inc., FLIR Systems , Lorex Technology Inc, March Networks, or Rx Networks Inc., since January 1, 2016: what are the details of such contracts, grants, agreements, or arrangements, including for each (i) the company, (ii) the date, (iii) the amount or value, (iv) the start and end date, (v) the summary of terms, (vi) whether or not the item was made public through proactive disclosure, (vii) the specific details of goods or services provided to the government as a result of the contract, grant, agreement or arrangement, (viii) the related government program, if applicable?(Return tabled)Question No. 691--Mr. Randy Hoback: With regard to the deal reached between the government and Pfizer Inc. for COVID-19 vaccine doses through 2024: (a) what COVID-19 modelling was used to develop the procurement agreement; and (b) what specific delivery timetables were agreed to?(Return tabled)Question No. 692--Mr. Randy Hoback: With regard to the testimony of the CEO of BioPharma Services at the House of Commons' Standing Committee on International Trade on Friday, April 23, 2021, pertaining to potential future waves of COVID-19 and the need for trading blocs: (a) have the Minister of Finance and her department been directed to plan supports for Canadians affected by subsequent waves of the virus through 2026; (b) what is the current status of negotiations or discussions the government has entered into with our allies about the creation of trading blocs for vaccines and personal protective equipment; (c) which specific countries have been involved in discussions about potential trading blocs; and (d) what are the details of all meetings where negotiations or discussions that have occurred about potential trading, including the (i) date, (ii) participants, (iii) countries represented by participants, (iv) meeting agenda and summary?(Return tabled)Question No. 694--Ms. Raquel Dancho: With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit payments being sent to prisoners in federal or provincial or territorial correctional facilities: (a) how many CERB benefit payments were made to incarcerated individuals; (b) what is the value of the payments made to incarcerated individuals; (c) what is the value of the payments in (b) which were later recouped by the government as of April 28, 2021; (d) how many payments were intercepted and or blocked by Correctional Service Canada staff; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by correctional institution; and (e) how many of the payments in (a) were sent to individuals in (i) federal correctional facilities, (ii) provincial or territorial correctional facilities?(Return tabled)Question No. 696--Mrs. Stephanie Kusie: With regard to the negotiations between the government and major Canadian airlines that are related to financial assistance, since November 8, 2020: what are the details of all meetings, including any virtual meetings, held between the government and major airlines, including, for each meeting, the (i) date, (ii) number of government representatives, broken down by department and agency, and, if ministers' offices were represented, how many representatives of each office were present, (iii) number of airline representatives, including a breakdown of which airlines were represented and how many representatives of each airline were present?(Return tabled)Question No. 697--Mrs. Alice Wong: With regard to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO): (a) broken down by end of fiscal year, between fiscal years 2011-12 to 2020-21, how many trademark examiners were (i) employed, (ii) contracted by the CIPO; (b) what percentage in (a) were employed with a residence within the National Capital Region of Ottawa-Gatineau, by the end of fiscal years 2015-16 to 2020-21; (c) broken down by fiscal year, during each fiscal year from 2011-12 to 2020-21, how many trademark examiners were (i) hired, (ii) terminated, broken down by (A) for cause and (B) not for cause; (d) is there a requirement for bilingualism for trademark examiners, and, if so, what level of other-official language fluency is required; (e) is there a requirement that trademark examiners reside within the National Capital Region of Ottawa-Gatineau, and, if so, how many trademark examiner candidates have refused offers of employment, and how many trademark examiners have ceased employment, due to such a requirement in the fiscal years from 2011-12 to 2020-21; (f) what was the (i) mean, (ii) median time of a trademark application, for each of the fiscal years between 2011-12 and 2020-21, between filing and a first office action (approval or examiner’s report); (g) for the answer in (f), since June 17, 2019, how many were filed under the (i) direct system, (ii) Madrid System; (h) for the answer in (g), what are the mean and median time, broken down by month for each system since June 17, 2019; (i) does the CIPO prioritize the examination of Madrid system trademark applications designating Canada over direct trademark applications, and, if so, what priority treatment is given; (j) as many applicants and trademark agents have not received correspondence from the CIPO by regular mail and prefer electronic correspondence, does the CIPO have systems in place to allow trademarks examiners and other trademarks staff to send all correspondence by e-mail to applicants and trademark agents of record, and, if not, is the CIPO looking into implementing such system; (k) when is the anticipated date for the execution of such system; (l) what is Canada’s ranking with other countries, as to the speed of trademark examination; and (m) what countries, if any, have a longer period of time between filing and a first office action (approval or examiner’s report) for trademarks compared to Canada?(Return tabled)Question No. 699--Mr. Tom Kmiec: With regard to the Fiscal Stabilization Program under the Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act, since January 1, 1987: (a) what is the breakdown of every payment or refund made to provinces, broken down by (i) date, (ii) province, (iii) payment amount, (iv) revenue lost by the province, (v) payment as a proportion of revenue lost, (vi) the value of the payment in amount per capita; (b) how many claims have been submitted to the Minister of Finance by each province since its inception, broken down by province and date; (c) how many claims have been accepted, broken down by province and date; and (d) how many claims have been rejected, broken down by province and date?(Return tabled)Question No. 700--Mr. Tom Kmiec: With regard to voluntary compliance undertakings (VCU) and board orders by the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB), since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of money that has been made payable from pharmaceutical companies to her Majesty in right of Canada through voluntary compliance undertakings and board orders, both sum total, broken down by (i) company, (ii) product, (iii) summary of guideline application, (iv) amount charged, (v) date; (b) how is the money processed by the PMPRB; (c) how much of the intake from VCUs and board orders are counted as revenue for the PMPRB; (d) how much of the intake from VCUs and board orders are considered revenue for Health Canada; (e) as the Public Accounts lists capital inflow from VCUs as revenue, what has the PMPRB done with the inflow; and (f) who decides the distribution of the capital inflow from VCUs?(Return tabled)Question No. 701--Mr. Tom Kmiec: With regard to the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB) and the proposed amendments to the “Patented Medicines Regulations”, also referred to as the PMPRB Guidelines, since January 1, 2017: (a) how many organizations, advocacy groups, and members of industry or stakeholders have been consulted, both sum total and broken down in an itemized list by (i) name, (ii) summary of their feedback, (iii) date; (b) how many stakeholders expressed positive feedback about the proposed guidelines; (c) how many stakeholders expressed negative feedback about the proposed guidelines; (d) what is the threshold of negative feedback needed to delay implementation of the proposed guidelines as has been done previously in mid 2020, and start of 2021; (e) have there been any requests made by PMPRB executives to Health Canada officials to delay the implementation of the proposed regulations; and (f) how many times were these requests rejected by Health Canada officials?(Return tabled)Question No. 702--Mr. Tom Kmiec: With regard to reports, studies, assessments, consultations, evaluations and deliverables prepared for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such deliverables, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable?(Return tabled)Question No. 704--Mr. Alex Ruff: With regard to government data relating to the Cannabis Act (2018) Part 14 Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes, broken down by month, year, and province or territory since 2018: (a) how many active personal or designated production registrations were authorized for amounts equal to or above 25 grams per person, per day: (b) how many active personal or designated production registrations are authorized for amounts equal to or above 100 grams per person, per day; (c) how many registrations for the production of cannabis at the same location exist in Canada that allow two, three and four registered persons; (d) of the locations that allow two, three and four registered persons to grow cannabis, how many site locations contain registrations authorized to produce amounts equal to or above 25 grams per person, per day; (e) how many site locations contain registrations authorized to produce amounts equal to or above 100 grams per person, per day; (f) how many Health Canada or other government inspections of these operations were completed each month; (g) how many of those inspections yielded violations, broken down by location; and (h) how many resulted in withdrawal of one or more licences?(Return tabled)Question No. 706--Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan: With regard to COVID-19 specimen collection from travellers completed at Canada’s ports of entry and through at home specimen collection kits: (a) what company performs the tests of specimens collected from each port of entry; (b) what company performs the tests of at home specimen collection kits; (c) what city and laboratory are specimens collected from each port of entry, sent to for processing; (d) what city and laboratory are at home specimen collection kits processed; (e) what procurement process did the government undertake in selecting companies to collect and process COVID-19 specimens; (f) what companies submitted bids to collect and process COVID-19 specimens; (g) what are the details of the bids submitted by companies in (f); and (h) what are the details of the contracts entered into between the government and any companies that have been hired to collect and process COVID-19 specimens?(Return tabled)Question No. 707--Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan: With regard to Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests submitted to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) what is the current inventory of requests and broken down by the type of request; (b) what is the average processing time of each type of request; (c) what percentage of requests have received extensions in response time and broken down by the type of request; (d) what is the breakdown of the percentage of requests in (c) according to reasons for extensions; (e) what is the average length of extensions for response time overall and for each type of request; (f) what is the average number of extensions for response time overall and for each type of request; (g) what percentage of requests have had exemptions applied; (h) what is the breakdown of the percentage in (g) according to the reasons for exemptions; (i) how many complaints regarding the ATIP process has IRCC received since January 1, 2020, broken down by month; and (j) what is the breakdown of the number of complaints in (i) according to the type of complaint?(Return tabled)Question No. 708--Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan: With regard to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) offices: (a) what lines of business are processed at each case processing centre (CPC), the centralized intake office (CIO), and the Operations Support Centre (OSC); (b) what lines of business in (a) are not currently being processed at each CPC, the CIO, and the OSC; (c) how many applications have been (i) submitted, (ii) approved, (iii) refused, (iv) processed for each line of business, at each CPC, the CIO, and the OSC since January 1, 2020, broken down by month; (d) what is the current processing times and service standard processing times for each line of business at each CPC, the CIO, the OSC; (e) what is the operating status of each IRCC in-person office in Canada; (f) what services are provided at each IRCC in-person office in Canada; (g) what services in (f) are currently (i) available, (ii) unavailable, (iii) offered at limited capacity, at each IRCC in-person office in Canada; (h) what lines of business are processed at each IRCC visa office located in Canadian embassies, high commissions, and consulates; (i) how many applications have been (i) submitted, (ii) approved, (iii) refused, (iv) processed, for each line of business processed at each IRCC visa office in (h) since January 1, 2020, broken down by month; and (j) what is the current processing times and standard processing times for each line of business processed at each IRCC visa office in (h)?(Return tabled)Question No. 709--Mr. Alex Ruff: With regard to correspondence received by the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Office of the Prime Minister related to internet censorship or increased regulation of posts on social media sites, since January 1, 2019: (a) how many pieces of correspondence were received; and (b) how many pieces of correspondence asked for more internet censorship or regulation?(Return tabled)Question No. 710--Mr. Martin Shields: With regard to the planning of the government’s announcement on April 29, 2021, about the launch of an independent external comprehensive review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces and reports that some of those involved in the announcement, including Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan, did not learn about their new roles until the morning of the announcement: (a) on what date was Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan informed that she would become the Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture, and how was she informed; (b) on what date was Louise Arbour informed that she would be head of the review; (c) was the decision to launch this review made before or after Elder Marques testified at the Standing Committee on National Defence that Katie Telford had knowledge about the accusations against General Vance; and (d) if the decision in (c) was made prior to Mr. Marques’ testimony, what proof does the government have to back-up that claim?(Return tabled)Question No. 711--Mr. Martin Shields: With regard to free rapid COVID-19 tests distributed by the government directly to companies for the screening of close-contact employees: (a) how many tests were distributed; (b) which companies received the tests; and (c) how many tests did each company in (b) receive?(Return tabled)Question No. 712--Mr. Martin Shields: With regard to contracts awarded by the government to former public servants since January 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to former public servants; (b) what is the total value of those contracts; and (c) what are the details of each such contract, including the (i) date the contract was signed, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) start and end date of contract?(Return tabled)Question No. 713--Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus: With regard to sole-sourced contracts signed by the government since February 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many contracts have been sole-sourced; (b) what is the total value of those contracts; and (c) what are the details of each sole-sourced contract, including the (i) date, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of the vendor?(Return tabled)Question No. 714--Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: With regard to the RCMP’s National Security Criminal Investigations Program, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how many RCMP officers or other personnel were assigned to the program; and (b) what was the program’s budget or total expenditures?(Return tabled)Question No. 716--Mr. Marc Dalton: With regard to the Interim Protocol for the use of Southern B.C. commercial anchorages: (a) how many (i) days each of the anchorage locations was occupied from January 2019 to March 2021, broken down by month, (ii) complaints received related to vessels occupying these anchorages, between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2021; and (b) why did the public posting of interim reports cease at the end of 2018?(Return tabled)Question No. 717--Mr. Marc Dalton: With regard to federal transfer payments to Indigenous communities in British Columbia: (a) what is the total amount of federal transfer payments in fiscal years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21; and (b) of the amounts provided in (a), what amounts were provided specifically to Metis communities?(Return tabled)Question No. 718--Mrs. Cathay Wagantall: With regard to funding provided by the government to the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS): (a) what requirements and stipulations apply for the CAEFS in securing, spending, and reporting financial support received from the government; and (b) what has the government communicated to the CAEFS with respect to the enforcement of Interim Policy Bulletin 584 before and after the coming into force of Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, on June 19, 2017?(Return tabled)Question No. 719--Mr. Dan Albas: With regard to government funding in the riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, for each fiscal year since 2018-19 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?(Return tabled)Question No. 722--Mr. Dan Albas: With regard to COVID-19 vaccines and having to throw them away due to spoilage or expiration: (a) how much spoilage and waste has been identified; (b) what is the spoilage and waste breakdowns by province; and (c) what is the cost to taxpayers for the loss of spoiled vaccines?(Return tabled)Question No. 724--Mr. Brad Vis: With regard to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, from September 1, 2019, to date: (a) how many applicants have applied for a mortgage through the FTHBI, broken down by province or territory and municipality; (b) of the applicants in (a), how many applicants have been approved and accepted mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province or territory and municipality; (c) of the applicants in (b), how many approved applicants have been issued the incentive in the form of a shared equity mortgage; (d) what is the total value of incentives (shared equity mortgages) under the program that have been issued, in dollars; (e) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that value of each of the mortgage loans; (f) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that mean value of the mortgage loan; (g) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI to date; (h) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the percentage of loans originated with each lender comprising more than 5 per cent of total loans issued; (i) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the value of outstanding loans insured by each Canadian mortgage insurance company as a percentage of total loans in force; and (j) what date will the promised FTHBI program updates announced in the 2020 Fall Economic Statement be implemented?(Return tabled)8555-432-682 Expenditures related to promoting, advertising, or consulting on Bill C-158555-432-684 Canada Emergency Response Benefit8555-432-685 Corporations Canada and deregistration of federally incorporated businesses8555-432-686 Quarantine hotels8555-432-687 Quarantine hotels8555-432-688 Applications for exemption for compassionate reasons8555-432-689 Expenditures on social media influencers8555-432-690 Government contracts and agreements with FLIR Lorex Inc., FLIR Systems, Lorex Technology Inc., March Networks, or Rx Networks Inc.8555-432-691 Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine8555-432-692 Testimony of the Chief Executive Officer of BioPharma Services Inc.8555-432-694 Canada Emergency Response Benefit8555-432-696 Financial assistance for airlines8555-432-697 Canadian Intellectual Property Office8555-432-699 Fiscal Stabilization Program8555-432-700 Voluntary compliance undertakings and board orders by the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board8555-432-701 Patented Medicines Prices Review Board and amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations8555-432-702 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation8555-432-704 Cannabis Act8555-432-706 COVID-19 specimen collection from travellers8555-432-707 Access to information requests8555-432-708 Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada offices8555-432-709 Internet censorship and increased regulation of posts on social media sites8555-432-710 Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces8555-432-711 Free rapid COVID-19 tests8555-432-712 Contracts to former public servants8555-432-713 Sole-sourced contracts8555-432-714 RCMP's National Security Criminal Investigations Program8555-432-716 Interim Protocol for the use of Southern B.C. commercial anchorages8555-432-717 Federal transfer payments to Indigenous communities in British Columbia8555-432-718 Funding provided to the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies8555-432-719 Federal spending in the riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay8555-432-722 COVID-19 vaccines8555-432-724 First-Time Home Buyer IncentiveAccess to information requestsAirlinesAlbas, DanAllegations of fraud and fraudBordersBritish ColumbiaBusiness registrationCanada Emergency Response BenefitCanada Mortgage and Housing CorporationCanadian Association of Elizabeth Fry SocietiesCanadian ForcesCanadian Intellectual Property OfficeCannabisCensorshipCompaniesConduct at workConservative CaucusConstituenciesConsultantsCorrespondence and lettersCOVID-19Dalton, MarcDancho, RaquelDepartment of Citizenship and ImmigrationDepartment of National DefenceDockage facilitiesDurable life dateFederal-provincial-territorial fiscal arrangementsFirst-Time Home Buyer IncentiveFiscal Stabilization ProgramGender identity and gender expressionGovernment advertisingGovernment assistanceGovernment contractsGovernment loansGovernment servicesGovernment transfer paymentsGuilbeault, StevenGulf IslandsHallan, Jasraj SinghHarassmentHealth screeningHoback, RandyHome ownershipHotelsHumanitarian groundsImmigration and immigrantsImmunizationImprisonment and prisonersIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsInformation technologyInquiries and public inquiriesInterim Protocol for the Use of Southern B.C. AnchoragesInternetKitchen, RobertKmiec, TomKusie, StephanieLaw enforcementMcLeod, CathyMétisMinister of Canadian HeritageMortgagesNational Security Criminal Investigations ProgramNegotiations and negotiatorsOffice of the Prime MinisterOrders for return to written questionsPandemicPatented medicinesPaul-Hus, PierrePermits and licencesPersonal securityPfizer CanadaPharmaceutical industryPrice determinationPublic consultationPublic Service and public servantsQ-682Q-684Q-685Q-686Q-687Q-688Q-689Q-690Q-691Q-692Q-694Q-696Q-697Q-699Q-700Q-701Q-702Q-704Q-706Q-707Q-708Q-709Q-710Q-711Q-712Q-713Q-714Q-716Q-717Q-718Q-719Q-722Q-724Quarantine of personsReferences to membersRuff, AlexSecuritySecurity intelligenceSexual behaviourShields, MartinShin, NellySocial networking sitesSouth Okanagan—West KootenayStubbs, ShannonTherapeutic productsTrade agreementsTrademarksUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVidal, GaryVis, BradWagantall, CathayWong, AliceWorkplace health and safety68081826808183AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and honour today to rise and speak to the bill.As we know, we are dealing with four crises right now. We have a climate crisis, an opioid crisis, a homeless crisis and of course the COVID pandemic, which we have all been battling together for over a year. Many people have been living daily with the anxiety of losing their jobs. They are worried about their health and the health of their loved ones. In the meantime, the wealthiest Canadians have grown their wealth and Canada's largest corporations have benefited from this pandemic, and we have a Liberal government that has been resistant to having them pay their fair share and contribute to the cost of the pandemic. We know this is going to fall on the backs of everyday, middle-class Canadians and the most vulnerable, as services will be cut in future years because of the government's lack of courage to make those who should pay for the pandemic contribute more.On the other side, the Conservatives are using delay tactics to get support to Canadians. In this budget there clearly are very important pandemic supports that small businesses need. As the federal NDP critic for small business and tourism, I know all too well from talking to entrepreneurs how important it is that they continue to get supports such as the wage subsidy and the emergency commercial rent assistance program. While we were glad to see the government extend those programs through the summer, the cuts to those programs as they are slowly and gradually phased out will impact those businesses, especially in the tourism industry.Many businesses that rely on international tourism likely will not see international guests this season. Any tourists who planned on coming to Canada have cancelled their bookings, so these businesses have been asking for the wage subsidy and the rent program, which are lifelines for them. As members may recall, these are programs that the NDP fought to have increased. The wage subsidy was initially going to be 10%, and we pushed so the government would increase it to 75%. The commercial rent program is a program for which the government took our idea, but of course it rolled out a flawed program that was landlord-driven and forgot about the tenants.We kicked and screamed to get these programs fixed. We got the wage subsidy up to 75% and the rent program to be tenant-driven. These benefits are absolutely essential to those tourism businesses and small businesses that are going to have to go through fall and into next spring. We heard from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada at committee, and other tourism industry organizations such as the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada, that said they needed those programs to go to the spring.While I am mentioning it, the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada has seen a cut of 83% to its core budget. At the time when we needed it most, ITAC delivered over $15 million in loans to indigenous-led businesses, because it has that intimate relationship with its member businesses. It saved over 1,900 indigenous businesses with over 40,000 employees. These are going to be the most vulnerable businesses as we come out of the pandemic.I am encouraging the government to come back and try to save these businesses. Time is running out. They need help.In terms of the Canada emergency business account loan, we were glad to see the government finally fix the last increase of the CEBA loan during the second wave, but businesses are saying it is not enough. They have gone through a third wave. They need more funds. They need help and liquidity to get through the summer and beyond. The repayable timeline of next fiscal year is absolutely impossible for almost any small businesses to meet, in order for them to get the rebate of one third of that CEBA loan. We are asking the government to extend the terms of that repayment at least to the end of 2025, so that these businesses have a fighting chance to get back on their feet.The government also keeps talking about credit card merchant fees. We know that the government is in bed with the big banks, but the reality is that small businesses are being constantly ground down by the banks. We just saw the banks increase their fees for consumers and small businesses again, during a time when they are having record profits. This is completely unacceptable to Canadians. In Europe, when it comes to merchant fees and interchange fees, they are paying 0.3%. Right now in Canada, 1.4% is the voluntary rate that credit card companies say they are paying.(1720)I have met with Visa and Mastercard. They say that it is actually not their issue and that it is the big banks that are setting the rates on the interchange fees. We have seen the big banks having record profits. Why are they not stepping up to the plate and providing some relief to small businesses and consumers? We know that merchant fees are often put on the backs of small businesses.As members know, I can speak for a long time about small business. The other piece is start-ups. The Liberals have completely abandoned start-ups, and those who started a business after March. They may have signed leases months and months, or even years, before. They have paid their employees and their rent through the pandemic. They have a record of receipts they have paid. There are many different tools the government could use and industry standards it could look at. They have had leases and made these payable expenses. Liberals should set some criteria to save these businesses, or we are going to lose a generation of businesses. Throughout every riding in our country, we are hearing from people who have been abandoned by the government.As members know, the other file I carry as the federal critic for the NDP is for fisheries, oceans and Coast Guard. We were happy to see the government finally listen to our call. Members heard me kicking and screaming in the House of Commons, calling on the minister to declare a wild salmon emergency and to make this a wild salmon recovery budget. We are happy to see the Liberals put a significant allocation to wild salmon recovery, but we still have not seen the fine details. We have heard the broad framework of what they want to use to guide them in terms of delivering that funding, but we have not had the details of how they are going to spend that money, and time is of the essence.Also, we have not had a commitment to reconciliation with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we need a wild salmon secretariat that is government to government with the province, with indigenous leadership and communities, the nations on the coast and the federal government working together in co-management. We know what Liberals mean by “consultation”. They check a box, then they leave and abandon communities without listening and implementing what they have been told by those communities.The other pieces we have not seen are the transition funding supports for those that were in the salmon farm industry. The government is hopefully following through with its commitment to move away from open-net salmon farming and to support those workers, their families and the communities in which those fish farms are in. The government made the right decision on Discovery Islands, but it did not come back with a plan to support the workers. This is something the NDP has been calling for. I have been calling for it. I tabled a bill about moving away from open-net salmon farming to closed containment, and the government abandoned it. I want to see the government do something significant around that. Friday was the one-year anniversary of the death of Chantel Moore, a Tla-o-qui-aht member from my riding who was shot by a New Brunswick police officer. She was a Tla-o-qui-aht member, and she was killed on a wellness check. I think all of us can join together in offering the family of Chantel Moore our condolences, along with the nation and the Tla-o-qui-aht tribal council, especially as they seek justice. We need to work together to ensure that no one else suffers the same fate Chantel did during a wellness check. Canada needs comprehensive police reform.In this budget, the Liberals put forward $100 million for mental health. That is not even close to enough. They put forward $108 million for first nations policing, which is not even close to what is needed. Police are supposed to be there to serve and protect people from our communities, but instead, the federal government has not acted to address the disproportionate amount of violence indigenous people are facing at the hands of police. I will continue, and the NDP will continue, to advocate in Parliament for indigenous participation in investigations into police violence, ongoing mental health assessments of police officers, enhanced vetting of new recruits and cross-cultural training for police forces in all levels of Canadian society. There needs to be reforms to the police act.I can speak in great detail about many other things. There is the opioid crisis, as I touched on earlier. There is the government's blue economy. The fact is that it is completely tainted and tilted toward industry, instead of doing the right thing, which is protecting our oceans. Our oceans are critical right now, especially as we are seeing a warming planet and a warming ocean.AquacultureBanks and bankingBritish ColumbiaBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)Business developmentC-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada Emergency Business AccountCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19Credit cardsFisheries stocksGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsInterchange feesLoansMental healthPacific salmonPandemicPolice servicesReport stage motionsSmall and medium-sized enterprisesTourismUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWild salmon6790064Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples]InterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1135)[English]Mr. Speaker, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission requested $1.5 million for research for mass burial sites, it was a Conservative government that denied the request. This member was given an opportunity to vote in favour of UNDRIP just days ago, but neither he nor his Conservative colleagues voted in favour of the legislation. Just this week, Conservative Premier Kenney made such a despicable statement that Grand Chief Watchmaker reconfirmed the decision to dissolve the protocol that was made between the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations and the Government of Alberta.How can we believe the member's comments, when provincial and federal Conservatives have so clearly shown us where they stand on reconciliation?Indigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsOpposition motions67665526766553DanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples]InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me be clear here, yet again.It is not just one simple people. They are first nations. There are over 660 first nation bands in this country, and each is unique. We, as parliamentarians, need to listen to them. We need to help provide supports and to partner on ways we can move forward in reconciliation. Reconciliation will mean one thing to some, and it will mean another to someone else. I would simply say that all governments dating back to the birth of this great country have failed in many cases to protect individual rights and to respect our commitments to first nations, dating back to the royal proclamation.More needs to be done. We need to act, but we also need to listen, and to listen well.Indigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsOpposition motions676655467665556766556HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples]InterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member pointed out that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not issue recommendations but calls to action, which require action. As he knows, in the last Parliament, we passed a private member's bill to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is one of those calls to action in the TRC report. It was held up by Conservative senators and never passed. Therefore, our government, in this Parliament, introduced Bill C-15, which would implement UNDRIP as it is called. It passed in the House of Commons without Conservative support at all. Now it has gone to the Senate. I wonder how the hon. member can reconcile the fact that the Conservative Party seems to support some of the calls to action, but not all of them. Will he commit to helping, with those Conservative senators, to get this bill passed in the Senate and finally implement this call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsOpposition motionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples676659167665926766593MarkStrahlChilliwack—HopeMarkStrahlChilliwack—Hope//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71986MarkStrahlMark-StrahlChilliwack—HopeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StrahlMark_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples]InterventionMr. Mark Strahl: (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, it was a Conservative government that first recognized the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as an aspirational document. We do have some concerns with how the free, prior and informed consent provisions of UNDRIP mesh with, quite frankly, the Canadian Constitution, section 35, and the duty to consult and accommodate, which has been honed over years in the courts and through negotiation; that is, the Canadian approach has been the duty to consult and accommodate.Our concern with UNDRIP was with the free, prior and informed consent provisions and how that would interact with our Constitution, which does specifically acknowledge indigenous rights, and through our own court system, which has specifically endorsed a duty to consult and accommodate where necessary. That is the reason why we have raised our concerns.The Senate, as the member knows, will take its own decisions as it always has. I am sure there will be robust debate in that chamber, which is controlled right now with a majority of appointees by the current Prime Minister.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsOpposition motionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples676659467665956766596PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105927MumilaaqQaqqaqMumilaaq-QaqqaqNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/QaqqaqMumilaaq_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersIndigenous PeoplesInterventionMs. Mumilaaq Qaqqaq (Nunavut, NDP): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that the remains of 215 children are from a dark and shameful chapter of our country's history, but indigenous peoples know that colonization is not just in the past. It is an ongoing reality.More than 50% of children in foster care are indigenous, but account for less than 8% of the child population. More than 30% of inmates in prison are indigenous and Inuit in Nunavut die by suicide at nine times the rate of non-indigenous Canadians.Colonization is not a dark chapter in Canadian history. It is a book that the federal institution continues to write. We are tired of living in someone else's story and refuse to continue to have it written for us. We have written and will continue to write new chapters and will not ask for permission to live lives full of dignity and respect. We will demand it.ColonialismIndigenous rightsStatements by Members676693967669406766941JoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville, Ind.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is dangerously misleading for the government to suggest significant progress is being made on 80% of the TRC calls to action. Endless meetings and process is no substitute for substance. Leadership is required to change colonial laws, policies and practices that perpetuate systemic racism and injustice. The Prime Minister knows that adjusting the ongoing colonial legacy requires a comprehensive indigenous rights recognition framework. How do I know this? The Prime Minister said it in this House on February 14, 2018—Indigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsOral questionsTruth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada6767133PattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88660MarcMillerHon.Marc-MillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MillerMarc_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Marc Miller (Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to take this moment, in front of the House, to thank the former attorney general and minister of justice for the work she did to move these important issues forward, in answering the TRC's calls to action and the MMIW's calls for justice, in making sure that indigenous languages affirmed their inherent right to have a rightful place in this country, and that child and family services, which betrayed indigenous children and is broken in this country, was reformed through Bill C-92.Obviously, this time of mourning is a time to reflect on the speed at which reconciliation is going, but as we continue to search for the truth, I think it is also a time to recognize the progress and the tens of billions of dollars this government has invested in reconciliation. I want to thank the former attorney general and minister of justice for the work she has done in contributing to this.Indigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsOral questionsTruth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada67671406767141AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/36037NikiAshtonNiki-AshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AshtonNiki_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples]InterventionMs. Niki Ashton: (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his words.The decolonization process is a multi-stage process. We absolutely have to not only think, but also act to put an end to a colonizing law.At the same time, we have to work with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to really support first nations, who are doing everything they can for their people.To be clear, this all has to happen with the engagement, investment and support of the federal government, not acting in a paternalistic way but as a responsible partner.Regarding today's motion, it is clear that the Government of Canada is guilty of genocide. We must do everything possible to bring justice to indigenous peoples across the country. Indigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsOpposition motionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6767311SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscaminguePaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104555KodyBloisKody-BloisKings—HantsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BloisKody_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples]InterventionMr. Kody Blois: (1640)[English] This past Sunday, I had the opportunity to join members of the community of Sipekne'katik as they gave prayers and a smudging ceremony to those who have been impacted by the legacy of the residential school system.Many in indigenous communities of course knew that what was found in Kamloops was a likelihood, and indeed this will not be the only type of tremendous harm we will find. We need to prepare ourselves, as Canadians, that this is not an isolated incident. I say this recognizing that we have to continue the work in this domain.I have asked myself over the last number of days how best I can be an advocate in this particular space. The member opposite last mentioned the $33 million the government had set aside in budget 2019 to be able to do the important work of finding these burial sites. For instance, my understanding is that in Kamloops it was the funding that helped find these individuals, and hopefully bring home even more children.There is ongoing work right now in Shubenacadie, through The Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq, at the Shubenacadie site. It is a large area, 250 acres. Despite this being a national issue, I ask myself how best I can help in my community, in my riding. That is where I am going to turn my attention, in terms of working with indigenous leadership in Kings—Hants and indeed across Nova Scotia on how we can make sure that this particular site has the recognition it deserves. For the members in this House who may not be familiar with the area, there is nothing there right now that actually gives credence to the horrors and the tragedy that happened in that place. Although it is not my place to say exactly how that should happen, as it has to be through the eyes of the survivors who had gone to this school, I do think it is important and it will be my focus in the days ahead.There has been progress, and I say that hesitantly. We should not shy away from the fact that we have moved the yardsticks on reconciliation in the right direction. I am proud to be a member of a government and caucus that I believe have done more than any government in Canadian history in this particular work to reconcile with indigenous people. I say that recognizing and certainly making very clear that there is more work to be done, and that includes of course not only the work in Shubenacadie that I will undertake with my colleagues and indigenous leaders, but indeed a lot of the work that has to happen to be able to implement the TRC calls to action.I want to highlight some of the work that I believe is important and is going to be fundamental for us, above and beyond the particular issue of the residential school system, to continue to build that relationship, because members and indigenous community members would say it is absolutely important that we recognize and we do right by the harm, but we also have to build on a better future.I look at UNDRIP, the legislation that was passed in this House and is now before the Senate. It represents a historic opportunity for us, as a government, to continue to move and build partnerships nation to nation with indigenous communities. I look at Bill C-5 and take notice that all members of this House supported the fast-tracking of that particular legislation to establish a national day of truth and reconciliation in this country. Those, although alone they will not be enough, are important to being able to move the yardsticks in the right direction.I look in my own community. Recently, I sat down with Chief Sack. We had a very important housing announcement through the rapid housing initiative, where we were able to make investments in the community for 20 units. Is there more work to be done? Absolutely, but this is an important investment I am proud our government has made to try to improve the lives of the indigenous communities I represent.I look at Annapolis Valley First Nation and the ability for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to work with that community to make sure there is access through Canada Creek for their fisheries and their opportunities to exist in that domain. (1645)I look at Glooscap Landing. Although it was a project that was advanced under my predecessor, Scott Brison, in partnership with the Glooscap community, it is a prime example of the opportunities that exist to be able to move and build commercial partnerships with the Glooscap community.I have about 90 seconds left by my clock, so I will conclude by saying this.My commitment to the members of my community, both indigenous and non-indigenous, will be to continue to advocate for and advance the priorities of indigenous communities in Kings—Hants, and of course beyond, with my colleagues in this House.Reconciliation will not be an easy path. We know that. There will be remaining challenges and there will not always be agreement on the best pathway forward, but it is the spirit of being willing partners and working with each other that will be crucial.To the survivors of the residential school system in my riding, and those who were impacted at Shubenacadie, I will do my utmost to ensure that this tragic legacy and the harms that have been done are known so we can all move collaboratively to reconcile and be able to advance and move forward from this darkest period of Canadian history. Fisheries and fishersHuman remainsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsInquiries and public inquiriesNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationOpposition motionsPublic holidaysRapid Housing InitiativeRetail tradeSocial housingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67673796767381KodyBloisKings—HantsChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples]InterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating you on your 10-year anniversary in that chair as Deputy Speaker and your distinguished service as a parliamentarian in this chamber, respected by every one of your 337 colleagues.I want to speak today about something that is critically important, not just now but all of the time, that has come to the forefront given this opposition day motion that we are discussing, and that is the events at Kamloops in terms of the shocking discovery of the mass grave of 215 children who belonged to the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation.After hearing about it on the radio, and the sheer magnitude, my first reaction was simply one of horror, and I had to explain to my kids why I was reacting the way that I was. My second response was as someone who came to this chamber as a lawyer who has some experience with international law, particularly with Rwanda at the UN war crimes tribunal. I thought of how we usually associate mass graves with foreign conflicts and not with Canada. Then I started to think of what we have done vis-à-vis indigenous people of this land and how sometimes it is not much different in terms of the overt assimilation that we have propagated against them, and when the declared policy of the government at the time was to “take the Indian out of the child”. I also reacted as a parliamentarian who has not been in this chamber as long as you, Mr. Speaker, but for six years now, who feels like he has gathered some understanding of the situation. I had gone through the calls to action, but I was still shocked and surprised. However, we do not have to dig too far to realize that there were a lot of people who were not surprised, and a lot of those people are indigenous people of this land, particularly elders. This led me to the question of how we value knowledge and recognize its legitimacy, and how this Eurocentric idea has been passed down that unless something is reduced to writing or photographic or video evidence, it probably did not happen. This is a bias that we bring to the table that we have to acknowledge. I thank a constituent of mine who wrote to me about the issue of Canadians, including Canadian parliamentarians, who need to learn to embrace oral histories as legitimate histories so that we can truly come to terms with the magnitude of what we are dealing with.I also reacted as a father, as I mentioned, when I heard the news that morning on CBC Radio while my children were eating cereal in front of me. My boys are very dear to me. I mean, everyone's children are dear to them. My wife, Suchita, and I are raising two young boys, Zakir and Nitin, and we try and do right by them. However, it one thing for me to imagine my children being removed from my home against my will, but it is another thing entirely to imagine them never returned to me and to never know their whereabouts, which is exactly what has transpired over and over again with indigenous families of this land. This is the true tragedy that needs to be dealt with and understood, and it needs to be accounted for, which can only start with a very strong, historical, educational exercise. There are some people in this House who are younger than I am, which is the tender age of 49, who had the benefit of actually being educated on this. However, I went through every level of school, including post-secondary education and through law school, and never once was I instructed about the history of the residential school legacy in this country, which is quite shocking for a guy who graduated law school in 1998. I know that people are now getting that education, and that is important. I also know that people are taking steps, and we heard the member for Kings—Hants talk about what was happening in his community in Nova Scotia. In my community of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto, there was a vigil just yesterday about this very issue, which raised awareness, and that is important. I thank my constituent, Eden, for organizing the vigil. She took the reins on doing so, because she felt so strongly about it. I took my oldest son to that event, because I wanted him to be there to understand, to learn, and to see how others were reacting to what we had learned on Friday morning. It is one thing to read stories, and I do read him stories, particularly the orange shirt story of Phyllis Webstad, the woman who wore that infamous orange shirt, which was removed from her at that residential school. She is also a member of the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation. However, it is more than just the stories, and I wanted him to get that. It is not just past or distant history, it is still unfolding around us, which is very important, because we should not deem it relegated to the past. It was also important for him and for me to see the turnout, the number of young people who were there, and to hear the demands, and there were many.(1700)There were many directed at the federal government, the government that I represent. There was outrage, shock and horror, but it was important for me to hear the demands. It was important for my son to hear the demands. If I could summarize it, which is difficult to do, but they want justice, accountability and transparency and they want it now, not at some date to be determined in the future.I hear that sentiment and I very much share that sentiment. I say that in all sincerity in this chamber for those who are watching around the country. In particular ,what I think is most critical is just having a sense that if this happened to the Tk'emlúps First Nation, in Kamloops at that former school, we know that there are 139 sites around this country where it may very well have happened there as well. That forensic investigation, that radar investigation must be done and it must be done immediately.I know that we have dedicated as a government almost $34 million to address some of the calls to action we have heard extensively about during the course of today's debate. If more money is needed, it must be provided forthwith. That is what I am advocating for.Others have also said to me just get on with every single one of those calls to action, get it over with now. It has been far too long. I hear that outrage and that sense of urgency. I pause because I know in looking at the calls to action that some of them relate to us at the federal level, us as parliamentarians in the House of Commons. Some of them relate to provincial governments, city governments. Some of them relate to institutions and school boards. Some of them even relate to foreign entities.I, for one, would be dearly appreciative to see a formal papal apology. That is call to action 58. That is a call to action that the Prime Minister squarely put to the Pope on a visit to the Vatican and that has not yet been acceded to. I think that stands in stark contrast to what we see with other denominations of Christian churches in this country that have formally accepted and apologized for the role that the church played in terms of administering many of these residential schools. That needs to be forthcoming and Canadians are demanding that, rightfully so.Others I believe have been met at least in part if not fully. I count myself as very privileged to have served in the last Parliament when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Heritage. We worked on and co-developed with first nations, Métis and Inuit leaders what became Bill C-91, Canada's first ever Indigenous Languages Act. I personally count that as one of my most significant learning opportunities as a parliamentarian. It took that lawyer who was not educated about this stuff in law school and it turned him into a parliamentarian who was dealing directly with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders about the difficulties of not having that connection to one's language and what that does to one's psyche, one's level of mental anxiety, one's connection to one's culture.We have remedied that. It speaks directly to TRC calls to action 13, 14 and 15. We have also made great strides with respect to indigenous child and welfare legislation. That was Bill C-92 in the last Parliament. The most important piece there is that the norm now based on that legislation is if we must remove a child, then we keep them within their group, within their first nation, among their community and only as an absolute last resort would they be removed.We have worked on UNDRIP with members of the opposition parties including the NDP. We have worked on Bill C-22, which I count myself privileged to have worked on as parliamentary secretary to the current Minister of Justice. It deals with curing the overrepresentation of indigenous people in this land. Much more remains to be done. I do not discount that and it needs to be done quickly. We need to do that work together. I welcome this debate. I welcome the discussions we have been having literally all week, not just today about this important topic, because they are critical. I do feel at my core that we will only gather sufficient momentum when all Canadians are talking about this stain on Canada's history and Canada's legacy. That is critical to see. We have seen it over the course of this pandemic where people, non-white and white, people who are racialized or not racialized have taken up the call for addressing systemic racism and systemic discrimination in wake of George Floyd and in this country people like Regis Korchinski-Paquet.I am seeing that again now. I am seeing that massive outreach now and that is a good thing because it gives us momentum. It gives us the initiative to keep working hard at these issues and to keep focused on these calls to action in addressing the needs of indigenous people, but always in a manner that is led by indigenous people and done on their terms, because gone must be the paternalism where Ottawa dictated to indigenous people the appropriate remedies. We must be listening and responding. Aboriginal languagesAboriginal peoplesBritish ColumbiaCare for childrenCatholicism and catholicsFamilies and childrenGovernment accountabilityHuman remainsIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsInquiries and public inquiriesLegal proceedingsOpposition motionsRacial equalityRoman Catholic ChurchSentencingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6767417BruceStantonSimcoe NorthCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105422EricDuncanEric-DuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DuncanEric_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, 13 years ago next week, the chamber of the House of Commons was filled with tears and a lot of raw emotion. Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the apology for the treatment that residential school survivors experienced at federally funded schools across the country. It marked a milestone in the healing and reconciliation process for former students. One of those former students is Bill Sunday, a member of Akwesasne, which is in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. At that time, the grand chief of the council, Chief Tim Thompson, brought seven survivors from the community of Akwesasne to hear the words of the Government of Canada that day. I am thinking of Bill tonight and the number of residents of Akwesasne who, over the course of numerous generations, have faced hardship and discrimination.What came of the apology at that time was the idea of establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. As alluded to in other speeches, its report came out with tangible calls to action back in 2015. To give context, that is six years ago, or 2,100 days that our federal government has had to respond to and enact the change that has been called for.We are here today with nowhere near the pace and volume of completion and tangible progress that Canadians want us to have. A few more than a handful of calls to action have been marked as completed; others are under way. However, if we were to speak to indigenous Canadians, first nations leadership and any Canadian, they would agree that the pace of change and of enacting reconciliation has not moved in the past six years as fast as it needs to.On Monday, our leader, the leader of the official opposition, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and over the course of the last couple of days, after the advancement of Bill C-5 regarding a day for truth and reconciliation, which is positive, all parties have worked together to advance that legislation. It was one of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Our leader also wrote in that letter that the legislation we are debating here tonight should come back up, be moved forward, as it will be tonight, and eventually be passed. It will pass with support from our caucus and I believe from all of Parliament.This is an important measure; do not get me wrong. However, and I say this respectfully, when we look at all the measures we need to do, the tangible, real, meaningful reconciliation is yet to come. There are a lot of big items that we as a Parliament and we as a country need to confront and address in a timely manner.I want to acknowledge the discussions of another piece of legislation, Bill C-15, which has had many hours of debate here and in committee and is now over in the Senate. I had the honour and privilege of speaking to it, and with my perspective as a young Canadian; as somebody who has a first nations community, Akwesasne, in his riding; and as part of our Conservative caucus, I took a look at the details of the legislation. I want to speak about the opposition to Bill C-15, not because of a lack of support for reconciliation, but to illustrate to Canadians that our work as parliamentarians is far from done and we know that. What I took note of today, as we talked about the motion, is that the work we do here needs to be better.Let us consider Bill C-15, and a lot of the words and descriptions in it, such as the description of free, prior and informed consent and its definition, or lack thereof. The NDP's opposition day motion today is an important one that I am proud to support. The first few parts of the motion speak to ending litigation in courts, where the government, first nations communities and residential school survivors are spending years and years and millions and millions of dollars, with more and more emotion going from there. That has been exacerbated because we are not taking the time for consultation and the details.(1900)I completely support the idea of UNDRIP and the principles behind it. The details matter on that. I think it is important for Canadians, as the NDP motion said today, as Parliament will be calling on when that vote comes up in the coming days, that we see real, meaningful changes in this country, not more lawsuits, more delays, motions and millions of dollars being spent on lawyers, but rather on frontline differences to first nations communities and indigenous Canadians in every part of this country. I want to focus some of my time tonight on the fact that we are expediting this legislation with all-party co-operation to move forward, because there are other parts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that need to move forward now, urgently, and Canadians are saying that. Thinking of the news that every single Canadian has had to take in over the course of the last week, of the discovery of 215 children in unmarked graves at the former Kamloops residential school, I look, from a personal perspective, at my life and my lived experience. I am 33 years old. I have an amazing, loving family that helped raise me. I am so grateful for the opportunity that I received in public education: the teachers, staff and students at Inkerman Public School, Nationview Public School and North Dundas District High School. My family and my experience in public education helped make me who I am today. I could not imagine being a child torn away from my parents never to see them again, going to a school hundreds of kilometres away and receiving horrific treatment. We have an example that was laid bare before us last week. Children ended up buried in unmarked graves, only recognized recently. These children did not have the opportunities that so many of us were fortunate to have, surrounded by loving and caring parents in an education system and experience that were second to none. To have them deprived of that, to have that ending, is completely unacceptable. In the letter I referenced, we talk about the work we need to do as a Parliament. We need to address this specific, dark part of our history. I was rightfully corrected after one of my social media posts where I was struggling to come up with the proper thing to say about this news. Somebody said that it is not all history, that there are still residential school survivors here today living the experience each and every day. It is not history to them. It is lived experience that they have to deal with and struggle with each and every day. I think parliamentarians from all parties in every part of this country will hear that, yes, we need to move forward on Bill C-5. We need to move forward on this piece of legislation and on Bill C-8. We need to fund the investigation of all former residential schools in Canada where unmarked graves may exist, including where the 215 children were already discovered in Kamloops. We need to ensure that proper resources are allocated for reinterment, commemoration and the honour of any individuals discovered at any of those sites, according to the wishes of their family. We also need to develop a detailed, urgent and meaningful way of educating Canadians on the real and lived experiences of those there.I am going to wrap up my comments tonight by bringing them back to my community in eastern Ontario. As I wrap up, I think of Leona Cook, an elder from Akwesasne. She actually lives on the American side of Akwesasne, but her story goes a long way. She was sent from Massena to western New York in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls area to a residential school. This tragedy goes even beyond borders. They took her shoes away when she went to school. Her brothers also went there, but they were placed on a different side of the campus, and she rarely, if ever, saw them. I watched a video earlier today as I was preparing my remarks, and Leona was in it. She said, “I don't want their apology. I don't want anything from them. I would hope that they learn to treat people better than they treated us. You can't make people be somebody they don't want to be.”We can take the lessons and the words of Leona Cook, embody them in our work and move forward on major sections of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that will matter to Canadians. I look forward to the questions and comments and supporting the legislation before us.C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsLawsuitsOathsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6767704AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1905)[English]Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member that we need to commit all resources possible to ensure that any other potential sites like this are found immediately and that the proper process is done in conjunction with the indigenous communities in the area.The member talks about the recommendations and implementing them all as quickly and expeditiously as possible, but one of those recommendations had to do with UNDRIP. The Conservative Party voted against that. As I listen to the member, I am trying to rationalize how he can stand here and say we absolutely must implement these recommendations and do as much as we can to see them come to fruition as soon as possible, yet the Conservative Party voted against one last week. Could he explain why he took that position?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples676772567677266767727EricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryEricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105422EricDuncanEric-DuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DuncanEric_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Eric Duncan: (1905)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my fellow eastern Ontarian for that question from the government side. It provides an opportunity for me to again state the principles of UNDRIP. The overwhelming majority of the declaration is not an issue. However, for far too long and in far too many examples in our history, we have not seen the proper parliamentary work and consultation to get some of the details in that legislation resolved early. We heard that at committee. First nations communities and legal experts say it is important to take the time to make sure that the legislation and the interpretations do not end up in court. What we are going to have through this process is much more litigation, many more legal fees and many more difficulties in court when those dollars could be spent on tangible improvements in the lives of indigenous people. It takes time to get it right. The government has had six years to get it right. It did not do that, which is why we are here. More work could have been done in that six years to provide more solidity on Bill C-15 and UNDRIP.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesC-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples676772867677296767730MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104947ChristineNormandinChristine-NormandinSaint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NormandinChristine_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Christine Normandin: (1910)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I was saying that I felt sad and bitter about this bill, which we, the Bloc Québécois members, will soon be voting against. We were going to support it, but we are forced to oppose it. Even today, we are forced to vote against it although we did try to amend it so we could support it.Why is the Bloc Québécois opposed to this bill, whose commendable intent should be self-evident? What happened to bring us to this point? These are questions that I feel compelled to answer, not only for my colleagues in the House, but also for indigenous peoples across the country and for the sake of history, which I call on today as my witness. The first thing I would like to say to all first nations in Quebec and Canada and to the Métis and the Inuit peoples is that the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that call to action 94, as well as all the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, must be implemented without delay.However, we cannot support Bill C-8 as it stands now, for two reasons. Reason one is that the bill seems to disregard the fact that the rights of indigenous peoples are not blessings to be bestowed on them by white people. On the contrary, these are inherent rights connected to their very existence as indigenous peoples. The second reason has to do with Quebec's and Canada's turbulent constitutional history.Too little has been said about the first reason why my party did not support the bill. That reason has to do with the essence of indigenous rights. The Bloc Québécois believes that indigenous peoples have rights that are inherent to their very existence. These rights were not created by a charter, a royal proclamation, an international agreement or a constitutional act. On the contrary, these documents serve only to recognize and confirm these rights.The ancestral rights predate the arrival of the Europeans and are connected to the activities of indigenous peoples before colonization. These are sui generis rights, in the sense that they are inherent and not granted by the Crown. These ancestral rights were first recognized in the 1973 decision in Calder, and then defined in the Van der Peet decision in 1996.However, the Crown recognized indigenous land rights in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grant explicit constitutional recognition of ancestral rights, but do not create the rights themselves. For us, putting that much emphasis on the Canadian Constitution means ignoring the inherent nature of the rights of indigenous peoples.The second reason is well known, but I want to reiterate it. As it now stands, the bill explicitly refers to the Constitution in the oath of citizenship. I do not think one needs a PhD in history to know how big of a disgrace Quebeckers felt the patriation of the Constitution was. Despite all the successive federalist premiers since 1982, Quebec has never signed the Constitution. Obviously, the Liberals will bring out their old argument about separatists stirring up quarrels of the past to break up our beautiful country. However, are modern-day problems not just problems that went unresolved in the past?That is why it is worth remembering that, when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, an event that federalist parties dearly love to celebrate, the draft included an explicit reference to the rights of indigenous peoples. However, during the infamous “night of the long knives”, the federal government and the other nine provinces that abandoned Quebec agreed not only to stab René Lévesque in the back but also to edit out recognition and affirmation of the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. Ottawa was a party to that. That too is part of the history of the Constitution, a living tree whose sap is sometimes poisonous.As it happened, indigenous militancy and concern that Westminster might reject the proposed Constitution resulted in what is now section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being put back in. However, constitutional malaise is still very real for Quebec. Members of other parties know that because we have told them. (1915)Despite all this, we tried to amend Bill C-8 to bring it closer to the original citizenship oath of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, because we wanted to support it.I should point out that the oath proposed in call to action 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made no reference to the Constitution. The study of the bill in committee was not able to convince us that this addition was made at the request of indigenous peoples. On two occasions, when I asked the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship if the addition of the word “Constitution” was an explicit request of first nations, he replied that it was a result of the general process. In short, he never did tell me if this came from the government or from the first nations.When we questioned witnesses in committee, they all told us that adding a reference to the Constitution was not at all essential to them. To the Bloc Québécois this addition is not only unnecessary, since it departs from the oath proposed by the Commission, but it is insulting, disrespectful and a provocative act toward the Quebec nation. It is a show of bad faith by the Liberal government and the uncontrollable desire of the federalist parties to pursue a process of building a national identity that endlessly repeats this fable of a Canada of rights and freedoms founded on a millennium-old Constitution.The sudden haste with which the Liberal government rushed to bring Bill C-8 back to the House this week is rather troubling. Let us not forget that this bill was stuck in limbo since February. We are now June. Last week there was the tragic discovery that pained us all. Suddenly the government woke up to study Bill C-8. Sometimes I get the impression that governments simply wait for the right time to impose their will instead of negotiating, a bit like the Prime Minister's father did so well one day in November 1981. On that, I must say that the unanimity of the federalist parties against the Bloc Québécois's proposals was striking. Sometimes when you win, you lose.Canadians can carry on building their country in their own image, without worrying about Quebec. We ourselves continue to do so, without Canadians, as we see fit. Perhaps it is because we sense that one day our paths will finally separate.As a final point, even though our suggestions will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, since that is the government's way, I would still like to propose a solution for a possible path forward that could suit everyone. Why not simply introduce a new bill with language that all parties can agree on? We could then pass that legislation with a simple unanimous consent motion and send it to the other chamber in one fell swoop, as we do here from time to time.I am making the suggestion, even though I know it will probably fall on deaf ears. At least we tried.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityConstitutionGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsThird reading and adoption6767736676773767677386767739AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgRoyal AssentCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1925)[English]Madam Speaker, I am dismayed that, despite it being six years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action had been tabled, the Liberal government has been exceedingly slow at implementing even the simplest of the calls to action.According the CBC Beyond 94 tracker, it remains that there are still only 10 out of 94 TRC recommendations completed as of June 1, 2021. Bill C-8 is emblematic of the pace at which the Liberal government has been moving with reconciliation. The concerning rate at which the government has been addressing the calls to action leads me to question the government’s timeline and commitment to fully implement all the calls to action. During the five-year anniversary on December 15, 2020, the commissioners of the TRC report issued a joint statement to indicate that the government’s process has been too slow. Former TRC commissioner Ms. Marie Wilson highlighted that revising the citizenship guidebook and updating the oath of citizenship to reflect a more inclusive history of indigenous peoples and recognition of their rights was low-hanging fruit among the TRC recommendations. Yet, this is the third time it has been introduced. In the years that led up to it, of the official list of organizations consulted provided by IRCC, only four were indigenous organizations and the others were six organizations focusing on immigration, including a couple of Catholic organizations, demonstrating that the imprint of colonialism persists to this day. While the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs heard from a number of witnesses that the wording could have been improved, they were ultimately in favour of passing it so that we could move on to focusing on some of the more major calls to action. Indeed, the Liberals and Conservatives voted down NDP amendments that would address the concerns raised by adding a recognition of inherent rights of first nations as well as aboriginal title rights in the citizenship oath. This is shameful. The government cannot say it supports the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which explicitly speaks to free, prior and informed consent. Article 10 states:Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.Yet we continue to see ongoing violations of this very article. This is a clear example of the ongoing colonialism that persists today. Let us look at what is happening with the Mi’kmaq fishers. DFO has decided that they cannot fish now even though this is a clear violation of their treaty rights to earn a moderate livelihood. UNDRIP stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, which is what indigenous fishers are trying to do, earn a living, feed their families and, in some cases, work their way out of poverty. Now, as a result of the failures of the government to live up to its obligations, they are even afraid of violence from non-indigenous fishers. Their property has been burned, they have been threatened and assaulted, and the government has offered no plan to ensure their safety. This is not reconciliation. In fact, this is what systemic racism and discrimination looks like. Why is the government not doing everything it can to protect the rights and safety of indigenous fishers? Former TRC commissioner Marie Wilson also pointed out that calls to action 53 and 56 call for the creation of a national council for reconciliation. One of its core functions would be to provide oversight and hold the government accountable to the progress on implementing other TRC calls to action. The fact that these TRC recommendations are missing in action and have not been among the first that were implemented shows a lack of interest by the government in actually implementing these calls to action. It also does not want to be held accountable in an independent, transparent way. On the five-year anniversary of the TRC report, Murray Sinclair was critical of the slow pace the government has been moving and said:It is very concerning that the federal government still does not have a tangible plan for how they will work towards implementing the Calls to Action.(1930)This is how the Liberals treat what they say is their most important relationship. The Liberals are abusing the goodwill of indigenous peoples. As they say with a straight face how much they respect indigenous rights, and cry crocodile tears about what indigenous people have always known in light of the findings of the mass grave of indigenous children at the Kamloops residential school site, they continue to take indigenous children to court.The Liberals cannot claim to honour the spirits of children who died in residential schools while they continue to take indigenous kids to court. The Liberals cannot claim to take their role in reconciliation seriously when they force survivors of residential schools to wage legal battles for recognition and compensation. I am calling for real action, real justice and real reconciliation, not just more words and symbolic gestures. I am calling on the federal government to stop its legal battles against indigenous kids and survivors of residential schools: battles that have cost millions of taxpayer dollars.In 2020, Dr. Cindy Blackstock stated that the government had spent at least $9 million fighting against first nations children at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These children do not get a second childhood. As we are sitting here, the government is still fighting survivors of St. Anne's residential school. This cannot be acceptable to anyone who says they want to honour the lives of indigenous children who were ripped away from their loved ones and were subjected to untold abuse and horror. Too many died alone, too many went missing and too many are still suffering from the effects of colonization.Make no mistake: Genocide was committed against indigenous peoples, and successive Liberal and Conservative governments have continued a genocide against first nations, Métis and Inuit across the country. These are crimes against humanity and it is time for Canada to take full responsibility. I am calling on the Liberals to end their court challenges, to work with survivors, and to ensure that all resources needed are made available to survivors and their communities. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada's discrimination to be “wilful and reckless” and “a worst-case scenario” resulting in unnecessary family separations for thousands of children, and serious harm and even death for other children. These are facts that the government must accept. In addition, the federal government must work with first nations to fund further investigation into the deaths and disappearances of children at residential schools.The Harper Conservatives denied the TRC the $1.5 million it requested to get an accurate representation of how many unmarked graves there are. The TRC heard from countless witnesses of their existence, but no national effort was made to identify them. This must be addressed.As stated by Murray Sinclair, retired senator and chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:We know there are lots of sites similar to Kamloops that are going to come to light in the future. We need to begin to prepare ourselves for that. Those that are survivors and intergenerational survivors need to understand that this information is important for all of Canada to understand the magnitude of the truth of this experience.I am also calling for full funding of the healing resources that survivors need. The federal government must accelerate its progress to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and announce a timeline and an independent, publicly accountable mechanism for the fulfillment of the calls to action. We cannot continue to say that we support reconciliation without doing real, meaningful work.To close, the NDP wants to see the TRC recommendation realized. We want to see this bill come to reality, but we also want to see the new citizenship guidebook, which has been in the making for five years, and we have no information of when it will be available. We want the guidebook to also incorporate that history, and clearly outline that genocide has been committed against indigenous peoples and continues to be. Every newcomer needs to know this history and take it to heart. As indicated, this is not an aboriginal issue: It is an issue for all of Canada. It is a Canadian issue and we need to own up to it. We need to—C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityFisheries and fishersGenocideGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationLawsuitsOathsThird reading and adoption676778667677876767788AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersShannen KoostachinInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to describe the squalid and dangerous conditions that the children of Attawapiskat were being educated in, or the indifference of the government officials who knew these children might never see a real school, but let me tell the House about the fire that I saw in the eyes of 13-year-old Shannen Koostachin when she vowed that the little brothers and sisters of James Bay would have a safe, comfy school to go to. Shannen lit a fire across this country. She took on the government. She inspired a young generation of activists because she said it was not acceptable that first nations children are being denied their rights in a country as rich as Canada. We lost Shannen 11 years ago today in a terrible accident. Her story lives on in movies and books, and as a comic book super hero, but most of all, Shannen's dream continues to challenge us.I was honoured to know this young warrior. If she were here today, she would say that the systemic discrimination against this young generation of first nations children must end now, because every child has the right to hope and dream for a better future. That was Shannen's dream. We need to make it a reality.ChildrenIndigenous rightsKoostachin, ShannenSchoolsStatements by Members675985467598556759856LianneRoodLambton—Kent—MiddlesexYves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, Mi'kmaq fishers from the Sipekne'katik First Nation have been abandoned by the government. DFO has decided that they cannot fish now even though this is a clear violation of their treaty rights to earn a moderate livelihood, which is what indigenous fishers are trying to do: earn a living, feed their families and, in some cases, work their way out of poverty. They are also afraid of violence from non-indigenous fishers, with good reason. Their property has been burned, they have been threatened and assaulted, and the government has offered no plan to ensure their safety. This is not reconciliation. What is the government doing to protect the rights and safety of indigenous fishers?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions675997067599716759972MarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that first nations have an absolute right to fish for a moderate livelihood. We have put in place a plan this year that allows them to fish for that moderate livelihood as we work toward long-term agreements. The plan we put in place for this year is flexible, it allows first nations to sell their catch and it ensures they are the ones who develop their fishing plans. We will continue to negotiate for longer-term agreements, because we know how important this is to first nations.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions67599736759974GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniSvenSpengemannMississauga—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (1850)[English]Mr. Chair, I noticed the member mentioned he would like to see us accelerate the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 71 through 76, but I am wondering about number 57, which is the recommendation on UNDRIP.Will he ask Conservative senators to support Bill C-15 and do what he can to help us ensure that all indigenous people are guaranteed equal human rights, as every other Canadian is?British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67606106760611ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1850)[English]Mr. Chair, the member knows, or likely should know, that that is guaranteed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which predates UNDRIP. It is an important document that was started by a former Conservative member of Parliament. I think all parliamentarians share our commitment to reconciliation, but what we have to do is make sure it is more than just important words, lowering of flags or gestures. These are important in healing, but it is more important to address the underlying unfairness, give certainty to the families, and give the ability, as Roseann and her family had, to heal.I would ask that member to work with us to move swiftly on calls to action 71 to 76 by Canada Day. Let us have a plan to deliver the true potential of this great country for all Canadians.British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples676061267606136760614JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1850)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his speech.Tonight's debate is very emotional. We all feel it.The hon. member told us that he is a father. As an aunt and status of women critic, my thoughts obviously go out to the mothers of these 215 children. What is sadder still is that we know that this is just the tip of the iceberg. That is what prominent representatives of indigenous communities, including Ghislain Picard and Michèle Audette, have said. In Quebec, more bodies of children who were taken from their mothers could be discovered.On behalf of all those women who have been harmed, and knowing that indigenous women are still suffering a lot today, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls issued its final report. One of the recommendations in the report was to implement Bill C-15 and sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is important.The Leader of the Opposition said that concrete action is required. Ensuring that Bill C-15 moves forward is one such action.Will his party finally recognize that it is important to sign this international declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples?British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples676061567606166760617676061867606196760620ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1855)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her question.All first nations issues are important, including economic reconciliation. I read Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Some indigenous people and indigenous leaders from various nations, including some in Quebec, have questions about a small part of this bill.Today I talked about calls to action 71 to 76. We must make these a priority, for the sake of the grieving families.Now is not the time to play politics. Now is the time to take action for families and indigenous people across the country. I started studying this issue long before I entered politics because it was important to me. That is why I mentioned my son Jack. It is important to have a serious debate about a serious matter. The residential schools were a national shame.British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6760621676062267606236760624AndréanneLaroucheSheffordRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104630SébastienLemireSébastien-LemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LemireSébastien_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): (1900)[Translation] Mr. Chair, the Leader of the Opposition told my colleague that we should not respond with political arguments, yet that is what he just did by bringing up his plans for the future.I will ask the question again. We are participating in a debate on the rights of indigenous peoples, which we buried with the residential schools. I will remind members that these rights were buried, and there is nothing more morbid in the current circumstances.My question is about the rights of indigenous peoples, and it is very simple: Why did the Leader of the Opposition vote against Bill C-15, which would recognize the rights of indigenous peoples?British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6760642ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1900)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question.Ironically, I was just talking yesterday with a few indigenous mayors and leaders from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. It was an important conversation for me as a new leader with a new approach as well as extensive experience in the private sector.There would be many opportunities for economic reconciliation if we had a plan and a serious partnership with indigenous peoples. Thousands of indigenous leaders have reasonable questions about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am more familiar with the file than my colleague is, and I am prepared to work for the well-being of indigenous people across the country.British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67606446760645SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueYves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (2025)[English]Madam Chair, I thank my friend across the way for his speech and for his work on this file.The member talked about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. Earlier tonight, the Leader of the Opposition was asked about call to action 43, which calls on the federal government to adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.I think all of us in the House can agree that we cannot pick and choose from the recommendations which ones we should implement. I am wondering if the member opposite would work with his Conservative colleagues in the Senate to ensure that this legislation does get passed, and gets passed quickly.British ColumbiaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67608656760866JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (2030)[English]Madam Chair, I appreciate the question from my friend from Oakville North—Burlington.Conservatives have said many times that they support reconciliation, including financial reconciliation. They also support the spirit of UNDRIP. What happened at the committee process with Bill C-15 was that the opposition parties were amplifying the voices of first nations leaders themselves. They were the ones who showed up at committee expressing concerns in regard to that bill, specifically about free, prior and informed consent and exactly what that means, not just for industry but for the way of life as well, the certainty that it provides.Again, these were not just voices of Conservative Party members; these were the voices of the indigenous communities themselves, trying to get their voices to the government. That is what we were trying to do.As I have said many times, we support reconciliation. We support the spirit of UNDRIP. We were looking to amplify the voices of those on the ground and those first nations communities concerned about Bill C-15.British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6760867676086867608696760870PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonSébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (2035)[English]Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon. I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation from my home in Oakville. My thoughts are with all indigenous families as they mourn. Like all Canadians, I am devastated by the horrifying news from British Columbia, where the remains of 215 children buried at the site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School were discovered. This is not news to indigenous peoples in Canada. My friend, the member for Northwest Territories, shared with me that there is a mission graveyard in his small community. Half of those buried there are children from the local residential school.Many years ago, the Catholic Church removed the crosses, dug up the priests, nuns and brothers and moved them to a new graveyard. Then it plowed over the old cemetery and grew potatoes there. In the early 1900s, the community, working with elders, hired specialists to locate the bodies of the children buried there, reclaimed their names, remembered their ages and erected a monument. I am ashamed to say that I did not know this story, and I suspect that most Canadians do not know these stories.Families deserve closure. Our government is committed to supporting survivors, the families as well as communities, to locate and memorialize children who were killed because they were forced to attend residential schools.We invite indigenous communities to seek federal support, which is available, to conduct radar scans on other residential school sites to confirm if lost children are buried there. The history of residential schools was not taught when I was a student. When I was first elected, I held a public screening of the documentary We Were Children. A former MP attended and said he wished he had known this history when he served in Parliament in the 1980s.Duncan Campbell Scott, deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs in 1910, said of residential schools, “It is readily acknowledged that Indian children...die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is being geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem.”This month during #IndigenousReads, I am encouraging my community to read 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act by Bob Joseph. It is important to confront our past to learn what is true in order to move forward on the path of reconciliation.Near my home, the Mohawk Institute Indian Residential School operated in Brantford from 1828 to 1970. It served as a school for first nations children from Six Nations, as well as other communities throughout Ontario and Quebec. Just today, Six Nations of the Grand River has asked the federal government to help it search its grounds.The Save the Evidence project from the Woodland Cultural Centre is working to restore the former Mohawk Institute Indian Residential School into a historical site and educational resource. Projects like this that are indigenous-led are vital for educating the public about our past and for understanding the realities of indigenous peoples in Canada.The Truth and Reconciliation Commission made 94 calls to action. If Canadians have not already read them, they should do so. Calls 71 to 76 deal with the missing children and burial information.One of the honorary witnesses to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a friend of mine who survived the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. We have talked about what Canada can do as we implement the recommendations of the TRC. Call to action 81 calls for a residential schools national monument in Ottawa to honour survivors and all children who were lost to their families and communities.Now is the time to take action on this. Our government has worked to build a more equitable relationship with indigenous peoples based on partnership and honesty. We have introduced legislation to establish a national day for truth and reconciliation, to amend the oath of citizenship and to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.We are working with indigenous leadership and communities to implement legislation that affirms and recognizes indigenous peoples' jurisdiction over child and family services to reduce the number of indigenous children in care. We are committed to continuing to take action to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance reconciliation across Canada. I pray for the stolen little souls and I mourn their loss.British ColumbiaCare for childrenCemeteriesCitizenship and identityConsideration in a Committee of the WholeEducation and trainingGovernment Business No. 6Heritage sites and buildingsHuman remainsIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentInquiries and public inquiriesMonumentsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationNumbers of deathsOathsPriestsRecordsSistersSplitting speaking timeTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6760898JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105927MumilaaqQaqqaqMumilaaq-QaqqaqNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/QaqqaqMumilaaq_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMs. Mumilaaq Qaqqaq (Nunavut, NDP): (2115)[English]Madam Chair, as the member was speaking, and he said some nice things, I could not help but try to reconcile the words and actions. The irony of hearing heartfelt speeches from the Conservatives is their own proven track record of providing less than the basics for indigenous peoples across Canada. Indigenous peoples do not want their shame, guilt or even, to an extent, the thoughts and prayers of non-indigeneous peoples. What indigenous peoples are calling for throughout the country is action and for this to be treated for what it is. It is a crime. What we are seeing is history. It is one of the biggest crimes to happen in Canada. That member and his party recently voted in the House against the UN declaration. That is a party that deepens the cuts to indigenous services and has for the programs that have been so desperately needed in past years.Does the member, and, more broadly, the Conservatives, believe that we should implement each and every single TRC call to action and if so, how does he suggest we go about doing that before I am 69 years old? British ColumbiaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6760992EricMelilloKenoraEricMelilloKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105186EricMelilloEric-MelilloKenoraConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MelilloEric_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Eric Melillo: (2115)[English]Madam Chair, I think I speak for all members in the House in saying we will certainly miss the member's voice in the chamber and we wish her well in whatever she will be doing next.There are quite a few things to address in the member's question. Yes, we have to implement all the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations. When it comes down to it, the government has to decide whether, at the end of the day, it supports the commission or it does not. I certainly hope it will support it.I will touch on UNDRIP, as the member mentioned it. At the INAN committee through the study of that bill, we heard a number of concerns from many indigenous organizations and indigenous people. They suggested a number of amendments that they would like to see. However, our party, in an attempt to bring forward those amendments and suggestions, as I recall correctly, every single one those amendments—British ColumbiaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6760997MumilaaqQaqqaqNunavutAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2120)[English]Madam Chair, I particularly appreciate the message that is sent by having members of Parliament have the ability to speak in indigenous languages in the House. It demonstrates that in spite of the horrors of the past and the continuing challenges indigenous people face, indigenous cultures are there, are preserving and are continuing, including through languages.I want to comment on some of the discussion around Bill C-15. It is obviously not the focus of tonight's debate, but it has come up many times. The reality is that there are diverse opinions within indigenous communities about Bill C-15. We certainly hear in western Canada that some indigenous communities are concerned about development. Some indigenous communities are also very supportive of development, including in the resource sector, and want to have in place policies that allow them to proceed with development. They and are concerned about the impact of Bill C-15 in that context.I wonder if the member would agree that when it comes to issues like development policy frameworks in Bill C-15, it is important to listen to the diversity of indigenous voices to ensure there is robust consultation and that we protect the rights of those communities who want to participate in resource development as well as the views of those who have a different point of view.British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples676103167610326761033JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (2120)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but I have to disagree with his entire premise.UNDRIP, which is what Bill C-15 was based on, was the most comprehensive document that had nation states and indigenous peoples at the table for more than 40 years to create consensus, including Assembly of First Nations, ITK, MNC. Every single indigenous organization and government supported Bill C-15. The fearmongering that the Conservatives try to put out there by saying that indigenous people do not believe in growth and development is wrong. We believe in growth and development, but we ensure that development is sustainable for the next seven generations.British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples676103467610356761036GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (2125)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sydney—Victoria for his speech. Indigenous languages are so beautiful and poetic. They are a treasure, and I hope we can work to better protect them.I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about what one of my Conservative colleagues said about Bill C-15. This bill would have been a great way to open a dialogue with indigenous communities in order to prevent crises, rather than creating them. I am referring here mainly to the rail crisis with the Wet'suwet'en last year.How can Bill C-15 be a good way to talk nation to nation with indigenous peoples to prevent future crises?British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67610436761044JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (2125)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have stated in the House that Bill C-15 helps us turn the chapter on the horrible legacy that has been left to us by the Indian Act. Bill C-15, UNDRIP and all the recommendations within UNDRIP, helps us get past what colonial governments thought about how we should govern ourselves. It gives us the ability to look at what indigenous people have put forward over 40 years, working with nation states. It was endorsed by so many indigenous organizations across Canada as the way forward. I really feel that with the passage, and hopefully royal assent, of Bill C-15, we will get to that new chapter in indigenous and Crown relations.British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67610456761046AndréanneLaroucheSheffordNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs, Lib.): (2140)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks this evening. Like most who have spoken tonight, we are all experiencing the real hurt and pain of the incident that has been unfolding in this country, and especially in British Columbia.We also know that today indigenous Canadians are still affected by the legacy of what has happened. We know that intergenerational trauma continues for so many families in this country that have been affected.Recently we introduced UNDRIP: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is something indigenous people have asked for for 40 years in this country. How can you say today that you are working towards reconciliation? How can you say that we are on a journey of healing, and how can you say that we are moving forward with indigenous people in this country and not support UNDRIP?British ColumbiaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6761084BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Brad Vis: (2145)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Labrador for her question, but I will say that all of the things she said I said were not necessarily things I actually said in the first place.I support the goals and aspirations of UNDRIP. As the member for Kenora outlined earlier in his testimony, during committee there were a number of first nations that had issues with free, prior and informed consent, and that were looking for legal clarity on that matter. However, the government was not open to any amendments to the bill from the Conservative Party.British ColumbiaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsTake-note debatesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6761088AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89374MichaelMcLeodMichael-McLeodNorthwest TerritoriesLiberal CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeodMichaelV_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Michael McLeod (Northwest Territories, Lib.): (2155)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I appreciate the time I have to speak tonight, and I am glad another prolonged Standing Committee on Finance meeting ended in time for me to do so.I ran for the member of Parliament position to help my constituents. Unapologetically, and with everything I do here, my goal is to try to improve their lives and those of their children. Those are my marching orders. Indigenous constituents make up 50% of the population in the Northwest Territories, and the Northwest Territories has the highest per capita number of residential school survivors, and “survivor” is the accurate term. Those who came home from many of these schools are literally survivors, as has been so shockingly illustrated this past week by the discovery of all those children, those babies in Kamloops.I am not surprised many Canadians are shocked. However, I am not shocked and neither are many indigenous families. In my hometown of Fort Providence, I can visit a small fenced-in area on the edge of the community that has a monument with the names of 161 children who died at the Sacred Heart Mission school.In the 1920s, the mission decided to dig up all the priests, nuns and brothers who were buried there and move them to a new gravesite. Then they plowed the graveyard over, over all the bodies that were buried there, over my relatives and the children who were buried there. If our elders had not carried the information forward and convinced our leadership in the 1990s to do some research and find this grave, this would have been all forgotten.The devastation of these so-called schools has lived through generations. Unfortunately, this devastation has survived as well. In the Northwest Territories, we top many of Canada's lists: addiction rates, suicide rates, crime rates and housing needs. My efforts here in this House have often targeted getting more housing, increasing indigenous policing and accessing more mental health funding. I have also been advocating for more attention and resources to conclude land claims and self-government. As well as decreasing this constant and large socioeconomic gap between indigenous people and other Canadians, which needs to be a priority, there also needs to be certainty over land rights and empowerment of indigenous people through self-government.I can see how the government has supported Canada's effort and attention, and the billions of dollars in additional funding to indigenous governments, indigenous organizations and programs that have been created over the five years. Should there be more? I think so. Should it be faster? I think so.While we are all mourning the children from Kamloops, let us not make it an empty exercise. Let us move faster in fulfilling the important work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Let us focus on reducing and eliminating systemic racism that exists, and that we see in policing and health care, for example. To the members of the loyal opposition, while posting thoughts on the recent tragedy before us along with pictures of teddy bears, let us not continue to vote against legislation like UNDRIP. Let us work together to support indigenous people in Canada. Let us not continue to make comments on residential schools that are both inaccurate and insensitive. Let us work together and not obstruct our attempts to heal and to help and to empower indigenous people, who are still surviving this generational harm that goes by the name of residential schools. Please, let us all focus on helping our constituents.British ColumbiaCemeteriesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous land claimsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentNorthwest TerritoriesPriestsRacial equalitySistersSplitting speaking timeTake-note debates6761125ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeLianneRoodLambton—Kent—Middlesex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersResidential SchoolsInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs, Lib.): (2225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues in the House of Commons this evening for the opportunity to speak to this motion.As a proud Inuk woman of Labrador, the daughter of a mother of residential school, when we hear these stories through generations, we are always reminded, each and every day, of the trauma that they have endured and of the legacy that it has left behind.What we are dealing with today is a horrible reality. It is a horrible reality of our past that has been uncovered. It has been revealed and unearthed that in Kamloops, 215 innocent children lie in a mass grave. This is not only devastating; it is heartbreaking. It is an act against humanity. On that, I think we all agree. It is an act against children who had no voice. They were alone. They were scared. They were silenced. They were isolated. They were robbed of life, and they were buried with the same horror that they endured in society.Yesterday, I stood in my riding next to two very strong moms, Jodie Ashini and Thea Penashue of the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, along with Chief Eugene Hart, surrounded by so many children, so many moms and so many dads. I stood surrounded by survivors and victims of residential schools, surrounded by love and affection for each other, and surrounded by tears, so many tears.On behalf of all of them, on behalf of all the people of Labrador, I want to extend our love and support to those many families who are suffering this evening in this country, those many indigenous families who are feeling the loss, the void and the heartache of what has happened.I think we can all agree on several things, and that is there is much work to do in advancing not just the rights of indigenous people in this country, but also upholding the rights of innocent indigenous children as well. We have talked so much about the harm that has been caused by the legacies of residential schools and the trauma that comes with it. However, we also know that, as we sit here this evening and we speak, indigenous people still face racism. We still face unacceptable injustices, which are happening in many of our communities across the country.I know that, one by one, we have pledged our support to make a difference. We have pledged to ensure that we can restore the language and culture, that we can restore, once again, the proud legacy of indigenous people. It is a long road, and one that has to be shaped and led by indigenous people themselves.Like every ill act, there has to be accountability. I am sure that many share my belief that more accountability needs to come to bear. I really believe that the Catholic Church has yet to redeem itself, in any way, in recognizing what has happened at the hands of their institutions. That is unacceptable.While we pledge our support that, as the Government of Canada, we will continue to move forward to bridge that gap for indigenous people in this country, we need to do it with the support of all parliamentarians of all provinces and all territories. That means that when we have legislation such as UNDRIP, we have to be able to stand up and support it. That is part of reconciliation in this country. That is part of bridging that gap with indigenous people.Every day I wake up not knowing what I am going to hear next. I woke up today in a very small populated riding to find out two very young beautiful people died by suicide last night, in my riding. One was first nations and one was Inuit. This has to stop. The healing is not happening in the way it should be. It is happening, but it is slow. How do we get it to move faster? How do we bridge that gap more? (2230)How do we ensure that every child has the opportunity to wake up in a warm home with a full belly? That is where we need to focus. It is as basic as those things in many cases.Reconciliation with indigenous people and recognizing that every child does matter is not difficult. It really is not, but we need to do it faster. We need to move at a more rapid rate than we have.That includes us as a government, but it includes indigenous leadership as well. It includes all of us working together to make sure these things happen. These are times of critical advancement for indigenous people. Let us not lose this. Let us not bury this so we have to wait 10 more years for this to become a priority in the country.I am so proud of what our government has done to help indigenous people. I have seen more indigenous children get support in my riding in the last five years than I have seen in the 15 years before. I have seen more houses built in communities across my riding for indigenous families than I have seen in 15 years before.I have seen more investments into food banks, into social support. We have revamped the social welfare system and the child welfare system in this country to support indigenous communities and indigenous people, but there is still a lot more to do—AccountabilityBritish ColumbiaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeFood supplyGovernment Business No. 6Human remainsIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsRacial equalityRoman Catholic ChurchSuicidesTake-note debatesYoung people676119667611976761199SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (1305)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am a bit shaken today as I rise to speak to Bill C-5. It obviously has to do with the events of the past week, when the remains of 215 indigenous children were uncovered behind a residential school. Earlier, when I was thinking about this, I realized that as gruesome as this image is, it shows us that the gesture we are debating today, humble as it may be, is necessary for commemoration and remembrance in a spirit of reconciliation, but also in a spirit of truth as we deal with the bombshell of these appalling new revelations. The thought of this image is definitely making me emotional as I speak to Bill C-5. This bill is something tangible that proves that we have started a process that is not finished, so we have to keep moving forward. The Bloc Québécois agrees with this bill and will support it for all of the reasons it has previously mentioned, which I would like to reiterate. I think that the idea of painting a picture and telling stories would be good for everyone. As I said before, the purpose of this day is to actively remember. Memories are not a passing thing that we let slip by. They are something that we hold close and reflect on so that we can heal and act.This is a human issue, and there are certainly many other human beings in the House. We sometimes try to keep a level head when giving certain speeches and in certain situations, but the issue of residential schools is something that strikes to the very core of who we are.I am going to share a story I was told by one of my constituents, a story that is all too common. I listened to this story from every possible perspective, as a human being, a mother, a woman, a daughter, a sister and an elected official. This constituent is a man who was born in the Innu community of Nutashkuan, which has no road access. He told me that when he was two years old, some people showed up, took him away from his family and brought him to a residential school.I have a three-year-old son, and I cannot even imagine my little guy being taken hundreds of kilometres away from home, far from everything he knows and loves.This man went to a residential school for one year and was sent home the following summer. He found that first summer difficult, since he was starting to lose touch with the community. It was starting to feel foreign to him. A second summer passed, then a third. Eventually, he ended up losing the language he had learned at home. He forgot the smells, tastes and people from back home and ended up feeling like a different person from the little Innu boy he used to be. He started asking not to go home anymore, since he had lost any connection to that home.The man ended up returning home. He did great things for his nation, but the person, the human being, the Innu man who returned home was not the same. He had been stripped of his language, his culture, his family, his people and love.(1310)What does one do upon returning home when one is no longer oneself, when one has lost all sense of connection to the people one loved, to one's culture, to one's nation?The man recovered his language and culture over the years, but there was always a divide. He himself became a father and even a grandfather. He now has several grandchildren, so he thinks a lot about passing on his knowledge because he himself nearly lost everything. He was taken far away and even lost contact with his parents. Earlier, I used the word “process”, but I wanted to focus on the concept of continuity, of our living connections to both the past and the future because the ability to convey one's culture and language, to be oneself, is all one and the same.His story is the story of so many other people, but his story shows us that we need a day like September 30 to focus on truth and reconciliation for both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples with a colonial past. I said “colonial past”, but I would add that we still have a colonial present. We need vigorous, rapid action on many fronts, and this day is one of those actions.I talked about one particular case, but considering all the goodwill we are witnessing in the House today by virtue of symbolic gestures including ideas, values and principles, I hope this will translate into quicker action on several issues.We are talking about first nations today, but we all know that the Indian Act still exists. It is the clearest example of systemic racism. If we had to pick one, that would be it. Someone talked about the issue of water earlier. Human beings have basic needs, and not all indigenous children have access to water at this time. Education also comes to mind. We talk about the acculturation that resulted from the assimilation process at residential schools. Meanwhile, when we know that indigenous children have less money for their education than non-indigenous children, we have to look carefully at whether indigenous languages and cultures are being protected.There is of course just such a day, and the Bloc Québécois would like to see September 30 officially designated. Meanwhile, there are many things we can do right now. As we did with Bill C-15, I hope we can pass this legislation quickly, so that it can be implemented as soon as possible. Symbolism is essential, but we also need concrete actions on the ground, and means and resources must be given to theses communities.This bill talks about truth and reconciliation, but I would like it to go even further and talk about the vitality of first nations and first nations children, because children are really at the heart of this.In closing, I would like to acknowledge the courage of my constituents. I am thinking about the parents who lost their children some sixty years ago, parents whose children were flown out one day and never came back or were found again, like the children in Kamloops.My wish for them, and for all indigenous peoples, is that, one day, as they see their children leave, they can be confident, and that they will no longer think about what happened in the past. I want them to know that their children are safe and can live their lives with dignity, respect and love, as all children in this world deserve.C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndian ActIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysRacial equalityThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6748541JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, I am speaking today from the unceded Coast Salish territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.Today is a dark, dark day and the dark clouds that hang in the air as we learn of the news in B.C. at the Kamloops residential school just shake us to the core. I cannot imagine what the families and friends of the children must be going through. We can say we mourn with them, and we send our strength and support as they are confronted with this horrific news and forced to relive the trauma of colonization and the egregious impact of residential schools. These are, of course, words and they are not our family members who have lost loved ones. However, I do want to say with all my heart, I know that I and all my colleagues, the New Democrats, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc members and the Greens, stand with them. We share their mourning and we take in deeply what this means.The finding is a reminder that the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation has estimated that more than 150,000 indigenous children attended residential school. The centre also estimates that 4,100 children died at the schools. They are identified in death records, some by name and some not. Let us just imagine, for one minute, if that were our child. The exact number of children who died is not known, as many were taken to residential schools and many never returned. We must remember this and never forget the generational impact of Canada's shameful history. For us to say these words, we must then redouble our efforts in every single action we do to address this shameful history. Reconciliation cannot just be words. It must be action. We must also never forget that this is not an indigenous people's problem. It is a Canadian problem. I ask members to remember these words each and every day. That is what I ask for all members of the House. I also ask all Canadians to remember those words and act on those words.Today, we are speaking to Bill C-5, a bill that would honour indigenous people and set the national day for truth and reconciliation as a statutory holiday. It is a recognition of the call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report states, “Reconciliation is not an [indigenous] problem; it is a Canadian one. Virtually all aspects of Canadian society may need to be reconsidered.”We, as non-indigenous peoples, must carry these profound words with us each and every day in everything that we do, and, as mentioned, this is particularly significant with the news of what has happened at the Kamloops residential school.What does it mean for us? There is no question that we need to get this bill passed. I want to honour former MP Georgina Jolibois, who brought forward her own private member's bill in the last Parliament. It went through all three stages in the House, and then, when it went to the Senate, the Senate blocked it. The unelected Senate blocked it and it never became law. I hope that this does not happen again. I call on the government, the Conservatives and all members of the House to do everything they can to ensure that Bill C-5 becomes law. The NDP is in full support of seeing this expedited through the House of Commons so we can honour indigenous peoples, their history and their culture, and remember the trauma and generational impact of colonization.(1325)However, it is equally important that we truly honour and celebrate them, make a statutory holiday not as a day off, but as a day to learn about indigenous peoples, their culture and their history, and take to heart what it means to show the respect they deserve and that was robbed of them so many years ago.The call for collective action across Canada in recognition of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and the history of their rights, cultures and languages must be at the heart of our work. They are the first peoples of this land and we must never forget that, whether we are talking about the conflicts going on now, Land Back or issues around rights. We must remember this not only in the face of news about the Kamloops residential school, but as a guide in the work that we do. When we talk about the voices of indigenous peoples, we cannot just say that we consult with them. It must be in the context of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and honouring their inherited rights, acknowledging these and acting on them.This bill does not address socio-economic challenges faced by indigenous communities, but it is a reflection on colonial history and its current effects on the rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit communities across the country, and that is an important step. Equally important, though, is the question I asked the minister: Why on earth is the Canadian government taking indigenous children to court? His answer was that this was a complex issue. I say that it is not that complex. The government should step up, own up and stop taking indigenous children to court, period. This is something the Canadian government can and must do. That is how to show reconciliation in action and not just in words.We talk about water safety. Water is sacred. Our lives depend on it, so why are we still dealing with water advisories? The government will say we are making progress. How about that? We are making progress. How is it acceptable that people do not have access to clean, safe drinking water? How is it acceptable that this is happening to indigenous people? How is it acceptable that we are taking this incremental approach to get there?C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Care for childrenChildrenDeaths and funeralsDrinking waterGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous reservesIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationLegal proceedingsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysRacial equalityThird reading and adoption6748570MarilèneGillManicouaganGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, a few weeks back, I sent a letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asking for details on the possible indigenous fishery beginning June 1 and how she and her department would respond. The minister's statement about regulations and seasons in March was what coastal communities had been waiting for since tensions blew up back in September. Nobody wants a repeat of that.Will the minister allow tensions to blow up once again, or have there been meaningful negotiations with all sides to avoid another fisheries crisis in St. Marys Bay?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions67468126746813SeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, with regard to the ongoing situation concerning moderate livelihood, we are continuing to have negotiations with first nations, as well as making sure that industry is well communicated with. We have put a plan in place for this year where fishers are able to get out on the water with the moderate livelihood fishery. It is a flexible plan. It is a plan that allows them to develop their own fishery plans. We are committed to finding a path forward. I look forward to working with the hon. member opposite to make sure that we do that.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions67468146746815Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1540)[Translation]Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6736131AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96356MonaFortierHon.Mona-FortierOttawa—VanierLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FortierMona_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)(1000)[Translation] moved:Motion That, in relation to Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670814867081496708150AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1005)[English]Madam Speaker, we are sorry to see the government shutting down debate yet again. I want to ask a specific question about the legislation, though.Right now in Canadian law, we have a duty to consult around the development of resource projects. The government has said that this legislation does not create a veto for all communities that may be affected. The existing law has duty to consult, and the Liberals are saying it is not a veto. FPIC, the doctrine of free, prior and informed consent, is ostensibly somewhere in between these two extremes, according to the government, but there is still a lot of clarity required. What does “free, prior and informed consent” mean if it is not a duty to consult and it is not a veto? What precisely is meant in the context of this legislation by “free, prior and informed consent” if it is something more than the duty to consult, but something less than a veto?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670815467081556708156AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.): (1005)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked this question a number of times, and I will give what I believe is the same clear answer that I have given a number of times before.FPIC is a process. FPIC is about meaningful consultation, discussion and dialogue with indigenous peoples affected by a particular decision, say a resource development project, that they be at the table from the beginning. Yes, there is a duty to consult under Canadian law. That has had further refinement and guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal in the Trans Mountain process. We, as a government, were taken to task for not having meaningfully consulted the first time through, and we got it right the second time through.FPIC is a process. It is going to continue to be a process. It will be contextual, so there is no way to precisely define it at the outset, and there is no way it should be precisely defined at the outset. The hon. member knows that. It is about discussion and dialogue. It is about putting indigenous peoples at the table, where, heretofore, they have not—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670815767081586708159GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104947ChristineNormandinChristine-NormandinSaint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NormandinChristine_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): (1005)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that is a little ironic because, yesterday, when we were debating the Bloc Québécois's opposition day motion, I talked about how one can be for a bill but against using closure to pass that bill. The same principle applies here. I agree with Bill C-15. I realize that it needs to go through quickly. However, I do not agree with the government's approach. It has clearly done a poor job of managing its legislative calendar, and now it is shutting down debate on a very important subject that many members wanted to speak to. We got just two hours of debate on this.Is this because we will not be able to debate it in September because there will be an election between now and then? Is that why the government had no choice but to bring in time allocation?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670816167081626708163AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1005)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.The answer is no. This is a priority for the government, for indigenous peoples, and for indigenous leaders across the country.The fact is, we have already covered this. We have already debated the substance of Bill C-15 because we debated its previous iteration, Bill C-262, which was introduced by our former colleague, Romeo Saganash. The previous Parliament passed that bill after a debate to which the Bloc Québécois contributed its opinion.The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples itself has been around for 15 years, so it is not new.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708164670816567081666708167ChristineNormandinSaint-JeanPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1005)[English]Madam Speaker, the government is certainly using speed to get this bill through. Fair enough, but one wonders why it does not use speed to resolve community issues that have come up. First nations communities have desperate need to end boil water advisories, and we have heard the government is now extending the deadline. For over a decade, first nations communities continue to wait for that government support. Indigenous-led housing is also something the government has not tackled with any speed whatsoever, and we have seen first nations kids taken repeatedly to court rather than having their basic needs met.The question is very simple. Liberals are using speed when it comes to this bill. Why do they not use the same speed to meet the needs of indigenous peoples in this country?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67081686708169DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support on this bill generally, as well as the support of his party. I obviously also salute the work that Romeo Saganash did in the last Parliament and continues to do in support and promotion of this bill.We are working hard to solve infrastructure problems, drinking water problems. We have done a great deal of work on it, but we have admitted honestly that more work needs to be done. The same is true for resolving cases around Jordan's principle. We are working very hard to resolve those cases out of court where possible, and we are doing our best to move all of those files forward.I think the hon. member and I share the same end point and the same goals, and we are pushing hard to make them happen.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670817067081716708172PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, I share the concern on this side of the House at the way the government is ramming through this piece of legislation. We heard at committee many times from indigenous groups themselves that said they have not had the opportunity to be consulted. We still have the outstanding question about the very important piece of FPIC, free, prior and informed consent, and what it means, and the minister, in his previous response to my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, was quite dismissive of it. The fact that the legislative branch is not doing its job in creating a definition so that industry and first nations communities themselves have an idea of what this means, and then chart a path forward that is best for them, is quite concerning.Why will the government not do its work and get that definition done here so it is not challenged in the courts later, further delaying this process?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67081736708174DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on committee. The answer is the same. The best expert opinions we have received throughout this and the most convincing arguments made have been that FPIC should not be defined in the legislation, cannot be defined in the legislation, because the very nature of FPIC is in a process.We said from the beginning that we would consult as many indigenous leadership groups as we possibly could before the tabling of the bill. We did that. Those groups had an impact on the form of the bill before it was tabled. We continued to consult after the bill was tabled, and the indigenous groups, in making appearances at committee and in working with the government, have proposed a number of amendments, many of which we have accepted. Again, that consultation process continues, and the consultation process with indigenous leadership groups across Canada will continue as we move through the action plan and the co-development of it.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67081756708176JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called upon all levels of government in Canada to adopt and implement the UN declaration as the framework for reconciliation. I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts as to why it is so important in moving forward with reconciliation that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister continue to push this bill so it ultimately can get passed. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708177DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his commitment to the reconciliation process generally. It is an important question. TRC called UNDRIP a road map to reconciliation, and we firmly believe that. This bill is about human rights. It is about the human rights of indigenous peoples. It behooves me to understand why people could be opposed to recognizing human rights for indigenous people, who simply want to have the same rights that other people in this country have.Yes, this is a priority for our government. Yes, this helps the road map to reconciliation. It is fundamentally important. People like Dr. Wilton Littlechild, former Conservative member of Parliament and one of the architects of UNDRIP, have said that precisely.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67081786708179KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1010)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this morning's debate, which will be very short.As the critic for the status of women, I would have liked to see the government have the same sense of urgency when it came to applying the recommendations of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls as it did this morning for Bill C-15.How much time has been spent so far debating a document as important as Bill C-15? I will give the House just one guess: barely an hour and 43 minutes and the minister is already imposing time allocation.Does the minister think that one hour and 43 minutes is enough time to debate this important issue? What about the time allocation on Bill C-19, prorogation of Parliament and obstruction in committee? This government behaves like a majority government when voters gave it a minority mandate.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708180670818167081826708183DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1015)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. It is true that she was not here in the last Parliament when we fully debated Bill C-262, which is the foundation for the current Bill C-15. The House even passed Bill C-262, but it died on the Order Paper in the Senate because of the Conservative senators' political games.This is therefore the second time the House is studying this issue, so much of it is very familiar. Everyone is indeed aware of the content of the bill and we are proceeding in this way because it is a priority for the country.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67081846708185AndréanneLaroucheSheffordAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1015)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. This issue is obviously a priority for the country. I must point out that Bill C-262 was introduced by our former colleague, Romeo Saganash, as an NDP initiative. Therefore, we are in agreement with the substance of Bill C-15.However, if this bill were truly a priority for the government, why was it incapable of managing its legislative agenda and the activities of the House in such a way as to move it forward without having to resort to time allocation? This is another example of inept management by the Liberals, who now claim the bill is a priority. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67081866708187DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1015)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his support for the substance of this bill.I will once again highlight Romeo Saganash's work on the previous bill, which is the basis for Bill C-15. I also want to remind members that Mr. Saganash continues to promote Bill C-15 to this day.We must proceed in this way because, as the House has noticed, certain dilatory tactics are being used, especially by one opposition party.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670818867081896708190AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, I am torn on this matter and I am going to be very candid with the minister. I am rarely less than decisive. I fully support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but the process by which we come to this place has left indigenous communities, first nations, Métis and Inuit, divided on the matter. The right path, the right way to vote, is not at all clear to me, and it certainly is the case that we cannot wait any longer to take the steps we need to take for reconciliation.There are a number of very significant first nations policy analysts and a number of legal analysts who are on both sides, and of first nations themselves that say they were not consulted in the development of Bill C-15. It is therefore really important that we hear the different perspectives and we ask the hon. minister if he does not regret that there was—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67081916708192DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree with the member's observation that it is rare that she is less than decisive on a matter. I always appreciate her opinions and I take this question very seriously.Yes, in a minority government context, we consulted as many indigenous leadership groups in a variety of forms as we possibly could. As I said, they had an impact on the original Romeo Saganash bill before tabling. We continued to consult, and they had an impact on the bill at committee. I commit to the hon. member that I will continue to consult as many indigenous leadership groups as I possibly can, in particular in the development of the action plan as we move forward.I would just point out to her that although there is disagreement, there is an increasing trend, particularly after the last set of amendments in committee, to be supportive of the bill on the part of indigenous leadership.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670819467081956708196AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertDavidSweetFlamborough—Glanbrook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31715DavidSweetDavid-SweetFlamborough—GlanbrookConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SweetDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. David Sweet (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC): (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, for the better part of 16 years I have left it up to my colleagues to always comment on a hatchet closure motion, but I think it is time for me to speak up in this regard.For 10 straight years I sat on the other side and listened to the weeping, gnashing and howling from the Liberal Party every time the Hon. Peter Van Loan stood and moved closure on a bill. The Liberals said that they would never do it, that it was undemocratic. They promised in an election that they would never do it. Now, at the height of hypocrisy, they continue to do it over and over again. As my NDP colleague said, it is simply because they cannot even manage their own House agenda.This needs to stop. The Liberals need to start respecting the House and debate bills appropriately.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670819767081986708199DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1020)[English]Madam Speaker, the reason why we are here is because of the general dilatory tactics of the member's party on every single matter that comes up in front of the House. We can recall the fall economic statement, which got more debate time than a budget. The Conservatives keep throwing up tactic after tactic to delay debate, which has forced our hand.I would imagine the hon. member was here in the last session and would remember the high-fiving of certain Conservative members who voted against Romeo Saganash's bill. That is not reconciliation; Bill C-15 is reconciliation.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67082006708201DavidSweetFlamborough—GlanbrookMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (1020)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I just want to comment on the fact that the government cannot even manage its own legislative agenda properly. That is why we are in this situation today.The government introduced Bill C-19 rather than prioritizing Bill C-15, and yet the Liberals claim they do not want an election. This government prorogued Parliament last summer, when we could have used that time to work faster and more responsibly.I would just like to point out to the minister that there seems to be a real leadership problem when it comes to the government's legislative agenda.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670820267082036708204DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1020)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her comments.Obviously, I disagree. As she might well recall, we debated Bill C-262 in the previous Parliament, and it received significant support in the House. The foundations of this bill had already been laid and were well known before the debate began.We are moving forward like this because it is a priority for indigenous people across Canada and it is important to our reconciliation process.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670820567082066708207MarilèneGillManicouaganTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105854TaylorBachrachTaylor-BachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BachrachTaylor_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1020)[English] Madam Speaker, I believe this bill has strong support among indigenous people in northwest B.C., but there are also some misgivings. I wonder if the minister could inform Canadians, especially indigenous people in the region I represent of northwest British Columbia, about the tangible changes the bill would create in the near term for indigenous communities.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708208DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1020)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his commitment. I salute the leadership of British Columbia generally on UNDRIP. The Province of British Columbia has UNDRIP legislation and a road map. It is moving forward and doing quite well economically, among other things.The bill is a reset for the path that indigenous and non-indigenous peoples have to walk together in our country. It would put us at the same table from the beginning with respect to major decisions that have an impact.Symbolically and substantively, it articulates a set of rights for indigenous peoples. Symbolically and substantively, it rejects a number of doctrines—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670820967082106708211TaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1020)[English]Madam Speaker, when ministers rise usually a day before or a couple of days before to indicate that they will be moving this motion, the first thing they say is that an agreement could not be reached with the parties. Indeed, there is always the behind-the-scenes work of trying to come to some co-operation and agreement of when a bill can be put through the process and eventually voted on. However, as we are seeing time and again, the Conservatives are absolutely refusing to let certain legislation go through. It is their way of saying they do not want the legislation. Could the minister comment on how frustrating it must be for him to go through this time after time?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67082136708214AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1020)[English]Madam Speaker, I salute the member's resilience in the House of Commons, holding down the fort.It is frustrating to watch the dilatory tactics of the Conservative Party on a number of important pieces of progressive legislation. MAID, for example, was something that Canadians wanted, that would reduce the suffering of Canadians, yet there was delay after delay. It is the same on this bill and on other bills I have had in front of the House. I have had a number, and still have a number.It is important we get these bills through.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670821567082166708217MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1025)[English]Madam Chair, again, we are hearing over and over the fact that the government cannot seem to manage its legislative agenda. Again, we are being forced to undergo a closure motion, yet this bill has barely been debated in the House. Of course, the Liberals, which they do best, play the blame game, saying it has to be someone else's fault. No matter what goes wrong, it is never their fault, which is a common theme.Why did we not debate this bill when Parliament was shut down? Why did we not keep going longer throughout the summer, rather than the one-day sitting a month, to debate this bill? Why did the Liberals prorogue Parliament?This could have been done a lot better, and it was not. We still do not have certainty through indigenous communities that have relayed their concerns through committee. Those concerns have not been addressed. Why not?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670821867082196708220DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, we are continuing to engage with indigenous leadership groups from across the country, particularly in the development of amendments to this bill. We have done that. We will continue to work with indigenous leadership groups as we develop an action plan together. The law requires us to do that within a period of two years. That is intense, and it will be intense, but we will do it.The hon. member should ask his Conservatives senators why they let this bill die. They used every procedural manoeuvre possible to let the previous bill die in the Senate. If they had not done that, we would not be here; we would be working on an action plan.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670822167082226708223JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, this is another example of Liberal words not meeting their actions. It is another example of how the Liberals do not prioritize their actual work.I am going to talk about Six Nations and 1492 Land Back. We have heard the government talk about how it is committed to working collaboratively to address historical claims at Six Nations and how it is willing to work with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council. It has been almost a year of a reclamation process happening there. The Liberals have not had the courtesy of taking the trip down the road to visit them and open up the negotiations.Will the minister commit, today, to actually doing something toward reconciliation by visiting Six Nations and opening up the negotiations to finally settle that land claim?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670822467082256708226DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, the member knows that this part of our mandate falls with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. I know she is working on that file. I support the minister in her efforts to settle land claims and to push for these kinds of settlements around the cabinet table. While I have not been to the Six Nations reserve as a member of Parliament or a minister, I have visited other Haudenosaunee reserves and territories. I do my best to work closely with them.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67082276708228MatthewGreenHamilton CentreEricMelilloKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105186EricMelilloEric-MelilloKenoraConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MelilloEric_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC): (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, working on the INAN committee, we heard testimony from a lot of witnesses, a lot of indigenous people and organizations that did not feel they were adequately consulted in the process of this bill. That is very concerning for me and should be concerning for a lot of people.I wonder if the minister would agree that pushing through legislation that would greatly impact indigenous people without proper consultation is contrary to the spirit of reconciliation.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67082296708230DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, I certainly share the member's concern.From the beginning, we have tried to consult with as many indigenous leadership groups as possible. It is a complex web with a complex variety of leadership groups. There are treaty nations, modern treaty nations, nations with no treaty, regional groups, national leadership groups and groups that focus on women.We have done our best to consult with as many as possible. In fact, we prioritized those groups that we had not met in our recommendations to committee, so these groups would be heard. I continue to do this. I have continued to work through this. Even now, I continue to schedule meetings with groups that I have yet to meet to push this process forward in a truly consultative fashion.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670823167082326708233EricMelilloKenoraGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his hard work on Bill C-15 and for getting it to this point. I want to ask him about the amendments made by committee and his comments with respect to going forward. Does he believe they strengthened the bill and is he satisfied with the amendments made at the committee stage?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708234DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the committee and his leadership as well as the fact he is posing this substantive question.I am very pleased with the amendments. They are things I have believed in for a long time, such as a better recognition of systemic racism in the preamble, an explicit rejection of the doctrines of discovery and terra nullius, which for 20 years teaching in a law faculty property, I consistently reminded my students. I will put this euphemistically of the real meaninglessness of these doctrines and the historical distortion and the colonial basis that existed for them.The other is that indigenous rights are not frozen. This is an important amendment that is in accord with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670823567082366708237GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples speaks to free, prior and informed consent. The same government is trying to ram through the Trans Mountain pipeline at nearly $20 billion despite the fact that there is strong opposition from first nation communities.Will the passage of this bill mean that the government will finally halt ramming through this pipeline over the objections of first nations?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67082386708239DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, we did get elected saying that we would redo the consultation process for Trans Mountain. We redid it. We redid it imperfectly, and the Federal Court reminded us of that. Therefore, we went back to the table again, with one consultation group being led by Justice Iacobucci and the other being led by Justice Department officials, and we did a better job to the satisfaction of the Federal Court.The kind of process that FPIC in UNDRIP represents is one that hopefully allows us to avoid these kinds of questions down the road. They will put indigenous peoples at the table from the get-go, as they should be.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67082406708241PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyBlakeRichardsBanff—Airdrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC): (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, the minister has claimed that somehow there has been Conservative dilatory tactics used and he has to move time allocation, yet that has not been the case. Maybe the minister could give us the real reasons why time allocation is being moved.I know he has so far refused to attend the heritage committee hearings on Bill C-10, even though he has been ordered to do so. Perhaps, is he moving time allocation so he can clear his schedule to enable him to appear at that committee as he has been asked to?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67082426708243DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the real sense of humour that he has in posing that question. There is nothing but government priority represented in the use of time allocation on this, priority for indigenous peoples, the importance of the law. This should have been passed in the last Parliament. It was the will of Parliament and the will of most of the Senate except for dilatory tactics used by Conservative senators. We have seen dilatory tactics in this minority Parliament used very effectively by the Conservative Party only to impede, not on any good, substantive ground. This is an important bill. It is about human rights. It is about the human rights of indigenous peoples.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67082446708245BlakeRichardsBanff—AirdrieJulieVignolaBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104656JulieVignolaJulie-VignolaBeauport—LimoilouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VignolaJulie_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): (1030)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is high time that we passed Bill C-15.First nations peoples are human beings, and that is precisely what Bill C-15 says. As human beings, they must enjoy the same rights as all other human beings. This is 2021, and it is about time that was acknowledged and implemented. However, it is not right for parliamentarians, who represent the people, to be denied the right to speak to and discuss these issues. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670824667082476708248DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1035)[Translation]Madam Speaker, this is not the first time we are debating this bill in the House. Members of the Bloc Québécois have already participated in the debate.This bill is already well known. It is based on a former bill, so it is not surprising—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67082496708250JulieVignolaBeauport—LimoilouAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58621AlexandraMendèsAlexandra-MendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendèsAlexandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): (1120)[Translation]I declare the motion carried.Motion agreed toC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708264MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/36037NikiAshtonNiki-AshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AshtonNiki_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Manitoba government violated the constitutional rights of O-Pipon-Na-Piwin and Tataskweyak Cree Nations by approving a final licence to Manitoba Hydro that includes parameters to further devastate these communities. In the past, the federal government has helped first nations to defend their rights. This led to the negotiation of the historic Northern Flood Agreement, but what about today in this era of reconciliation? Where is the federal government? Will the federal government step in and support OPCN and TCN as they defend their rights and protect their nations?Drinking waterIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsOral questions670843767084386708439JoëlLightboundLouis-HébertArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, we take very seriously the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples, including in the case that has been mentioned by the member opposite. I would be happy to follow up with her at a later date to get more details about the matter and see what can be pursued.Drinking waterIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsOral questions6708440NikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiYvanBakerEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville, Ind.): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, speaking to the UNDRIP legislation today, the justice minister said that if Bill C-262 had not been delayed in the last Parliament, the government would be working on an action plan for its implementation.Let us not kid ourselves. The fact is the government delayed the important work of true reconciliation due to political expediency. There have been over five years of promises, and very little action on rights recognition.Bill C-15 is a small first step. Will the government stop making excuses, do its work, get its own house in order and change its laws, policies and operational practices to ensure indigenous peoples can be self-determining?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesC-262, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (capture and utilization or storage of greenhouse gases)Indigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentOral questions670852667085276708528SorayaMartinez FerradaHochelagaArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, we take very seriously the issues that relate to indigenous reconciliation and UNDRIP.We thank the member opposite for her contributions to this matter in her previous role as minister of justice. The government stood behind Romeo Saganash's private member's bill in the last Parliament. It is unfortunate that it did not secure passage at that time due to Conservative opposition in the Senate.That is why we have tabled Bill C-15, why we are working with opposition parties to secure the passage of Bill C-15, and why we are very keen to have UNDRIP see the light of day and achieve royal assent.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentOral questions670852967085306708531JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport), Lib.): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Oakville North—Burlington.Today, I am speaking to members from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, Attawandaron, Anishinabe, Huron-Wendat, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation.I would also like to acknowledge that I arrived here as an athlete. An Inuit invention, the kayak, was originally built and invented for transportation and hunting. I got to use it for sport, and I am very grateful for that.Just over 10 years ago, Canada endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Then, in 2019, the Prime Minister made a commitment to introduce legislation on its implementation before the end of 2020, and here we are today at its third reading in the House.I wish to begin by acknowledging all of the hard work, especially the significant role that indigenous leaders from Canada, like Willie Littlechild, have played in the development of the declaration itself over the last 25 years. It is a lifetime of indigenous advocacy and tireless efforts championing indigenous and human rights that have brought us to this important milestone today. Bill C-15 is a turning point. For far too long, and despite robust constitutional and legal protections, indigenous rights have not been fully respected. While progress continues to be made, it has been slow and grave harms have continued to occur, including to indigenous women and girls. We have a responsibility, as a country, to recognize and respect the rights of indigenous peoples, to uphold the protections that are part of the fabric of our nation, and that as a government we take steps to ensure that those rights are reflected and considered when we make new laws or introduce new policies. We must work together with indigenous peoples to build our relationship and seek to avoid lengthy court cases whenever we can. No less important is for all of us, as Canadians, to understand why this is relevant for us, to our lives, and to debunk myths and misconceptions so that we can move forward inclusively with values that ensure dignity and respect for all. Indigenous rights are not new rights. However, the declaration acknowledges and affirms the rights of indigenous peoples. Implementing the declaration is about respecting human rights. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called upon the Government of Canada to fully adopt and implement the declaration as the framework for reconciliation. Bill C-15 responds to call to action 43 to do just that.The action plan that is required under Bill C-15 to be developed in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples will also respond to the call to action 44. This call to action requires the Government of Canada to develop a national action plan, strategies and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the declaration. Development of an action plan will require broad and in-depth engagement with indigenous partners across the country to discuss their various priorities. Bill C-15 sets out minimum requirements for what the action plan must address. These elements of the legislation were included in direct response to what was heard consistently throughout the fall 2020 engagement process with indigenous partners. These measures are focused on three areas.First are measures to address injustices, combatting prejudice and eliminating all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples, indigenous elders, youth, children, women, men, persons with disabilities, gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons. I would note that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, of which I am a proud member and contributor, has unanimously adopted an important amendment to this provision, which is the addition of a specific reference to racism and systemic racism. The addition acknowledges that while there are linkages between discrimination and racism, there are specific harms and legacies in relation to racism that need to be identified and addressed. The Government of Canada wants to make its position clear that it will stand against racism and work toward eradicating it wherever it exists.Second, the plan must also contain measures promoting mutual respect and understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education. Third are measures relating to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy, or other accountability measures that will need to be developed with respect to the implementation of the declaration. During one of our committee studies, a second amendment to clause 6 was adopted relating to the time frame associated with the development of the action plan. (1235)Throughout engagement, and again through the committee process, we heard from indigenous peoples on the need to reduce the three-year maximum time frame to a shorter one. As a result, we did just that, bringing it down to a maximum of two years to reinforce the Government of Canada's commitment to work with indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast to elaborate how to turn commitments into action and to achieve the objectives of the declaration. These are minimum requirements of the action plan. We recognize while we need to include measures for reviewing and amending the plan, this initial phase is the beginning of a process, one that will continue to evolve over time in partnership with indigenous peoples.In terms of implementation of the declaration, this is a whole-of-government responsibility. Bill C-15 implicates all federal ministers in the development and implementation of an action plan, as it should. Reconciliation is not the responsibility of a single minister or government department. Bringing about meaningful change requires action from all areas of government.This government's Speech from the Throne and ministerial mandate letters have made it clear the path to reconciliation requires everyone's participation. Achieving the objectives of the declaration and further aligning federal laws with the declaration will take time. However, we are not starting from scratch and we are not sitting idle while we wait for the development of an action plan.The Government of Canada has taken concrete measures to advance its relationship with indigenous peoples in a way that aligns with the principles set out in the declaration. This includes areas such as enabling self-determination and self-government through the recognition and implementation of rights, the establishment of permanent bilateral mechanisms to jointly identify priorities with indigenous leaders and an increased indigenous participation in decision-making on socio-economic and land matters, to name a few. As of May 2020, there were nine federal laws that refer to and were created within the spirit of the declaration. They include laws regarding indigenous languages, indigenous child and family services, and indigenous participation in environmental impact assessments and other regulatory processes. We know much more work is required with indigenous peoples to ensure federal laws more fully protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples.The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the ongoing health, food security, housing, economic, governance, policing and other vulnerabilities and gaps that continue to impact indigenous peoples and communities. We are working hard to create new opportunities to turn the page on a colonial structure and build stronger and lasting relationships, close socio-economic gaps and promote greater prosperity for indigenous peoples and all Canadians.Over the past months, we engaged closely with national indigenous organizations and heard from modern treaty and self-governing nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, and national and regional indigenous organizations, including those representing indigenous women and two-spirit and LGBTQ2+ peoples on the proposed legislation. The feedback we received has shaped the development of the legislative proposal.Bill C-15 now includes an acknowledgement of the ongoing need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples, a respect for gender diversity, the importance of respecting treaties and agreements and the need to take distinctions into account while implementing the legislation, including with elders, youth, children, persons with disabilities, women, men, gender-diverse and two-spirit persons.What is needed is a fundamental and foundational change. It is about respecting indigenous rights and respecting diversity. It is about righting historical wrongs. It is about shedding our colonial past. It is about writing the next chapter together, as partners, and building meaningful relationships and trust in that process.This will not happen overnight, but we must take the necessary steps along that path, starting with implementing Bill C-15. I look forward to the journey we take to get there. It has been a sincere honour and privilege to serve on this committee with my colleagues.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentPublic consultationRacial equalitySplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670854967085506708551670855267085536708554670855567085566708557670855867085596708560670856167085626708563670856467085656708566670856767085686708569670857067085716708572CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, to my colleague, and following up on questions that were asked to the justice minister, he at one time referred to this bill as amounting to a reset. I am struggling to find out, particularly in the context of free, prior and informed consent, what the change would actually be.In Canadian law right now, there is a duty to consult. The minister's description of FPIC sounds like a lot like a rehashing of the existing legal duty to consult. He talks about FPIC including engaging with indigenous communities from the beginning, including their perspectives and ensuring they are heard. That is, as I understand it, the existing legal duty to consult.The government tells us FPIC is not a veto. It is also telling us this bill is a reset of some kind. It is ostensibly something more than the existing duty to consult, but it is not a veto, so in what way does FPIC differ from the existing duty to consult?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights670857567085766708577CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, the language around what FPIC was and how it greatly differs from a veto was debated thoroughly in committee. In fact, it does not bear any similarity to a veto. We are talking about a deep level of consultation and a deeper level of participation and involvement. The member used the term “free, prior and informed consent”, which is absolutely important, but the duty to consult does not require the duty to involve, the duty to ensure participation, the duty to fully listen and listen actively. It is a collaboration and a partnership. That is part of shedding our colonial past and moving forward in partnership without this age-old paternalistic approach that has left people out of the conversation and out of important decisions.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights67085786708579GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104947ChristineNormandinChristine-NormandinSaint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NormandinChristine_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about how Bill C-15 could potentially affect Quebec and its ability to make sovereign decisions. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on how Bill C-15 is connected to Quebec sovereignty.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708580Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden: (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her participation in the committee.[English]We are talking about full participation in decisions that have a great impact on indigenous people. This is not about the many nations that exist in Canada. This bill does not have great implications on Quebec's sovereignty. It is absolutely enshrined in Canada's Constitution, as it should be. This is about fairness and full participation. UNDRIP is a globally recognized step in the right direction toward truth and reconciliation and it is the right path forward.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67085816708582ChristineNormandinSaint-JeanAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the proudest moments of my parliamentary career was my vote in favour of Bill C-262 at third reading in the last Parliament. COVID-19 has demonstrated that the federal government is able to move quite quickly to address urgent situations with massive financial resources. We saw the hundreds of billions of dollars that were made available in very short order as liquidity supports for banks. What I want to know from the parliamentary secretary is whether the Government of Canada will commit the same level of urgency to this bill when it receives royal assent so that indigenous peoples across Canada, who have been waiting for hundreds of years for this important step, can have confidence that this receives the same amount of attention as supports that were given for COVID-19.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67085836708584Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, I too feel a great sense of pride and obligation in working on this bill. I wish I had been around to vote for Bill C-262. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to move forward on this. This bill will, indeed, require multi-party support. I look forward to supporting this bill with my colleague and further discussing the urgency when there is more time.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708585AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1245)[English] Madam Speaker, kwe, kwe. Ulaakut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour.I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit first nation from my home in Oakville and my riding of Oakville North—Burlington.I am happy to speak today on this proposed legislation as it represents a critical step forward on the path to reconciliation. This legislation has been strengthened through extensive engagement and consultation with indigenous peoples at every step in its development. I believe the greatest strength of Bill C-15's development was the input of indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast, which positively shaped the bill. Collaborating with indigenous partners through the engagement process has been pivotal in ensuring that we get it right.As members know, the legislation is based on Romeo Saganash's private members' bill, Bill C-262. Mr. Saganash was the first parliamentary champion to endorse The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, often referred to as UNDRIP, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude.A consultation draft of this bill was shared during engagement sessions to seek feedback from indigenous organizations in order to improve and amend the draft. During engagement, the government received contributions from many groups. In total, over 700 virtual sessions took place. They included sessions with national and regional indigenous organizations, indigenous rights holders, modern treaty and self-governing nations, as well as with women, youth, two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual plus persons.This included regional engagement sessions where more than 450 people participated providing feedback and advice on potential enhancements to the consultation draft. Provincial and territorial governments, experts and industry stakeholders also informed the development of the bill. We heard consistent calls to include strong language in the preamble on the need to consider the diversity of indigenous peoples; recognize inherent rights and respect treaties; include a reference to the historic and ongoing injustices and discrimination suffered by indigenous peoples and marginalized groups; acknowledge the role of the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, justice, healing and peace; and address systemic racism and discrimination.We also heard consistent calls to consider the importance of educating Canadians to ensure that indigenous rights are understood and valued; recognize the right of self-determination and self-government as vital, and that the need for a strong distinctions-based approach throughout the legislation is essential; emphasize the importance of respecting article 37, which outlines respect of treaty rights, self-government agreements and other constructive agreements, and is important for modern treaty partners; not interfere with work under way at regional and provincial levels; and include references to climate change and sustainable development.Because of this valuable feedback, the bill includes strong language in the preamble on the need to consider the diversity of indigenous peoples, recognize inherent rights and respect treaties. I should point out that all Canadians have access to this wealth of ideas and input. We have produced the “What We Learned” report, which is publicly available on the Canada website.Engagement with partners did not stop when the bill was introduced. Ministers, their offices and the departments have been meeting extensively with indigenous partners and other stakeholders since introduction, and they will continue to do so throughout the parliamentary process. We learned from indigenous partners that there was much consensus around further suggested changes to the bill, including legislation that has been further improved by amendments as it was making its way through Parliament.As an example, Bill C-15 required the development of the initial action plan as soon as possible and set a maximum three-year timeline. Based on feedback from indigenous partners during engagement sessions, the bill has now been amended to shorten the maximum timeline to a period of two years instead of three years for the development of the action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples.We recognize that collaboration with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners takes time, but it should proceed with purpose. Bill C-15 now includes language from the declaration emphasizing that all doctrines, policies and practices based on racist or discriminatory notions are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. An important amendment will modernize our laws by making specific reference to the fact that Canadian courts have stated that aboriginal and treaty rights are not frozen in time. Instead, they are capable of growth and evolution.(1250)Most recently, we heard from the national indigenous organizations and indigenous women's organization at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. They stressed the urgency of passing this legislation, and I would like to share some of their testimony today in the House.The president of the Women of the Métis Nation, Melanie Omeniho, said:Elders and representatives from across the Métis motherland have noted that this historic piece of legislation, if implemented according to its spirit and intent, could have the transformative power of an indigenous bill of rights. Bill C-15, the proposed UNDRIP act, represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reset both the scales of justice and the balance of power so that indigenous women, children and two-spirit and gender-diverse people are protected, safe and free.The Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada vice-president Gerri Sharpe said:Bill C-15 is a step forward for Inuit women and all Canadians on the journey towards reconciliation. It is important because it states that Inuit women will have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that affect them; the right to improvement of economic and social conditions including education, housing, health, employment and social security; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and the same rights and freedoms guaranteed to Inuit men. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president Natan Obed said:Bill C-15...is very focused on two particular concepts: one, the alignment of laws and policies within this country with the UN declaration; and two, the creation of an action plan.... Indigenous peoples' rights are human rights. This is a class of human rights that needs this particular legislation, and we do hope that Canadians accept the rights of indigenous peoples as human rights in this country.Native Women's Association of Canada president Lorraine Whitman said:UNDRIP is about us, our families, our communities, the thousands of pages of the national inquiry testimony and its calls for justice. Specifically, call to action 1.3 demands that government end the political marginalization of indigenous women. David Chartrand of the Métis Nation Council said:...change is coming and UNDRIP is another pathway that's going to really let us play catch-up so that indigenous and non-indigenous people can compare economically, educationally and so forth. It's about catching up. We're slowly catching up, which is something we should have done 50 years ago or 80 years ago.If approved by Parliament, the bill will also require the Government of Canada, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration, prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the declaration's objectives and table an annual report. Co-development of the action plan will also be a further opportunity to work in close partnership on implementation. We are ushering in a new era in which we build stronger and lasting relationships, close socio-economic gaps and promote greater prosperity for indigenous peoples and all Canadians. Together we are building a brighter future and a better Canada for today, tomorrow and into our shared future. That is why this legislation is so crucial. Built by extensive indigenous input and strengthened by committee amendments, Bill C-15 must now become the law of the land.To conclude, I would like to affirm the words of AFN Chief Perry Bellegarde, who said, “We need to seize this moment and not miss the opportunity to get Bill C-15 passed. It is a road map to reconciliation.”C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsPublic consultationRacial equalityThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67085866708587670858867085896708590670859167085926708593670859467085956708596670859767085986708599670860067086016708602670860367086046708605670860667086076708608670860967086106708611Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105854TaylorBachrachTaylor-BachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BachrachTaylor_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I too believe that the rights articulated in this bill are long overdue in being recognized in our laws. The former justice minister has rightly characterized this as a small step forward and the most important work is going to be on the implementation side. Given how long it has taken to get to this point, as this bill has been introduced not two, but three times now, how can indigenous Canadians be assured and trust the government will implement these rights in a timely way?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67086126708613PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it was not because of the government that the bill did not pass the last time. In fact, we voted for it. I was in the last Parliament when we supported Mr. Saganash's private member's bill. Sadly, Conservative senators held up that bill so it could not get passed. This is certainly not the end; it is indeed the beginning of a journey. We are committed to ensuring that UNDRIP is implemented, and I do not think the government can be blamed for Conservative senators holding up a piece of legislation. We certainly supported the bill, and we did everything we could to get it passed, but it was unfortunately held up in the Senate.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67086146708615TaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1255)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech on this important bill, Bill C-15. This is 2021. It is about time that we recognized and complied with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.I hope to see meaningful action, such as the implementation of the recommendations from the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.How does my colleague envision the federal government working with Quebec and the provinces to implement this act?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670861667086176708618PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I share the same hopes of ensuring that not only is this legislation implemented, but that we are also taking action on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708619AndréanneLaroucheSheffordGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague and good friend about the amendments, especially with respect to the addition of the word “racism”. How important was that to complete Bill C-15? I know the parliamentary secretary has done a lot of work on systemic racism, so I would appreciate her comments on that, please.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsRacial equalityThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67086206708621PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for his work in ensuring that this bill is here before the House today.We must end systemic racism in Canada, and this legislation is an important piece of that work. The added amendment is incredibly important to moving toward ending systemic racism across Canada.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsRacial equalityThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67086226708623GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on this important debate today. I begin with a quote from the great indigenous leader, Manny Jules:Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself....We forget often that these freedoms were enjoyed by first nations people before the arrival of Europeans. Of course, when Europeans came, they adopted a colonial, paternalistic and coercive relationship with the first peoples who had long before been here and who had been the owners of what we now call Canadian property. They imposed a system that allowed governments and other authorities to dictate the destinies of first nations that had prior been self-sufficient and had very well-developed systems of trade, governance and commerce that allowed them to provide for themselves.Chief Jules, who is now in Kamloops and is one of the great intellectual leaders of first nations across the country, would like to have those same freedoms restored. He points out that archeological evidence of objects that predate the arrival of Europeans demonstrate that very sophisticated systems of free trade and free commerce existed between first nations across the Americas, well before Europeans came and formalized in law the European, and in particular the Scottish, understanding of markets. We see, for example, objects in one part of the Americas that could only have originated in other parts, meaning they must have been traded. Chief Jules believes that the future for prosperity and opportunity for his people lies in restoring those freedoms that were taken away by so many ill-conceived, paternalistic and colonial policies of the past. Unfortunately, this bill does not achieve that goal. To the contrary, it fails to extend and return those freedoms back to the first nations people who rightly had them before. Chief Jules points that out about the achievements that are now well documented, that predate Europeans. He says: Do you think this was all achieved through divine intervention from the gods? Or was it because we somehow evolved into a "natural" socialist system that lasted thousands of years? Both of these ideas are nonsense. What he seeks today is a solution that would allow his people to be masters of their own destiny by controlling the economic decisions that affect their lives. For example, right now the federal government takes $700 million of revenue from first nations communities that is the result of the work and resource development that happens there. Then those same communities have to come to Ottawa and ask for some of that money back. What Chief Jules has proposed is to allow first nations communities the autonomy to keep more of the revenues that they generate. That would allow more economic opportunities for jobs to fund local, clean water, health care and education initiatives in first nations communities. Instead, the government has attempted to maintain the colonial system which takes that money away from those to whom it naturally belongs and then requires that they come to talk to politicians in Ottawa to give back what is rightfully theirs.(1305) This paternalistic system is not limited to taxation. The regulatory obstacles the federal government imposes on resource and commercial development in first nations communities is more obstructive than those imposed in neighbouring non-first nations communities.I am splitting my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Madam Speaker.That means it is more difficult for communities that want to develop commerce and industry to provide for their people to do so. Therefore, he proposes to allow more autonomy in first nations communities and less interference from the governments in Ottawa and the provincial capitals. Naturally, if we want to allow first nations to regain the freedoms they lost with the arrival of the Europeans, this proposal is entirely justified.Furthermore, leaders like Chief Bear in Saskatchewan have said that the federal government should work with willing first nations that want to change land use policies to allow their residents to buy a home and collateralize it to get a mortgage. That would allow more first nations to develop net equity, the collateral and the credit rating that would them to allow to build into the future. We cannot start a business if we do not have collateral to get a small business loan, but because of the colonial and paternalistic nature of the Ottawa-knows-best system we now have, it is very difficult for many first nations to achieve that basic right that every other Canadian off-reserve can aspire to achieve.Furthermore, we see a double standard from the government and from all the political parties, except the one in which I am a member, and that is on the issue of resource development. None of the other parties are interested in the views of first nations on resource development, unless it is to use them to block those projects. For example, we look at the northern gateway pipeline, a project that was supported by 75% of the first nations communities along the pipeline route. It would have generated $2 billion in wages and other benefits for first nations people, and it would have had a first nations president and CEO overseeing it. It would have allowed young first nations to get positions as apprentices, so they could become welders or pipe fitters and obtain their Red Seal certification in many other high-paying, in-demand trades positions.What did the Prime Minister do? Without honouring the duty to consult first nations that is embedded in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he killed the project and vetoed it, even after extensive environmental approvals had been granted by independent, non-partisan authorities and even though 32 of 40 first nations communities supported it.Dale Swampy is the national president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, which has as its singular mandate to defeat on-reserve poverty by allowing more development. He said that Bill C-15, “adds to the confusion about who has the authority to provide or deny consent on behalf of Indigenous peoples, be it chief and council, hereditary chiefs, or small groups of activists. It also implies that a single nation can deny consent — a veto in practice if not in name — on projects that cross dozens of territories, be they pipelines, railroads or electric transmission lines.”Is that not exactly the kind of colonialism we should be against, where 19 communities support a program and one does not, that the 19 are overpowered by one having the veto power? That is not the kind of opportunity and freedom that first nations should enjoy. Everyday first nations people want the opportunity that we all have: to work, to gain employment and to supply benefits to their own communities. We should allow those communities the freedom to extend those opportunities.This bill would not do so, but let us work together with all first nations in the spirit of allowing them to fulfill their dreams and their ambitions.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasPipeline transportationPublic consultationSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights670862467086256708626670862767086286708629670863067086316708632670863367086346708635670863667086376708638670863967086406708641PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member hardly spoke about Bill C-15 and UNDRIP.I do want to ask him a question. He was very much involved with the previous government. UNDRIP was accepted by the General Assembly 13 years ago. The previous Conservative government was in power for many of those years.At what point would the Conservative Party accept UNDRIP and develop a plan to implement it or at least have a road map to success? The Conservative Party has consistently opposed it every step of the way, including with the blocking of Bill C-262 and Bill C-15.At what point would the Conservative Party accept the principles of UNDRIP so it could be implemented into Canadian law?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708642670864367086446708645PierrePoilievreHon.CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very proud to say that I oppose this bill. The member asks when we will accept the principles in it, but he cannot even explain what the principles are. He cannot explain what free, prior and informed consent mean.If we believe the words according to their dictionary definition, they would mean a veto. If 19 first nations communities supported a project and one opposed the project, the one would be able to overpower the 19. To me, that is not how we should function in a country that is a democracy. We should allow the first nations people to fulfill their destinies by making their own decisions rather than having the federal government obstruct those opportunities.Frankly, that member should not be lecturing anyone. The Liberals still have not been able to fulfill their promise to provide clean drinking water on reserve to all communities. They have a shameful record as it relates to first nations and they should be lecturing no one on it.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670864667086476708648GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I am speaking from the traditional, unceded territory of the Qayqayt First Nation and of the Coast Salish peoples. I certainly want to thank Romeo Saganash, former NDP MP, whose leadership has inspired this legislation. I have enjoyed working with my colleague from Carleton on the finance committee. He talked about the hypocrisy of the Liberals, the fact that they bring forward this legislation, but, at the same time, have a shocking record of not providing indigenous peoples with access to clean, safe drinking water or indigenous-led initiatives on the housing crisis we see in indigenous communities, and continue to take indigenous kids to court.Could the member comment on the Liberal hypocrisy?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670864967086506708651PierrePoilievreHon.CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, I have great respect for that member, who is extremely knowledgeable and with whom I have enjoyed working on the finance committee over the years.He is quite right that the government talks a wonderful game about how much it cares and all it will do. The reality is that first nations have suffered a lack of clean drinking water, chronic under housing and systematic poverty. That is fundamentally why we need to change the system to empower first nations to be masters of their own destinies. They should have the freedom to keep the money they earn in their communities. They should be able to decide whether or not projects are approved on their lands that would generate opportunity for their young people. First nations should be in the driver's seat. If they were and if we, as politicians and governmental authorities, were to get out of their way, they would have more opportunity than they have now.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670865267086536708654PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyJulieVignolaBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104656JulieVignolaJulie-VignolaBeauport—LimoilouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VignolaJulie_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, protects the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations peoples, and here we are with another piece of legislation. How do we know they will really be protected? How do we know this is not just for show, like the Constitution Act, 1982? C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67086556708656PierrePoilievreHon.CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. The answer is that it does not mean anything. This too is just for show. It is a flashy statement that does nothing but give federal politicians an excuse to congratulate themselves. Federal politicians do not deserve congratulations. Federal politicians have failed.What we do need is to give indigenous communities the freedom and independence to make their own decisions and move forward without federal government interference.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67086576708658JulieVignolaBeauport—LimoilouMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. The purpose of this legislation is to align Canadian laws with UNDRIP. The road to reconciliation has been a long and difficult one, with many ups and downs. Underlying it all is an understandable level of distrust on the part of indigenous peoples. Seen in that context, it could be said that at best, this is a well-intentioned piece of legislation, but even if that were so, it does not make it a good piece of legislation.This legislation will likely move the process of reconciliation backward, rather than forward, and have grave impacts upon first nations communities to develop and prosper and achieve true self-determination. This legislation would undermine reconciliation, and nowhere is that clearer than in the complete failure on the part of the government in this bill to define what constitutes “free, prior and informed consent”. What is free, prior and informed consent? If we were to look at the remarks of the Minister of Justice, we would be led to believe that it really means not much of anything, that the status quo ante would not be upended. In that regard, when the minister spoke in the House on this bill and the question of free, prior and informed consent, he said, “Free, prior and informed consent does not constitute veto power over the government's decision-making process.” The minister went on to say it “will not change Canada's existing duty to consult with indigenous peoples”. Clearly, that cannot be so. Free, prior and informed consent is not the same as the duty to consult and accommodate, which is embedded in section 35 of our Constitution. There is a wide body of jurisprudence on that doctrine that makes clear that the right to be consulted and the right to be accommodated do not constitute a right of an absolute veto. When one looks at the words “free, prior and informed consent” on their face, they would seem to mean precisely the opposite of what the minister purports, namely that there would be a veto by someone.Consistent with that, many persons who are authoritative on this matter have said as much. Let us take Senator Murray Sinclair, for example. Senator Sinclair championed Bill C-262 in the Senate in the last Parliament, which was the predecessor to this piece of legislation. Senator Sinclair is an esteemed retired justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.(1320)On the question of what constitutes free, prior and informed consent, Senator Sinclair said this: “Free, prior and informed consent is a very simple concept.... And that is, before you affect my land, you need to talk to me, and you need to have my permission.” If “you need to have my permission” is not a veto, I do not know what is.Assembly of First Nations chief Perry Bellegarde said that free, prior and informed consent, “very simply, is the right to say yes, and the right to say no”. He said it is “the right to say no”, full stop. If that does not constitute a veto, then I say I do not know what does.It did not have to be this way. The one thing the government could have done was incorporate language expressly into the bill that made it clear that free, prior and informed consent does not constitute a veto. The Liberals could have provided a clearer definition of its meaning and its effect, thereby removing the considerable questions that currently exist about the implications of its meaning and effect, and what that will do to the development of major resource and other projects if this bill is passed.One thing that is certain is that this lack of a definition would create considerable uncertainty and a torrent of new litigation around major development projects. It would undermine regulatory certainty, undermine investor confidence, and undermine the ability of individual first nations communities to determine their own destinies by seeking opportunities to engage and participate in projects that could help their people develop and prosper. This is hardly a hypothetical. One need only look at Bill 41, passed by the B.C. NDP government in December 2019. That bill is quite similar to Bill C-15. It does not expressly enshrine UNDRIP into law in the Province of British Columbia, but it uses aspirational language about aligning B.C.'s laws with UNDRIP, similar to Bill C-15. Within two months of the passage of Bill 41, three major projects were challenged by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: the Kitimat LNG project, the Site C dam and Coastal GasLink. The UN committee said that UNDRIP did apply, and that there had not been free, prior and informed consent. Many indigenous communities and leaders also took that position. That was despite the fact that, in the case of Coastal GasLink, 20 indigenous communities had supported the project but one faction of unelected hereditary chiefs opposed it. It underscores the uncertainty that would result from the passage of this bill, and it is why I cannot support this bill.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights670865967086606708661670866267086636708664670866567086666708667670866867086696708670PierrePoilievreHon.CarletonYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1325)[Translation]Madam Speaker, does my colleague not think we should strive for collaboration? From his speech, it sounds as though he thinks the United Nations is an adversary.Personally, I believe in a model that enables us to work closely together. If my colleague does not support this bill, what are his thoughts on how we can make progress?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67086716708672MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I reject in part the premise of the member's question, which is to suggest that this has widespread support among indigenous communities. It is opposed by the National Coalition of Chiefs, the Indigenous Resource Network, the Indian Resource Council, Chief Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, and the Mohawks of Montreal. I could go on.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708673YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite spoke extensively about resource extraction. Throughout the debate, a number of his colleagues have stood and said the UNDRIP represents a veto and FPIC essentially means a veto. Could the member highlight where in the text of Bill C-15 he finds the term “veto”, and if he could maybe give us more insight into why that misconception is being reiterated by his party and his colleagues throughout this debate?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights67086746708675MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, in response I will quote a letter sent from the National Coalition of Chiefs to the Prime Minister in December on that very question. They said: There are implications to this legislation, as currently drafted, that is likely to have negative impacts on the many Indigenous communities that rely on resource development... It is unfortunate the government did not heed the concerns of the National Coalition of Chiefs.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights670867667086776708678GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1330)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we are debating this bill today because we have to resume the work done by my friend and former colleague Romeo Saganash seeking to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into federal law. This would be a great thing to do, and it would put us in a good position to move forward on reconciliation with first nations.Unfortunately, despite the expressed will of the majority of House members, the bill died in the Senate, thanks to the scheming of the Conservative Senators. What does my colleague think about the fact that unelected senators blocked the will of the elected representatives of the people?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67086796708680MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1330)[English]Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I have a great amount of respect for Romeo Saganash. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity to serve with him in the last Parliament. That being said, Bill C-262 was a flawed piece of legislation for many of the same reasons that Bill C-15 is a flawed piece of legislation. I was unable to support Bill C-262 and I am unable to support this bill.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67086816708682AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): (1330)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague referred to the president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, Mr. Swampy, and I want to quickly highlight a quote from his committee testimony: The federal government has imposed very high standards of consultation on industry.... Now, with Bill C-15, I don't see you applying those standards to yourselves. Would the member for St. Albert—Edmonton agree that in the introduction of this bill, the government does not meet the consultation threshold that the aspirations of UNDRIP require?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670868367086846708685MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1330)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. The very simple answer is the member is absolutely right. Yes.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708686GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1330)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging the unceded Wolastoqiyik territory from which I speak today. I have commented in this House before about the importance of this recognition and, most importantly, the actions that must accompany it. There has never been a more important time to highlight this than with our discussion of Bill C-15, an act to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples here in Canada, in a colonial country, where land was extorted. In addition to threats and force, there were efforts to exterminate and bury the original peoples of this land. These efforts failed. Instead, they planted seeds, and what we are seeing is a reclamation, the ushering in of a new age. The time has come for reparations.Many of my colleagues in this House know that my children are indigenous. I have also worked closely with hundreds of indigenous youth as a teacher. They have informed my work every step of the way. When I think of voting on this bill, I ask myself what their world will look like in five years, in 10 years and for the generations after them, with or without passing Bill C-15.Bill C-15 introduces the notion of a national action plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law, with annual reporting mechanisms. It is important to note that the specifics of these measures are not articulated. This has brought with it uncertainty and a manifestation of a well-placed mistrust in government.What Bill C-15 does well is lay out a robust preamble with ambitious, frankly incredible language. It includes value statements that acknowledge systemic discrimination, and now racism, thanks to an important amendment. It recognizes self-determination of indigenous peoples, including an acknowledgement of their legal systems. It actually says, “the Government of Canada rejects all forms of colonialism and is committed to advancing relations...that are based on good faith and on the principles of justice, democracy, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and respect for human rights”.Can we take these words at face value, or in good faith, as the bill proclaims? The criticisms of Bill C-15 are nuanced. The most obvious issue is that the notion of good faith itself is on shaky ground. For a bill that enshrines the notion of free, prior and informed consent, consultation is severely lacking. I know that is a contested point, but I must say I believe it was lacking. It is not enough to have closed-door meetings with national bodies or organizations. The individual rights holders have a right to be heard and to weigh in on legislation with such significant implications. All Canadians, Québécois and indigenous peoples of this land require an understanding of the declaration and what it truly means to affirm it as a universal international human rights instrument. A more complex problem some are having with this bill is that indigenous people are tired of the gaslighting. Indigenous rights are inherent. People are born with them and no one can take them away. These rights have existed since time immemorial, and yet Canadian history presents things as though indigenous peoples were handed those rights with the coming into force of the 1982 Constitution Act. It is a nice idea, but it misses hundreds of years of colonialism and abuse rooted in the doctrine of discovery. The notions that the Crown holds sovereignty over indigenous peoples, that indigenous laws and legal traditions have no place and that the Crown has ultimate title to the land held in trust underpin all of Canadian law. They are embedded in the Canadian charter, and they have placed the burden of labour on indigenous peoples and nations to establish their rights in Canadian courts.Bill C-15 also fails to enshrine a distinctions-based approach to implementing UNDRIP in Canada and stands more as pan-indigenous legislation, disregarding the incredible diversity within indigenous nations. It is possible that Bill C-15 may be a tool in the tool kit for future court cases, but I have to question what the future holds for Canada and indigenous nationhood with this implication. Are we preparing for years of expensive legal battles? Are we asking once again for indigenous people to bear the burden of proof in the protection of their collective inherent rights? What will happen with the Mi'kmaq fishery dispute, with a new season set to start in June? Fishers and leadership have had to call on the United Nations for protection from violence and racist intimidation. Will the passing of Bill C-15 prevent this from happening? Will it remind the non-indigenous fishers of their treaty obligations, of their history of settlement in Unama'ki? If B.C.'s UNDRIP law is any indication, sadly, I do not think it will.I want to take a moment to talk about the journey I have been on when it comes to the study of this bill. My first step was with the Wolastoqiyik Grand Council, under Grand Chief Spasaqsit Possesom and Wolastoqiyik grandmothers. My next step was to meet with the Wabanaki Peace & Friendship Alliance.I reviewed numerous analyses and interpretations. I met with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre to learn more about the work of Romeo Saganash with Bill C-262. I met with local community leadership. I met with our local friendship centre. I met with the association of Iroquois and allied nations, with my hon. colleague from Vancouver Granville. I met with the Assembly of First Nations and staff from Chief Bellegarde's office. I listened and I learned.(1335)My last stop was again with the Wolastoqiyik grandmothers, scholars and leaders in my riding. I would encourage all members of the House to also seek out that guidance.The assertion of these critical voices from Fredericton, from my mentors and most trusted allies, is to reject Bill C-15 at third reading. This is not easy for me. The Green Party of Canada stands by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we campaigned on passing it into law. However, that is not what Bill C-15 would accomplish.I am told to celebrate Bill C-15 as it sets out the basic minimum standards for dignity and human rights for indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples already have these rights: charter rights. They already have title to their land and to hunt and fish for their livelihoods. They already have the right to self-determination. Canadians are the ones who have a problem upholding these rights, and Canada fails to enforce them.We have a moral, legal and fiduciary responsibility as a nation to uphold our laws. However, we have broken these laws in pursuit of domination over indigenous nations, and there is significant work ahead in dismantling these systems and structures of oppression that got us here. There are no easy fixes, such as passing Bill C-15 to check the box of reconciliation. Clarity on the implementation of UNDRIP would have been a golden opportunity to demonstrate what a new relationship could be, to demonstrate true respect and co-operation. Canada and sovereign indigenous nations could continue on a path in their own canoes, the lesson that the Two Row Wampum teaches us. It is 2021, and it is time for us to face the truth. We cannot reconcile if we were never conciliatory; we can only work to repair the damage done. An essential part of these reparations is respecting the first treaty we all have as humans: the treaty with the land and with our planet. We forget far too often the interconnectedness of all life and our role and responsibility in preserving this place for future generations. What we have now is a race to consume resources. There is a component of the bill that reflects sustainable development, but what this conversation must include is a re-evaluation of what that means. What is the value of protecting old-growth forests, food security and cultural safety? How are we to measure the success of Bill C-15? There are too many questions left unanswered.The study of Bill C-15 has been a roller-coaster ride for me, and I wish to recognize the immense privilege I have as a non-indigenous person in pursuing this study. It has been difficult to see the infighting and division among people I look up to, among some of my personal heroes. I want to say for the record that it is okay to support the bill, and it is okay to reject it. What is not okay is ignoring our role and responsibilities as treaty people and treating each other with disrespect, which is a legacy that remains, with or without this bill.Finally, whether Bill C-15 receives royal assent or not will not determine the future for my children. They are Wolastoqiyik. They are people of the beautiful and bountiful river. They are rooted to this land. They know who they are, and they know their rights. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentPublic consultationRacial equalityThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670868967086906708691670869267086936708694670869567086966708697670869867086996708700670870167087026708703670870467087056708706670870767087086708709CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.I would like her to tell us what more should be added to a federal legislative measure to better respect the rights of first nations and indigenous people and to lead us toward meaningful reconciliation in Quebec and Canada.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67087106708711JenicaAtwinFrederictonJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a reiteration of what we have heard a little about in this House, a more hands-off approach. Indigenous leadership and government structures are ready to lead in their own right. That is what self-determination means. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an excellent international covenant, and I stand by those principles. However, the bill is a plan to implement the plan and to enshrine it into law, so it just does not go far enough. The consultation piece is highly debated, and it is a hot topic. The people in my riding have not had adequate consultation. They should be the ones to steer the direction of what real reconciliation would look like.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670871267087136708714AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's comments, but I have to express a bit of disappointment in the position she is taking.There has been extensive consultation. With respect to Bill C-262, I was with Romeo Saganash in many communities and on many travels with the INAN committee, where many people came out and talked about his direct engagement. The foundation of Bill C-15 is from Bill C-262, and our ministers, as well as other colleagues and I, were part of extensive consultations across Canada, even during the pandemic. In fact, during the INAN study itself we had many more people who came forward and spoke. I do believe we have had a wide range of consultations, not perfect but extensive. We cannot say that we support UNDRIP in principle but are not ready to implement it. I would urge my colleague to reconsider her position, because this is a historic moment—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670871567087166708717JenicaAtwinFrederictonAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I must reiterate my respect, as well, for Romeo Saganash and the work he put in. I have to say, in the extensive conversations I have had in my home province of New Brunswick with the community members and inherent rights holders, they do not know what this bill means. They do not know what the implications are and they have not had adequate time to study the bill for themselves. These are scholars, activists and leaders. To say there has been extensive consultation, and to talk to actual indigenous people on the ground, who have not been consulted, does not add up to me. My role here is to represent Fredericton, and that is what I am doing.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708719AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not think my hon. colleague and I agree on much often, but today we do. My big criticism of the Liberals on this particular bill is that they should do what they say and say what they do. It does not come out any more clearly than when they say they have done extensive consultation. I sit on the committee. Everybody who appeared at committee had a recommendation for an amendment for the bill. All of the three major indigenous—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708720JenicaAtwinFrederictonAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not know how much solace it brings me to be in agreeance with the Conservative Party of Canada on some of these issues.I will go back to that consultation piece. The people I care about, who I speak to on a daily basis, have not had that thorough consultation. He is right that there were important amendments brought forward, and not all were adopted, including that important one about distinctions-based rights and the diversity that exists across this country. To say that there is consensus—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67087236708724AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58621AlexandraMendèsAlexandra-MendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendèsAlexandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): (1345)[English]Division on motion deferredPursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6708730DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96352MaryNgHon.Mary-NgMarkham—ThornhillLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NgMary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Notice of time allocation motion]InterventionHon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, Lib.): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsNotice of motionThird reading and adoptionTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67069916706992CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find that the motion carries on division.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsReport stageUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702699CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1645)[English]Is that agreed?Some hon members: Agreed.The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I declare the motion is carried on division.(Motion agreed to)C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsIndigenous rightsReport stageUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670270067027016702702MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. David Lametti (1645)[Translation]Bill C-15. Third readingmoved that the bill be read the third time and passed.He said: Madam Speaker, I was not planning to speak. Naturally, I support this bill. I could talk about it for days if necessary.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67027036702704CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I am a bit confused about the process. The minister did rise. He did speak during debate, and I have questions for him. Was he not recognized? It seemed that he rose, was recognized, spoke and then concluded his remarks, albeit briefly.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPoints of orderRecognition to speakThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702707CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1650)[English] Madam Speaker, on that same point of order, I will not press the point if the minister does not wish to speak. That is fine. However, I do think it is important to note in the process of your ruling that the right to speak is not invested in the screen or the list. The right to speak is dependent on an individual rising, seeking the acknowledgement of the Chair and receiving the acknowledgement of the Chair.Whatever was or was not on the screen, it is a question of whether ministers seek recognition, wish to speak and whether they are recognized. It seems the minister did not intend to speak, and I do not want to press this point in this particular case, but I hope it is continues to be the practice that it is not the screen by which members come to be recognized, but by the Chair, regardless of what lists have been provided.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPoints of orderRecognition to speakThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67027106702711CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, I would just like to add that to stand in the House is the equivalent of raising one's hand on Zoom, which the minister did not do, and you indicated that.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPoints of orderRecognition to speakThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702715CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1650)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we all recognize that it was human error caused by a technical issue, and that is fine.Even if we disagree on Bill C-15, we recognize how important it is to first nations, and we will proceed with the debate.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPoints of orderRecognition to speakThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67027166702717MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I am speaking to members currently from my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, the traditional lands of many indigenous nations, most recently of the Mississaugas of the Credit. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations in getting us to this point. I note that the Minister of Justice has spoken on Bill C-15 extensively over the last several months in Parliament, in committee and the Senate, so I do want to acknowledge—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67027186702719GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree: (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, it has been more than 13 years since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It is five years this week since the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations attended the United Nations to announce that Canada was a full supporter, without qualification, of the declaration. She also affirmed Canada's commitment to adopt and implement this international human rights document in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.The introduction of Bill C-15 last December fulfilled our government's commitment to introduce legislation by the end of 2020 to implement the declaration, and it established the former private member's bill, Bill C-262, as the floor, rather than the ceiling. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the leadership of a former member of Parliament, my dear friend Romeo Saganash. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his work in Parliament and across the country with indigenous peoples and communities to advance his private member's bill, Bill C-262, to implement the declaration here in Canada. It was very disappointing that Bill C-262 died on the Order Paper, unable to make it through the Senate process before the last federal election. I therefore urge all parliamentarians today to ensure that this does not happen to Bill C-15.The declaration is a result of decades of tireless efforts, negotiations and sustained advocacy at the United Nations by inspiring indigenous leaders from around the world, including many from Canada. From Dr. Willie Littlechild to former NDP MP Romeo Saganash to Sákéj Henderson and so many others, Canadian indigenous leaders played an instrumental role in the development of this historic international human rights document. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission stated that the declaration charts a path for reconciliation to flourish in 21st century Canada, and the TRC call to action 43 calls on all levels of government to fully adopt and implement this declaration. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called on governments to immediately implement and fully comply with the declaration. The declaration is of critical importance to indigenous peoples across Canada, and its implementation is essential to a shared journey toward reconciliation. It is long past time for the Parliament of Canada to pass legislation to implement the principles set out in the declaration. Once passed, Bill C-15 would affirm the declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. It would also provide a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the declaration.This framework would establish new accountability for the Government of Canada to work with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples to find new ways to protect, promote and uphold the human rights of indigenous peoples across Canada. This legislative framework would further demonstrate Canada's continued commitment to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples now and in the future. It would also bring further clarity to the path forward for indigenous peoples, communities, industry and all Canadians. Once passed by Parliament, the legislation would create new requirements for the Government of Canada, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all necessary measures to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration and prepare, and to implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration.Moving forward, the laws of Canada would be required to reflect the standards set out in the declaration, while also respecting aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in the Constitution. The legislation would require the Government of Canada to report annually to Parliament on progress made to align the laws of Canada with the declaration and on the development and implementation of the action plan. This approach is consistent with the declaration itself, which in article 38 calls on states to collaborate with indigenous peoples on appropriate measures, including legislative measures to achieve the goals set out in the declaration.We acknowledge that some have expressed concern with the length of time for consultation on Bill C-15. It is important to recognize that private member's bill, Bill C-262, the foundation of this legislation, was also the subject of extensive parliamentary debate and study in the previous Parliament. Despite an accelerated engagement process for Bill C-15, even during the pandemic, the bill's additions to the foundation of Bill C-262 reflect the content requested by a wide cross-section of first nation, Inuit and Métis partners from coast to coast to coast. (1655)In total, over 70 virtual sessions took place, which allowed us to hear the views of over 462 participants about potential enhancements to a consultation draft of legislative text, based on former private member's bill, Bill C-262. Before June and November 2020, the government held 33 bilateral sessions with the AFN, ITK and MNC, involving extensive technical discussions on the content of Bill C-15.Natan Obed, President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a national indigenous representative organization for Inuit in Canada, spoke at the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples last Friday. I am quoting from the blues, but while there he said, “We have worked positively and constructively with the federal government on the development of Bill C-15 within a relatively short timeframe. I want to thank the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice for ensuring the co-development happened within this particular piece of legislation and also the government's willingness to be flexible and consider amendments throughout the process.” Last fall, through a series of virtual sessions, the government also undertook an extensive six-week session of broader engagement with a wide cross-section of indigenous partners on the development of the draft legislation. This engagement included modern treaty and self-governing first nations, Inuit regions, other rights holders, national and regional women's organizations, youth, LGBTQ representatives, as well as some non-indigenous stakeholders.More specifically, 28 engagement sessions were held with rights holders, modern treaty partners and other national and regional organizations, including women's organizations. Four industry-specific round tables were held with the key sectors of minerals and metals, clean energy, forestry, and petroleum sectors. These also including indigenous participation.Five sessions were held with provinces and territories, including two ministerial meetings, and some of these meetings also included indigenous experts and leaders. There was also a round table with indigenous youth from the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Métis National Council and Canadian Roots Exchange, and with university law students.In addition, we received over 50 written submissions that provided feedback and proposed text changes, including views and recommendations on the development of an action plan. An extensive “What We Learned” report is available on the Department of Justice website, which outlines the extensive framework feedback the government received throughout the engagement process.The extensive engagement with indigenous partners and others led to key enhancements from former private member's bill, Bill C-262, to be included in Bill C-15. Bill C-15 has new language in the preamble, including the highlighting the positive contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, and healing and peace, as well as harmonious and co-operative relations in Canada. It recognizes the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. It reflects on the importance of respecting treaties and agreements. It highlights the connection between the declaration and sustainable development. Finally, it emphasizes the need to take diversity of indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation.A purpose clause has been included to address the application of the declaration in Canadian law, and to affirm the legislation as a framework for new federal implementation of the declaration.Bill C-15 has clear and more robust provisions on the process of developing and tabling the action plan and annual reports. It has a provision to allow the Governor in Council to designate a minister to carry out elements of the bill. These changes and additions enhance and build upon the elements set out in Bill C-262. Engagement also did not stop when the bill was introduced. Since the introduction of the bill in December, extensive meetings have been held with indigenous partners and other stakeholders. These ongoing discussions, along with an extensive study at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, have informed a number of further amendments to Bill C-15, which passed at the House committee. I want to take a moment to thank the members of the standing committee for their hard work and co-operation in getting this bill through.The amended bill now includes the specific rejection of the racist and colonial doctrines of discovery and terra nullius in the preamble. The preamble now also clarifies that Canadian courts have stated that aboriginal and treaty rights, recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, are not frozen and are capable of evolution and growth. Bill C-15 also now expressly includes the term “racism” in both the preamble and the body of the legislation.(1700)Based on consensus advice from indigenous partners, the government also agreed to amend the timeline to co-develop the action plan from three years to two, a timeline we are confident is sufficient for a meaningful process and co-development of an effective action plan.Our government is committed to the meaningful co-development of Bill C-15's action plan with indigenous partners and experts to ensure that the implementation of the legislation is effective and accountable. The bill itself sets out that the action plan must include measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence, racism and discrimination, including systemic racism and discrimination against indigenous peoples: elders, youth, children, women, men, persons with disabilities, and gender diverse and two-spirit persons. It must promote mutual respect and understanding, as well as good relations, including through human rights education.The action plan must also include measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy, or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the declaration. We have already begun preliminary discussions with indigenous partners on the design of the future process. Budget 2021 provides $31.5 million over two years to support the action plan's co-development.My Conservative colleagues have framed the concept of free, prior and informed consent, FPIC, as an undefined statement and have suggested it could be interpreted as a de facto veto for individual indigenous communities or groups over resource development. I note the term “veto” is nowhere to be found in the draft of the text. They have tried to raise concerns that this would jeopardize the economy and bring uncertainty to the resource sector. In fact, FPIC focuses on the inclusion of voices, concerns and opinions of all indigenous peoples who would be affected by a proposed activity or project, ensuring these concerns are addressed and that there are mitigation plans in place.I think Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond addressed this best when she spoke to the House committee on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations on April 13:...there is an element of what I would call “fearmongering” about the concept of free, prior and informed consent, that somehow that will cause economic damage and so forth. In fact, free, prior and informed consent, and operationalizing that by having industry, government and first nations work together appropriately early, in the context of recognizing the rights, provides more economic stability, certainty and securityIn conclusion, just last week, National Chief Perry Bellegarde, representing the Assembly of First Nations, spoke in favour of passing Bill C-15 at the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples, where he stated: I urge you all to seize this historic opportunity and to play a key role in upholding and advancing the human rights of Indigenous peoples. At the same Senate committee meeting, Natan Obed, the president of ITK, said, “We see this piece of federal legislation as a positive contribution to the approach of human rights being applied equally to all Canadian citizens. ” David Chartrand, speaking for the Métis National Council, told the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on April 15:We believe that passing this bill into law is critical to a future that respects our rights as a nation. We urge members to expedite the process to ensure that Bill C-15 is passed in this session of Parliament.While no piece of legislation will get unanimous support from all indigenous peoples in Canada, Bill C-15 has broad support from first nations, Inuit and Métis from coast to coast to coast. Bill C-15 is about shredding our colonial past and writing the next chapter together as partners with indigenous peoples.I therefore urge all members of the House to support this fundamental piece of legislation and to support Bill C-15.AccountabilityC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPublic consultationRacial equalityThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights67027236702724670272567027266702727670272867027296702730670273167027326702733670273467027356702736670273767027386702739670274067027416702742670274367027446702745670274667027476702748670274967027506702751670275267027536702754670275567027566702757CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary.First, if FPIC is not a veto, then could he concretely tell the House what will be different regarding what is required in consultations? Once that principle is passed through this law, what will be different from the status quo? If nothing is changing, then what is the point? If it is not changing into a veto, then what precisely is different? My second question is this. It seems to me the government uses indigenous consultation when it wants to kill development projects, but it rarely consults indigenous communities when those communities want to support projects. In fact, we have heard from many indigenous communities, especially in the Arctic, about how the government's unilateral ending of offshore drilling, with a mere 45-minute phone call ahead of time to indigenous leaders and an announcement made with a foreign leader, really violated their expectations around consultation. Is the government prepared to reconsider its approach when it comes to blocking resource development projects that indigenous communities want to see moved forward?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights670275867027596702760GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree: (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, on the first question of veto, the bill would ensure certainty. What is different going forward is that there is a bill, there is a framework and legislation that would ensure that consultation takes place. It is already in Canadian law in many court decisions over the years. The bill would give certainty to those principles.Second, in the sense of resource development with indigenous communities, this would also allow for greater certainty. There is a need to ensure that consultation takes place. The notion of self-determination of the future of indigenous peoples and their resources are inbuilt here and therefore, there are many important elements that would ensure certainty going forward. That is why Bill C-15 is so important to the future relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights67027616702762GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1710)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge our former colleague, Romeo Saganash, who worked very hard for this cause to be heard and whose main political commitment was ensuring the rights of indigenous peoples. I salute him and I am thinking of him.The Bloc Québécois has supported the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for a long time. Even before it was signed, the Bloc Québécois helped develop it. I am referring to the meeting of the working group on the draft United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples that was held in Geneva in September 2004.Could the parliamentary secretary tell me what he believes is the normative scope of free, prior and informed consent?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670276367027646702765GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree: (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to share in the member's praise of the former member of Parliament, Romeo Saganash. I know this is a lifetime of work for him and certainly in Parliament this was his primary body of work that all of us across all parties recognize and respect.With respect to the issue of FPIC, what is important to recognize is that in order for development to take place, there is a clearly defined process in Canada for consultation. The bill would enhance that. This does not mean that every single community will have a veto over every single development. What it means is that government and companies have an obligation to consult extensively with all those who are impacted and to come to some consensus. This would essentially ensure that there is an effort by all parties to build consensus toward projects that can go forward.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67027666702767LucThériaultMontcalmLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague across the way for his tireless work in the previous Parliament to see this almost realized. I was really pleased to see Bill C-15 amended to include paragraph 18, to include the constitutional principle of the living tree doctrine, which confirms that aboriginal and treaty rights evolve and grow over time. As I mentioned at committee, I would have preferred that this amendment be included in the operative articles of the bill as proposed by, for example, the Assembly of First Nations and the original drafter of Bill C-262.Would my hon. friend have preferred the same, that this amendment be included in the operative articles of Bill C-15?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesC-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670276867027696702770GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree: (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure working with my friend from Winnipeg Centre on Bill C-15 and to get it to this point. What I am looking for and I think what the government is looking for and what I think all of us are looking for is passage of Bill C-15 in this Parliament. It is imperative that we move forward on reconciliation as indicated by the call to action 43 of the TRC. In many references, the need to ensure that Canada adopts UNDRIP is essential. Therefore, we could always reflect and say we could have done better here and here, but what is important is that we get the bill done, as the bill would ensure the principles that my friend opposite mentioned are incorporated. I believe that would be a very significant move in passing the bill. What is important for us now as Parliament, is to pass Bill C-15, as amended by the House, which has taken a great deal of effort by all members of the committee—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67027716702772LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary can conclude his thoughts in answering my question.This is something that the United Nations adopted many years ago. We are finally getting to this point. There have been attempts in the past. This really means something for not just indigenous people but for all Canadians. Can the parliamentary secretary comment on what he sees as the potential impact of passing this piece of legislation, and why it is so important to do this as quickly as possible?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670277567027766702777CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree: (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, that is a very important question, because this is a call to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. This is one of the key elements that is in there in call to action 43, which says that Canada has to implement UNDRIP. It is important for indigenous people, but it is also vitally important for all Canadians because it is a statement to the world that Canada respects and adheres to indigenous rights. It is a very important international human rights document that we are reaffirming today through Bill C-15. It is very important for all people in Canada to be able to move forward from our colonial past, where many indigenous peoples have been significantly affected, to a future that is positive and based on trust and a positive relationship.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67027786702779MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary is quite simple. Dale Swampy from the National Coalition of Chiefs, whose mandate it is to reduce on-reserve poverty, said:I think UNDRIP is important and significant in many ways, and I obviously support indigenous rights. However, I am skeptical about Bill C-15 itself. I think it needs to be written much more carefully, because as it is drafted today, it is obvious to me that it will deter investment in Canadian resource development, and that hurts the indigenous communities that rely on resources.The Indigenous Resource Network, the Indian Resource Council, and First Nations LNG Alliance all expressed similar concerns. Would you accuse these people of fearmongering when they expressed reasonable concerns?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702780670278167027826702783GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree: (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, who is also a member of the committee, for his work and contribution to Bill C-15. All I can say is that what is important is that there were extensive consultations in developing Bill C-15. Regarding all the organizations that are mentioned, input was taken, whether at the committee stage or prior to that, and their input reflects what we have. It is a consensus document that the three national indigenous organizations have supported and many other indigenous partners and nations have endorsed. Therefore, we are very comfortable in saying that this is a consensus document that does have wide support of indigenous peoples.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67027866702787CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1715)[English]Madam Chair, I am happy to add my voice to this debate around Bill C-15. I recognize that it has been a long and arduous battle to get the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passed through the UN, and I also recognize the work of Romeo Saganash, with whom I had the privilege of sitting on committee in the past. I developed a friendship with him, and it was a pleasure working with him on committee. Bill C-15 is an interesting bill. It is a severe case, in my opinion, of a lack of doing what one says and saying what one is doing. This seems to be typical of the Liberals. They say they are doing something when in fact they are not, or they are doing something when they say they are not doing something. Again, Bill C-15 is one of those and, in my opinion, does just that. Conservatives typically say what they mean and mean what they say, and if we do not mean it, we do not say it. One thing that is frustrating for me about this particular bill is that this is new, uncharted territory in terms of clause 4 of the bill. I think the crux of the bill is in clause 4, which says:The purpose of this Act is to (a) affirm the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law; and (b) provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the Declaration.What is frustrating about it is that I think that the declaration is a universal international human rights instrument, and I also think that it has application in Canadian law, with or without the bill stating it. I use the Palermo Protocol extensively, which is a UN protocol used to identify victims of human trafficking. The Canadian government, being part of the UN, can use these protocols or declarations to validate whether or not our laws fall inside these frameworks. We use them as an instrument to assess Canadian law, which would be no different for UNDRIP. The same goes for the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Again, we use that declaration to assess Canadian law. We take the Canadian laws on the rights of children and the protection of children and we stack them up against the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child to see if we are abiding by and meeting the thresholds that are laid out in the declaration. If we are not, then we attempt to bring Canadian law into alignment. I have been working on that around the Palermo Protocol here in Canada, putting forward bills and trying to get Canada's laws to totally align with the Palermo Protocol. We are in significant alignment, but we are not 100% there, and that is also the case with UNDRIP. It is an instrument against which we can assess Canadian law to see if we are living up to the expectations that are laid out in UNDRIP. Are we living up to the ideals that reconciliation would bring? Nobody has a problem with that. What Bill C-15 proposes is unique, because no other UN declaration has a legislative declaration with application in Canadian law. When I asked the Department of Justice officials about this at committee, they said that I was correct, that it is a unique thing. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child does not have a legislative declaration that we are recognizing as an instrument in Canadian law. However, when arguing a case in court, one can bring a UN document, a UN declaration, to the court and say, “Hey, the UN says this and therefore this is a piece of evidence for my particular case.” What I am frustrated about with Bill C-15 is that it would not change the application of UNDRIP in Canada. (1720)Some witnesses came to committee and said this was like a bill of rights for indigenous people. We were assured again by the justice department this was not the case. This is not granting a bill of rights for indigenous people. This is a framework to develop a plan, and that is what this bill is all about.If that universal human rights instrument, UNDRIP, had application in Canadian law, would it be actionable? One of the things I asked repeatedly was whether one could take the government to court if it failed to meet one of the objects of the declaration, and I was once again assured that this was not the case. Therefore, what changes with this bill? If this is such a monumental change to the way Canadian law is happening, as the Liberals would like us to think, then what would actually change? That is extremely frustrating. The Liberals continue to say we are fearmongering, which is also untrue. We just want to know if the things the Liberals are saying are in fact true. If this is going to change the way Canadian law operates, then what are those changes? The bill does not explicitly say that, to me. It says that we are going to develop a framework.The big crux of a lot of the issues we deal with is around FPIC, or free, prior and informed consent, and what it means. One of the things we continually asked was about the Canadian government, the years and years of jurisprudence, the court cases that have been fought and won in this country around consultation, and the term “duty to consult”, how all this is laid out and how it would fit into UNDRIP. I would say we are well on our way to developing systems in Canada that fit in with UNDRIP and come into free, prior and informed consent. As our laws develop, with requirements to consult, we see companies going out and consulting. I would say we are well on our way. When I hold up the instrument of UNDRIP against our free, prior and informed consent laws and court rulings, those are all things we can consider.All this bill would do is create uncertainty. It would bring in a new element. It says that perhaps these articles of UNDRIP are now Canadian law, so does duty to consult equal free, prior and informed consent, or does it not? We could have that debate and argument, but at this point we just do not know. There is a lack of clarity around that. That is what is being introduced with this bill. What is free, prior and informed consent, and how does it relate to duty to consult?We have seen in this country that this has caused uncertainty in the marketplace. The Government of British Columbia has adopted UNDRIP in a similar fashion, again without clearly defining the terms, and there is now a 1% premium placed on investment in B.C. There is a risk premium to doing business in B.C. because of that, and the markets have deemed it to be about 1%, a lack of 1% return on it, which is a challenge. If one is going to the marketplace to raise capital for a project, one will have to pay 1% more to bring capital into British Columbia compared to the rest of the country. When people say there is no risk to this, no uncertainty, there obviously is, and that is the frustration about this. I go back to the point that one should mean what one says and say what one means. Where does FPIC come up in this bill? It does not really come up in this bill. It comes up in the document and this declaration having a universal application in Canadian law, but again, what does that mean? We know that all it is doing is driving uncertainty. It is not allowing us to hold up UNDRIP as a document for criteria by which we should judge Canadian law. That is continually frustrating as we go forward.(1725)We heard extensively from Canadians from across the country around this bill at committee, and it is also interesting that the Liberals seem to have a distinct side that they come on when it comes to consultation. We would hear them today talk about how they had extensive consultation even in the development of this bill, but I would say that initially, when we first started reaching out to folks around this, they had not been consulted on this bill. It was not until the bill had been introduced that they began doing the consultations, so by the time it reached committee, yes, some consultations had been done and folks were giving their nod toward the bill, but up until that point there had not been extensive consultation in the development of the particular bill.That was seen in that every organization that came before us had an amendment for the bill, and that was increasingly obvious. All of them came forward and had amendments, despite the fact that they all acknowledged that UNDRIP is a useful tool and that UNDRIP is something that they hope Canadian law aspires to. I am not convinced this was something they were all expecting when we had the implementation of UNDRIP in Canada. A plan for a plan is not the implementation, so it is going to be more and more interesting to watch how this unfolds.We have also seen at committee that the government amended its own legislation. That also seems to me to be a point where the consultations were not done appropriately on the front end. If the government had indeed consulted broadly, as it said it had, we would have seen that this bill would not have had amendments by every organization that came before us, and also that the government would not have had to amend the bill itself. It seems to me that there was a complete lack of consultation.The other thing that I would like to point out around the government and its consultation record is that it only seems to consult in the direction in which it wants the answer. We see this over and over again with first nations communities in northern Alberta. Many of them had a stake in the northern gateway pipeline. We have seen how their communities were thriving off the construction and the capital stake that many of them had in the construction of that pipeline, and yet we saw that pipeline cancelled after the shipping ban off the west coast in Bill C-48, and there seems to have been no consultation with them whatsoever as to the impacts of that decision on their communities. We see that today unemployment in northern Alberta is among the highest in Canada. Why is that? Is it because the government failed to consult with first nations and did not adequately recognize the impacts on these communities?Again, this is an area where the government says one thing and seems to do another. The idea of consultation is only important in a particular direction, or when trying to stall a pipeline project rather than get one built. That was and continues to be extremely frustrating for first nations communities across northern Alberta.There are still many questions left unanswered as we go forward. As the government continues to pursue its implementation of the declaration, we will continue to have a discussion on what FPIC means, because there is no clarity. Nobody has said that our duty to consult and FPIC are equal. We are even lacking a bit as to who the final arbiter of this decision-making is. I would say that the Government of Canada is the final arbiter when it comes to major projects. It is the final arbiter when it comes to many of these things that get brought forward, and that is important.(1730)We do not necessarily have clarity from the government. We would like to see that for sure. When pipelines get built, when the federal laws of Canada are designed and when Parliament makes decisions, those decisions are supreme in Canada. We would like to see FPIC clarified as we go forward. Those are some of the things folks brought to committee and said they were concerned about. The other interesting thing is how this applies between federal and provincial jurisdictions. The bill sometimes says “Canadian law”. Does that mean provincial law as well as federal law, or does it just mean federal law? We need to ensure that is clarified as we go forward, and I hope the government is able to answer some of these questions.As we hear from more folks on this, it is interesting that there is not even unanimity within first nations communities. The O'Chiese First Nation in Alberta, Treaty No. 6, rejects Bill C-15 outright. It said it would undermine its position in Canada and is opposed to it entirely. The government did not seem to acknowledge that individual first nation communities were not in favour of Bill C-15. The government consults with the three major national indigenous organizations, but does not necessarily consult with individual first nations across the country. Something I hear over and over from individual first nations is that the government needs to listen to individual first nations across the country in addition to the national organizations, because national organizations do not always speak for individual bands. That is another major concern we heard as well.We are looking for clarity on a number of things, and this bill would not do anything to clarify any of these issues. This bill would put us on a path forward to align Canadian law with UNDRIP, which I am in favour of, but it would not necessarily do what the government is saying it will. It does not say this will be the next step in bringing us in line with that. The bill just says it is going to develop a plan to do it, and that is frustrating. I was hoping the government was going to move in the direction of aligning Canadian law with UNDRIP and that it would give us some clarification, such as indicating where Canadian law aligns with UNDRIP on point 43, for example, or giving its opinion on the duty to consult on FPIC, whether it is an adequate or less-than-adequate measure. It might give indications of some of the improvements it is going to make on duty to consult to bring it in line with FPIC. FPIC means something. If the government is insistent that it does not mean a veto, what does it mean? What does that consultation piece look like? Does the jurisprudence on duty to consult still stand? Those are some of the things I would have expected to see in a bill that would have ushered in UNDRIP. Nonetheless, we do not see these in this bill. There are some less-than-clarifying statements in this bill.British ColumbiaC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCivil and human rightsCoastal areasConsentFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOil tankersPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670278867027896702790670279167027926702793670279467027956702796670279767027986702799670280067028016702802670280367028046702805670280667028076702808670280967028106702811670281267028136702814670281567028166702817670281867028196702820GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1735)[English]Madam Speaker, UNDRIP was adopted by the UN General Assembly 13 years ago. Shortly after the Liberals formed government in 2015, we endorsed it and agreed to implement it.At what point will the Conservative Party formally say it will adopt UNDRIP, whether by legislation or by other means? At what point will the member's party and leader adopt and accept the terms of UNDRIP? C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67028216702822ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1735)[English]Madam Speaker, in 2010 the Conservative Government of Canada signed on to UNDRIP. It recognized UNDRIP as a universal declaration of human rights that was useful in Canada. We called it an aspirational document, much in the same way that many UN instruments and declarations are used here in Canada. Earlier, I referenced the Palermo protocol and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.We have been at the forefront of reconciliation in this country with an apology for the treatment of first nations by residential schools, with bringing in marital benefits for indigenous women when it came to property rights and many other things. We are working hard to ensure that first nations have full participation in the Canadian economy. I am very proud of the work that we have done and I will look forward to continuing to bring reconciliation to this country.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67028236702824GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (1740)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Romeo Saganash for introducing Bill C-262, which unfortunately died on the Order Paper, but is being resurrected as Bill C-15 in spite of what the member said in his speech.Experience shows that lack of consent to project development is often the cause of indigenous crises. That is what happened with the Oka crisis and again this winter with the Wet'suwet'en. Can the member tell us what is problematic about ensuring that natural resource development projects are carried out properly and in accordance with the principle of free, prior and informed consent?Agriculture, environment, fisheries and natural resourcesC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670282567028266702827ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1740)[English]Madam Speaker, that is interesting. The member brings up the Wet’suwet’en people. That is an extremely interesting discussion, as the elected chiefs were entirely in favour of that particular project and the hereditary chiefs were not, yet the government chose to consult not with the elected chiefs but with the hereditary chiefs. This is exactly what we are dealing with. Who is to be consulted, and in what capacity are they to be consulted? Who is the representative of first nations people and Inuit and Métis people? Who gets the right to decide? Many of those questions have been answered through the courts, over time, with the duty-to-consult apparatus that we have in this country. It is not necessarily perfect, but it is a start and we are working on it.The way that the government handled the Wet’suwet’en situation has been terrible for investment in this country and also for the rights of the democratically elected chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en.Agriculture, environment, fisheries and natural resourcesC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670282867028296702830SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1740)[English]Madam Speaker, I find it peculiar that this member holds indigenous people to higher standards for democracy, with every indigenous person having to agree to pass anything. If we were held to the same standards, we would never have another government in Canada.My question relates to international trade law. As the member is aware, international trade law obligations require us to divulge any risks to investment. The member spoke a lot about investments. When Canada fails to divulge, for example, that vast tracts of indigenous lands are still under dispute, are we not negotiating free trade agreements on a lie? When we do not divulge this information are we not, in fact, breaking the law?Business practice and regulationC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67028316702832ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1740)[English]Madam Chair, the Canadian Constitution applies clear across the country. I do not think the member is disputing that. Whatever she is talking about in terms of our trade disputes, I do not think that Bill C-15 would clarify any of that. If anything, we would end up in an area of less clarity than before.Business practice and regulationC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702833LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): (1745)[English]Madam Speaker, at the INAN committee we heard a number of witnesses talk about what the benefit might be of having the action plan prepared and presented before we introduced the legislation, and that there might have been some benefit to that because it would have reduced some of the uncertainty and given clarity. Through you, Madam Speaker, to the member, does he have some comments around that?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67028346702835ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1745)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all the work he does at committee as well. The really frustrating piece around this bill for me is that the Liberals are taking a victory lap, because they say they are fulfilling one of the truth and reconciliation requirements by implementing UNDRIP. In reality they are not implementing UNDRIP: They are putting into legislation a plan to make a plan to attempt to bring in UNDRIP. That is extremely frustrating to me. Again, to go back to the beginning of all of this, it is the “say what you mean and mean what you say” principle. Bill C-15 does not implement UNDRIP. It provides a plan to develop a plan to start implementing UNDRIP. It is not bringing any clarity to the situation. It is not enabling us to move forward. It just leaves us in the limbo we were in prior to Bill C-15.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67028366702837GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1745)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and did not find it very compelling. I feel like there is a kind of persistent confusion here. On one hand, he said that it is a bill to make a plan to implement a plan, which is silly, and why do they not just go ahead and do it. On the other hand, he said that this is all very complex and not that easy. What is clear to me at least is that the job is not done. We have seen that through the many controversies around projects on indigenous land, and through the frustration and dire need of indigenous people to get access to resources and the things that they need to live well. We are not going to get started unless we start taking those steps. I am always on board with criticizing the Liberals for not getting done what they say they want done quickly enough, but we are not here, on our side at least, belabouring the complexities of it and having a record of sometimes not supporting moving forward toward a solution. Which is it? Is this just a plan to make a plan for a complex set of issues? The gist of the member's position is really not clear to me after having spent some time listening.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670283867028396702840ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1745)[English]Madam Speaker, the main point is that this bill does not bring any clarity to what it means to bring Canada's law into alignment with UNDRIP. We could have seen a bill that would have explained how we could improve duty to consult and bring it in line with FPIC. We could have seen mechanisms around land disputes. Do current land-dispute resolution mechanisms align with UNDRIP? We could have had a bill that would have tried to tweak some of those things. We could have had a bill that would have outlined each and every one of the UNDRIP protocols and said, “This is how we are aligning with it.” We do not have that bill.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702841DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (1745)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak again on Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.At this point, we are cautiously confident that it will finally pass. I say “finally” because we have been waiting for this bill for a very long time. We hope it will pass quickly, although it is still not a done deal.The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted on September 13, 2007. It is now May 2021, almost 15 years later, and it still has not been enshrined in Canadian law. It has been 15 years. Fifteen years is a long time. Fifteen years is the length of four Parliaments. Fifteen years is also slightly less than the difference in life expectancy between Inuit people and the rest of the Canadian population. Among men, the gap was 15 years in 2017. Fifteen years is half a generation, one-sixth of a century. That is a long time within a human lifetime.Time passes, the world changes, but not for indigenous rights. Nothing moves, nothing changes, because Canada is the land of stalling. It is time for things to change. Despite a few flaws, we believe, as does the Assembly of First Nations, that we must move forward and pass Bill C-15 as quickly as possible, even if that means amending it later.Today I would like to first talk about the history of our party as it relates to the Declaration and then dispel some persistent myths that are often associated with this bill.Today I would like to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill even though the amendments we wanted to make to clarify the scope of the bill were not incorporated. We have long been convinced that implementing the UNDRIP is essential for reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and we still believe that.The Bloc was there well before the declaration was signed. When the working group on the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples met in Geneva in September 2004, the Bloc was there to advocate for their right to self-determination. The Bloc was there again in 2006 during the final sprint to adoption, when we had to redouble our efforts alongside indigenous peoples and the international community. The Bloc was there in 2007, condemning Canada for voting against the declaration at the United Nations general assembly. The Bloc was there in the years that followed to put pressure on Harper's Conservative government to sign the declaration.The Bloc was there, the Bloc is there, and the Bloc will always be there to promote the declaration. Parliament's ratification will not only recognize the inherent rights, emphasis on “inherent”, of indigenous peoples, but also clarify them for everyone because, let me remind the House, indigenous peoples' rights are not a privilege. Indigenous rights are legitimate and, as I said, inherent.The Bloc Québécois believes that implementing the UN declaration will not only improve social and economic conditions for indigenous communities, but also guarantee greater predictability for companies operating in the primary sector, while ensuring sustainable and responsible resource development.(1750)In that sense, if only in that sense, it will be a win for everyone, including the economy and first nations.I stated earlier that time is standing absolutely still for indigenous rights. I am therefore appealing to my colleagues from the other parties and those in the upper chamber. It is now up to them to get the clock going again.I have to admit that I have never understood the Conservative Party's visceral opposition to the declaration. Last August, in an interview with Perry Bellegarde, the Leader of the Opposition justified his objections to the declaration by saying that, in his view, case law already creates a duty to consult, so there is no value added in the declaration. If it changes nothing, why be afraid of adopting it?At the same time, the Conservatives are trying to scare us. We saw this during the debates and in the last few minutes. They say that adopting the declaration will block projects because it creates new duties to consult. They cannot, on the one hand, say that it will not change anything and, on the other, fear that it might change something. The Leader of the Opposition should clarify his thoughts. Is he against the change because it will change something, or is he against it because it will not change anything? He will have to explain this to us because his argument is self-contradictory and sounds to me more like an excuse.Now is the time to dispel myths like this one. I cannot remain silent about the notion of free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, which is much more controversial than it should be. It has been at the centre of these debates, and it haunts the nightmares of my colleagues in the official opposition.Opponents to the declaration have said over and over that free, prior and informed consent is tantamount to a veto. Nothing could be further from the truth. This time, the legislator's intention is evident, as it was in Bill C-262 introduced by my predecessor Roméo Saganash, to whom we owe a lot in this fight and whom I salute with respect and friendship. The legislator in no way sees FPIC as a veto. The Minister of Justice has said so many times. The courts cannot ignore that fact. The declaration is absolutely clear on this issue. It states, and I quote:States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent....That is a requirement to consult in good faith. There is no mention at all of a veto in the declaration. It cannot be repeated often enough, or perhaps it bears repeating until it is understood, that this argument falls in on itself.For me, the legislator's intent also seems very clear with regard to the scope of the bill. It applies only to areas under this Parliament's jurisdiction. Even though that is something that stands to reason and that just seems to make sense, the sponsor of the bill still went to the effort of reiterating that Bill C-15 will not impose any obligations on any other levels of government. That could not be more clear. In fact, it is crystal clear. We need to keep in mind that, if the members of the Bloc Québécois support this bill, as I am sure the government members do, it is because they understand and believe that the incorporation of the declaration into our laws should be done in partnership with the provinces and with complete respect for their areas of jurisdiction.(1755) I must insist on this point.In an article in the most recent issue of Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, lawyer Camille Fréchette wrote, “In light of the sharing of jurisdictions within the Canadian federal government system, the implementation of the right to [free, prior and informed consent] directly concerns the provinces, which have exclusive jurisdiction over public lands and natural resource development”.We believe that the different levels of government must work together if the act is to be properly implemented. The provinces will have to be consulted and participate in the implementation process to ensure consistency. In our humble opinion, this bill will only help with reconciliation, provided that everyone acts in good faith and strives to maintain a dialogue.On that note, I want to make a little aside to clarify something, because we must be thorough and there is a lot of disinformation about Bill C-15. Some people have tried to claim that the Bloc Québécois was jeopardizing Quebec's sovereignty. That is an absurd idea, but I can refute that claim with the example of territory. The Constitution Act, 1867, makes it clear that the provinces own and are the guardians of their territory. To paraphrase constitutional expert André Binette, if that were not the case, then Hydro-Québec would not exist. Quebec's inalienable sovereignty over its territory just reinforces the need for a collaborative approach to ensure that the declaration is implemented consistently and seamlessly.In 1985, led by René Lévesque's government, the Quebec National Assembly recognized 10 and later 11 indigenous nations on Quebec territory. In 2006, the House of Commons recognized Quebec as a nation. The Bloc Québécois has said and will say again that nation-to-nation dialogue is the only way to achieve peace and harmony, among other things.That said, at this point, I think we have debated the implementation of the declaration long enough and should move on to the next step. Let me point out that indigenous nations have been waiting almost 15 years — 163 months or 4,990 days, to be exact — for us as legislators to take decisive action. Indigenous peoples have waited long enough. I would venture to say that they have waited too long. Their eyes are fixed on us, and the clock is ticking. It is up to us to take action now, because their inherent rights are at stake.Tshi nashkumitin. Thank you.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsIndigenous rightsLand managementProvince of QuebecProvincial jurisdictionThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702842670284367028446702845670284667028476702848670284967028506702851670285267028536702854670285567028566702857670285867028596702860670286167028626702863670286467028656702866670286767028686702869ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1800)[English]Madam Speaker, in British Columbia, where I live, the B.C. government has passed the B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which is based on this declaration. In Quebec, the National Assembly had a unanimous motion to recognize its principles.Does the member think that it is time for every province, including Quebec, to bring in legislation to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in provincial law, in addition to the federal law?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsProvincial jurisdictionThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67028706702871MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1800)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.I mentioned that first nations have been waiting too long for their rights to be enshrined in federal legislation.As a member of the House of Commons, I will leave it up to Quebec's National Assembly to decide. Quebec has always led the way on this, as evidenced by treaties signed with the Cree and Naskapi nations. The relationship is one of such deep respect that it is exemplary.I am certainly in favour of Bill C-15, so of course I want these inherent rights to be enshrined in federal legislation, but I will leave it up to the National Assembly of Quebec to work out its own legislation. After all, everyone knows the Bloc Québécois does not appreciate anyone interfering in anyone else's jurisdiction.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsProvincial jurisdictionThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702872670287367028746702875RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1800)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I just returned from the traditional territory of the Kyuquot First Nation and Coast Salish First Nation.I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.She touched on the issue of future rights. Article 13 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples deals specifically with the right of indigenous peoples to transmit their language and oral traditions to future generations. Two-thirds of indigenous languages in Canada are currently threatened. In other words, dozens of languages are at risk.How much support will the federal government be giving these resources and languages so that these oral traditions and languages can be passed on to future generations?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsLinguistic minoritiesThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702876670287767028786702879MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I am very sensitive to the issue of culture and language. For me, culture and language form the very foundation of identity, of who we are as individuals, who we are as a distinct nation and what we want to bring to the world.First nations must be able to preserve their language, which is what drives their culture. In the case of my Innu friends, Innu-aimun is the language and Innu-aitun is the culture. This is important to preserving the rich identity that inhabits the Quebec territory and the North Shore. I see this as essential.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsLinguistic minoritiesThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670288067028816702882PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104773MarioSimardMario-SimardJonquièreBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SimardMario_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, in her speech my colleague referred to the fact that much time has passed. It has been 15 years.I may have an explanation for this. Canada is allergic to the recognition of national minorities. Indigenous peoples are a national minority and I have always felt that the Liberal and Conservative governments have been reticent to establish a precedent because they would have been obligated to recognize another national minority, Quebeckers. What does my colleague think of this?Could that explain in part why so much time passed before we were able to debate this bill?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEthnic minoritiesGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670288367028846702885MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as the member for Manicouagan, this is my own personal read of the situation, but I think it may be an after-effect of colonialism. Indeed, that is my personal view. In my opinion, that may be a holdover from our colonialist past, although, colonialism still exists.I will come back to the issue of minorities.Whether it is first nations or francophones, we see that they are treated differently. When a nation is prevented from speaking its language and practising its culture through the use of institutions, legislation and budget standards, that is the result of a colonial past that is very difficult to move on from.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEthnic minoritiesGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples670288667028876702888MarioSimardJonquièreEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1805)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech, and I want to ask her a question about free, prior and informed consent. Some people have characterized FPIC, as it is known, as an absolute veto. Others have said no, it is not a veto. This is of course of concern, as we have to know what free, prior and informed consent really means.The courts have spent decades defining the duty to consult, which informs Canadians, who want to develop and build our country, about our duty to consult with first nations. Now we have introduced the new concept called free, prior and informed consent. Is the member not afraid that when the courts start to interpret this new standard and judicial creep sets in, FPIC is going to become a veto right that would dramatically undermine Canada's ability to get things done, develop our economy, etc.? I would like her comments on that.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights67028896702890MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1810)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.I will go over two different things. First, in the speech I just gave, I repeated, and I actually pointed out that I was repeating myself, that this veto does not exist. It is not a veto.In my opinion, one of the first things to do is to stop pushing the idea that FPIC is a veto. The legislator was clear about this, and it is in the legislation. It is not the legislator's intent.That being said, it is like being scared there is a monster under the bed. Just look under the bed, and then the fear will go away. My colleague should do the same thing with the issue of veto versus FPIC. It does not exist.Second, I also talked about Quebec and Hydro-Québec as examples of development. On the North Shore, back home, there are mines, fisheries and forestry. There are nine Innu and Naskapi nations collaborating on these projects, and they want to collaborate more.I do not think that consulting the first nations, working with them and talking with them to ensure that they are involved in the process will undermine the economy. On the contrary, I think mutual respect would make things much easier.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights670289167028926702893670289467028956702896EdFastHon.AbbotsfordKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, I will reinforce something. From my perspective and the government's perspective, at the core this is a human rights issue. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets a minimum standard for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous people of the world, which includes protecting their rights to self-determination, self-governance, equality and non-discrimination.Would the member agree that there was an opportunity to incorporate this in previous sessions, but because of delays, which are not necessarily attributable to members of the House of Commons, it did not pass previously?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67028976702898MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1810)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I hope I understood what he was asking. If I am not mistaken, he is asking me whether this could have been done sooner. I definitely do think it could have been done sooner.I would also like to comment on something my colleague said. Yes, we need to get this done sooner and more quickly, but when I hear members of the official opposition saying that this does not add anything or take anything away, I get the impression that they are not seeing the big picture. The bill—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6702899670290067029016702902KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I cannot reiterate strongly enough that this bill is long overdue.Canada was built on the violent dispossession of the lands and resources of indigenous peoples. It is the kind of violence and genocide that we see perpetrated against indigenous women and girls, 2SLGBTQQIA individuals and sacred life-givers, including our mother earth and waters. We see a continuation of environmental destruction, supported by governments that violate human rights and continue to marginalize and oppress indigenous peoples on our own lands.While big oil, big corporations and Canada benefit from resources, we continue to not even have our minimum human rights respected. The most minimum human right that anyone, indigenous or not, needs to have is joy. Our rights are constantly up for debate while corporations benefit.I will be honest here today: There is no political party in this country that has not participated, or that does not continue to participate, in the violation of indigenous rights. Indigenous peoples on our very own lands are consistently and constantly a second thought, and our rights are often totally disregarded. This normalization of violating the rights of indigenous peoples needs to end. It is time that our very own Constitution is upheld, which includes aboriginal rights and title, along with the international legal obligations that Canada has signed onto.We need to change this. We need to change the foundation of our relationship, which was built on human rights violations of indigenous peoples that were legislated through the Indian Act, and create a legal foundation that is grounded in a respect for human rights of all peoples, including indigenous peoples. We need the minimum human rights that are articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although imperfect, I, along with our NDP team, believe that Bill C-15 is a step forward in upholding and protecting the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples in Canada. As I mentioned, it is long overdue. I will remind the House of what the General Assembly highlighted last December. It indicated that the declaration has “positively influenced the drafting of several constitutions and statutes at the national and local levels and contributed to the progressive development of international and national legal frameworks and policies.” In addition, it is also important to remember that the UN General Assembly has reaffirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the 10th time since its adoption by consensus. This means there is no country in the world that formally opposes the declaration.After the second reading of Bill C-15, we undertook a study at committee, and we are reporting the bill today with amendments. I would like to take this opportunity to address some of these amendments.(1815)First, as a legislator it is my legal obligation to be clear about the purpose or purposes of any legislation. As such, our party supported an amendment at committee to clarify that Bill C-15 had two purposes, which include to affirm the declaration as having application in Canadian law; and, second, to provide a framework for the implementation of the declaration. This bill would not “Canadianize” the declaration, but confirms that United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has application in Canadian law as affirmed in preambular paragraph 18, which reads, “Whereas the Declaration is affirmed as a source for the interpretation of Canadian law”, in addition to other legal frameworks which include indigenous law, the Constitution, international law and treaties with indigenous peoples. This legal reality has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as early as 1987. Even the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has heavily relied on provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in their rulings about the racial discrimination that first nations children face living on reserve. The declaration, in fact, has provided a source for legal interpretation for courts and tribunals, and protection of children, families and communities. Our children need this legislative protection to ensure that they are able to thrive, not just survive, to ensure that children and families are afforded the legal protection to ensure they can live with dignity and human rights, especially with the current government who willfully violates their rights.As former Chief Justice Dickson confirmed in 1987, “The various sources of international human rights law—declarations, covenants, conventions, judicial and quasi-judicial decisions of international tribunals, customary norms—must, in my opinion, be relevant and persuasive sources for interpretation of the Charter’s provisions.” Another significant amendment to Bill C-15 I would like to highlight is the inclusion of the living tree doctrine in preambular paragraph 19. This is a critical amendment. The living tree doctrine recognizes that rights are not frozen in time and that rights and treaties need to evolve overtime as our nations evolve and circumstances change. The living tree doctrine is an important constitutional principle, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. An example I would like to highlight is that in the 2004 Same-sex Marriage Reference Case, the court emphasized that the Constitution was a “living tree” subject to “progressive interpretation”.The Supreme Court in this case ruled as follows, “The 'frozen concepts' reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.”In the Hunter v. Southam Inc. case of 1984, the Supreme Court described the doctrine in the following way, “A constitution....is drafted with an eye to the future....It must, therefore, be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and historical realities often unimagined by its framers.” For example, the $5 given to treaty people during treaty days every year should have gone up with inflation. I would argue that it is not a symbolic act but an act of bad faith. Let us not forget Canada was built on the violent and ongoing genocide of indigenous peoples. This is why this amendment is so critical. We need legal tools to hold the government to account when it acts in bad faith. (1820)Five dollars fails to take into consideration inflation or compensation owed for destroying lands, impairing our ability to participate in traditional forms of sustenance, perpetuating violence in our communities and leaving many unsheltered on our very own lands, while the masses and corporations continue to privilege off the human rights violations of indigenous peoples. This is gross privilege.Since the time of invasion, our nations have gone through change, whether by choice or as a result of aggressive assimilation policies. This transformed our families and nations. However, although our colonizers set out to eradicate us, we are still here standing strong in the protection of our rights, the very rights that our ancestors put their lives on the line to protect.We are still in this battle, whether it is in the courtroom or at the end of an RCMP sniper gun, as witnessed in Wet'suwet'en territory or at the military siege of Kanehsatake. We continue to stand strong. Now we see the very little land that has not been exploited is still under threat, and it makes us stand even stronger.We will never concede our rights, and our rights evolve and change over time. These are indigenous lands, yet we still have to fight for crumbs against the disregard of our treaties and a lack of good faith by governments to respectfully interpret the meaning, intent, and letter of them. I have not forgotten, we have not forgotten and we will never ever forget.This is also an important constitutional principle. It is why the new preambular paragraph 19 is so important. It states:Whereas the protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights—recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—is an underlying principle and value of the Constitution of Canada, and Canadian courts have stated that such rights are not frozen and are capable of evolution and growthI would suggest, in this particular instance, that UNDRIP is a new political, historical and certainly legal reality that Bill C-15 is acknowledging. I must admit, however, that I would have preferred this addition to be in the operative articles of the bill. In fact, I believe that it belongs in the operative articles, as some have proposed. However, I also recognize that the preambular paragraphs have legal effect, as confirmed in article 13 of the federal Interpretation Act.The last amendment I wish to speak to is the addition of systemic racism as one of the measures to combat injustice and human rights violations against indigenous peoples.We have serious issues with systemic racism in this country, and we have witnessed examples that have cost lives. The many indigenous lives that have been lost at the hands of the police include Eishia Hudson, Jason Collins and Colten Boushie. There is also the late Joyce Echaquan, who lost her life trying to get assistance in a health care system that intimidated her, mocked her, disrespected her life and let her die under its care, as though her life was of no value, leaving her children without a mother and her partner widowed. In addition, there is a continued lack of action to address the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls, and we see a rapidly rising movement of white nationalism and a growing number of white supremacists around the world and right here in Canada. This is a critical amendment to Bill C-15. (1825)We need to move forward in a manner that ensures that all indigenous people can live with dignity and human rights in Canada. We need to begin living up to our identity as a country that values and respects human rights. We need to model behaviours and decisions that actually reflect that. That is still not happening in Canada, as we are witnessing with the continued violation of indigenous rights because, although the rhetoric that we are all equal in Canada continues, there is still a very clear division between the oppressed and the oppressor. The Canadian government continues to perpetuate a relationship of violent settler neo-colonialism in real time.There is still no action plan to address the ongoing violence against indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA individuals, and it is two years late. There are 10 non-compliance orders to immediately end racial discrimination against first nations children on reserve. People have unequal access to health care and education. There is continued inaction and a mould crisis. There has been a failure to end all boil-water advisories on reserve, in spite of the Liberal promise to end this by 2021. The number of children in care is more than at the height of the residential school system. We have the highest level of unsheltered individuals in this country as a result of the violent dispossession of lands that left many of us homeless on our own lands. There continues to be violation of land rights, privileging corporations over upholding the human rights of indigenous peoples. These include, but are not limited to, Kanesatake, Site C, TMX, Keystone XL, Muskrat Falls, Wet'suwet'en territory, Baffinland Mary River Mine and 1492 Land Back Lane. There is a continuation of the violation of the Supreme Court ruling in the Mi’kmaq fishing dispute, more than two decades after that decision was made. We continue to see a violation of our constitutional and international legal obligations in this House, and we are obliged to uphold these as members of Parliament. The list goes on.The violation of indigenous rights by the current Liberal government is not even limited to Canada, but is perpetuated globally. In fact, Toronto-based Justice and Corporate Accountability Project, a legal advocacy group, noted, “28 Canadian mining companies and their subsidiaries were linked to 44 deaths, 403 injuries, and 709 cases of criminalization, including arrests, detentions, and charges in Latin America between 2000 and 2015.”A working group states, “The financial and political backing that the government of Canada has provided to its mining companies has been strengthened by the de facto conversion of its cooperation agencies into mining investment promotion bodies.” This working group reported human rights violations by Canada against indigenous peoples related to mining in, but not limited to, Venezuela, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Guatemala.We are watching on the news and social media events unfolding right now in Sheikh Jarrah, and Canada is turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing. It is failing to uphold international legal obligations, and children and loved ones continue to die. That is another gross example of Canada and the privileged picking and choosing when to uphold human rights, which is when it suits economic interests and does not threaten power and privilege. This must change.I share this because, although we are working toward passing a bill to affirm the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law, in addition to other legal frameworks including indigenous law, international law, our Constitution and treaties, we consistently fail to uphold rights. We must move forward in a manner that upholds these human rights in Canada and around the world. Lives depend on this. We have moved beyond a time when rhetoric cuts it, and we know what the violation of rights looks like in real time. It is denying individuals of their right to live in dignity, sometimes resulting in death.(1830)We need to change this. Lives are on the line. Although Bill C-15 is not perfect, it is a start, and it must be followed with action. It is only then that we will achieve justice. There is no reconciliation without justice.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCanadian investments abroadCivil and human rightsConstitutionFamilies and childrenGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsInternational relationsLaw enforcementMining industryRacial equalityThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples67029066702907670290867029096702910670291167029126702913670291467029156702916670291767029186702919670292067029216702922670292367029246702925670292667029276702928670292967029306702931670293267029336702934670293567029366702937670293867029396702940670294167029426702943AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my friend's comments. I know she has been working diligently over the last several years, not only on Bill C-262, but also on Bill C-15.Much discussion has taken place with respect to FPIC. I would like to get a sense from my friend opposite of her views on it, and whether it constitutes a veto, or whether that is a strategy being used to deflect the real aspects of Bill C-15. I would ask her to comment with respect to her experience in engaging with other indigenous leaders and communities on the perspective of FPIC.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights67029446702945LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, it is almost like a hamster wheel. I hear this debate go on and on. This bill does not in any way imply that there is a veto. A veto is an absolute concept in law, whereas free, prior and informed consent requires one to consider all the facts and the law in any given circumstance and situation. I would agree with the testimony we heard at committee from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond when she said that hysteria has been created around FPIC that is not based on legal fact, has no legal merit and certainly does not form any part of Bill C-15. I hope, moving forward, we can accept this.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights67029466702947GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLine 5 Pipeline ShutdownInterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (2005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.Tonight we are debating the critical situation around Line 5, an Enbridge pipeline that transports crude oil and natural gas liquids from Alberta through Michigan to refineries and other facilities in Ontario, notably in Sarnia, and Quebec. It is capable of carrying 540,000 barrels per day. A similar pipeline in the Enbridge system, Line 6, also serves these markets, with 667,000 barrels per day.As others have mentioned, including the Leader of the Opposition, this emergency debate is not at all like the debates we have had here about other pipelines, such as Keystone XL or Trans Mountain. These are expansion projects designed solely to increase the amount of raw bitumen exported from Canada at a time when world demand has flatlined and the climate crisis requires that it decline steeply in the future.This is a debate about the impending closure of a pipeline that brings western Canadian oil to eastern Canada, creating Canadian jobs. This is about maintaining the status quo, at least for the moment, and maintaining those jobs in the industrial heartland of Canada.One similarity between this and the other pipeline debates is that at the heart of it, there is credible environmental concern. I would like to start by laying out the positions of the two sides in this confrontation: the Canadian workers and companies that need the pipeline to continue supplying oil to Ontario and Quebec, and the State of Michigan, which is concerned about the prospect of environmental damage.Line 5 was built in 1953, and the Michigan section operates under an easement granted by the state. Back in November, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer stated that the pipeline is a threat to the environment, particularly if a rupture occurs in the section that travels on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. That section has been a bone of contention for years, and it has suffered damage on occasion from dragged anchors. However, fortunately there have been no leaks in that water section.Michigan has also pointed out violations in the easement conditions, including inadequate supports for the pipeline on the bottom of the strait. For its part, Enbridge has proposed to enclose the underwater section in a concrete tunnel to protect it from future accidents, and it has obtained some of the permits necessary to carry out that work.Michigan, however, has claimed that because of past violations and present concerns, the pipeline is “a ticking time bomb” and will revoke the easement as of May 12, which is only six days away. If Enbridge is still using the pipeline after that date, the governor's office has stated that it will be breaking the law.What will the impact be if this pipeline is shut down? There are about 4,900 jobs in Sarnia that directly rely on the supply of crude oil that Line 5 now supplies. One of the products that plants in Sarnia produce is jet fuel, which supplies large airports such as the Toronto Pearson Airport. The oil not diverted in Sarnia is carried on to refineries in Quebec, so the impact could be huge.There is some debate on how alternate supplies could mitigate these impacts. Pearson airport stated in a recent article in the National Post that it is not too worried about a shut down of Line 5, as it has diversified its sources of jet fuel. The refineries in Quebec said that they have made arrangements to get their crude oil from another pipeline. Industries in Sarnia may be able to get some crude oil through increased flow in Line 6, since they managed oil that way when Line 6 was ruptured in 2010. At that time, they got alternate supplies through Line 5.It is clear that the petrochemical sector in Sarnia could be facing significant shortages that would have to be made up through transport by rail and truck. That is not an ideal situation, and it is one that could result in a direct loss of jobs in the Sarnia industrial complex and indirect job losses throughout the region. We have to have a strategy to keep Line 5 going and protect those jobs. That strategy goes through convincing Michigan that it is in all of our interests to keep Line 5 operating.(2010)What are the environmental risks that Michigan is citing in its decision to cancel this easement? One of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history happened on another Enbridge pipeline in Michigan. As I mentioned, Like 6 goes through Sarnia via Michigan and goes around the south end of Lake Michigan instead of crossing under the Straits of Mackinac. In 2010, Line 6B ruptured and sent about 20,000 barrels of bitumen into the Kalamazoo River just east of Battle Creek, Michigan. The spill contaminated over 50 kilometres of the river and took five years to clean up. The people of Michigan are therefore very well aware of what could happen. Line 5 itself has suffered a number of leaks over the years, totalling over a million gallons in all.In the order to cancel the easement for Line 5, Michigan has pointed out numerous violations of the original agreement, including the design of the support systems of the pipeline on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac. Recent assessments show that the underwater part of the pipeline is suffering from thinning walls and other stressors. Another study makes it clear that a rupture in this section could damage hundreds of kilometres of shoreline along Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Also, the Ojibwa of Michigan consider any agreement to allow Enbridge to continue operating Line 5 a violation of their treaty rights.We need to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem and the thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec. The federal government needs to have a plan that would do both. All I have heard from the minister is that Line 5 is not negotiable. However, I think it is obvious that the only way out of this dilemma is through negotiation, proving to the State of Michigan and everyone else who cares about the environment, me included, that Line 5 will not have a history similar to Line 6B. We should point out the economic impacts that this closure would have on Michigan itself. Michigan and the neighbouring states of Ohio and Pennsylvania also receive some of the fuels carried through Line 5, including over half of Michigan's propane supplies.As usual, experts are advising that a diplomatic solution would be best, but Enbridge is counting the 1977 transit pipelines treaty if talks fail, and right now it does seem that both sides are the length of a continental pipeline apart. The treaty states:No public authority in the territory of either Party shall institute any measures...interfering with in any way the transmission of hydrocarbon in transit.It also states that the treaty is “subject to regulations by the appropriate governmental authorities”. I will leave that to the courts to decide, but the treaty is clearly a last-ditch strategy that may work.As I said at the beginning, we have been debating this pipeline dispute in Canada over the past decade or more. This is an existing pipeline that supplies oil to Canadian industry and maintains good jobs. It is an integral part of the economies of Ontario and Quebec. We will be using oil and gas over the next three decades, albeit in declining amounts, as we transition to zero emissions by 2050, and Line 5 is an important delivery mechanism for that purpose.This dispute has been a wake-up call. The public is increasingly unwilling to live with the environmental risks associated with pipelines and the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. We in the NDP, and I think everyone in the House, are concerned about workers in the oil and gas sector, whether they work in the Alberta oil patch or the industrial cities of Ontario. We need a plan, not just empty promises, to provide good jobs for those workers over the coming decades. We need training programs that will allow them to move to jobs in building retrofits, electrification, electric vehicle manufacturing, battery technology and the myriad of other sectors that will provide good employment for decades to come. We need government programs to provide those jobs to prove to workers that we are serious about helping them. As that transition takes place, we need to protect the jobs that Line 5 provides and protect the ecosystem of the Great Lakes. The federal government must have a clear and effective plan to do both.Agreement between the Government Of Canada and the Government of the United States Of America Concerning Transit PipelinesAgreements and contractsCanada-United States relationsEducation and trainingEmergency debatesEnbridge Inc.Environmental protectionIndigenous rightsInfrastructureKalamazoo RiverLabour forceOil and gasOil spillsPetroleum supplyPipeline transportationSarniaSplitting speaking time6686333MarioSimardJonquièreMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1835)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has never been more clear to me that there must be a culture shift within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, especially when it comes to its relationship with indigenous fishers. In fact, for months now, we have seen the government fail Mi’kmaq fishers in Nova Scotia, failing to protect Sipekne'katik fishers, despite knowing they were at immediate risk to their safety and failing to recognize their treaty and constitutional right to fish for a moderate livelihood.In deciding to impose this year's fishing seasons on the Sipekne'katik, this minister has just failed to provide any justification that Mi’kmaq fishers cannot fish based on conservation reasons. She has not justified it. The minister has said, “Seasons ensure that stocks are harvested sustainably and they are necessary for an orderly, predictable, and well-managed fishery.”There has been no justification for this decision; no science, no data, nothing that says the small-scale fishery operated by the Sipekne'katik fishers would have a demonstrable harm on the lobster stocks. This is a court-ordered decision; the minister must provide this justification under the Badger test. The burden of proof to deny a treaty right or aboriginal right falls on the Crown, and the government cannot just say it is for conservation; it actually has to prove it. Not only does this decision go against the Constitution, but it also goes against the minister's mandate letter to remain committed to evidence-based decision-making; and, of course, the Liberals cite their most important relationship is with Canada's indigenous people. We do not see that here. We know that conservation is of course the most important priority. Chief Mike Sack has said that his band actually intends to undertake a conservation study with Dalhousie University's marine affairs program, to monitor impacts as they carry out their season. We understand that the minister is concerned about conservation, as am I, as are the NDP; but let us not give the impression that first nations fishers are not. In fact, if anything, first nations have been guardians of conservation for generations before ours.To impose this decision while discussions are ongoing with Mi’kmaq fishers across Atlantic Canada and indicating that there will be an increased presence of federal government officials on the water to enforce is an inherently violent act. The minister's words and actions run in direct opposition to the government's commitment to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Instead of instilling confidence that Mi’kmaq fishers will be able to fish safely, the government has chosen to raise tensions and threaten fishers. In fact, Chief Sack has indicated that he is willing to reach out the United Nations for help, to bring in peacekeepers to ensure his peoples are safe.If the current government is incapable of keeping people safe on the water, that is indeed a national shame on all of us. When indigenous fishers are able to have their boats on the water fishing, they are helping their communities, they are providing economic opportunities to their families, they are sharing tradition and culture, and they are meaningfully connecting to their territories and the land in which they live. However, the Government of Canada would rather have indigenous fishers in the courts instead of in their boats, and indigenous people keep winning in court. In the last two weeks, the Nuu-chah-nulth won a B.C. Court of Appeal case, the third time in the upper courts, asserting their right to fish, including wild salmon, despite the government spending over $19 million on government lawyers to suppress that right.Once again, we call on the minister to back down from this decision, work with Mi’kmaq fishers to keep them safe, and uphold and affirm their right to a moderate livelihood instead of fighting them at every opportunity.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia666190466619056661906666190766619086661909666191066619116661912SorayaMartinez FerradaHochelagaAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71738AnitaVandenbeldAnita-VandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VandenbeldAnita_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMs. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): (1835)[English]Mr. Speaker, last fall was an extremely challenging time, but particularly so for some indigenous communities, such as the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia. It was very disturbing for all of us to hear about and see on the news the events whereby indigenous people were physically attacked, had their property damaged and vandalized or destroyed, and had insults directed toward them for trying to exercise their affirmed treaty right. Let me clear. We condemn these acts.(1840)[Translation]As we move forward, we know that work is still ongoing to implement the right of first nations to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.[English]That is why the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard recently announced a new path forward, a path that will further enable first nations to pursue their affirmed treaty right in a safe and predictable way in the short term.[Translation]This new approach focuses on the transparent and stable management of the fishery, which will ensure its sustainability and productivity for all fishers. It is also based on what we have heard from first nations and on the need for an interim solution while more long-term negotiations are under way.[English]To emphasize, this path is an option for interested first nations to fish this season, in season, based on the needs of their community or aggregate.The minister continues to have negotiations with first nations on other long-term agreements, including rights reconciliation agreements. The department is working to move to a relationship with indigenous peoples that recognizes and respects indigenous rights and interests.[Translation]We know that awareness of indigenous realities and an understanding of their history will take time, as will education. However, that is no excuse for not taking action now. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and our government are working to do better.[English]One example of this is the amendments to the Fisheries Act that enable the consideration of indigenous knowledge, collaborative management, and recognition of equivalency of indigenous laws. In addition, the department has developed a reconciliation strategy, an internal culture change tool that includes concrete actions across the whole department and guidance for staff as they build relationships with indigenous partners.[Translation]Our government knows that we can and must do much more to help Canada's first nations communities.[English]This is why our government has made reconciliation and rebuilding relations with Canada's first nations people a top priority. We remain firmly committed to advancing reconciliation and working collaboratively with first nations to implement their constitutionally protected treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6661913666191466619156661916666191766619186661919666192066619216661922GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1840)[English]Mr. Speaker, it alarms me that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is here to answer this question. It should be concerning to the indigenous fishers, given the fact that they have not had the protection they need. Otherwise, it is the government not taking this seriously. It has not talked about how it is going to meet the Badger test. It has not delivered a mandate. The government knows that it must uphold the rights of indigenous people but chooses to fight them at every turn.What we are seeing in Nova Scotia is no different from what Canada has been doing to indigenous fishers for over 150 years. We have heard from the minister a repeated but empty commitment to reconciliation. The government said it never stopped working to implement a solution, but the solution it has chosen is not one that follows the government's treaty and constitutional obligations. Despite its pretty words and promises, the government is once again denying the rights of indigenous people and doing it in front of all of our eyes to see. People across Canada are demanding and want better.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia666192366619246661925AnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71738AnitaVandenbeldAnita-VandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VandenbeldAnita_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMs. Anita Vandenbeld: (1840)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening in the capacity of stepping in for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It goes without saying that last fall's events were very disturbing for all of us to hear about and see on the news, whereby indigenous peoples were attacked exercising their affirmed treaty right.(1845)[Translation]Like the rest of the government, Labour Canada went from a relationship with indigenous peoples founded on colonialism and, by definition, systemic racism, to a relationship that recognizes and respects the rights and interests of indigenous peoples.[English]As noted in the minister's statement of March 3, we are proposing a short-term solution that continues the implementation of the treaty right for interested first nations to fish this season in advance of longer term agreements, but we are ever mindful of the safety of all fish harvesters and the public.[Translation]That remains an essential priority in preventing the dispute we saw last fall from repeating itself, as we move forward on this new path.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia66619266661927666192866619296661930GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88775BobBratinaBob-BratinaHamilton East—Stoney CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BratinaBob_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Indigenous and Northern Affairs]InterventionMr. Bob Bratina (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in relation to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.8510-432-118 "Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples"C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsStanding Committee on Indigenous and Northern AffairsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6650628KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthVanceBadaweyNiagara Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present in the House today a petition from many of my constituents and from constituents from beyond the borders of Saanich—Gulf Islands. They call on the House to consider and respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They draw attention, in particular, to violations of UNDRIP in the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. They specifically speak to the concerns of the Wet'suwet'en nation and ask the House assembled to support UNDRIP and respect the hereditary rights of the Wet'suwet'en nation.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 432-00870Wet'suwet'en First Nation6644745GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, happy Earth Day. It is a privilege to table e-petition 3184, which was initiated by constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The petitioners call upon the government to take urgent action, based on science and independent expertise, to make Bill C-12 a world-class climate law by adopting the following three amendments to the bill before it passes.The first amendment is to set the first emission target for 2025, strengthen the roles of the advisory body and the environmental commissioner, and ban fossil fuel executives from the advisory panel.The second amendment is that Bill C-12 should be aligned with Canada's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, putting workers and communities first with no exceptions. It should set targets for sustainable job creation to ensure a just transition for all workers.The third amendment is to create true legal accountability for the government by setting clear, unconditional obligations for the Minister of Environment to meet, not just plan to meet, actual targets.Greenhouse gasesIndigenous rightsJob creationPetition 432-008566637190663719166371926637193GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniMarie-FranceLalondeOrléans//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, this evening, on Earth Day, I am debating an issue I raised on February 19 during question period. The essence of my question was to highlight the inconsistency of the government between what it is saying and actually doing when the rights of indigenous peoples are concerned and in the fight against the climate crisis. While these issues may seem different, they are intricately connected.First, I want to underline that no communities on this land are fighting more for the natural world than indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are caretakers of mother earth and realize and respect her gifts and her power. They advocate that we must take only what we need, that we must use great care and be aware of how we take and how much, so that future generations will not be put in peril. In 2015, during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Prime Minister recognized that “Indigenous peoples have known for thousands of years how to care for our planet. The rest of us have a lot to learn and no time to waste.” He said, “no time to waste”. Two years later, using public funds, his government bought the Trans Mountain pipeline. The finance minister at the time cited that this project was in the national interest and, furthermore, an investment in Canada's future. This decision not only will devastate critical ecosystems, such as the home of resident killer whales, but it was also vehemently opposed by indigenous nations whose territory would be impacted.This history repeats itself again and again. Today it is playing out in the land of the Inuit people. Funding the oil and mining industry, buying a pipeline and sponsoring nuclear energy that will have disastrous consequences on ecosystems tens of thousands of years from now are not the work of reparation or climate leaders. Disregarding the voice of elders and youth, hereditary and elected chiefs, and consulting after the fact are not consequential steps toward reconciliation. Inconsistencies, incertitude, even deception: This is the perspective of so many who live on this land known as Canada when it comes to the government's decisions pertaining to the climate crisis and reconciliation.On this Earth Day, it is urgent that the government act with courage and compassion for the planet and all of the people who live on it. For the youth striking every Friday from school, desperate for a response they can believe in, what does the government say to them? Development and surplus will mean nothing when the last ancestral cedar tree is cut down, when the last herd of woodland caribou is extinguished or when every drop of our rivers is polluted. I can hear the inevitable groans from naysayers now, the ones who will dismiss the words of a tree hugger. How have we become so disconnected from the natural world to believe that we are separate and above it?Honestly committing to respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and fighting the climate crisis is not something we can do intermediately or without conviction. Canadians need a government that will wilfully, without detour or compromise, commit to the future and the future of the generations to come, one where our children have a right and an understood responsibility to the natural world. We must listen, learn and implement the knowledge of the first people, who know the land, its rivers and forests and how to live in harmony and respect with all forms of life.The government needs to lead this transition, this necessary culture shift, not in 10 years, but now.Adjournment ProceedingsClimate change and global warmingIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6638480663848166384826638483663848466384856638486CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that I am speaking from the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. I wish the member and everyone a happy Earth Day, as it is a historic day in many ways in the issues she highlighted. First and foremost, the Government of Canada is renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous people based on the affirmation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. Since 2016, we have taken a range of important measures that contribute to a renewed, respectful Crown-indigenous relationship and that align both section 35 of our Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.As my friend knows, as she was part of the Bill C-15 deliberations today, we were able to pass this milestone legislation to committee and off to the other place. As of today, nine federal laws that refer to the declaration have been implemented with regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a very important document. As I indicated, this historical document will now become Canadian law within weeks.This legislation represents a fundamental shift in the relationship with indigenous peoples by recognizing rights articulated through the declaration. We are committed to ongoing discussions to make progress together, advancing reconciliation, improving community well-being and renewing Crown-indigenous relationships. In a nutshell, Bill C-15 is about protecting and promoting indigenous rights, including the rights to self-determination and self-government, equality and non-discrimination on the basis of forging stronger relationships with first nations, Inuit and Métis.The Government of Canada has developed or updated policies and guidance to be consistent with both the declaration and Canada's constitutional framework. These policies assist federal officials in their work when it involves indigenous peoples and helps contribute to the implementation of the declaration. We are at over 150 active negotiation tables with more than 500 communities representing over one million indigenous people to support their visions of self-determination. Our government has also co-developed a new, innovative recognition of rights policy framework with the B.C. government and the First Nations Summit to improve the treaty process and better advance self-determination in British Columbia.Our government remains committed to a renewed and respectful relationship with indigenous people.Adjournment ProceedingsClimate change and global warmingIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples663848766384886638489663849066384916638492JenicaAtwinFrederictonJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin: (1845)[English]Madam Speaker, my hope is that in advancing indigenous rights, we will also move toward addressing the climate crisis as well. We must think about what is truly at stake here, think about our children. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has mentioned his daughter many times in his speeches. He has even mentioned how she has urged him to do more. The youth are the ones who bring me hope when I feel defeated. They are the ones who give me the energy to use my voice to be part of the solution. They are the leaders of today because they understand the emergency. Grade three curriculum covers life cycles, biodiversity, endangered species. They get it. Why can our elected leaders not get it? From young Anishinabe activist, Autumn Peltier, fighting for clean water for all, to the Loïck Thomas in New Brunswick, who by the age of four had personally collected 1,000 bags of litter, they remind me that this willingness to protect the environment and the curiosity about the world surrounding us is inherent in the human spirit. The government needs to act in the best interests of the youth of our country, the ones who will have to find the solutions to the catastrophic problems our government is not courageous to face head-on now. Adjournment ProceedingsClimate change and global warmingIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6638493663849466384956638496GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree: (1845)[English]Madam Speaker, we share in the vision of the member opposite. Today, in Washington, the Prime Minister committed at the Earth Summit to reduce and to meet our targets set in Paris and exceed it by 2030, and also to meet our 2050 net-zero emission targets. This is a historical day in many ways.I want to reiterate that our government passed key legislation to support indigenous languages, affirming indigenous jurisdictions over child welfare and introduced legislation to implement UNDRIP. It has progressed through the legislative process in the last several days.While we have made a lot of progress together, we know that much more work needs to be done to build on the investments we made and to keep moving this important relationship and our country forward.Adjournment ProceedingsClimate change and global warmingIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples663849766384986638499JenicaAtwinFrederictonMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnsHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 452--Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen: With regard to Old Age Security, Employment Insurance, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and all programs designed to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) was a gender-based analysis plus carried out prior to the implementation of the program, and, if not, has one been carried out since, and if so, when was it carried out; and (b) for each program, what were the conclusions of this analysis?(Return tabled)Question No. 453--Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen: With regard to the Safe Return to Class Fund: (a) what is the total amount that each province or territory (i) has received, (ii) will be receiving; (b) of the funds in (a), broken down by province or territory, how much has been used to purchase (i) masks and face shields, (ii) high efficiency particulate air filters, (iii) heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, (iv) liters of hand and surface sanitizers; (c) broken down by province or territory, how many (i) new teachers and education workers have been hired, (ii) new cleaners and janitors have been hired; (d) broken down by province or territory, how many (i) new sinks have been installed, (ii) barriers and screens have been installed; and (e) broken down by province or territory, how many alternative teaching spaces have been rented?(Return tabled)Question No. 454--Mr. Chris d'Entremont: With regard to moderate livelihood fisheries: has the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard made a decision, and, if so, when will it be communicated to Indigenous and commercial fishers?(Return tabled)Question No. 459--Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus: With regard to the delays in processing spousal sponsorship applications since the announcement by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on September 25, 2020: (a) what is the percentage increase in the number of decision-makers reviewing the sponsorship applications that were added; (b) how many sponsorship applications were reviewed in October, November and December 2020; and (c) how many applications in total were processed?(Return tabled)Question No. 464--Mr. Peter Julian: With regard to government contracts since March 13, 2020, and broken down by registered lobbyists and their affiliated firms: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to registered lobbyists; and (b) what are the details of contracts awarded, including (i) the date of the contract, (ii) the initial and final value of the contract, (iii) the name of the supplier, (iv) the reference number, (v) the description of the services rendered?(Return tabled)Question No. 465--Mr. Peter Julian: With regard to claimed stock option deductions, between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2020-21 inclusively, broken down by each fiscal year: (a) what is the number of individuals who claimed the stock option deduction whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; (b) what is the average amount claimed by an individual whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; (c) what is the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; and (d) what is the percentage of the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is more than $1 million?(Return tabled)Question No. 467--Mrs. Cathay Wagantall: With regard to the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion (OHRFI): (a) in the last five years, what programs in other countries have been funded by the OHRFI related specifically to the advancement of religious freedom or the protection of the rights of religious minorities; (b) what has been the impact of each of these programs; (c) how does the government measure the impact of these programs; and (d) which of those programs specifically advanced the rights of minority communities that are (i) Hindu, (ii) Jewish, (iii) Buddhist, (iv) Christian, (v) Muslim, (vi) Sikh, (vii) Baha’i?(Return tabled)Question No. 468--Mrs. Karen Vecchio: With regard to contracts entered into between the government and Abacus Data since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of the contracts; (b) what are the details of each contract, including (i) the initial amount, (ii) the amended amount, if applicable, (iii) the start and end date; (iv) the description of goods or services, (v) the specific topics Abacus provided data or research on related to the contract, if applicable, (vi) whether contract was sole-sourced or competitive; (c) what are the details of all polling, surveys, or focus group research provided to the government from Abacus including the (i) date provided to the government, (ii) topics, (iii) specific questions asked to respondents, (iv) type of research (online poll, focus group, etc.), (v) number of respondents, (vi) responses received, including the number and percentage of each type of response, (vii) summary of the findings provided to the government; and (d) what are the details of all communication assistance or advice provided by Abacus, including the (i) start and end date, (ii) topics, (iii) value of related contract, (iv) summary of advice provided?(Return tabled)Question No. 469--Mr. Damien C. Kurek: With regard to the government’s hiring policies: (a) is the government currently hiring for any positions wherein the successful applicant must be a member of a particular underrepresented group; (b) what are the particular positions for which the requirement in (a) has been implemented; (c) what are the underrepresented group or groups with which an applicant must identify in order to be eligible, broken down by each position; (d) what is the process for determining if an applicant has made a false claim in relation to the requirement in (a); and (e) what process does the government follow for determining which positions will be reserved for underrepresented groups?(Return tabled)Question No. 470--Mr. Robert Kitchen: With regard to the acquisition of freezers required to transport and store the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: (a) how many freezers were purchased; (b) what is the total cost of purchasing the freezers; (c) what is the cost per unit of freezers purchased, broken down by type of unit; (d) how many of each type of unit were purchased; (e) how many of each type of unit purchased are in each (i) province or territory, (ii) local health unit district; (f) how many of each type of unit were purchased for the purpose of transporting the vaccine; (g) how many freezers were rented; (h) what is the total cost of renting the freezers; (i) what is cost per unit of freezers rented, broken down by type of unit; (j) what are the estimated costs of (i) transporting, (ii) maintaining the freezers, broken down by type of expense; and (k) what are the details of all contracts over $1,000 related to the purchase, acquisition, maintenance, or transportation of the freezers including, (i) the vendor, (ii) the amount, (iii) the description of goods or services, including the quantity, (iv) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive biding process?(Return tabled)Question No. 471--Ms. Rachel Blaney: With regard to the international and large business sector of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), since November 2015, and broken down by year: (a) how many audits were completed; (b) what is the number of auditors, broken down by category of auditors; (c) how many new files were opened; (d) how many files were closed; (e) of the files in (d), what was the average time it took to process the file before it was closed; (f) of the files in (d), what was the risk level of each file; (g) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (h) of the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the initial and final value of each contract; (i) among the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the description of each service contract; (j) how many reassessments were issued; (k) what is the total amount recovered; (l) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (m) of the files in (l), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (n) of the files in (m), how many resulted in convictions?(Return tabled)8555-432-452 Gender-based analysis plus and social benefits8555-432-453 Safe Return to Class Fund8555-432-454 Moderate livelihood fisheries8555-432-459 Spousal sponsorship applications8555-432-464 Government contracts8555-432-465 Stock option deductions8555-432-467 Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion8555-432-468 Contracts with Abacus Data8555-432-469 Government's hiring policies8555-432-470 Acquisition of freezers for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine8555-432-471 Canada Revenue AgencyAbacus DataAudits and auditorsBacklogsBlaney, RachelCivil and human rightsCompaniesConservative CaucusCOVID-19d'Entremont, ChrisEducation and trainingFisheries and fishersGender-based Analysis PlusGovernment contractsImmigrant sponsorshipImmunizationIndigenous rightsJulian, PeterKitchen, RobertKurek, Damien C.Lobbying and lobbyistsMathyssen, LindsayMi'kmaqMinoritiesNew Democratic Party CaucusNova ScotiaOffice of Human Rights, Freedoms and InclusionOrders for return to written questionsPandemicPaul-Hus, PierrePublic Service and public servantsQ-452Q-453Q-454Q-459Q-464Q-465Q-467Q-468Q-469Q-470Q-471Safe Return to Class FundSocial benefitsSpousesStaffingStock optionsTax deductionsTransfers to provinces and territoriesVecchio, KarenWagantall, Cathay66340656634066AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1530)[Translation] I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsIndigenous rightsReferred to Committee after second readingSecond readingStanding Committee on Indigenous and Northern AffairsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6626802AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96356MonaFortierHon.Mona-FortierOttawa—VanierLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FortierMona_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)(1020)[Translation] moved:MotionThat, in relation to Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; andThat, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662002966200306620031AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104783AlainTherrienAlain-TherrienLa PrairieBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TherrienAlain_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ): (1025)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is imposing time allocation, better known as a gag order.This is an exceptional measure that should only be proposed on rare occasions and agreed to even more rarely. It is an exceptional measure that applies to exceptional circumstances.However, the current government has made a habit of using this measure. It almost always imposes gag orders and time allocation motions. That has become the government's modus operandi. Why is that the case? I think that the answer lies with the current government's management of its legislative calendar, which has lacked rigour and effectiveness. Even though the opposition parties often co-operate, the government is still not managing its calendar properly and always ends up imposing time allocation motions.Bill C-15 is an extremely important bill. Today is the second day of debate. The first day, we debated this bill for only an hour and now the government is already moving a time allocation motion.Of course, Bill C-15 is very important for first nations, but it is important to understand that the debates in the House are also very important, and the government needs to respect that.My question is simple. Why does the government want to stop debate at this particular point in time?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620035662003666200376620038662003966200406620041AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.): (1025)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Obviously, I agree with him about the importance of Bill C-15.First, there are no surprises in the bill. It is based on a previous bill introduced by our former colleague Roméo Saganash, so members are familiar with it and it has already been debated in the House of Commons and studied in committee. We therefore need to move forward.With regard to the work of the House, the Conservative Party's strategy is to filibuster all of our legislation. That is what it did to the bill on medical assistance in dying, the 2020 fall economic statement and the net-zero legislation. The Conservative Party always tries to stop bills from being examined and passed by filibustering.That is why I want to thank the NDP and the Bloc Québécois for their co-operation on the bill on medical assistance in dying. As a result of that co-operation, we are able to move forward and pass very important bills that represent progressive measures in the history of our Parliament and our country.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620042662004366200446620045AlainTherrienLa PrairieBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I find it kind of ironic that the government continues to use time allocation on a bill that purports to provide indigenous Canadians with free, prior and informed consent and that the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the multitude of indigenous leaders who have yet to have their voices heard.We support the aspirations of UNDRIP, we have been perfectly clear about this, but there are significant issues that need to be addressed with this legislation. We need to get this right, we need to define “free, prior and informed consent” before it moves through the legislative process. For example, it has taken over 10 years to gain clarity from Canadian courts on section 35 rights enshrined in Canada's Constitution.The lack of clarity, that lack of understanding of key concepts of Bill C-15, threatens to turn the clock back on economic reconciliation and dismantle the hard work of indigenous leaders. How does the government actually justify ignoring the legitimate concerns indigenous leaders and communities have on Bill C-15?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662004866200496620050BruceStantonSimcoe NorthDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will not challenge the hon. member on his sense of irony, given his party's dilatory tactics every step of the way with every piece of government legislation.What I can say is that this bill is built on a previous bill, Bill C-262, brought forward Romeo Saganash. There are no surprises. These discussions have been had in the House of Commons and are continuing to be had with indigenous leadership in all its forms across Canada, in all its diversity across Canada. With respect to FPIC in particular, it is a contextual process that will often have a study at committee stage, and that will happen. I know INAN has already done a prestudy largely focusing on that point. There is more than adequate discussion thus far, and that discussion will continue through the rest of the parliamentary process.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662005166200526620053JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, it concerns me because we had the first half of debate for second reading a couple of months ago yet the government continues to stall debate, and now once again we are forced into time allocation.I am wondering why the government has put off this bill knowing that in the last session of Parliament this bill ended up not being passed through the Senate because it did not have enough time. Why are we now at the 11th hour again, forcing the government to put in place time allocation?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66200546620055DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for her work on this issue and her leadership on this issue, as well as the leadership of her party in hopefully supporting this time allocation motion.We are here because of the dilatory tactics of the Conservative Party on other measures, such as the fall economic statement which was debated. Those debates were repeated ad nauseam even though the content of that bill was meant to help Canadians in facing the worst pandemic we have faced in 100 years.We are here because this bill is known to the House of Commons. As the hon. member points out, it went through the previous Parliament in its previous form when it was brought forward as a private member's bill by Romeo Saganash. It only died in the Senate because of, again, the blocking and dilatory tactics of Conservative senators to let it die on the Order Paper.We are moving because this is a bill that needs to be passed. We need to get to the next stage, which is the action plan co-developed with indigenous peoples across Canada, in order to get us all to a better place. It is a bill about indigenous human rights. We are very much supportive of that and we very much wish to move this forward.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620056662005766200586620059LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreGregMcLeanCalgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I heard an earful from the Minister of Justice about why we have to do this here today. I do not know how much of that is actually verifiable, because I have been in this House many times. Today is the first day that I will get to speak on this bill. I have spoken to many indigenous organizations in my riding and in my province in developing resources across Canada. They all want a say in this matter. They all want to make sure that what we are doing here is the right way to move forward.I know there are many voices across this House, in all parties, that want to make sure that we do this correctly as we move forward here and this requires actual reading. I hear the Minister of Justice say that Conservatives have been dilatory in this, but this has just arrived here. If we need to choose this to move forward here, let Parliament sit, let us get these things heard and let us move good legislation forward in this House.There are so many issues presented in this legislation that need to be addressed by this House openly by all members of this House, discussed so we know exactly what is on the table here and what will change going forward. To rush this bill through, as opposed to anything else the Liberals have put on the table to use as delay tactics in this House, is insincere.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662006066200616620062DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member is generally supportive of UNDRIP and that he is in dialogue with indigenous leadership in his province. It has been clear in this session of the House of Commons that the Conservatives will resort to dilatory tactics. We saw that with respect to MAID when they refused every single attempt to prolong debate, despite the fact that outside of the House of Commons the justice critic was saying precisely that he would debate it in extended hours. Every time we brought forward a motion for extended hours, they refused.We are here today simply because the Conservative Party will use every dilatory tactic in its book in order to slow down the progress of progressive legislation, such as this piece of progressive legislation. We have debated a previous version of this bill in the House. A committee has studied it. The INAN committee has done a prestudy of this bill. We will continue to move forward in dialogue with indigenous leadership across Canada and in dialogue with members in this House who are sincere about the ideals in this bill and moving this bill forward.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66200636620064GregMcLeanCalgary CentreKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to pick up on the idea of the importance of UNDRIP. This is an issue that has been before the House, in one form or another, for quite a while now. When we speak about reconciliation, we talk about issues, such as reforming justice legislation and doing what we can in dealing with systemic racism. UNDRIP also plays an important aspect in reconciliation.Can he take a broader approach in terms of why it is so important that we pass Bill C-15?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66200656620066DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, UNDRIP is 25 years old. It was developed at the United Nations with a great deal of indigenous leadership from indigenous peoples in Canada, such as former Conservative MP, Chief Wilton Littlechild and Sákéj Henderson, along with others.The contents of UNDRIP are well known. Romeo Saganash then took up the torch in the last Parliament, brought in a private member's bill, which was studied and which went through all three debates in the House of Commons and through committee, but sadly died on the Order Paper because of dilatory tactics by Conservative senators. We also have the example in British Columbia, which has implemented UNDRIP legislation at the provincial level.There is a great deal of knowledge about what the potential for UNDRIP would be. Fundamentally, this is a human rights document about the human rights of indigenous peoples and this is a good piece of progressive legislation that needs to move forward.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662006766200686620069KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the justice minister that getting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passed is a fundamental human rights issue. I am concerned that we are once again at the 11th hour. We had so much opportunity to discuss these issues and now we are having to use time allocation. To me, this reflects a larger problem: The Liberals talk about working with indigenous people, but continue to ignore their legal obligations. For example, I would like to ask the minister about the issue of St. Anne's Indian Residential School, where the justice department lawyers suppressed evidence, presented false narratives, lied at hearings and had cases thrown out. They are ignoring Justice Glustein, who has ordered them not to destroy the documents. They have set up this so-called process that is actually excluding over 160 survivors and will make no effort to even include them. The minister has not even talked to the survivors, so how can he come to the House and talk about how the Liberals are going to work for reconciliation when they refuse to even speak with Edmund Metatawabin and the leaders of St. Anne's about the crimes that were committed in those hearings by justice department lawyers?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662007066200716620072DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question allows me to correct some of the misconceptions in the public domain.In 2016, Department of Justice lawyers went to the Supreme Court of Canada arguing precisely to maintain the records from St. Anne's and other residential schools because of their importance to Canadian polity and our sense of history, as well as to the justice that would be possible for survivors, and we lost. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that those documents had to be destroyed.We are in a process of trying to work within the parameters of that decision to maintain documents for as long as possible, so that survivors will have access to them to the extent that it helps their claims. Our lawyers are working in good faith to try to preserve those documents for as long as possible, notwithstanding the order from the Supreme Court of Canada. I welcome the recent ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that we are studying carefully, which hopefully will give us the continued wiggle room not to destroy any documents.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662007366200746620075CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is so much to say here and so much to clarify. The arguments are extremely nuanced. The implications of this bill are profound. There are voices that must still be empowered through this process. This is for all of Canada. Canadians deserve a fulsome debate. MPs deserve the opportunity to contribute to that fulsome debate. Would the minister agree that even good, progressive legislation has to go through the parliamentary process? We need to have these conversations out in the open. There are many voices, on either side of the bill, who should have their day in the House of Commons. Would the minister agree?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66200766620077DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member in principle. We need to hear voices and we need to move legislation through, but I remind her that this is a process that began 25 years ago with the passage of UNDRIP at the United Nations. It is a process that was picked up in Canada by Romeo Saganash in the previous Parliament. It is a process in which we will continue to be in dialogue with other parliamentarians and continue to be in dialogue in a distinctions-based fashion with the myriad forms of indigenous leadership across Canada. This is just a way station in the process. It will continue through the development of an action plan for the implementation of UNDRIP afterward. I would suggest to the hon. member that is really where the heavy lifting is going to be done with respect to our relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous people in Canada. I agree with her, but we have to be careful to not let perfection be the enemy of the good. We need to move this legislation forward in order to get to the next step and—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66200786620079JenicaAtwinFrederictonBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to the pre-study at INAN and all the work that has supposedly been done on this legislation already.I do not want to let the facts get in the way of talking points, but at the pre-study at the INAN committee, we had numerous requests from individual leaders of first nations, groups of people representing first nations, and indigenous business groups that had not had the opportunity to have their say and give their input on this important piece of legislation, because the minister's party limited the amount of debate we could even have at the pre-study at INAN. I understand it has also been forced to have a pre-study in the Senate. My Bloc colleague pointed out, very clearly, that at this point we have had one hour of debate on this bill. As a new member of Parliament, I am not privy to all of the history and all of the stuff that has happened in prior Parliaments. I have the opportunity and the responsibility as a member of Parliament to speak to this legislation, and to speak on behalf of the many stakeholders who have reached out to my office and who have concerns about this legislation.For the government to now invoke closure after one hour of debate, before we even get into the second hour of debate, is unconscionable in my opinion. Could the minister explain why he does not want to hear the voices of indigenous leaders who are asking to speak on this piece of legislation?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620082662008366200846620085BruceStantonSimcoe NorthDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.I have been in constant dialogue with indigenous leadership in its myriad forms across Canada. I continue to be. I did not stop when the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, and I continue to speak to industry groups. We had a specific consultation targeting industry groups across Canada, led by NRCAN. We have had a very intensive consultation process, which continues. I would point the hon. member to experiences in this Parliament, where we debated a fall economic statement for much more time than we would have debated a budget. Speaker after speaker from the Conservative Party got up and said the same thing. It was the same on MAID: Speaker after speaker got up and repeated the same arguments ad nauseam.It is the Conservative Party and its dilatory tactics that have forced us into this position today.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620086662008766200886620089GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was going to bring up the fall economic statement when trying to highlight what has been going on in the House.The fall economic statement was introduced on November 30, and we still have not gotten to vote on it because the Conservatives have been dragging their feet.I actually do not think they have anything against this piece of legislation and that they are going to be supportive of it. What I feel is that, unlike the Bloc and the NDP, the Conservatives are trying to prevent any legislation from getting through so that they can somehow declare a victory, in the sense that we are not able to accomplish anything.We could look at MAID, which the minister brought up, as well as conversion therapy, which we are supposed to be debating. I have a feeling, based on practices I have seen over the last five years, the Conservatives will not let these issues be voted on unless we come forward with a motion like this.Would the minister agree with that?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66200906620091662009266200936620094DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. On this particular day, I also salute our common Italian-Canadian heritage, given our announcement yesterday.It is critically important to look at the dilatory tactics of the Conservative Party. The fall economic statement is a perfect example, as was MAID: a very important piece of legislation that Canadians wanted and that courts were requiring. Thankfully, in that particular case, the Bloc Québécois stepped up and supported a time allocation motion.I do not like time allocation any more than the next member of Parliament. I would like to see everything debated fulsomely. However, there is a responsibility, and I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has brought this up on a number of occasions, to debate responsibly, not just with prepared talking points but with new arguments. We are not getting those from the Conservative Party. We are getting arguments repeated ad nauseam for the purposes of delaying.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662009566200966620097MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about the reality today. I would remind the minister that it is actually the government House leader who sets forward what we will be debating. I am in total agreement. I want to get this through the Senate this time. I was part of the last Parliament. I saw this bill go through. I fundamentally believe that the need for legislation that is going to help us build a framework to acknowledge indigenous rights and title in this country is imperative. However, doing it this way is really a choice of the government. When we look at the long history that we have here, we still have indigenous communities without clean drinking water. We still have indigenous communities trying to take steps forward, and we have the government blocking the way at every step. I am really disappointed that this is the only way that the government sees the bill being able to go through.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662009866200996620100DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her dedication to this process. I am glad that she brought up the process last time for Bill C-262, under the leadership of Romeo Saganash, where we did get it through all three readings in the House and then it died in the Senate. We do not want this bill to have the same fate. The composition of the Senate is different now. In particular, thanks to our government, there is a great deal of indigenous leadership within the Senate itself, which is absolutely fantastic and a wonderful point in Canadian history.Again, I do not want perfection to become the enemy of the good. We have had a robust consultation process. That robust consultation process will continue through the rest of the parliamentary process and through the Senate process. In particular, that robust engagement and collaboration process will be part of the bill once it is implemented in the action plan. This is a positive way forward. This is long overdue. There are no surprises in the bill, and this is the time to do our best as parliamentarians to move this forward and engage in those substantive debates as we move forward through the action plan.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66201016620102RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the blame game that the minister tries to put forward. I do not think anyone is buying it. We all know it is the government House leader who controls the House schedule and decides what we vote on.The minister earlier alleged that the Conservatives keep bringing up the same things. Here is some new information that was brought forward since we last met. Treaty Six first nations chiefs utterly reject Bill C-15. That came out just a week or so ago. They are asking the government to begin a process of engagement with them. We have heard from elders from a number of first nations who wrote to us because they flatly reject and refuse to accept Bill C-15. Many others have been talking about it.What does the government have to say to these indigenous communities and leaders? Why will the government not practise what it preaches?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662010566201066620107BruceStantonSimcoe NorthDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, indeed I have spoken to indigenous leaders across Canada, including the leaders of the treaty peoples in western Canada. A large number of indigenous leaders have expressed concerns. I recognize that, and we are in dialogue with them. There is also a greater number of indigenous leaders from the myriad leadership structures, and in particular traditional structures across Canada, and we are engaging with as many of them as we possibly can. We will continue to engage with them in order to move this process forward in a positive way.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620108JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, going back to my last point, the government promised to put forward the bill last year. Now, in the eleventh hour, it is being forced to put in a time allocation. I question if the bill really is a priority for the current government in the way that Liberals keep pushing the date back. We are in the eleventh hour. We are now putting in place a time allocation. I wonder how sincere the government is in actually getting the bill through, if it will stop playing games and get this process going properly.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620109DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what we are doing. Since I was renamed after the 2019 election, I have been working hard to develop the bill. We were sidetracked by COVID, quite frankly. I will be honest, it was around the time we were considering tabling the previous version. In that case the consultation process had a very different flavour. We quickly shifted gears with COVID. We began to consult with indigenous people over the summer as a pre-consultation precisely not to lose the time that we had. I can assure the hon. member that much of my summer was taken up by those consultations. We moved to table it in the House of Commons as soon as we could incorporate the suggestions made in that pre-consultation period. We are serious about this. We have done this diligently and we are going to get this through.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66201106620111LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104773MarioSimardMario-SimardJonquièreBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SimardMario_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): (1050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands said we were trying to stretch debates out for as long as possible. I just want to point out that the government is responsible for the parliamentary calendar and that there was a prorogation that cost us a lot of time.With respect to time allocation motions, I also want to point out that, when we realized that we were wasting our time, not to repeat myself, on the MAID issue, we were in agreement. Parts of the preamble to the bill before us now are utterly unintelligible. We have talked about this bill for just one hour, and now here we are with a time allocation motion. I think that is irresponsible of the government and that the government itself is partly responsible for delays in the legislative process. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662011266201136620114DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. David Lametti: (1050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.We want to ensure that this bill gets passed. It is very important. The bill guarantees the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples across Canada. We are in contact with indigenous leaders across Canada, including Quebec. I met with several chiefs and leaders in Quebec, virtually of course, individually or in their communities, or through federations of associations.It is very important that this bill gets passed. I thank the hon. member for his support on the MAID legislation. I would like to assure him, and my colleagues from Quebec, that we are working very hard to make sure this bill passes.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662011566201166620117MarioSimardJonquièreBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1140)[Translation]I declare the motion carried.Motion agreed toC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620125BruceStantonSimcoe NorthAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (1140)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, from the outset I would like to say that it is an honour to speak in the House to Bill C-15. This is a historic bill and I hope we will be able to adopt it swiftly.My colleagues know that I represent a northern riding and the majority of its population are members of the Innu or Naskapi nations. I rise in the House with my brothers and sisters from the North Shore and the Nitassinan in mind. I speak for the communities of Essipit, Pessamit, Uashat, Maliotenam, Unamen Shipu, Kawawachikamach and more. It is for these communities and the entire North Shore, which is also in favour of this bill, that I rise today.This bill comes in the wake of great moments in our history in Quebec, including the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701, which forged the alliance between our adoptive ancestors. My own ancestors were not on Quebec soil at that time, but that is what happened between the French and the indigenous peoples. I will talk about three things today, one of which is extremely important to me because there are many myths about Bill C-15 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We must deconstruct these ideas, comments and opinions, which lead our reflections on the issue in the wrong direction.Before speaking about self-determination, the third point of my presentation, I would like to remind members of the positions and actions of the Bloc Québécois that are in line with what we are doing today in the House.The Bloc Québécois has promised on several occasions to be an ally of first nations. Whether in my work as an elected member or in the case of the entire Bloc Québécois, we have never wanted to speak for first nations. On the contrary, we want to be a conduit. These are nations. Quebec is a nation. To have a respectful relationship, we must let the other speak. Today, I hope that my words and those of the Bloc Québécois demonstrate that we wish to convey the words, wishes and desires of first nations.It will not come as a surprise if I say that we support the bill. The Bloc Québécois has stated its support for the declaration many times. Even in the previous Parliament, we were in favour of Bill C-262, which was introduced by one of my former colleagues. I cannot name him in the House, but he knows who he is. I thank him.We have always been an ally to first nations, and we support the declaration that was signed over 15 years ago as well as the previous bill. Despite introducing private members' bills about this over the past 15 years and pressuring the government, we still have not managed to pass a bill. That is why I want to emphasize that passing this bill is urgent. This is just the first step, and there will be more to follow, including the implementation. It is very important that this be done quickly for first nations.(1145)I now want to talk about the concerns that have been expressed by different communities. Although the concerns are shared in different ways, they all come down to the feeling of a loss of control. I always find that surprising, since we are talking about first nations' rights. I do not think we should even be asking these questions, on principle, since these are their rights. These rights belong to them.There are nevertheless some concerns that may play on fear, whether consciously or subconsciously. Sometimes these concerns are born out of a lack of understanding, which is why we need to dispel the myths.The first has to do with free, prior and informed consent, known as FPIC, a topic that has evoked some strong feelings in almost all of the speeches. We hear so much about FPIC, as though it were the only key to adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and enshrining it in law.However, we are told that FPIC is a veto right, which blurs the line between two completely different notions, but what we hear is that consent is a veto. The first point I want to make in my speech is that these two notions are completely different. Consent is not a veto. FPIC is a notion all on its own.According to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we have an obligation to co-operate in good faith with indigenous peoples in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent. We are therefore not talking about a veto.There is no significant difference between such consent and the duty to consult established by the Supreme Court. This is nothing new, and it is something that should always be done. I agree with the declaration. I agree with obtaining the consent of a people or nation living in a territory with regard to activities that will have a direct impact on them and on their lives, culture and health. In my opinion, we should all agree on that.I have lots of things to say, but I will move on to another point people often raise about how there is some uncertainty regarding the legislative intent. The Minister of Justice said that the legislative intent was not to grant veto power. He said so clearly during his speech at second reading of Bill C-15. I do not have the minister's exact quote here, but I am sure it is in the official report of the House of Commons Debates.Now I would like to talk about the legal definition of consent. Consent was already required in the past, though it was not called that. It already existed. Now it is being named and made mandatory. Examples from history are the James Bay project in the 1970s, the Oka crisis and the Grande Baleine project. First nations were being asked for consent back then.(1150)In any case, the first nations are rallying and mobilizing. We have seen it over the past couple of years. Political pressure is being exercised on many fronts and it is warranted. There is a desire be consulted and to be able to provide free and informed consent. There is another concern regarding the revenues generated by resource-related activities. I think the issue of royalties is simply ridiculous, and I believe the British North America Act is clear on the matter: Quebec and the provinces are owners of their own land and the resources therein. In the case of Quebec, this is an absolutely indisputable interpretation of the Constitution. There is already an agreement on the sharing of revenues from these resource development projects. That already exists. When it comes to wealth sharing, I do not see how anyone could have a problem with sharing the revenues with the first nations who live on the land, creating jobs for those first nations and promoting wealth creation in remote areas like mine. The Bloc Québécois believes that sharing resources is patently obvious. It is necessary, and it goes without saying any time there is an agreement, a deal or a consultation with first nations.I will address another point, but first I would like to conclude my thoughts on Quebec's jurisdictions, as I was talking about earlier.On Bill C-15, the Minister of Justice said the following:Let me be clear: Bill C-15 would impose obligations on the federal government to align our laws with the declaration over time and to take actions within our areas of responsibility to implement the declaration, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples. It would not impose obligations on other levels of government. The notion that this would infringe on Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions is yet another myth and another concern that I want to debunk. This is not true. The intent seems quite clear in this legislation. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill precisely because our interpretation is that the bill does not infringe on the provinces' exclusive jurisdictions.I want to talk about the notion of self-determination under the declaration, since that is exactly what it does. The declaration recognizes that indigenous peoples and nations have the right to self-determination. Members will know that a nation's right to self-determination is something that we in the Bloc Québécois hold dear. I do want to point out that this right to self-determination is an internal one. It has nothing to do with a state's borders, and this is made clear in several articles of the declaration. This right to self-determination can simply be interpreted as an inherent right to self-government within a sovereign state's legal framework. There is autonomy, but within the legal framework of a sovereign state, within Canada. I hope that one day this will apply to Quebec. On top of that, international law has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There is a lesson to be learned from what has been done internationally.Canada has also taken a position in support of UNDRIP. We agree, but there is one more step to take. We must follow through and finally pass Bill C-15. Then we need to implement it, which we hope will be done swiftly. There is talk of a three-year time frame, but we would like to move quickly and see that shortened to two years. My first nations brothers and sisters have been waiting long enough.(1155)In closing, I would like to quote a few passages from UNDRIP that I think are clear examples of why we should pass this bill very quickly. These are points that everyone agrees on and, again, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could not support this. I will now quote a few articles all at once. Article 10 states the following:Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.I do not know how anyone could be against that. The declaration also states the following:Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.These are fundamental rights. Who is against that? I will continue: Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights....I would ask the same question. The declaration also states the following: Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining....Who is against that? I will continue: States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. Once again who is against that? This is my last quote: States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for: ...(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration; ...There are many other articles I would like to read, but they are all along the same lines. They speak about rights, integrity, freedom, essential needs and respect; in the end, they are about human beings.In closing, the Bloc Québécois obviously supports Bill C-15 because we agree with the principle of it. We would like to see the bill be implemented quickly. With regard to all the misconceptions surrounding Bill C-15, I would like people to learn more about the bill and for us to talk about it, because we need to clear up those misconceptions. We must not vote based on impressions or opinions, but on facts, and we always need to remember that we are talking here about the rights of nations.At the same time, since the Bloc Québécois obviously seeks to speak on behalf of Quebec, I would like to remind the House that, on Tuesday, October 8, 2019, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion: THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the conclusions of the Viens Commission, expressed on 30 September 2019, as regards the responsibility of the Québec State with regard to the overwhelming and painful findings set out in its report; THAT it recognize, as the leaders of all the political parties represented in the National Assembly have affirmed, the importance of taking concrete actions, now, to put an end to discrimination against the members of the First Nations and the Inuit and to forge egalitarian relations with them; THAT it acknowledge that the report from the Commission Viens calls on the Québec Government to recognize and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a recommendation also made in the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls tabled last May; THAT the National Assembly ask the Québec Government to recognize the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and commit to negotiating its implementation with the First Nations and the Inuit.The will of Quebec, which I am expressing today, and the will of first nations are clear.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentEconomic impactGovernment billsIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentProvincial jurisdictionSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights66201306620131662013266201336620134662013566201366620137662013866201396620140662014166201426620143662014466201456620146662014766201486620149662015066201516620152662015366201546620155662015666201576620158662015966201606620161662016266201636620164662016566201666620167662016866201696620170662017166201726620173662017466201756620176662017766201786620179AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like members of the House to think in terms of reconciliation. I want to emphasize that Bill C-15 is about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP is an international call for action that was adopted by the United Nations back in 2007.I will quote from one of our Canada websites, dated November 12, 2010. It states:Canada joins other countries in supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In doing so, Canada reaffirms its commitment to promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples at home and abroad.I believe that all members of the House of Commons recognize the importance of reconciliation. Would the member provide her thoughts in regard to the timing and how critically important it is, after years of certain types of delays, which I will not go into, for the House of Commons pass the legislation?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620180662018166201826620183MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his question.This bill certainly is timely, and much of it makes sense. As I said several times in my speech, we are behind the times. I would not want to shut down this debate or these discussions, but I would like things to move ahead quickly so the bill can be passed and brought into force.I often talk about my personal life. We are members of Parliament, but we are also people, and that shows in what we do. I like when we are proactive and decide to step up and do the courageous thing. I am a Bloc member, obviously, so for me, respect for human rights is a given. We have to pass this bill. Given everything that has been said so far, I do not see how anyone could oppose it.Yes, this is an opportunity we must seize, and I hope the government will expedite the process and put this bill on its legislative agenda so we can pass it quickly. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620184662018566201866620187KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthNikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook Aski//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/36037NikiAshtonNiki-AshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AshtonNiki_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP): (1205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very dynamic and very clear speech.For members from regions where many indigenous peoples live, the fight for justice for them is particularly important. These peoples are very resilient, even though they continue to live in Canada in conditions comparable to those of third world countries and their rights are oppressed.Does my colleague agree that the government's fine talk about reconciliation and the importance of its relationship with indigenous peoples is not enough? What it must do is take real action. We must pass this historic bill as well as make significant investments and do whatever is necessary to deliver justice to indigenous peoples across the country.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsQuality of lifeSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662018866201896620190MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I know that the first nations are important to her because we have had the opportunity to talk about it. Of course I wish the government would do more than pay lip service and express its good intentions to legislators. We want real action, and we can simultaneously work on an implementation plan. I imagine that in 15 years, some thought has been given to how to bring in the required measures.My colleague talked about living conditions comparable to those in the third world. With all due respect to the first nations, in some places there is no drinking water and no one is ever sure when the food will arrive. Some communities are grappling with climate change. Then there are all the problems related to COVID-19: How can they respect social distancing rules when they do not have a roof over their heads and have to share housing with several families? How can they protect themselves when they have to isolate but someone shows up with the virus? It is not just those regions that are far away; often, our knowledge of first nations is also miles away from where it should be, to make a play on words. I would urge my colleagues to find out more about first nations. Anyone who is less familiar with first nations, who may not have had the opportunity to see their communities or to visit them regularly, might learn something about how important this bill is.People in some of these communities do not even have access to clean drinking water or have a roof over their heads. This is 2021. We have a duty to act.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsQuality of lifeSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66201916620192662019366201946620195NikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is good that I can ask some questions on this subject, but it is unfortunate that it is in the context of time allocation. Once again, we find ourselves in this situation.The member from the Bloc talked about a number of myths. I would ask her to comment very specifically on the fact that it is a myth that all indigenous peoples in the country oppose resource development. In fact, I hear from many indigenous peoples across my constituency, my province and the country. They have expressed great concern about the implementation of UNDRIP and some of the associated policies that inhibit the economic opportunity of indigenous peoples, specifically in regard to resource development.The member talked a little about some of the myths, and I would like her to comment on whether she would acknowledge that it is in fact a myth that all indigenous peoples oppose resource development.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662019666201976620198MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the myth is that all indigenous peoples oppose development.In my riding of Manicouagan, we have mines, fisheries, hydroelectricity and a number of related projects. I come from a resource-rich region, and these projects are already happening.What we want is free and informed consent. First nations are interested in their economic development. If there is a myth, it is that first nations are not interested in their economic future, but that is completely false.First nations want to be consulted. I think that is what the people of Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick want as well. Asking first nations what they think and seeking their consent is the right thing to do, as history shows. I am thinking of Hydro-Québec in particular.First nations are interested in their economic development. They believe that adopting the declaration and enshrining it in Canadian law will help them.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66201996620200662020166202026620203DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we are having this conversation. I want to talk about some things that are a little Alberta-specific, so I hope the member will be patient with me.Since November 2016, the Metis Settlements of Alberta has unanimously endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although the legislation before us comes late and has lacked full consultation, as we have heard in the House today, it is a first step that has the potential to ensure a real working framework for better outcomes for indigenous peoples, including for my colleague, Blake Desjarlais from the Métis community of Fishing Lake, one of eight Métis settlements in Alberta. Although the original content of the bill under former Bill C-26 is lacking in this version, we need to ensure that the intent is still to ensure true nation-to-nation relations and real reconciliation that must put indigenous people in the driver's seat. I am wondering if the member could comment on this. Does the member agree that this is, in fact, the true goal of UNDRIP, to ensure that indigenous people are in the driver's seat and are leading the reconciliation?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620204662020566202066620207MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments.I am pleased that she spoke about what is going on in her home province. We are here to work together, debate and improve the bill. She made some compelling comments. I completely agree that the first nations must be at the forefront of our discussions. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, so I want to speak for Quebec. I do not want others to decide what is good or bad for Quebec. That is a decision for me and all Quebeckers to make. The same goes for first nations.First nations have rights too, and I want them to be able to weigh in on this issue.As an elected official and a human being, I feel strongly about being able to make free and informed decisions, and first nations are no different.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66202086620209662021066202116620212HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise today to speak to this very important bill. I would like to start with commending all those who spent so many decades drafting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the grassroots, leadership and civil society groups that have brought us here today. I would also like to thank those who introduced bills in support of the implementation of UNDRIP, such as former members of Parliament Denise Savoie and Tina Keeper, or tabled motions in its support, as former MP Irene Mathyssen did.The NDP has a long history of support for the UN declaration. For instance, in 2006, the late Jack Layton wrote to the UN of our belief in social justice and equality leading us to support the declaration. He stated that even before the UN General Assembly had adopted it.I would also like to give a special acknowledgement to my partner, Romeo Saganash, whose Bill C-262 forms the basis for Bill C-15, the bill we are debating today. It has been a very long road to get here.The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2007 to enshrine the human rights that, as it outlines, “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.” I would also respectfully suggest adding the security of the person to that list.The declaration was the result of over two decades of negotiations between indigenous peoples, civil society groups and nation states. It consists of 24 preambular paragraphs and 46 articles that define the inherent minimum human rights of indigenous peoples. This was a recognition that the rights of indigenous peoples were being violated throughout the world. The articles within the declaration affirm the social, cultural, political, economic, environmental and spiritual rights of indigenous peoples. They include the right to self-determination, the right to free, prior and informed consent over matters impacting indigenous rights, including resource extraction on indigenous lands and territories.Should these rights be violated, article 27 of the declaration also provides for fair and mutually acceptable procedures to resolve conflicts between indigenous peoples and states, including procedures such as negotiations, mediation, arbitration, national courts, and international and regional mechanisms for denouncing and examining human rights violations.It is important to note that the requirement for free, prior and informed consent in activities of any kind that impact on indigenous peoples, their property or territories, differs in law from a veto. Courts are obliged to take into consideration the facts, circumstances and applicable laws in any given cases, while veto is an absolute concept in law.Canada, over a period of two decades, was an active participant in the drafting of the declaration, along with numerous indigenous organizations and representatives, and other states. However, despite that hard work, Canada, under the Harper government, opted to oppose the adoption of the declaration in 2007 with three other countries: Australia, the United States and New Zealand.Although the current Prime Minister indicated in 2015 that the “most important relationship” was with indigenous peoples, he, along with the Liberal caucus, continued to not support Bill C-262, which was introduced in April 2016. It was only through public pressure that the Liberals finally caved and voted in favour of Romeo Saganash’s bill. This was in spite of the fact that during the 2015 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised repeatedly to adopt and implement the UN declaration. (1215)It is time we move away from the Indian Act, and move forward in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples throughout Turtle Island. It is time that we confirm the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canadian law, obliging the government to ensure that all legislation is consistent with the rights articulated within the declaration, as well as to prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the declaration’s objectives, including addressing injustices, combatting systemic racism and discrimination, and eliminating violence against indigenous peoples. However, as we speak here today, we are very far away from achieving that goal. Today, as I rise in the House, the current government is in breach of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling to immediately stop racially discriminating against first nations children on reserve. There have been 10 non-compliance orders to date, and the Liberals have now indicated they will break the law and not pay what was ordered by the tribunal. There are more children in care now than at the height of the residential school system as a result of human rights violations, including failing to afford families the right to housing, failing to meet international obligations to ensure access to clean drinking water, and numerous other human rights violations that make it almost impossible for families to survive, let alone thrive. The government turns a blind eye to human rights, even when it impacts our children and families.The amazing warrior Cindy Blackstock so eloquently stated, “There’s simply no credible defence to suggest that we, the people of this period, don’t know any better.”As talk about reconciliation has become the new normal in this House, the government continues to fight St. Anne residential school survivors in court and sixties scoop adoptees, a Crown behaviour that continues to strip survivors of justice. It shows a total disregard for the violence they endured and continue to endure in real time while dealing with the residual traumatic and lingering pain. Those experiences changed or shattered lives, including that of my dear friend and spirit sister Michele Guerin. Michele Guerin is a member of the Musqueam Indian Band and an esteemed lawyer who testified as a survivor during the national inquiry's truth-gathering process. Michele was apprehended in the hospital at birth, during the sixties scoop, from her mother Beverley Guerin, who served two years in the Canadian navy and worked as a secretary at an engineering firm. The lives and fates of persons who end up in the system are often left to the whims of those making decisions, often leaving them very unstable. That was true for Michele, who decided to testify and chose to pursue a freedom of information request to obtain her child welfare file, records she used in her testimony, walking her through her journey as a kid in care labelled as a “high risk youth”. I would argue that the label was incorrectly provided. It should be given to institutions that are at risk of not meeting the needs of children and families. There was a failure to meet Michele's needs as a young person, including objectifying her at the age of 14 in a local newspaper ad posted by the ministry of child and family services in an attempt to find her a home. The ad stated it was looking for a home for “a pretty independent teenage girl. Absolutely no parenting required.” Even as a young person, she was objectified and sexualized by the system. Her rights were totally disregarded. Her personal experience brought her to feel connected with the late Tina Fontaine, a young indigenous girl who at 14 was left alone by the system and who was murdered. Her valuable life was further disrespected with the acquittal of her accused murderer.Michele so clearly shared this during the hearing in British Columbia during the national inquiry:The system labels us, neglects us, ignores us, and fails us. The worst failure is that decade after decade nothing changes. Our girls and women are still the prey. So we held the Inquiry. There were a lot of politics around the Inquiry, yet the families persisted. They needed to be heard. I testified as part of my own healing journey. The Inquiry lawyer told me, it’s rare that we have a lawyer testify as a Survivor. More importantly, I testified to be a voice for my Sisters. Still, there is no action plan. It feels as if our words fell on deaf ears and the government has chosen to Do Nothing.(1220)These deaf ears are failing to invest in the current housing crisis, which has become even more critical during the pandemic. Many indigenous people continue to be unsheltered as a result of the violent and wrongful dispossession of our lands, territories and resources, a situation that has become even further pronounced on reserves, where issues of overcrowding, disrepair, inadequate infrastructure and lack of affordability are the norm, not the exception. There has been a continued failure of this government to heed the calls from the member for Nunavut, the member for Keewatinook Aski and the member for Timmins—James Bay to take immediate action to address the massive shortages of homes and the mould crisis that have resulted from major disrepair.There is also the promise of ensuring an end to water boil advisories on reserve, and it is one broken promise after broken promise. This is a vile human rights violation, as noted by Human Rights Watch in a 92-page report citing the Canadian government’s failure to meet a range of international human rights obligations, including its failure in, and extensive excuses about, ending all boil water advisories on reserve in Ontario, Manitoba and throughout the country. Even now, as we are in the midst of a pandemic, the government continues to find excuses not to afford indigenous peoples with this basic human right to water, yet it had billions of taxpayer dollars to spend on the TMX pipeline. These are choices.Although Canada has endorsed the UN declaration, the Liberals still do not apply the right to free, prior and informed consent, as has been witnessed in Kanesatake, Site C, TMX, Keystone XL, Muskrat Falls, Wet’suwet’en territory, Baffinland Mary River Mine and 1492 Land Back Lane. It is not limited to these instances. We have seen excessive police force, or a lack of it, as witnessed in the Mi'kmaq fishing dispute, where police forces stood by their fishery, literally watching it burn to the ground.It is no wonder that there has been criticism of Bill C-15 coming from indigenous peoples who have even lost faith that maybe this time the government will do the right thing. It is one thing to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and it is completely another thing to respect and uphold the rights affirmed throughout the articles of the declaration. Indigenous peoples have no reason to trust the government.I understand this mistrust. It is valid, warranted and earned. I have the same mistrust, which is why we need this bill, Bill C-15, so we can finally have some legislative affirmation of our minimum human rights contained in the declaration. My support for the bill comes from my valid mistrust of the government to do the right thing. My trust has grown thin watching the clock run down, taking away hope, once again, that this will actually make it through Parliament.Why does the government continue to hold up this bill? It is because indigenous people have seen and felt the impacts of human rights violations, including those contained in the Indian Act and other policies in Canada that maintain the violation of our rights to this day. Not only have governments failed in meeting the most basic human rights, but they legislated a violation of these rights. It is abhorrent that in 2021, indigenous human rights are still up for debate almost daily in the House. Consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments can pull billions out their hat for their corporate friends, but banter back and forth about how they can come up with the money needed to resolve the water boil advisories on reserves, respect the right to housing and actually put in place a national action plan to resolve the ongoing violence perpetrated against indigenous women and girls caused by colonialism that continues to this today.(1225)It is time for the Liberal government to start upholding human rights to ensure that the dignity, safety and the security of all persons is realized. This bill confirms these rights and ensures that any new legislation going forward will be consistent with United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as the summary of the bill affirms. It is a critical step toward replacing the Indian Act with human rights. The Liberal government needs to act now, and I cannot express that strongly enough. The implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is essential. Bill C-15 confirms its application in Canadian law, meaning that courts can refer, and have referred, to the declaration to interpret domestic law, in addition to other distinct legal frameworks that also inform the interpretation of indigenous rights including the Constitution, indigenous law, our treaties, and international law that also respect and affirm those rights. None of these legal frameworks supersede the others, they are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Bill C-15 is not perfect and requires amendments. This has been noted in witness testimony by indigenous and non-indigenous people in our study of the bill in committee. We must ensure that broad-based consultations occur as we move forward to strengthen the bill. For example, a recommendation to include, in preambular paragraph 8 and article 6(2), a reference to racism. We know there are growing movements of white supremacy here and abroad. We also know that as a result of human rights violations, indigenous peoples throughout what is now referred to as Canada have been left poor and, far too often, unsheltered on our very own lands. All the while violence resulting from systemic racism, including what is being witnessed in the case of Eishia Hudson or a failure of the justice system in the case of Colten Boushie, the fact the indigenous women and girls 2S and diverse gendered people continue to be murdered and missing without urgent action, like our lives or loss of lives does not matter. The onus of proving systemic racism is placed on indigenous people whether sitting in the House of Commons or boardrooms, or fighting boots to the ground.Indigenous peoples are constantly put in the place of having to justify experiences with systemic racism and the microaggressions we experience, having to explain this reality to those in privilege who get to decide whether the claims are valid or not. Gaslighting: we need to call this out. To do otherwise would merely uphold the white supremacy and paternalism that is designed to keep indigenous peoples oppressed. Let us stop with the games and the need to protect the status quo, and just call it what it is, systemic racism, and not only when it is convenient but let us just call it systemic racism, neo-colonialism, white supremacy and human rights violations.We need to first acknowledge truth if we are ever to realize a change in behaviour. Call it out, and let us get on with the work of creating a world where all people are safe and uphold their basic human rights, so we can all achieve our right to joy and dignity. Let us stop fighting indigenous peoples in courts, whether it be about lands and resources; our right to free, prior and informed consent; fighting children; sixties scoop adoptees; and residential school warriors. Let us just honour human rights. Laws need to be put in place to protect indigenous peoples from acts of racism. The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should have happened 13 years ago, when it was adopted by the UN General Assembly. How many years will we have to wait before indigenous peoples' human rights are finally respected? The time for excuses has run out. That is why I am proud, along with the NDP colleagues, to call on the Liberal government to act now and to finally uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. AdoptionC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCare for childrenChildrenConsentDrinking waterGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsRacial equalitySecond readingSocial housingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620213662021466202156620216662021766202186620219662022066202216620222662022366202246620225662022666202276620228662022966202306620231662023266202336620234662023566202366620237662023866202396620240662024166202426620243662024466202456620246662024766202486620249662025066202516620252MarilèneGillManicouaganJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague so much for her incredible, impactful words today. She has articulated so many of the things that need to be said more often in this House.I have struggled with this bill. I have high hopes, but I also have those same concerns and that same mistrust. I am thinking of court cases, child welfare, residential school survivors, the boil water advisories, the lack of action on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, the snail's pace of implementing the TRC recommendations, the poverty, the state of housing.I wonder, will this bill truly address the situation? For communities on the ground, day-to-day band operations, what will this mean in practice? That is the question I am having trouble articulating. Is it symbolism over substance, or can I believe in Canada this time around?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662025366202546620255LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Leah Gazan: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, it provides us with another legal tool that we can use to protect indigenous rights in this country, which include treaties, international law, domestic law and indigenous law. It provides us with another legal tool we can use to affirm our rights. It does not take away from or impact our rights, it affirms the application of the minimum human rights standards articulated in UNDRIP as having application in Canadian law, and it is beyond time that this happen.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620256JenicaAtwinFrederictonAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the proudest moments in my parliamentary career was being in the House of Commons on May 30, 2018, and voting alongside Romeo Saganash on the third reading of Bill C-262 and sending it to the Senate, where, sadly, it languished for an entire year before the first round of debate began.I want to ask my colleague about the inconsistent approach the federal government often has when saying it wants to uphold indigenous rights and the sort of selective application of the UN declaration. My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is being plagued by an anchorages issue that were all established without the free, prior and informed consent of the Halalt, the Lyackson, the Penelakut, the Stz’uminus and the Cowichan peoples. Parks Canada is making a huge effort to consult with these nations in the establishment of a national marine conservation area, but when those same nations raise concerns about the anchorages to the Minister of Transport, we get dead silence.I would ask my colleague about the totally inconsistent approach that we get from different departments of the federal government.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662025766202586620259LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Leah Gazan: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that there has been a normalization in this country of violating the rights of indigenous peoples, as we have seen globally. We need to move beyond decision-making that is made only when it suits our economic and political interests and brushing it aside when it does not. Human rights are human rights. Human rights are a non-partisan issue and need to be applied.This bill would provide application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law. It would clarify rights that have already been affirmed through the courts, through hundreds and hundreds of Supreme Court rulings, so it is necessary. That behaviour is colonial behaviour and if we truly want to move beyond reconciliation, we have to at least uphold the minimum human rights of indigenous peoples in this place that we now call Canada.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66202606620261AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her incredible passion and the work she has done on this file.As we speak today, the people of Kashechewan are being forced to face another evacuation. Year in, year out, every spring, the people of Kashechewan have to leave their traditional territory because they are living in a community that is fundamentally unsafe. I bring this up at this point because we have had the Conservative government break agreements with the people of Kashechewan, we have had the Liberal government sign agreements with the people of Kashechewan, but there is no difference between the actions of either party. They continue to ignore the health and safety of people. The Liberals make promises, but do not follow through.With other year of threat to people's very lives, having to leave their homes in the midst of a third wave of COVID, what does the member think about the government's failure to live up to the obligations of legal contracts that it has signed with indigenous people to guarantee human rights and justice?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCivil and human rightsGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662026266202636620264LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Leah Gazan: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that Canada has signed on to international human rights obligations. We are signatories to human rights in the international community, yet the government has wilfully and intentionally violated the minimum human rights of indigenous peoples. We know indigenous peoples in this country, as a result of human rights violations, were already behind and we know as a result of COVID-19, people are even further behind. The fact that in all the COVID spending, although we were further behind, although indigenous people comprise 5% of the entire population, we were given less than 1% of the overall COVID funding. That is a normalized behaviour in this country that we need to look at. We need to stop turning a blind eye and ensure that all people who live in this place that we now call Canada are ensured minimum human rights. That includes the right to housing, to accessing clean drinking water, to keep their kids, the right to go to school in their own territories, these very minimum human rights that are up for debate almost daily in the House.I will continue, along with others in the House, to do what we need to do to ensure human rights for all.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCivil and human rightsGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662026566202666620267CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I cannot thank the member enough for her comments today. It is so important to hear from her. She is such an ally. I have learned so much from the member about the rights of indigenous people in Canada and around the world. I honour her for her words she has brought forward today.As the member for Edmonton Strathcona, I would also like to talk very briefly about a community in my province that has been suffering for decades, that has been suffering with insufficient housing, with insufficient care for the people in that community. The community of Saddle Lake has been asking the federal government for years and years for support. I want to flag to the member that the incredible work she is doing is something that I will be sharing with those people. If there is anything she would like to say, any support she would like to offer to the people of Saddle Lake, I would be happy to take that to them after this debate.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66202686620269LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Leah Gazan: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to say that indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, allies, need to unite. We need to unite. The bill is not perfect. It requires amendments, but it is a starting point. We need to stop fighting against ensuring that indigenous peoples have minimum human rights in this country and finally realize human rights for all.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620270HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaMarcSerréNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88874MarcSerréMarc-SerréNickel BeltLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SerréMarc_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.[Translation]I am honoured today to speak to Bill C-15 as the member for Nickel Belt in Greater Sudbury, Canada's mining capital, which is located on the Robinson-Huron treaty territory of 1850 and on the traditional unceded lands of the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Wahnapitae people.I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the Métis people. As a member of the Liberal indigenous caucus, I am especially proud to support this bill, which is so important to the future of my region and the country as a whole.Like many other members, I work closely with indigenous communities and their leaders to build relationships, mutual respect and, in some cases, good friendships. We all know that too many of these communities across Canada are struggling with the legacy of residential schools, as well as other problems related to systemic racism, intergenerational trauma, housing, access to clean water, high incarceration rates and a lack of jobs.Today, we are having a debate on legislation that will help us address these enormous challenges. Bill C-15 would bring Canadian legislation into line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP sets out the rights of indigenous peoples around the world, including their right to self-determination and their right to develop their lands, territories and resources.My speech today will focus on the role that our natural resource economy has played, is playing and will play in helping to right historical wrongs.(1245)[English]Let me share an example from my region. It involves Vale Canada's copper mine and Sagamok Anishnawbek First Nation. The property is less than 50 kilometres south of where I am in my riding, next door to my riding of Nickel Belt and the riding of my good friend, the hon. member for Sudbury.Work began in the sixties, but hopes to extract the nickel, copper and precious metals vanished in the early 1970s due to the world's low pricing. That was during a time when most Canadian companies did not bother consulting local first nations. The Sagamok Anishnawbek people still refer to this ignorance as a 100-year wall of indifference.Things have changed and while progressive companies have played a role, credit must go to indigenous rights' pioneers, leaders from B.C. to Nova Scotia, who launched court challenges, starting in the early 1970s, to assert their rights. It was in that context that the Sagamok Anishnawbek nailed down an agreement with Vale prior to the mine opening in 2014. First nation members got training and access to jobs, which involved everything from underground mining to trucking, hauling and snow removal services. In 2019, the first nation acquired control of the mine's ore and waste rock haulage contract. More important to the community, it was a sense of pride.[Translation]At the time, the leaders of this first nation called it a historic event. It will go down in history. The future is here, and I am proud that our government is encouraging these partnerships all across Canada.I just watched a video on YouTube about another success story in northern Ontario. Honestly, I got choked up.[English]Last year, Natural Resources Canada provided $500,000 in a training fund for the Agoke Development. The money came from the $13 million three-year indigenous forestry initiative. Agoke, a forestry company in northern Ontario, is owned by three first nations. Their leaders are determined to create local jobs, especially for youth who otherwise have to leave their families and traditional territories to get employment. Today, they are truck drivers, millwrights, power engineers and heavy equipment mechanics, and some are trained in forestry management. One of the youths in the video said that he was reluctant to take part, but then his grandparents convinced him to take that leap of faith. That youth was bursting with pride when he was asked if he was glad he had applied. He said that it was life changing. A young woman echoed that sentiment, telling other youth, “Honestly, just to sign up.“[Translation]The Natural Resources Canada program also gave $330,000 to the Cree first nation of Waswanipi in Quebec, which is located 800 kilometres north of Montreal. This financial assistance enabled the first nation to reopen a shuttered sawmill. That is fantastic, but the government cannot do this alone.We need the private sector and its private purchasing power. Industry is answering the call, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is a good business decision at a time when many companies are experiencing labour shortages, especially in areas that are remote and near indigenous communities. The oil industry already supports more than 10,000 indigenous jobs and has invested some $12 million in the communities.(1250)[English]Just last spring, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reaffirmed its 2016 endorsement of the UN declaration as a framework for reconciliation. The LNG sector has helped set the pace. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada said recently that this sector had the potential to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people.Meanwhile, the Mining Association has taken action to support and embrace UNDRIP.[Translation]It revised its indigenous and community relationships protocol. This will make it possible for its members to align themselves with the requirements of our new Impact Assessment Act, our government's initiative to achieve the objectives of the declaration. There are approximately 1,200 indigenous communities located near several hundred active mines and more than 2,500 active exploration properties. These agreements provide for training programs, apprenticeship opportunities, and substantial scholarships and retention bursaries. The objective is to provide transferable skills that can be used after the mine shuts down.The forest products industry also recognizes the importance of establishing partnerships with indigenous peoples, 70% of whom live in or near forests.[English]In B.C., for instance, the various partnership agreements have brought roughly $250 million in benefits to indigenous communities. This progress is not confined to traditional resources and industries. Many communities will take part in a clean energy wave as we drive toward a net-zero 2050 target. In northern Alberta, our government is helping indigenous communities build Canada's largest off-grid solar energy farm. This is hardly an isolated incident. The Conference Board of Canada noted that indigenous communities owned half of Canada's renewable projects, which is making real progress. However, the truth is that there is still more work to do be done. That is why everyone, government, industries and these communities, must work harder and together to build that foundation of trust. The natural resources sector is the largest employer of indigenous peoples in Canada. The natural resources economy provides jobs, equities and opportunities for indigenous businesses and impact agreements that benefit communities adjacent to natural resources. UNDRIP will provide a clearer picture for resource development in Canada, helping to ensure these projects are done in full partnership with indigenous people.Working together, we can be part of correcting this grave historic injustice. I urge all members of the House to support the bill.Aboriginal Forestry InitiativeC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEconomic developmentEconomic impactForest products industryGovernment billsIndigenous rightsMining industryOil and gasRenewable energy and fuelSecond readingSplitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662027166202726620273662027466202756620276662027766202786620279662028066202816620282662028366202846620285662028666202876620288662028966202906620291662029266202936620294662029566202966620297LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into debate on this subject, although it is unfortunate it is under the auspices of time allocation.I heard from a number of indigenous leaders, communities and individuals, who are very concerned about the consequences a legislated implementation of UNDRIP would have on their ability for economic self-determination. Certainly, I appreciate the fact that the member brought forward a number of concerns about how stakeholders needed to be engaged and whatnot, but I am concerned about how some indigenous leaders see this as having possible negative consequences on their ability to participate in Canada's economy.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66202986620299MarcSerréNickel BeltMarcSerréNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88874MarcSerréMarc-SerréNickel BeltLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SerréMarc_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Marc Serré: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, the bill has provided some opportunities for consultation. Some indigenous communities have concerns, but the vast majority of indigenous communities are in support of natural resources and work collectively with a natural resources company. It is clear that many, if not all, of the industries have embraced UNDRIP. They know that we need to consult with indigenous communities. They know that to get resources to market, we need to partner and we also need to look at a net-zero plan by 2050. This is important for the consultation that is happening. It is important that we pass the legislation. We need to move forward. We need need to build the trust with indigenous communities, and the private sector is leading the way.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66203006620301DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. He talked about what went on in his backyard, the lack of consultation with first nations people and the fact that first nations youth had to leave the north, again and again. What is happening in his backyard is the destruction of the indigenous languages, the indigenous education, the indigenous politics and environmental programs at Laurentian University. There has been no consultation with them and that member has gone to ground.The member talks about how great it is that indigenous people can learn to drive trucks. Yes, they know how to drive trucks all right, but we have a world-class program at Laurentian to ensure access for indigenous youth not to have to leave the north, but to stay and be doctors, nurses or teachers. It is being wiped out and that member has not bothered to stand up and fight for them. How can he have the nerve to talk about consultation with first nations now while this program is being wiped out on his watch?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesColleges and universitiesCurriculumGovernment billsIndigenous rightsLaurentian UniversityPublic consultationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662030266203036620304MarcSerréNickel BeltMarcSerréNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88874MarcSerréMarc-SerréNickel BeltLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SerréMarc_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Marc Serré: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, it is always interesting hearing the member speak, because he could not be further from the truth. We all agree that the program cuts that are happening at Laurentian University are unacceptable. The indigenous, the environment and what is happening is unacceptable during the court proceedings.However, I want to assure the House, members of Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, indigenous peoples and people all across my riding that I have been standing up. Our government will be supporting a plan that has been proposed. This is something we have to do. Today, we are debating the consultation approach that we have taken. We are debating UNDRIP. We need to pass this legislation. We need to do this now. The urgency is here. We have supported it over the years and now we need to pass it. I hope that tomorrow my colleague and all the members of the House will take that initiative to ensure it is passed.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesColleges and universitiesCurriculumGovernment billsIndigenous rightsLaurentian UniversityPublic consultationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662030566203066620307CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, resource development and extraction have offered some opportunities for first nation communities: training, jobs, accommodation agreements and perhaps economic prosperity in certain cases. The trouble with highlighting only the positive is that it lacks integrity; it comes off as disingenuous. We know many of the ways that resource development and extraction have actually used and abused indigenous territories and peoples. Could the member comment on some of the ways that missing and murdered indigenous women are impacted by, say, man camps that accompany this development?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsHomicideIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMissing personsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesViolence against women66203086620309MarcSerréNickel BeltMarcSerréNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88874MarcSerréMarc-SerréNickel BeltLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SerréMarc_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Marc Serré: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, obviously more work needs to be done. The House of Commons and all political parties need to support indigenous communities across the country. We need to ensure that we look at housing and clean water, and at the many issues facing first nations. We have many issues to deal with, and we will be taking action. We are making great strides. We need to promote the good that is happening in indigenous communities and we need to do better.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsHomicideIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMissing personsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesViolence against women6620310JenicaAtwinFrederictonPatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105918PatrickWeilerPatrick-WeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WeilerPatrick_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, good day and áma sqit. I am speaking to members today from the traditional unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples, including the territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam nations. My riding also includes the traditional unceded territories of the Líl'wat, the Shishalh and the N’Quat’qua nations. I am very grateful to also call this place my home. Tanúyap. It is particularly important to start with this language acknowledgement as we are debating Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian federal law.It is important because we need to remember that indigenous peoples have lived on these lands and waters since time immemorial. Their laws, their practices and their ways of life did not end when settlers reached Canada’s shores. However, our nation has stubbornly not been able to reconcile this reality and has instead sought to carve out a box, figuratively, to isolate first nations in society. It has sought to marginalize indigenous people in Canada or to assimilate them into society more widely.The actions of settlers and Canadian governments over time have been to dispossess indigenous peoples of the land they enjoyed communally, to separate families, to suppress indigenous culture and to deny the same basic rights to indigenous peoples that the rest of Canadians enjoy freely.The advances on indigenous rights we have seen in our country were not simply given to first nations. They were the result of long, arduous litigation that led to the development of aboriginal law. This was by no means easy: It started from a point of first nations not having the right to legal counsel to having rights protected under section 35 of the charter. The common law has evolved to recognize aboriginal rights to traditional practices such as fishing under indigenous leaders and visionaries like Ron Sparrow.Recognition of aboriginal practices and title in seminal cases such as Delgamuukw had to be built from an evidentiary base that was recorded through oral history, when the law did not recognize it. These cases had to be heard in front of leading jurists who, only 30 years ago, dismissed indigenous ways of life as nasty, brutish and short before they finally worked their way up to the highest courts in our land where our laws continue to evolve.The adoption of Bill C-15 would help flip this script with the government finally taking a proactive approach to recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, including the inherent right to self-determination. Nothing less is required to move forward in reconciliation.Since 2016, progress has been made by introducing new approaches to negotiations and establishing mechanisms for co-operation and collaboration, as well as through ongoing steps to implement and respond to the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called upon the Government of Canada to fully adopt and implement the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, and Bill C-15 responds to calls to action 43 and 44.Bill C-15 would take this step by further requiring that our laws be consistent with UNDRIP, or else modifying them so that they are. It is a simple and short bill, but its implications are wide-ranging. For that reason, an up to three-year timeframe is established to develop an action plan to implement this legislation. I know that seems like a long time, but when we consider that this implicates all federal ministers, the whole of government, and 634 first nations in this country speaking 50 different languages, as well as the amount of federal legislation that will have to be looked at, we can understand the scale of the task.This is not the first time we are debating this bill in this chamber. This bill was first introduced by Cree former Liberal MP Tina Keeper in a 2008 private members' bill, which failed to be enacted. Former NDP MP Romeo Saganash’s private member's bill passed in the House, but unfortunately languished in the Senate for over a year before the last election.I have to emphasize that we are not the first movers in this space of adopting this bill into domestic legislation, given that the provincial government in British Columbia did so in 2019. We can learn from its experience. The sky has not fallen since. Instead, the province has had one of the most robust economies in our country since then. I mention this to dispel a common misconception about the likely impact of this bill. (1300)When it stalled the previous iteration of this bill, the official opposition in this chamber and the Senate voiced fears that the article recognizing free, prior and informed consent from indigenous people for projects on traditional indigenous land would paralyze resource development. However, these fears disregard the fact that the Government of Canada already aims to secure free, prior and informed consent when actions are proposed that impact the rights of indigenous peoples on their lands, resources and territories. Case law has grown to recognize that significant impacts to closely held rights require a meaningful process that seeks consent, in practice anyway, to uphold the honour of the Crown and to meet constitutional obligations under section 35. These fears also disregard that industries already work from within this frame because their shareholders expect it, because it is necessary for social licence and business certainty, and because they know that the projects will become fixtures in the communities. Partnership with indigenous peoples is the way forward.Giving first nations a say in projects that affect them does not mean that projects do not get built. It means that bad projects do not get built, and that the issues that impact first nations are addressed in the process. The Squamish Nation in my riding pioneered an indigenous-led environmental assessment process that a major project proponent agreed to be bound by. Rather than reject the project, the EA approved it with important conditions that would mitigate the impacts of the project. From that, an impact benefit agreement was then ratified by the nation through a referendum. Similar progressive processes have been developed by nations such as the Tahltan Nation in northern B.C., where mining is a hotbed of activity, and the Secwepemc in the interior of B.C. Processes like these are now allowed, and indeed encouraged, by the Impact Assessment Act that became law in 2019. It is a great departure from the assessment regime that the official opposition brought in, in 2012. When the Conservatives were in power, they treated fist nations as stakeholders rather than as the rights holders that they are, and treated consultation with indigenous peoples just the same as with other individuals: as a box-checking exercise. This was not only dishonourable, it was also unlawful, and it is one of the reasons that inspired me to be where I am today.The Impact Assessment Act is one of nine federal laws that references, and was created within, the spirit of the declaration. We need not fear these developments, because when first nations have clear power over decisions that affect them trust is built, confidence increases and opportunities become available for indigenous peoples. Decolonizing our relationship with indigenous peoples presents perhaps the greatest opportunity for economic growth in this country. If first nations can get out of the absurdly titled Indian Act, they can gain access to basic abilities, such as getting a mortgage from a bank, among many other benefits. I wish to recognize Shishalh Nation hiwus Warren Paull, who was a councillor in 1986 when the Squamish Nation became the first self-governing nation in our country through visionary leadership, blazing a trail for many other nations. The nation has since developed advanced land-use plans to guide development and is assuming new areas of responsibility from other orders of government. It participates as a full partner in the Sunshine Coast Regional District, has reformed its constitution and voting laws, negotiated detailed provincial agreements on reconciliation and inspired the next generation of leaders, all while continuing complex negotiations on rights with the federal government. This is also happening against the backdrop of a community where survivors of residential schools still painfully recount their experiences. Chief Paull was one of many dignitaries at the B.C. legislature for the announcement that the province would be the first in Canada to introduce and pass legislation to implement UNDRIP. There he noted that: It's been 52 years since Frank Calder and the Nisga'a Nation did the first court case on land claims. Since those 52 years and counting, we finally get back to the place where recognition is there. It is high time, 14 years after UNDRIP was introduced to the globe, that we recognize the same rights here. It is time that we work with first nations proactively to advance reconciliation rather than respond remedially to court decisions. It is time that we co-develop the future that we want to see in this country. As my time is running out, I will conclude with that. ?ul nu msh chalap. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentEconomic developmentEnvironmental assessmentGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLanguage other than official languagePublic consultationSalishSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620311662031266203136620314662031566203166620317662031866203196620320662032166203226620323662032466203256620326662032766203286620329662033066203316620332MarcSerréNickel BeltJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/3633JackHarrisJack-HarrisSt. John's EastNew Democratic Party CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/HarrisJack_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, I heard the member emphasize the importance of this being dealt with now, but I had the honour of supporting Romeo Saganash's bill in the 41st Parliament, which ended in 2015. In that election, the Prime Minister promised to pass and implement UNDRIP. We have not seen that happen. We are now a year and a half into the second Parliament with the prospect of this not getting through, as it did not the last time.Could the member tell us why it is taking so long? How can indigenous people, or any Canadians, take seriously the Liberal commitment to having this actually put in legislation with an action plan for implementation?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66203336620334PatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryPatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105918PatrickWeilerPatrick-WeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WeilerPatrick_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Patrick Weiler: (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it is high time that we pass this. It is high time that we implement this in Canada. It has been over 14 years since the declaration was passed. There have been many strong efforts to finally move ahead with this in Canada. While this process takes place, important progress has been made on implementing some of the principles, but we need to have this as a framework and an action plan so that we reform all types of legislation across the country.I would certainly agree with the member that it is high time that we pass this. I certainly hope that my colleagues across the House will agree with me as well.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662033566203366620337JackHarrisSt. John's EastKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, could the member provide further comment on the issue of reconciliation and how important that has been for the government over the last number of years? As the member pointed out, Bill C-15 is another piece of legislation that responds to the calls for action, and to a deep desire that I and many MPs have to see UNDRIP take effect. How important is it toward reconciliation from his perspective? C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620338PatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryPatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105918PatrickWeilerPatrick-WeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WeilerPatrick_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Patrick Weiler: (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, moving forward with reconciliation is incredibly important for our country.The Prime Minister has said that our relationship with indigenous peoples is the most important relationship we have. There are significant challenges we have in moving forward with this. This is a long process: It is one that is going to require trust-building to make sure we are able to make the progress that we need to. It is also one of the biggest opportunities that we have in this country with respect to economic development.We see lots of great progress already. There have been major changes in the way that the Government of Canada approaches negotiations to treaties in British Columbia, which I think is really important progress. We certainly have a long way to go. We have a lot we can learn from the province of B.C., for instance, on how it has been able to move forward in the same respect.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662033966203406620341KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, we have heard about how quickly we need to pass this piece of legislation, and I understand that perfection in a perfect world is not necessarily what we can aim for.Significant amendments must be made to this bill. I would like to hear the member's comments on that, specifically about the lack of true intent around including the word “racism.” It is not there. We see instead “systemic discrimination”, and a measure to address injustices. Why does a hesitancy to address racism exist? Could the member comment on that?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsRacial equalitySecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66203426620343PatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryPatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105918PatrickWeilerPatrick-WeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WeilerPatrick_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Patrick Weiler: (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, systemic racism exists in our country. I mentioned a few examples, going back over 100 years, of how that has been present.We just have to look at the lack of access to clean drinking water in way too many areas across our country, and the third world conditions that many first nations live in at this point.I certainly agree that this is here and we need to make sure we are addressing that through any means possible.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsRacial equalitySecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662034466203456620346JenicaAtwinFrederictonGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Calgary Centre.I am honoured today to speak to Bill C-15, as the relationship with indigenous people in this country is a lived experience for me growing up and living in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. I must admit there is some trepidation on my part as we embark on this journey. The impacts of this bill would be both long-term and far-reaching, requiring more than the seeking of short-term political gains and talking points. The historical relationship between the federal government and indigenous people in this country is filled with distrust that has put in jeopardy the true potential our great country has to offer all of us.A couple of months ago, in the announcement that the government would not fulfill its promise to end boil water advisories in first nations communities, it was pointed out that the scope of the problem was not fully understood at the time the election promise was made by the Prime Minister in 2015. This is another reminder to all of us that making promises one cannot keep is not an ideal way to develop trust in a relationship that badly needs more of it. In a Globe and Mail article published recently, it was pointed out that Public Services and Procurement Canada for the past three years “has said a key indicator of the government's economic and social-policy goals was an increase in the participation of [indigenous-led business] in procurement.” Unfortunately, it was revealed in the departmental plans in the last three years that the targets have remained as TBD, to be determined. That is three years that we have seen no change in the ministry's plans to set targets or measure results.Even worse, to this day, there is not even a mechanism in place to track which bids are coming from indigenous businesses. If the government's goal really was to increase procurement for indigenous businesses, one would think that, at the very least, creating an instrument in its data management system could have been developed in three years. At best, this is an astounding lack of competence.Further evidence of lowering the bar was in the minister's 2021 mandate letter, where there was not even a mention of the 5% indigenous procurement promise that had been made to indigenous businesses in the past. Instead of doing the hard work and fixing the department's failures, they just removed the targets. It is not exactly an example that one would find in a leadership manual.These examples illustrate a troubling trend with the government's actions when it comes to delivering results for indigenous people and their communities. It starts with making election promises and getting photographs at press conferences, and it continues by using phrases in ministerial letters, on websites and in announcements like “strongly encourages” and “the most important relationship to this government”. It then ends with walking back the original promise, changing the targets or, in the case of the procurement example, eliminating them altogether. The government tends to act only when it has its back to the wall, after spending too much time walking backwards while making little progress on its promises. We see this again today in the fact that it has to invoke closure on a bill that has seen one hour of debate in this House. This brings me to Bill C-15. After Bill C-262, the government had ample opportunity and time to develop a national action plan that could have created the certainty and clarity that stakeholders have been consistently asking for. Putting together an action plan before tabling the bill would have allowed for many of the concerns of people across the spectrum to be addressed. The worry that government is putting the cart before the horse is justified, as history has proven that to be the case all too often. Why would we not ensure, on such an important piece of legislation, that we remove as many rocks off the road as possible before we proceed? That approach would alleviate a lot of the judicial quagmire that is sure to follow the passing of Bill C-15 without this transparent road map.With no certainty, the very real worry is that there will be many court battles over the next few decades because of political short-sightedness. As we have seen this past year with the Nova Scotia lobster fishery issue, that is a path not worth taking. In this relationship, we cannot afford more failures. We have to be honest: Governments have a terrible track record on delivering expectations for indigenous people. Let me use some numbers that the Indigenous Resource Network shared recently, to show who has not fallen short in delivering for indigenous people and communities in this country. (1315)The private sector has led the way in spending on indigenous businesses. Suncor has spent over $6 billion on indigenous procurement since 1999, including $800 million, or 8% of its total spending, in 2019 alone. Sunova has spent $2.9 billion since 2009, including $139 million in 2019. Imperial has invested $2.6 billion in indigenous businesses since 2009. Diamond mines in the Northwest Territories spent $5.9 billion on indigenous spending between 1996 and 2017. Agnico Eagle in Nunavut spent $408 million on Inuit businesses in 2019 alone. Teck Resources spent $225 million on indigenous procurement in 2019. Coastal GasLink has spent $720 million on indigenous and local contracts. TMX, when it is completed, will have generated over $1 billion on indigenous-based contracts. Finally, from its own published data, Cameco, a uranium company, has procured $3.85 billion since 2004 from local suppliers in my riding in northern Saskatchewan.These numbers represent more than just dollars. They represent real outcomes and direct impacts on the daily lives of indigenous people. They allow for investments into communities that have far too long been left out of the opportunities the rest of Canada has enjoyed. It is often implied that any discussion around economic opportunity and job creation for indigenous people is somehow insensitive to the social issues they face. I believe the opposite is actually true. Advocating for jobs, own-source revenue streams, equity ownership and financial independence is in fact the pathway to self-determination and the solution to many of the social challenges.The culture of poverty has for too long defined the culture of the people. A culture with such rich history deserves so much better. The private sector has done the heavy lifting in the building of trust with indigenous people and their communities, and it has been doing it for years. It should be recognized and applauded for the advancement of reconciliation and the role it has played in it. Part of that recognition should be reflected in its voice being heard in the areas of this bill it is simply seeking clarity on.Since Bill C-15 was tabled, I have had the opportunity and pleasure to meet virtually with many indigenous stakeholders. The common theme in our discussions always came back to the lack of certainty in Bill C-15's plan to implement UNDRIP. That is why it is so important that this bill clarify the following issues.Number one, in the three years the government has given itself to develop an action plan on the implementation of the declaration, what is the approach going to be to collaborating and consulting with indigenous communities, the indigenous business community and the numerous regional and national organizations across Canada so all their views will be considered?Number two, how will the application of the declaration be applied when there is conflicting support and opposition from the indigenous communities on projects that are both large and vertical in scope? Does the federal government retain the final authority in the decision-making process?Number three, will not allowing time and space for indigenous communities to find an answer to the question of who has the authority to provide or withhold consent undermine the process? With the current lack of consensus, what does this mean in the years ahead?Bringing clarity on these issues is the right thing to do. There is a responsibility in the consideration of Bill C-15 that requires us to not only listen to the concerns around the lack of certainty, but to respond by advocating for indigenous people, communities and leaders who are asking for answers to the important questions they are bringing forward.We have a long way to go in building the lost trust in the relationship with indigenous people in this country. Divisions within Parliament have often led to legislation that is based more on politics than on real solutions. That is why it is obvious that seeking clarity and certainty on Bill C-15 is not only a fair and valid request, but it is the very essence of what the aspirations of UNDRIP require us to do.Action plansC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsGovernment contractsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSplitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662034766203486620349662035066203516620352662035366203546620355662035666203576620358662035966203606620361662036266203636620364662036566203666620367PatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, it is important that we be really clear. The Conservative members say what they will during the debate, but their actual intentions would be not to allow the legislation to ultimately come to a vote. We have seen that on other types of legislation. Even though they might talk nice in regard to reconciliation and so forth, their actions on this particular piece of legislation, as it was with Bill C-262, say more than their words do. I am wondering if the member could provide a very clear indication as to why the Conservatives would not have recognized the value of allowing this to come to a vote so at the very least it could go to committee.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66203686620369GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Gary Vidal: (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, let us just be clear in the question the member is asking. This legislation is already at committee; it has been at committee for weeks already, as we were required to do a prestudy of this legislation at the INAN committee. Maybe we should actually let some facts do the talking.As I said in my comments, I have had the opportunity to speak to many indigenous stakeholders, and what I have heard and what I understand is that many of them have not had the opportunity to have their input into this legislation. They have asked to come to committee; they have sent letters asking to be at committee, but the member's government limited the amount of time and the number of meetings where we could listen to the evidence at committee, so for him to talk about the Conservatives obstructing the process is literally quite a folly. It is actually the Liberals who have obstructed the process for us to hear from the voices at committee.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66203706620371KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I represent a very large natural resources region, and we know that no projects get off the ground without indigenous consent. It is now a fundamental principle.The issue of consent is important, because it is not just about saying “yes”; it is also about the ability to say “no” when a project has fundamental problems that threaten the environment of traditional territory. I know, from the days when I was working with the Algonquin nation in Quebec, that we actually had to have blockades to get anyone to come to the table. We are talking about a fundamental principle, a principle that has been defined in court case after court case, a principle that the issue of consent is fundamental when we are talking about resource development in Canada.I would encourage the Conservatives to recognize that if they are willing to work with first nations communities, we are going to move a lot further ahead, but we have seen obstructions against UNDRIP year in, year out. UNDRIP needs to pass before we can move together as a nation.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662037266203736620374GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Gary Vidal: (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, in all fairness, I could not agree more with the member. As I said in my comments, not allowing time and space for the indigenous communities to find an answer to the question of who has the authority to provide or withhold consent undermines the process.What I have heard from the stakeholders, many of them indigenous organizations representing opportunity for indigenous people whose mandate is to end poverty in first nations, is their concern about the uncertainty and the lack of clarity on this particular piece of legislation and how it may hinder their opportunity to fulfill their mandate of serving their people in first nations across this country.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66203756620376CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to ask quickly about some of the words we use. Language is so important, and “reconciliation” has been said time and time again in the House. I have heard from many people who feel that this word is actually losing some of its meaning. In fact, if we think of reconciliation, it means to reconcile, to improve what was perhaps once a good relationship, which we know was not the case.Could the member speak about reparations and what we could actually be doing in Canada to ensure that we repair a broken relationship?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66203776620378GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Gary Vidal: (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I would simply point out to the member opposite that the slogan of my campaign and in my riding has been “Building Authentic Relationships” with the people I serve, in a riding that is 70% indigenous people. I believe that authenticity, being real, having good conversation and listening to the concerns of the people is the answer to repairing the relationship. We have to get out there. We have to be part of their lives. We have to listen to their concerns. We have to consider them valid. It is about building relationships that are real and authentic.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620379JenicaAtwinFrederictonGregMcLeanCalgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I represent a riding that is in Treaty 7 territory, the traditional territories of the Blackfoot Nation, including Siksika, Piikani and Kainai, theTsuut’ina nations; and Stoney Nakoda First Nation. We acknowledge all the many first nations, Métis and Inuit, whose footsteps have marked these lands for centuries.Let me start today's debate on Bill C-15, introduced to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with the questions I am often asked about its clarifications.How is United Nations involved? How do its edicts fit in Canadian law, which of course is much more robust? How do the United Nations edicts affect jurisdictions that have an established rule of law? How does UNDRIP consider and affect unique institutional rights, like section 35 of the Canadian Constitution? How do the two go hand in hand? As this is legislation, will it remain subservient to the constitutional law of Canada that supersedes it? What happens to existing Canadian laws? How are decades of legal precedent affected by this declaration? Who will be the decision-makers? That is, the arbiters to balance the various interests and outcomes of these very pertinent questions. Will it be the same stagnant bureaucrats and interest groups that have ensconced the Indian Act as the status quo, in spite of decades of compulsion from all affected corners of Canada to move beyond this paternalistic legislation? Will it be a star chamber of legalists who have never set foot on the ground or experienced the problems that generations of first nations have been striving to overcome?One thing is clear: Based on outcomes that have not arrived, the status quo is broken. How do we know it is broken? Let me count the ways. The words that describe the rights of Canada's indigenous people are a meaningful gesture, but gestures themselves are empty. There is no reconciliation that does not include economic reconciliation. Any legislation that we consider must not contribute to any negative impacts on the many indigenous communities that rely on resource development for jobs, revenues and a means to better outcomes. The decision-makers, bureaucrats, legalists, self-serving interest groups, those with a stake in maintaining the miserable status quo, should not be ensconced as roadblocks to the change that Canada requires.It is also worth noting that those with a large stake in the benefits of the status quo have no stake in the misery associated with the status quo, which is borne by those who have been actually seeking to escape that misery for decades. Wholesale change is long overdue, and bringing forth legislation to secure the interests of these regressive middlemen is the opposite of what Canada and its indigenous population require.Let me caution the Minister of Justice about placing his faith in the same interest groups and intervenors who have been part of the problem on this matter for decades. If the minister wants to get on the ground and hear about the frustrations with those voices by indigenous Canadians throughout Canada who will be affected by this legislation and the uncertainty it brings forth, please take the time to meet with those groups and have fulsome consultation, which has not happened, including in this House where we have had one hour of debate on it prior to today.Weeks ago, I asked questions in this House about the effects of the government's actions on the flight of capital for project development in Canada. Oddly, it was after one of the government's appointees blamed risk and uncertainty as the underlying reasons that projects were no longer being viewed as viable investments by foreign capital in Canada. Of course, rather than addressing the causes of the risk and uncertainty and changing the destructive course on which the current government has ventured for six years, the solution seems to be for the government to allocate capital to replace private investment: the magic of social finance to the rescue.We know what this means. It means more risk and uncertainty for Canada's taxpayers. What are others are recognizing as a problem is going to be a problem for Canadian taxpayers, and the government is doubling down on the risk Canadians will bear. In regard to UNDRIP, this legislation, as written, adds another level of risk and uncertainty to development in indigenous territories. Prior to this country's battle to get ahead of a pandemic 13 months ago, the biggest issue we were facing, as a country and as a cohesive society, were the blockades that were initiated by certain indigenous organizations in support of some parties opposed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline, traversing Wet’suwet’en territory in northern British Columbia. Do we know who these initiators were? Do we know what standing they had: traditional, authoritative, representative, legal, responsible?(1330)Do we know if these parties had other interests in the outcome? We know the democratic process for the band matters was completely usurped and endorsed by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, thus by the current government. Therefore, a well-understood process, which had changed substantially, was quickly usurped. Do I need to define “risk” and “uncertainty” for the current government? What does the government see as having legitimacy in the eyes of project proponents? It is definitely not the process as represented. As proponents have attested, if they do not have process, they do not have a path forward.This bill, Bill C-15, proposes to increase that risk and uncertainty for indigenous organizations and adds another barrier to the participation in economic reconciliation. Even as project proponents themselves attracted real capital for the development of their own economic opportunities, they will be thwarted again by the government. I thank them for the words, but how about some real action? Let me illustrate the costs of that uncertainty.Kitimat LNG is a project on Canada's west coast. The project has been progressing for a decade, along with its partner development the Pacific Trails pipeline. The project proponents have spent over $3 billion to get to this point, which represents a raft of documentation for the regulators, a gravel pad, full agreement from all 16 indigenous organizations traversed by the pipeline and full partnership with the Haisla First Nation at the project site. Thousands of indigenous jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits to people in indigenous communities, advanced trade training for a generation of people in those communities and the creation of capacity for advancing economic interests do not arrive out of thin air. In addition, more than 40 million tonnes per annum of greenhouse gas reductions will not be met. Sadly, at the end of the day, this project is on hold because there is no path forward at this point in time. Putting aside the ancillary environmental benefits, another file on which the current government is all talk with little tangible results, economic reconciliation delayed is reconciliation denied. Members should tell their children after 10 years that the reason they could not get a better education and advance their own, their society's and the world's interests is because the process was obscure and caused a decade of delays. Then members will understand the frustration.The interests advancing this confusion have no stake in the outcome. Let us acknowledge that some of those interests, such as the NGOs that are short-term participants, often funded by foreign actors, have their own interests at heart and are often funded as well by the federal government. Words and actions: we hear much of the former from the government and receive little of the latter. How many indigenous organizations have to stand up and say to the Minister of Justice they do not think the law will work and are worried that it adds further to the difficulties they have already experienced before he pays attention, before he gathers consensus, before he shuts down debate in the House of Commons on a fundamental piece of legislation that will change our country's governance going forward, including with those groups we are constitutionally bound to consider under section 35 of the Constitution of Canada? We have seen this minister in action with Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. Let me remind members that we moved this bill through this House and, on this side of the House, many of my colleagues supported the government's legislation before it went to the Senate. The minister manipulated that legislation in the other place and brought it back here in an entirely different form that ignored the at-risk groups that were left behind in the legislation. As a result, as that represented manipulation, we voted against the process. It was not democratic. Does the minister believe that first nations organizations have not recognized his actions? Does he think they are unnecessarily wary of his non-democratic tendencies and partiality to other interested parties? I will repeat that there are many who are moving this legislation forward who have no stake in the outcome. That spells moral hazard and we must divert it. Real outcomes, accountability and trust are in short supply with the current government. We must do better.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentEconomic developmentForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOil and gasPipeline transportationPublic consultationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662038066203816620382662038366203846620385662038666203876620388662038966203906620391662039266203936620394662039566203966620397GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, Ind.): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member across and I appreciated him talking about uncertainty with respect to these protests and blockades. I want to ask him about a blockade that occurred in my riding. It was a famous blockade that occurred in Ontario in central Canada that lasted for three weeks and it impacted many billions of dollars worth of commerce.I spoke to the local chief of that nation in my riding and we were trying to think of a way to end this blockade. He told me that many protesting would not heed his calls to remove the blockade because they did not respect his title of “chief” under the Indian Act. These individuals claimed that they themselves held hereditary rights to the chief role. Does the member believe that Bill C-15 would make this type of scenario more likely to occur in the future?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662039866203996620400GregMcLeanCalgary CentreGregMcLeanCalgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Greg McLean: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, that is a very important question because I have met with indigenous organizations in my riding and across Canada. One of the exact issues that they brought forward is who has standing to say that “you need my consent in order to move this forward”. Does that consent now come at the high school level when every person has to step forward or does it come with an actual legitimacy? We have experienced that across the country. It has been brought to our attention that this is a fundamental that has to change. We have to recognize who actually has the authority to give that consent or withhold that consent at the end of the day. That is not clear at all in the bill.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620401DerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonJulieVignolaBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104656JulieVignolaJulie-VignolaBeauport—LimoilouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VignolaJulie_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, self-determination means being in a position to accept or reject a project. It also means knowing who has the authority to do so.Unfortunately, the Indian Act is fundamentally racist, given its concepts and archaic nature. Bill C-15 is about reconciliation.Does my colleague believe that to achieve total and clear reconciliation, the Indian Act must also be changed?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndian ActIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662040266204036620404GregMcLeanCalgary CentreGregMcLeanCalgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Greg McLean: (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague.I am certainly proud to talk about the existing constraints of the Indian Act. That has to change now. Maybe they should cease to exist. I hope we will see that in the next Parliament.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndian ActIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66204056620406JulieVignolaBeauport—LimoilouHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague is somebody from my neck of the woods and someone I consider a friend. I miss being able to talk with him in the lobby and share our different perspectives.I want to talk about a specific Alberta issue. In Alberta at the moment he will know there is a lot of debate around coal mining and about mountain top coal mining. I have worked quite closely with indigenous groups in southern Alberta to help them protect their rights, to work with them to ensure their rights are protected. They brought forward a petition that had 18,000 signatures calling on the government to protect treaty aboriginal rights, water rights, species at risk rights and the environment. I am wondering why the member feels that implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would not provide more clarity, more certainty for investment decisions, not less. By involving indigenous people in the beginning of the project, it seems that would make it an even stronger proposition.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662040766204086620409GregMcLeanCalgary CentreGregMcLeanCalgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Greg McLean: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, the coal development they are looking at that has been petitioned in southern Alberta has been in the process for over eight years. I think it started in 2013, so it has transcended different provincial governments and indeed different federal governments and has a multi-party, multi-level of government environmental assessment review going on at this point in time. It is important to make sure that we bring everybody in at the front of the line, but have a process involved that actually says, here is where we get input from all of the different actors or interests that are involved in any type of natural resource project development, especially coal mines.I understand the provincial government is looking at that very clearly and potentially reverting to a policy that has been in the works that existed back in the time of Premier Lougheed. It is a very good piece of legislation that made sure we protected those interests and the nature that we need to uphold, especially in the Rocky Mountain eastern slopes.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPublic consultationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662041066204116620412HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs, Lib.): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-15.I am pleased to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples bill that is before the House of Commons today. I am speaking today from my riding of Labrador on the traditional territory of the Inuit and Ainu people of our great land. We have one of the most beautiful, prosperous areas in the subarctic of Canada. We are very proud Canadians.I think we can all agree that today's discussion on Bill C-15 is part of a broader discussion. It is one that stems from generations of discussions that have been led by indigenous people, by many tremendous, strong indigenous leaders who have lent their voices, expertise, skills and knowledge to build to the point we are at today, seeing this bill before the House of Commons.While our discussion is a broader one, it is important to highlight that it is also about national reconciliation. One of the broader perspectives that we have been dealing with as a country in recent years is one that we should have, could have but did not deal with in many generations past. It is about the recognition and the rights of implementation of first nations, Inuit and Métis people. It is the rebuilding of strong and healthy relationships based on respect, co-operation and partnership.We all know that Canada as a country has a constitutional and legal framework that embodies many of the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In particular, section 35 of the Canadian Constitution recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights. Section 35 is the core pillar of the Canadian legal and constitutional framework for the renewal of that relationship between the Crown, which is Canada, and indigenous people.Implementing the declaration in the context of the Constitution and of the legal framework will contribute to enhancing indigenous participation in the Canadian economy and advancing reconciliation toward renewed relationships.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662041366204146620415662041666204176620418GregMcLeanCalgary CentreMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the member, but I believe she forgot to indicate that she is splitting her time with the member for Beaches—East York.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPoints of orderSecond readingSplitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620419YvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the my colleague for being so diligent in his responsibilities. I am sharing my time with my colleague from Beaches—East York.I want to emphasize that we are enshrining this in legislation. It is an opportunity for renewed relationships in our country. The declaration itself, despite the naysayers out there, will help all of us chart a clear and more predictable path forward for the future. Some people have questions, and we are hearing a lot of them today. There are some fears associated with clauses of the bill that speak to free, prior and informed consent and how this would be interpreted in the Canadian context, including the relationship to land, natural resources development, other developments and how it affects indigenous people.Free, prior and informed consent is one of the key elements, one that we have probably heard more about than any other within the declaration. As one of my colleagues said a short time ago, it is grounded in self-determination. That is the piece we cannot forget. It is really about respectful two-way dialogue and the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them, their communities, their territories and the future generations of their people. Implementation of the declaration can really help contribute to sustainable development and resource development and it affirms the range of indigenous rights and related protections that are relevant when it comes to natural resources, lands, territories and resources.As I said earlier, I grew up in Labrador, where I speak from today, where we still have unsettled land claims with the federal government. I am part of the southern Labrador Inuit and the NunatuKavut Community Council, whose rights have, to date, not been affirmed by the Government of Canada in land claims and settlements. That is not good enough, in my mind. The colonial system under which we and many indigenous peoples have operated has prejudiced them in access to their own lands and having the opportunity to have a final say, a real say, in what happens.In my riding today, Nunatsiavut is a territory with settled land claims. It got to settle those land claims because nickel was discovered in Voisey's Bay and because a large corporation had a resource deposit. That became the catalyst to settle land claims with the northern Inuit people of Labrador. If that had not materialized, they would probably still be at the table today fighting for what is their inherent right: to have full declaration in what happens within their lands and territory.The land claims agreement with Nunatsiavut Inuit in northern Labrador is one of the most historic claims in Canada next to the one with the Cree. It is a landmark agreement. It is really what UNDRIP is speaking to today with the inclusion of the Inuit people in ensuring they have free, prior and informed consent. That mining operation went forward. It employs nearly 90% indigenous people. It is contributing to a community, but it was done through co-operation, through dialogue, through a two-way agreement on how to move forward. When I attended my first United Nations permanent forum on indigenous rights with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations back in 2016, she stood at the United Nations that day and affirmed Canada's support for UNDRIP for the first time in our history. It was a very proud moment for me to know that Canada could see this through the eyes of indigenous people and the rest of the world with respect to its importance and what needed to happen with regard to UNDRIP. Bringing it to where it is today has been, in my opinion, an absolute win for Canada and indigenous people. A lot of work still needs to be done, but as an indigenous person, there is nothing to fear here.(1350)Our great country was built on consensus and co-operation. We are reaffirming and including indigenous people in the opportunity to have real say and opportunity within their own lands. Who would ever want to deny that or deny the indigenous rights and reconciliation within Canada?I really believe getting to where we are today has not only involved indigenous participation and engagement, but also the natural resource sectors, corporations and people who have a vested interest in lands and indigenous lands across Canada. They know sustainable development comes with co-operation. It comes with working together and having a partnership with indigenous communities.It means we build capacity, look at real benefit agreements, joint management and profit-sharing operations. That is where we are with companies like Vale today, which has been successful in Inuit lands and many others. There are models out there that have worked, but they worked because they were forced to the table, not because there was willing participation, in many cases. That is what is going to change here. While industry leaders have invested time and energy into fostering many long-term relationships and building trust with indigenous groups, building an agreement that speaks to free, prior and informed consent, this bill asks for that and it would do that. There are many examples of that have already happened in Canada.We have done outreach to many sectors, including the natural resources sector, of which I am a proud champion, including the mining industry. It is an industry that fits well for indigenous people, and we are the living proof of how that can work.When I look at what is happening today, we might hear of the tremendous experiences and relationships that have been built between industry and indigenous people across many of these natural resource sectors and how they worked together in good faith and made every—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous land claimsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMining industrySecond readingSplitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662042066204216620422662042366204246620425662042666204276620428662042966204306620431662043266204336620434MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, the member for Labrador, in her role as a parliamentary secretary, has been involved in the indigenous affairs file for quite some time. When we look at Bill C-15, it would make the government commit to an action plan.When I speak to indigenous people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the thing that comes up in conversation all the time is the Indian Act. We cannot talk about discrimination in our country without talking about the Indian Act. With her experience on this file, could the member give the House some thoughts, and this is in the context of the Liberals having been in power now for five years, on what steps we take to get rid of the Indian Act? What are some of her thoughts on the process we need to start to fundamentally reform that colonial era legislation?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndian ActIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662043766204386620439CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, in all honesty, I would like to see us get rid of the Indian Act overnight, but I also know, in my role and in the knowledge I gained in this department, that it is not that simple. It is an evolving process. It is a process that will require many legislative changes going forward, but it also has to be replaced. It has to be replaced with something that is not racist, is not discriminatory and that really speaks to opportunity for indigenous people. That is where we are today, and it is not the government's decision to do this arbitrarily. It has to be done in partnership with indigenous people and with Canadians. That is the stage we are at right now.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndian ActIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66204406620441AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, Ind.): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, I have a question with respect to free, prior and informed consent and also resource development. We know that in some cases on these large projects there may be the majority of indigenous communities, maybe even a super-majority of indigenous communities, that approve of a project but there may be a small group that does not.In the creation of the bill, an amendment was put forward that explicitly clarified that free, prior and informed consent would not be considered an absolute veto. I wonder if the member thinks that free, prior and informed consent would give an absolute veto to any group even if a majority of other groups, for example, approved of a project.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights66204426620443YvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond readingInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, this legislation is really there to guide a collaborative path forward. We cannot forget that. It is there to build a stronger relationship and provide greater predictability, as well as more certainty, over time. It encourages partnerships in the resources sector and includes industry and indigenous people working together. It does not create any new obligations. It does not create any new obstacles. It does create a path toward respect and respecting the rights of indigenous people in this country.To be honest, many corporations and most industry sectors are more than willing to walk that path because they understand it. They get it, and they know that it is not compromising their investments. In fact, it enhances what they are doing and ensures a fair and shared distribution of benefits to all people who are affected and involved.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights662044466204456620446DerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, the people of Grassy Narrows First Nation have spent the last 50 years fighting for justice after industrial pollution poisoned their waters with mercury. Ninety per cent the residents still suffer from mercury poisoning. Three years ago, Grassy Narrows made a land declaration banning industrial activities on its traditional lands, but the Ontario Conservative government is now accelerating mining development on those lands.Why is the Liberal government not living up to its responsibility to defend the rights and title of the people of Grassy Narrows?Environmental protectionGrassy Narrows First NationIndigenous rightsOral questions66206956620696MaryNgHon.Markham—ThornhillMarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88660MarcMillerHon.Marc-MillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MillerMarc_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Marc Miller (Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member would well know that this government has invested historical funding into the mercury treatment centre that was announced early last year to right a historical wrong that should never have occurred in the first place.When it comes to advocating for the rights of Grassy Narrows', chief and council, and the people of Grassy Narrows are fully capable of doing it, but we will also be their voice at the federal level for whatever they advocate to premiers across the country and to territorial premiers as well. We are glad to do it and speak up on their behalf at any time, but they are fully capable of doing it as well.Environmental protectionGrassy Narrows First NationIndigenous rightsOral questions66206976620698RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Beaches—East York, I speak today in support of Bill C-15. I want to start by acknowledging the work of former NDP member Romeo Saganash. It really highlights how the importance of this issue cuts across party lines, and the significance of working across party lines to get important things done. I have had many constituents reach out to me in support of implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Most, of course, email or write letters. Some call. Before the election in the last Parliament, when Bill C-262, Romeo Saganash's bill, was before us, I had a constituent, Murray Lumley, who came and met with me in my office and called on me to support that bill, which I did, and encouraged the government of the day to support it. Murray is a thoughtful, caring constituent. He did not vote for me; he worked against me, if I am being honest, in the last election, and I do not expect he will vote for me whenever the next election might be. However, I do want to highlight his efforts, all the same, just as I have highlighted Romeo's efforts. It is important that we emphasize just how this cuts across party lines and how all of us, regardless of political stripe, need to support this really important legislation.When we work across party lines, we build trust. Another way we build trust in politics is by keeping our promises. I just want to highlight the platform that we ran on in the last election, which stated:Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission said that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples charts a path “for reconciliation to flourish in 21st century Canada.”...We will move forward with introducing co-developed legislation to implement [UNDRIP] as government legislation by the end of 2020. In this work, we will ensure that this legislation fully respects the intent of the Declaration, and establishes Bill C-262 as the floor, rather than the ceiling, when it comes to drafting this new legislation.That promise has been kept through Bill C-15, which was introduced in Parliament in December of last year. In substance, Bill C-15 has a lengthy preamble, including that:[UNDRIP] provides a framework for reconciliation, healing and peace, as well as harmonious and cooperative relations based on the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith.... [They] constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples of the world....It recognizes “historic injustices” and says that “the implementation of the Declaration must include concrete measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination, against Indigenous peoples.”In substance, clause 5 states:The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration. Saganash rightly noted before committee that “the Minister of Justice [already] has an obligation under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act to make sure that any legislation, before it is introduced, is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, and he noted that Bill C-15 provides for an equivalent for indigenous rights and treaty rights in this country.Clause 6 is the most important section in this legislation:The Minister must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and with other federal ministers, prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.This includes measures to “address injustices” and discrimination and to “promote mutual respect”; “measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy” and accountability; and “measures related to monitoring the implementation of the plan” and annual reporting mechanisms to Parliament.Bill C-15 does treat Bill C-262 as a floor, which is incredibly important. It goes beyond, in its preamble, and recognizes the inherent right to self-determination, including a right to self-government.In the words of the justice minister: Bill C-15 would create a legislated, durable framework requiring government to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to make steady progress in implementing the declaration across all areas of federal responsibility. Is it supported by indigenous communities? Is it supported by experts? Is it supported by the above-noted Mr. Saganash? The answer is yes, an overwhelming yes. There is a letter in support of Bill C-15, with over 200 signatures from first nations, from indigenous communities across the country, organizations, experts and activists, including Saganash, Irwin Cotler, the current NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, and many others. I know that one of the signatories is also a constituent, Kerry Wilkins, who is an expert at the University of Toronto.(1605)They write in this letter: Parliament has an historic opportunity to advance reconciliation. [UNDRIP] is a consensus global human rights instrument, elaborating minimum standards for the “survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples.” Implementation of these standards is vital to improving the lives of Indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world, and to upholding Canada's solemn and urgent human rights commitments. They go on to note that the measures in Bill C-15 are “important, practical and achievable measures that deserve the support of all Canadians.”Two of those signatories, Alex Neve, formerly of Amnesty International, and Brenda Gunn, wrote recently, and separately: By any measure, implementing this global declaration domestically will significantly advance reconciliation and strengthen respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples across the country. Not automatically. And not without much hard work ahead, such as the considerable effort—in full collaboration with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples—that must be invested in developing the action plan for implementation that will be required. They go on to note that it is important as a matter of global leadership and that it “stands to advance Canada's overall commitment to international human rights.”Speaking recently to a parliamentary committee studying Bill C-15, Romeo Saganash stated:I fully support Bill C-15 being tabled by the federal government in the House.... Government bills can proceed more efficiently, I believe, before the House and the Senate. Bill C-15 confirms the declaration as the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples.He goes on to note that there are some amendments he would like to see, but he supports Bill C-15 and acknowledges that it meets his previous bill's commitment in Bill C-262.Former chair of the TRC and former senator Murray Sinclair said, “Indigenous people now will be able to negotiate with a stronger hand than they ever have in the past”. The Assembly of First Nations said, “The AFN is urging all Parliamentarians to support adoption of a strong implementation framework before the close of this session of Parliament.”The ITK calls for the strengthening of Bill C-15, but goes on to say that it strongly encourages all members of Parliament to support Bill C-15 in order to help advance the urgent work of implementing UNDRIP.The Métis National Council stated: Canada now has the opportunity to assert its place as a world leader in the recognition of the human rights of Indigenous Peoples through this Bill. The Métis National Council fully supports this effort, and we urge members of all political parties to pass this legislation without delay. Sheryl Lightfoot, the Canada research chair in global indigenous rights and politics at UBC, stated: I am strongly in favour of the implementation model that Romeo Saganash created when he first brought...Bill C-262 before Parliament. This model, which is the foundation for Bill C-15, has a number of elements that I think are crucial.First of all, it requires collaboration with indigenous peoples. It also requires concrete action including legal reform and...the creation of an action plan, and it requires public reporting and accountabilities. ...Bill C-15 is advancing the global conversation and setting a very positive example.... Quite simply, Bill C-15 represents the best approach to human rights implementation that I have seen from around the world, bringing all of these various elements together. I previously noted my constituent Kerry Wilkins, who states, “Meaningful incorporation of UNDRIP into Canadian law would improve materially the circumstances, and enhance the autonomy, of Indigenous peoples dwelling here.” He goes on to provide a couple of examples. I recognize I am running out of time, so I will not get into them, unless perhaps I get asked questions.Of course, I expect the government will look for ways of improving the bill at committee. I hope to see further testimony at committee that addresses whether a three-year waiting period for the action plan is appropriate and, if it is, whether interim measures might be useful. I am also interested to understand from testimony why the bill does not include a section on power-sharing agreements in the same way B.C.'s UNDRIP implementation legislation does.Finally, it is really important to emphasize that so much depends upon implementation, so there are big questions in that regard. This bill is important, but it is important in its potential. Let us pass it at second reading, send it to committee, improve it at committee where possible, and let us get back to the hard work of implementing this important international framework here at home.Action plansC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLegislationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662081066208116620812662081366208146620815662081666208176620818662081966208206620821662082266208236620824662082566208266620827662082866208296620830662083166208326620833662083466208356620836662083766208386620839662084066208416620842662084366208446620845662084666208476620848662084966208506620851AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member referenced quite a few quotes, so I would also like to reference a quote from Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs, who writes in a special to the Financial Post: While the affirmation of Indigenous rights is always welcome, the legislation as currently drafted is likely to have negative impacts on the many Indigenous communities that rely on resource development as a source of jobs, business contracts and own-source revenues.I have spoken to a number of indigenous leaders and individuals across my constituency and across the country who have shared concern about some of the ambiguity and possible extra layers that would reduce economic opportunities for Canada's indigenous peoples. I would like the member to comment on that.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662085266208536620854NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of different things. One is that it is curious to me that we would get out ahead of ourselves to determine exactly how this would be implemented, because this is to be implemented in a very codeveloped way in collaboration and consultation with indigenous peoples across the country. The second is that its incredibly important to note, because the Conservatives and that member have asked a number questions around certainty, that our Canadian law already says, with respect to the duty to consult, that it varies with the circumstances, from a minimum duty to discuss important decisions where the breach is less serious or relatively minor, through the significantly deeper than mere consultation that is require in most cases, to full consent of the aboriginal nation on very serious issues. These words apply as much to unresolved claims as to intrusions on settled claims. Those are the words of our current Supreme Court. This notion of certainty has to be put to bed. We will get increased certainty through collaboration and consultation with indigenous people once and for all.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620855662085666208576620858DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (1610)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.I applaud the tabling of the bill, but unfortunately it is a bit late coming. Our NDP colleagues have been introducing bills for the implementation of the United Nations declaration since 2007. The Liberal government has said many times that it is in favour of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. If that is what it wanted all along, why the lengthy delay in introducing this long-awaited bill? C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66208596620860NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, we supported Mr. Saganash's efforts in the last Parliament. I have supported every bill that has come before Parliament, so long as I have been in Parliament, in relation to the implementation of UNDRIP. Romeo Saganash's bill should have passed in the last Parliament but for the fact the Conservatives blocked it in the Senate. That is an unfortunate circumstance, but we are rectifying that in this Parliament through leadership from this government.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620861KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the earnestness in which he has supported the previous work of the very great and learned Mr. Romeo Saganash, a friend and mentor of mine, who provided the framework here. However, the hon. member for the Bloc raises some important questions.I have a question of my own. I heard the member speak about the ideas of consultation, collaboration and power sharing. There are concerns that the legal frameworks that are already in place have led to scenarios like what we are seeing in Wet'suwet'en and in 1492 Land Back near my home, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy territory. We are seeing these problems exist as well in the Mi'kmaq territory out east.Does the hon. member have confidence in the government's commitment to actually having free, prior and informed consent for the collective rights-holders of these treaties?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662086266208636620864NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, this comes up too often and I think this is an inference of a previous question I received from Conservatives in relation to uncertainty. Of course, I am confident that free, prior and informed consent, as referenced a number of times throughout UNDRIP, will be a key part of the collaboration and communications with indigenous peoples in setting down the action plan under Bill C-15.What that will entail in the end, as Kerry Wilkins, the expert in my community, and as Murray Sinclair have said, is that it ought to enhance our current framework unquestionably. Let us also remember that, as Romeo Saganash has himself said and as the UN has said in its expert committee's look at free, prior and informed consent, when we are grounded in human rights, we are also looking at not absolute veto considerations, but we are looking at principles of proportionality as they relate to the interest at issue. Therefore, we will see an enhancement of our existing law through the implementation of UNDRIP, Bill C-15 and the action plan. We will also see it building upon this notion of human rights and considerations around proportionality.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66208656620866MatthewGreenHamilton CentreCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.I am really pleased to be working and building relationships with the people of the Cote, Keeseekoose, The Key, Fishing Lake and Yellow Quill First Nations and the Métis Nation Saskatchewan in the riding of Yorkton—Melville on Treaty No. 4 and Treaty No. 5 lands.I am also very pleased to speak today on Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It goes without saying that the consideration of this legislation today is a significant moment for Canada, not only because members on all sides of the House, and therefore all Canadians, want to achieve meaningful reconciliation with Canada’s indigenous people but because the Liberal government has made a critical misstep toward this goal through the introduction of the bill in its current form. It is my fear that the impact of the bill will result in the opposite of its desired effect. The bill aims to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Subclause 4(a), for instance, states that “The purpose of this Act is to (a) affirm the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law”. Further, clause 5 charges the Government of Canada with working “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” The House will remember calls to action 43 and 44 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, urging the federal government to “to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation” and “to develop a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” It was in fact the previous Conservative government that adopted UNDRIP in 2010 as an aspirational document. Then and now, the Conservatives support the goals and aspirations of this declaration. We support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with the indigenous people of Canada. However, we remain concerned about the Liberal government’s unwillingness to put forward legislation that clearly outlines the effect and interpretation of key terms within the declaration, such as “free, prior and informed consent”. When it comes to understanding what exactly this term means in a practical sense, the lack of consensus between the federal and provincial governments, among members of the legal community and within indigenous communities themselves is worthy of concern. The previous Conservative government, at the time of its inception, opposed UNDRIP, because free, prior and informed consent did not align with Canadian constitutional law. That is why, a few years later, the same government adopted UNDRIP as an aspirational document, not binding law. This was a move in line with three of our Five Eyes partners: the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. It was a decision made with good reason. The wide-ranging provisions within UNDRIP, like FPIC, were found to be inconsistent with Canadian constitutional law. Over a decade later, the Liberal government is forging ahead with infusing UNDRIP into the law of the land. However, it has failed to do its due diligence in presenting a bill that can be clearly understood by government and stakeholders. There is a lack of consultation on what purports to be a transformative piece of legislation that will have untold ramifications on our country, indigenous communities and, indeed, all Canadians. NTC president Judith Sayers says that the consultative process for this bill lacked mutual agreement and was rushed. AFN chiefs have expressed their concern that no extensive consultations were held. The government is good at partial consultations, but the word “extensive” is mentioned here.Late last year, six provincial premiers wrote to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to object to the six-week window provided for input on the draft bill. They stressed the need for “appropriate engagement with provinces, territories, and Indigenous partners on the draft bill” that could “fundamentally change Confederation.” I do not believe that has taken place and any that has is not clearly outlined to the House. The premiers pleaded for time for Canada to fully and meaningfully consider and address the legitimate, significant concerns that we have already raised about the draft bill in its current form. It is unacceptable for the government to claim that the time for consultation has been satisfied. I have heard that a great deal today. Concerns expressed at the time of the previous UNDRIP bill, Bill C-262, still exist now. How can the government claim credit for a new era of trust and reconciliation with indigenous communities with such a heavy-handed and sloppy approach to this legislation? (1620)As I mentioned earlier, the effect of free, prior and informed consent has been a long-standing concern that has not retreated from the national discourse. It generates more questions than it provides answers. Take, for instance, the direct input of indigenous communities. The National Coalition of Chiefs and the Indigenous Resource Network have expressed its concern about ramifications, such as who would have the authority to grant it and the impact it would have on future resource projects. If grant expectations under this model are not met, how will it undermine trust between the Crown and indigenous people for generations to come? Will it deter investment, good jobs and secure incomes from reaching our shores? Indeed, the interpretation of this may lead to consequences beyond Canada's resource development.Professor Dwight Newman of the University of Saskatchewan's Faculty of Law, speaking before the Senate aboriginal affairs committee on a previous iteration of the bill stated, “the Court’s interpretation of FPIC is nonetheless subject to uncertainties that have enormous implications for Canada”. Professor Newman's input has merit. Again, let us focus on how indigenous communities may be impacted. Clearly, the pursuit of reconciliation and tangible progress for indigenous communities could be stagnated by opaque language like FPIC. Even considering the current constitutional model, one that outlines a duty to consult and accommodate, tangible results can be hard to come by depending on the degree of intrusion proposed. With the implementation of this model, many serious questions are raised, including who might provide their consent in any given circumstance or who speaks for any community. Members will recall a sensitive period for our country not too long ago when the decisions of 20 band councils concerning the Coastal GasLink pipeline came into direct conflict with opposition from Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs. Opposing groups within the Wet'suwet'en could not come to an agreement about who spoke on their behalf. Speaking before a parliamentary committee, Theresa Tait-Day, a founder of the Wet'suwet'en Matrilineal Coalition, said that the project had been hijacked, despite 80% of the band wanting the project to proceed.It has been argued that the passage of Bill 41 in British Columbia, in many ways a mirror of the legislation before us, led directly to the disconnect between the elected band council, hereditary chiefs and government. Many indigenous stakeholders interpreted Bill 41 as the vehicle through which UNDRIP was adopted and therefore established a right to veto construction on the line. Indigenous communities deserve better than the ambiguity that B.C.'s Bill 41 and Bill C-15 provide.Other questions remain, such as, how will this apply in situations where indigenous rights include title or the right to occupy lands and use resources? In situations involving unresolved or overlapping land claim disputes, whose consent is required? What form will this consent take in Canadian law? There is a real concern that the government is taking steps to enshrine UNDRIP into Canadian law without a clear picture of how concepts like FPIC will be interpreted in that law.As justice minister in 2016, the member for Vancouver Granville said, “simplistic approaches, such as adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law are unworkable.” She went on to say, “it's important to appreciate why Canada cannot simply incorporate the declaration "word for word" into law.”The Conservatives have been clear and consistent. We believe that UNDRIP is an aspirational document whose goals we support. However, to adopt it wholesale without consideration for lasting consequences is irresponsible. We need a made-in-Canada approach to achieve the type of reconciliation UNDRIP outlines. Indigenous communities do not need a further barrier to achieving the best for their communities.Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, has spent his professional life in first nations administration as well as the oil and gas industry. In a special note to the Financial Post he wrote that he “know[s] first-hand what happens when federal bureaucracy gets in the way of responsible resource development.” It is his belief that symbolic gestures of reconciliation should not come at the expense of food on the table for indigenous people. Reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people means recognizing and affirming their dreams and aspirations to not just be stakeholders but, as I have been told, shareholders. In this case, it is the private sector that has led the way in spending on indigenous businesses. One example of nine is Cameco, the uranium company that procured $3.8 billion since 2004 from local suppliers in the riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan, whose member of Parliament is so passionately committed to seeing reconciliation truly succeed. His words I now repeat, “Advocating for jobs, owned-source revenue streams, equity ownership and financial independence is in fact the pathway to self-determination and the solution to many of the social challenges.” (1625)The Liberals have been failing to keep their promises, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, and failing to stand up for the future of the natural resource projects that benefit indigenous communities and that they want to be part of. As it stands, this bill has the potential to sow further seeds of division across our country. If it is the government's intention to enshrine an international—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsLegislationOil and gasPipeline transportationPublic consultationSecond readingSplitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights6620867662086866208696620870662087166208726620873662087466208756620876662087766208786620879662088066208816620882662088366208846620885662088666208876620888662088966208906620891NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1625)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She talked about the problems indigenous communities are facing and access to safe drinking water on different reserves.Does she not believe that adopting this program could help foster reconciliation?In Quebec, the Viens commission recommended that the declaration be adopted. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls also recommended that the declaration serve as a tool for reconciliation and a means to reduce the inequality of women in indigenous communities.I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620894662089566208966620897BruceStantonSimcoe NorthCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, the point that I am making is that there has not been due diligence done. My comments are not coming from me. They are coming from the indigenous communities around us that are saying this is not clear enough. The government seems to want to take the approach that it takes on so many things: It makes big announcements, it makes big decisions, it implements them, but then all things break loose.We need to take the best approach we possibly can to make sure that our indigenous people, our first nations and Métis have the opportunities to truly excel in the ways they choose. I appreciate the comment. They do not want to be stakeholders. They have every right to be shareholders in the economic successes of Canada and they are more than capable of doing so. They want proper due diligence done in defining this situation.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66208986620899AndréanneLaroucheSheffordGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, UNDRIP was adopted in 2007. We are 14 years into it in Canada, and we still have not domesticated this law. My friend opposite outlined a number of comments made by people who oppose this particular piece of legislation. She has been very selective in picking those. My question is quite direct. Are there any circumstances under which the Conservative Party would support UNDRIP in any form? The Conservatives had 10 years to implement it within Canada and they have opposed it every step of the way since being in opposition. Is there any way in which the Conservative Party will support this, or any legislation that hopes to domesticate UNDRIP?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66209006620901CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, what the member said is very important to recognize. He said my examples brought forward in the House today are individuals and organizations who do not feel comfortable with this legislation going forward because they do not feel it has had the due diligence done to explain in every way possible the accountabilities, and that I am selectively choosing those individuals and organizations.Truly, today in the House everyone has been presenting individuals who support their perspectives. Unfortunately, what that shows is exactly what I am saying. There is not consensus. There is not consensus within the federal government, within provincial governments or within the perspectives of various indigenous groups, including those who are involved in oil and gas opportunities in Canada. They have seen their opportunities shut down because of that inconsistency.My concern is that it is clear that the due diligence has not been done. Any consultation has been selective, as the member is indicating in this case, and more needs to be done.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662090266209036620904GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that “free” means without any coercion, “prior” means before the decision is made, and “informed” is when one has all the information. Every other governance system in Canada is allowed that. They are given free, prior and informed consent to make decisions.The only level of government in Canada that is not given that, and it has been proven again and again in the court system, is indigenous governance. This bill is so important because it starts that process. Could the member talk about how many indigenous communities want to be stakeholders and how this bill will actually get them there?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662090566209066620907CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, the stakeholders who were involved in moving forward and purchasing the TMX did not get that opportunity. There are all kinds of examples of situations, such as with the Wet'suwet'en, where there is not enough clarity, and that clarity has not been provided according to various indigenous groups across the nation.If we want to move ahead as quickly and efficiently as possible to make sure we have shareholders, not stakeholders, side by side with us we need to do what they are calling on us to do, which is to make this consent absolutely clear, and it is not.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66209086620909RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, hello to your father-in-law as well from northern Alberta: Peace River—Westlock, or as I like to call it, the promised land. We have 7,500 dairy animals and we are the honey capital of Canada, so we are literally flowing with milk and honey. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620913BruceStantonSimcoe NorthArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1635)[English]Peace River—Westlock was settled on a promise called Treaty No. 8. This involved 14 first nations, three Métis settlements and over 100 communities. I overlap with about 500 other elected representatives of band councils, town councils, school trustees and others from a big swath of northern Alberta. Every day, I have the honour and privilege of representing them here in Ottawa. Bill C-15, the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has been a widely debated piece of legislation over the last number of years. It is my honour to bring my voice to that today, representing the people of northern Alberta.One of the things that I hope I bring as a member of Parliament is that I typically mean what I say and say what I mean. I wish that were the case with the Liberals on this particular piece of legislation. I find it interesting that even though I will be voting against this particular piece of legislation and the NDP will be voting for it, we actually agree on the substance of it: that it could make a significant change to the way the governance of this country happens. The NDP continually say that it would be a significant change and we say that it would be a significant change. It is always interesting that the Liberals continue to say they are going to bring this in, but there will be fairly minimal impact on the way we do business or the way that governance happens in this country. It is fascinating.Section 4(a) in this bill declares that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will have application in Canadian law. That is probably the crux of the bill for me, the tripping-over point that I have. No other declaration from the UN necessarily has application in Canadian law. We have not legislated that for any declaration other than UNDRIP.Mr. Speaker, you may be familiar with the work I do to combat human trafficking in this country. Human trafficking is a scourge of this country. It is a growing crime that is happening, often within 10 blocks of where we live. One of the tools that I use in combatting human trafficking is a Palermo protocol. The Palermo protocols are part of a UN document and declaration that outlines how to identify a victim of human trafficking. The challenge with that is it is not a legislative tool. It is not a piece of law, it is a declaration. It gives principles under which countries should operate. I advocate all the time for us to bring Canada into alignment with that Palermo protocol. We have made several attempts to do that over the last 30 years: essentially, recognizing human trafficking and bringing human trafficking offences into the Criminal Code, and dealing with how to identify somebody who is being trafficked. All of those things come in, and we get a framework and idea of how to combat it from that Palermo protocol.Another UN instrument that I use regularly is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is, again, something that helps to identify whether the rights of a child are being upheld or being violated by holding a given situation up against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. When there is a default or issue and we are not able to hold a particular case up against the rights of the child or Palermo protocol to ask why a human trafficking victim is not able to get justice, we can look at the Palermo protocol and see that it indicates, in this instance, that in Canada one of the areas of the Criminal Code is that there is a requirement for the element of fear.(1640)If a person is living in fear, that is one of the elements for them to be identified as a victim of human trafficking, yet the Palermo protocol does not have that requirement at all. The Palermo protocol tries to set it up so that, given the criteria laid out, an outside observer can see whether somebody is being trafficked or not. The individual being trafficked does not have to verify that they are being trafficked.It is similar with UNDRIP. In a given situation, we would stack it up against UNDRIP and ask: Are we meeting the ideals of UNDRIP, or are we not meeting the ideals of UNDRIP? Does Canadian law have a shortfall? Are we not living up to the areas of UNDRIP?“Free, prior and informed consent” is one of those very definite areas where we have to ensure that we live up to that. The challenge that we have with it is that if “free, prior and informed consent” means the same thing as “duty to consult”, then on all of the court cases that have gone into developing that whole concept of “duty to consult”, would introducing a new term of “free, prior and informed consent” come alongside? If it comes alongside, if “duty to consult” falls right inside “free, prior and informed consent”, which I think it does, would our jurisprudence continue, would our jurisprudence stand, and in introducing the new topic into it, would that just come along and align?I think that would be great. However, if it comes in and we are now going to have to start re-litigating all of the court cases of the past because we have introduced a new concept into the jurisprudence, I do not think that is going to be helpful, not at all. Now we are going to be confusing the issues.I have been part of putting together several private members' bills. It is a rewarding exercise. It is something that is a luxury that only members of Parliament have. I am very much appreciative of the efforts that go into developing a private member's bill.One of the issues that always comes up, every time I have worked on a private member's bill, is the introduction of new terms. Every time I bring an idea to the legislative drafters, I ask, “Why did you use that term, and not the term that I used?” or “Why do you want to talk about this, when I wanted to talk about it like that?” They always say that this term has been clearly defined by the courts. Therefore, if we use that term, we already know what it means, it has a whole list of jurisprudence.For example, that term of “commercial use” is understood by the courts. There is a lot of jurisprudence behind that. Therefore, we want to use that term when we are talking about supply chain reporting, for example, or the use of images, or whatever it happens to be. We understand that term. The courts have ruled on that term.When a new term is introduced into the mix, it opens up to a whole new discussion and a whole new debate, and the opportunity for the courts to have to make a judgment on what those rules have to say. That is where the concern is.I have been sitting at committee listening to testimony on this, as committee work is always a rewarding experience, listening to Canadians bring their perspectives to Ottawa. In one case, we heard from a member of the public who outlined UNDRIP as the indigenous bill of rights. I do not think we are introducing the indigenous bill of rights when we are adopting UNDRIP. Maybe we are, but I do not think that we are doing that. So to then say that we are doing that, I do not think it is helpful to indigenous people, if they think that this is going to be a bill of rights. I am not sure. Maybe the Liberals could clarify that for me, but I do not think that is the case.I am not 100% sure what the terms, with application in Canadian law, actually mean. Does it mean, as most of the witnesses who show up to committee say, that it would be used in much the same way as the Palermo protocol would be or the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child.(1645)If that is the case and we can slip free, prior and informed consent in right alongside the court-defined term of duty to consult, that would be great, but I have not seen that from the Liberals. I am hoping that we can hear from the Liberals that they mean what they say and they say what they mean.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsJurisprudenceLegislationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66209146620915662091666209176620918662091966209206620921662092266209236620924662092566209266620927662092866209296620930ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a shout-out to your father-in-law, Ian, as well. He should be very proud of all the great work that you have done over the years. I want to thank my friend opposite because I have been able to work with him for the last five years at committee.One of the things we have seen over the last five years, especially travelling with the former MP Romeo Saganash, is the enormous amount of work that was put in to this legislation in Bill C-262 and then subsequently in Bill C-15.Regrettably, what we have seen from my friend's party is blockage throughout its term in government up to 2015 and then beyond that we have seen absolutely no effort from the Conservative Party to move forward, whether in legislation or in terms of assessing it in Canadian law.Could the member give us a sense of what his party intends to do in order to implement UNDRIP in Canada if the bill does not go through?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620931662093266209336620934ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, Conservatives moved forward on matrimonial property rights on reserve. Conservatives have worked on ensuring that indigenous children remain with their families. Conservatives have worked on a whole host of things to bring prosperity to first nations communities. We have worked on a number of things and to use UNDRIP as a tool, much the same way that we used the Palermo protocols or the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, is admirable and is something that we need to do. We want full participation of the first nations communities and first nations individuals in our economy so that the wealth that this country can create is shared by all.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66209356620936GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1645)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock. I have the opportunity to work alongside him on the important issue of modern slavery and human trafficking. We are very passionate about this.The Standing Committee on the Status of Women is calling for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act was one of the inquiry's recommendations. Indigenous women are particularly vulnerable to human trafficking and modern slavery, and continue to be at a tremendous disadvantage.Canada's adoption and implementation of the UNDRIP act will help indigenous communities and women to achieve greater self-determination and equality, and help eliminate the discrimination they endure. I think this is really important and I would like to hear from my colleague, who is so passionate about this issue.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWomen662093766209386620939ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, human trafficking is an outrageous crime that happens right here in Canada. It is a growing problem. We know that 97% of victims of human trafficking are young women and we know that 50% of the victims that are rescued are first nations or indigenous. It is a large problem.In order to bring Canada in alignment with UNDRIP, we need to change our laws, get our laws aligning with what the aspirations of UNDRIP are. Just declaring them to be the law has weird implications. Many of the declaration's items are not necessarily laws. They are aspirations about how we ensure that first nations communities and first nations individuals have access to the same justice as anyone else. How do we ensure that the outcomes of the justice system are the same, regardless what colour a Canadian is?We need to ensure that participation in the economy and the rights to the fruits of this beautiful and bountiful country are shared by all.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWomen662094066209416620942AndréanneLaroucheSheffordDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, we know that UNDRIP was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 and that followed several decades of negotiation. The purpose of it was to enshrine the rights that “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world”. We know that Canadian indigenous peoples have suffered a genocide. They suffered the worst crime imaginable, having their own children taken from their families by the state. To this day, they do not have access to clean water and suffer the poorest health outcomes of any Canadian group.Does my hon. colleague not agree that we should be doing everything we can, as a Parliament, to rectify the centuries-old abuses, discrimination and, in fact, genocide of the first peoples?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsRacial equalitySecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662094366209446620945ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I totally agree that we should be doing everything to ensure that first nations communities and indigenous communities across the country, whether that be Inuit or Métis, would have full participation in the economy so that we can raise everybody out of poverty and stop the heinous treatment of first nations and indigenous people across the country. It is a blight on our character, but we need to, as a country, move forward on these things. I want to see the elimination of boil water advisories on reserve. I want to see these things.I need an answer on this particular bill. Is it a bill of rights for indigenous peoples or is it something more akin to the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child or the Palermo protocol? That question has yet to be answered.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsRacial equalitySecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66209466620947DonDaviesVancouver KingswayTonyVan BynenNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.): (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria.I am speaking today from the traditional territories of the Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe peoples and the treaty land of the Williams Treaties First Nations. I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Our government has been clear. We are committed to renewing the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, partnership and advancing reconciliation. Earlier this week, I rose in the House to speak about how our government is fighting systemic racism in our judicial system with Bill C-22, and I am proud to rise again today to speak to how the implementation of Bill C-15 is a step forward in protecting the human rights of indigenous peoples and fighting systemic racism. In Canada and across the globe, citizens are debating the nature and promise of equality in our time. They are rightfully and urgently demanding change to fight systemic racism in our society. Human rights are universal and inherent to all human beings, and this bill is another sign of the progress we are making in affirming human rights and addressing the systemic racism present in the country. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples. Article 1 of the UN declaration recognizes that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”, and that includes the right to self-government and self-determination. In addition, the UN declaration sets out rights and standards that draw on universal human rights norms, but speak more specifically to the circumstances of the world’s 370 million indigenous people. The recognition of indigenous rights is at the core of our government’s commitment to build the relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people. That is why our government has introduced Bill C-15. The wait for equal respect and the human rights of indigenous people has been far too long and has taken far too many generations.As part of our commitment to engage and collaborate with indigenous peoples, this legislation is the culmination of work with indigenous rights holders and organizations over many months past. We understand the importance of building on the work that has already been done to advance the implementation of the declaration in Canada. This is explicitly acknowledged in the preamble, which recognizes that provincial, territorial and municipal governments have the ability to establish their own approaches to implement the declaration. Indeed, several have already taken steps, in their own areas of authority, to do so. We are ready to work with all levels of government, indigenous peoples and other sectors of society to achieve the goals outlined in the declaration and supported by this bill. We have also included a provision that specifically notes that the bill does not delay the application of the declaration in Canadian law. Achieving the objectives of the declaration and further aligning federal laws with the declaration will take time. However, we are not starting from scratch and we continue to advance recent and ongoing priorities and initiatives, which contribute to the implementation of the declaration in parallel to the process and measures required by the bill. We have also responded to calls for clearer and more robust provisions for the process of developing and tabling an action plan and annual reports. These updates are incredibly important, and the action plan is a central pillar of this legislation. Developing and implementing the action plan means working together to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples; to promote respect, mutual understanding, as well as good relations, including through human rights education; to include measures that relate to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy, or other accountability with respect to the implementation of the declaration; and to include measures to review and amend the action plan. (1655)With this legislation, we will fulfill the Government of Canada’s 2016 endorsement of the declaration without qualification, while also responding to the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the continuing progress on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action. There is no doubt that passing this legislation will help us move in a direction we all want.Over the past few years, this government has taken a number of steps and measures consistent with the human rights framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian charter. We are beginning to see positive changes happening, including steps to strengthen restorative justice, access to justice and diversion programs, and reform to our criminal justice system. The Government of Canada, alongside the provinces and territories, is developing a pan-Canadian strategy to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Work on this strategy also includes close collaboration with indigenous communities and organizations. We are also implementing impact of race and culture assessments, which allow sentencing judges to consider the disadvantages of systemic racism that contributed to indigenous people's and racialized Canadians’ interactions with the criminal justice system. We are putting in place community justice centre pilot projects in British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario, as well as consultations to help expand the community justice centre concept to other provinces and territories. Among other initiatives, we are also developing administration of justice agreements with indigenous communities to strengthen community-based justice systems and support self-determination. I believe this initiative to be especially important. It recognizes that indigenous peoples have to be part of the solution and that the capacity is there to improve justice within indigenous communities. Bill C-15 is a significant step forward, but alone it will not achieve our collective goal of transformative change for indigenous people. There will be much work to do together after royal assent to develop an inclusive and effective approach to realize the full potential of the declaration. As a result, additional efforts and measures to implement the UN declaration will be needed, and as I just listed, the Government of Canada has begun work on additional efforts and measures. Certainly, there is much more work to do to support indigenous communities to a better state of health and security, but these are important steps forward. While the important national work is taking place, Canada will continue ongoing discussions with indigenous peoples to make progress together on our shared priorities of upholding human rights, advancing reconciliation, exercising self-determination, closing socio-economic gaps and eliminating the systemic barriers facing first nations, Inuit and Métis people. Change is happening. Our government and our society are evolving as we learn the importance of doing things differently in a way that is better and fairer for all of us. Implementing the UN declaration is something the indigenous people in Canada have long called for, and it is a change we want to see come to fruition. Action plansC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsJustice systemRacial equalitySecond readingSplitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620948662094966209506620951662095266209536620954662095566209566620957662095866209596620960662096166209626620963ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, recently I was at a forestry conference and heard a respected first nations leader speak, a leader who is very much involved in ensuring that his people benefit from the natural resources in their territory. When asked about UNDRIP, he said it is important to understand that UNDRIP does not give first nations people rights. The United Nations has not given first nations people rights. It simply sets out the rights that indigenous people already have.I am wondering if the member could comment on that, as well as on the Conservative concern I hear that somehow this bill and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would somehow curtail the rights of first nations to access the natural resources on their territories.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66209646620965TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraTonyVan BynenNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is an affirmation of rights that exist. The real benefit of this document and of our discussion is that we are developing a conversation to address these issues. I have heard people say that this is an aspirational document. Without any aspiration, we are not going to accomplish anything, so we need to set out some shared goals. I hope and believe the comments I made have outlined those shared goals, which are the goals of equity, fairness and working toward them. I think the member and I share the objective and principle of making this a better, kinder and gentler nation.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66209666620967RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation.Some people will argue that implementing UNDRIP would effectively give first nations a veto over every natural resource development project. I would like to hear my colleague explain why that is not the case and how Bill C-15 would still allow for proper negotiation.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights662096866209696620970TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraTonyVan BynenNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 sets out a framework for dialogue, collaboration and working together, and frankly, if we do not have that we will have a far more cumbersome way of accomplishing anything. If this document creates a framework for dialogue and a framework for free, prior and informed decisions for all parties, we will come to better decisions.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights6620971AndréanneLaroucheSheffordPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Green Party has been calling for the implementation of UNDRIP for a long time. It is unfortunate that we have time allocation on the bill, because I think it is part of our democratic process to have a fulsome debate in the House of Commons on important bills like it.The British Columbia government implemented legislation on UNDRIP, and shortly after, we saw the conflict with the Wet'suwet'en explode. We have seen it ignore the complaints of West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation with Site C. We have seen revenue-sharing agreements with silencers on them so that members cannot speak out in their communities, and we have seen those agreements leaked. We know this is happening with old-growth logging in British Columbia too, and we see division in the Pacheedaht community. It seems like the colonial project of resource extraction continues on, whether we have UNDRIP legislation in British Columbia or not.I would like to ask the hon. member how he sees UNDRIP unfolding in Canada. Will we see a more fulsome process for free, prior and informed consent on these projects to ensure that people in these communities are not silenced by revenue-sharing agreements that are set up by the government?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662097266209736620974TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraTonyVan BynenNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, as we are in a democracy, we are not always going to agree on everything. I think what is important here is that we are building a framework for dialogue, for discussion and for free, prior and informed discussions. I think that will improve our relationship. It will also strengthen our country and strengthen the fabric of the values that we hold across it. I think it is becoming a basis for better dialogue and a basis for developing collaboration.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620975PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, today, I speak from the Mi'kmaq traditional territory of Unama'ki in the Eskasoni First Nation.It has been over 400 years since my Mi'kmaq ancestors met European travellers on the shores of Mi'kma'ki. This moment thrust generations of transformation and struggle that led to the conflicts, diplomacy and eventually treaties that have shaped Canada and its Constitution. That struggle and those relations continue to this day across Canada.Today's debate is the next step on this journey and the generational struggle of indigenous peoples in Canada. With Bill C-15, we turned a page on colonial narratives entrenched within the Indian Act and moved on to a new chapter founded on the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous People.This past week Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild reminded me that indigenous leaders have been fighting for recognition of their basic human rights entrenched within UNDRIP for over 40 years. The fact that this government act is in Parliament today is an achievement of the possible in the realm of the improbable.Today, I would like to share a perspective on Bill C-15 that is personal, but also shared by many indigenous people in this country. My father, Sákéj Henderson, one of the original drafters, wrote that UNDRIP is a process whereby, “Thousands of Indigenous peoples participated over thirty years in the development of Indigenous diplomacy.”Before the 1982 Constitution, long before the recognition in the Supreme Court of Canada, Kji-keptin Alexander Denny and a delegation of Mi'kmaq went to the United Nations to seek justice for Mi'kmaq based on the UN covenants available to them at the time.There, they met several indigenous leaders from around the world who were all advocating for the right to be recognized as humans and protected by the rights that came from the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. At the time, there was no UN mechanism whereby the rights of indigenous peoples, as humans, could be protected. In fact, the first meeting of the UN working group referred to indigenous populations because of the fear of recognizing them as a people.Despite the objections and fears, indigenous leaders persevered, and on September 12, 2007, more than 143 countries affirmed the recommendation to extend human rights and fundamental freedoms to indigenous people. Canada voted against that. That decision by the Harper-led Conservative government to deny indigenous people human rights and freedoms brings us to where we are now. Today, we can undo that mistake.In a divided world, UNDRIP is a global vision. The longest, most comprehensive human rights instrument negotiated at the United Nations, fought and won by thousands of indigenous leaders speaking 100 different languages from all corners of the globe. The 46 articles within UNDRIP give clarity and understanding of the inherent rights recognized in section 35 of our Constitution, also known as aboriginal rights. It addresses what is meant by fair, just and consensual relationships between indigenous people and government.Our Liberal government has already shown our commitment to implementing the human rights of indigenous peoples, entrenching these principles into our Environmental Assessment Act, the Indigenous Language Acts and the indigenous children, youth and family act.However, the time has come for all political parties to stand up for the inalienable human rights of indigenous people in this country. Let us be clear: The human rights of indigenous people have been and continue to be denied in Canada. UNDRIP is a vital and necessary part of the remedy to this generational injustice. The 1876 Indian Act codified this injustice and colonial framework stating that the term “person” means an individual other than an Indian unless the context clearly requires another construction.(1710)From the moment Canada legally denied Indians the rights of persons, it became necessary to create this declaration and to confirm the inalienable human rights of indigenous persons. With great humility, I add my name to those who wish to be recognized as persons as well in Canada. I am humbled in the knowledge that so many other indigenous MPs have spoken in this House, advocating for human rights to extend to indigenous people as well.Let me be clear: Bill C-15 would not create new rights. It affirms rights actively denied to indigenous peoples for generations. Bill C-15 rejects colonialism, racism and injustices of the past. It affirms familiar human rights norms and minimum standards that Canada and Canadians have long supported. It places two interrelated obligations on the federal government, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples of Canada. The first obligation is to take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. The second obligation, which is just as important, is to establish an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration within three years. These obligations are necessary for establishing a just framework for reconciliation and fulfilled promises, to generate better lives for indigenous peoples.Critics of Bill C-15 have tried to use words like uncertainty and unintended consequences to slow, stall and create fears of UNDRIP. However, in reality they are doing nothing more than perpetuating colonial notions that for generations have benefited them and exploited indigenous peoples.Former Justice Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, in response to fears that Bill C-15 would slow down the economy, stated: It is fearmongering to suggest that somehow the rights of indigenous people will make the Canadian economy not work and to point to British Columbia and say that is particularly laughable and inaccurate.Bill C-15 is about fair, just and consensual relations among legally recognized people. Bill C-15 is another step to guarantee indigenous people a dignified life and a meaningful economic future. Whether supporter or skeptic, all Canadians will benefit from recognizing and exercising our shared humanity. The passing of this bill into law would require, inspire and enable Canadians to maintain the promises of a better nation. In closing, I would like to thank Romeo Saganash for his leadership on his private member's bill, Bill C-262. I would also like to thank my father, Sákéj Henderson, and Russel Barsh for their wise counsel and their tireless efforts to help the Mi’kmaq over the years; as well as the many indigenous leaders within the Assembly of First Nations and the Indigenous Bar Association who have advanced my education on UNDRIP over the years; as well as all the indigenous leaders from coast to coast to coast whose tireless efforts have led to government legislation on Bill C-15.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6620976662097766209786620979662098066209816620982662098366209846620985662098666209876620988662098966209906620991662099266209936620994TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for a very moving speech on Bill C-15. The concept of consent was first raised with me nearly 40 years ago, when I lived in Yellowknife, by leaders of the Dene Nation in their initial opposition to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Ever since then, we have heard this rhetoric that recognizing indigenous rights will somehow block progress.I wonder if the member shares my concern that these expressions of concern about delay and about blocking are fundamentally based on what can best be called stereotypical views of first nations, if not racist views of first nations.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66209956620996JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, indeed, I agree with my colleague's assessment.The notion that indigenous people are anti-development is wrong. Indigenous people want to see development. They want to see Canada grow. However, what we are in favour of is sustainable development, smart development, development that does not jeopardize our future and that of the next seven generations that we are obligated to protect.It is an important step moving forward that we realize that when indigenous people succeed in Canada, Canada succeeds.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662099766209986620999RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-15.I am trying to understand. Many bills have been introduced in the past on this matter. My colleague applauded the work of Romeo Saganash, who advocated for the recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Liberal government has been in power since 2015. Has waiting so long to pass the bill not caused more misery in indigenous communities?Clean drinking water is still a problem. Women and girls have disappeared or been murdered. We know that passing this bill could help solve these types of problems. That is why it is so important to do it, especially for a self-proclaimed feminist government. Has the failure to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples not harmed the cause of indigenous women?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662100066210016621002JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, I started off my speech on the premise that it has been 400 years. We can look at the past, and we should look at the past. However, the best time to implement these rights is right now. That is what we have in front of us, the ability to take those strides that no government has taken before.I ask my learned colleague from the Bloc to join with us in not delaying, for any more time, when indigenous people could have the same human rights as every other Canadian.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66210036621004AndréanneLaroucheSheffordGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by thanking Professor Sákéj Henderson, and my friend from Sydney—Victoria for his enormous leadership within the indigenous caucus and within our government as well.As the member just mentioned, this is the moment for us to capture, this is the moment in which we could reset the relationship. For parties that are not supporting this bill, what does this member have to say to them? What is it that they are missing that others have been able to capture? What is the message that he has for the Conservatives and the Bloc?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66210056621006JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, It is a difficult question, because I want Conservatives to be on board with this. I want Conservatives to want to give indigenous people human rights.The delays, tactics and talking about vetoes; it is baseless. It has been pointed out by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond that it is fearmongering to suggest that we somehow would slow down the economy by getting the most basic human rights.The question that I have to ask all of my other colleagues in this House is, what expectations would they have for their communities. Why should the expectations of indigenous people be any different?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662100766210086621009GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkEricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105422EricDuncanEric-DuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DuncanEric_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House today to speak to Bill C-15. I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.This is important legislation and is an opportunity to have a debate in the House about our relationship in Canada with the first nations community. I always try to start off my speeches by providing a local context or ensure at some point I cover the local context of my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.I am fortunate to represent not only the city of Cornwall, the united counties of most of SDG, but also the residents and people of Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, 14,000 people strong. This is probably, from a federal issue, one of the more difficult geographic first nations communities we have in the country. It is located right along the Canada-U.S. border, there is a port of entry there. The geographic set-up that goes back a long time certainly makes it difficult to navigate through and work with them on many issues.I am grateful for a good and respectful working relationship with Grand Chief Abram Benedict. I also want to acknowledge some of the meetings I have had to date with members of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. We had two, I think, pre-COVID, and unfortunately everything else needed to be put on the back burner. I made a commitment in our community, as a new member of Parliament, to ensure I would reach out just as much to members in Akwesasne as I would to every other part of the riding. There certainly are a lot of federal issues, federal files, on which we need to work with them.The debate today is not about whether Canada needs better reconciliation with first nations communities. That is a given. I know there is not a party nor a member in the House and very few Canadians who do not know we need to do better and build a better relationship.What I want to speak about in my comments today is a theme I built on in several of my speeches since I have had the honour of being in the House, which is the difference between an announcement and an intention, a theme, respectfully, in the actual delivery and follow-through in getting things done.With Bill C-15, the details do matter. There is no issue with anybody with an overwhelming part of the declaration. In Canada, we are proud to say that we have already implemented many of those measures for which the declaration calls. That is progress. It is a positive and a strength of our country to show the progress we have made.I listened to my colleague before me. I have respect for all colleagues in the House as well as the questions and comments even going back with my friend from the NDP from Vancouver Island. I do not think the concerns being raised, including from first nations communities, representatives and allies, are racist, stereotypical or laughable. They are very valid concerns.I speak about my concerns on certain parts of Bill C-15 not because I do not believe in reconciliation, not because I do not believe we need a better relationship with first nations but actually the opposite. By not better defining and laying these things out, making them more clear, more and black and white, I worry we take steps back when it comes to reconciliation.I will use the example in the Maritimes of the fisheries disputes in the province of Nova Scotia and some of the vague definitions, such as moderate livelihood, that are subject to court interpretations and DFO interpretations. We are seeing serious tensions between first nations people in Nova Scotia, residents of the province, lobster fishermen, fishermen, the government, provincial government and local law enforcement. We have even seen violence happen. Nobody wants that to happen. The reason, I believe, is the definitions. It takes time. It is not easy. I am not pretending it is simple to do. However, we need to have more clear timelines and more clear wording when it comes to certain aspects, not the overall intent of UNDRIP but rather certain parts.(1725)I can say quite a few things, but I want to listen, as I mentioned, to some of the stakeholders who have spoken at committee and who have the interests of first nations communities across the country at heart, first and foremost, as we do in the House. I want to quote Stephen Buffalo, president of the Indian Resource Council. Just a couple weeks ago in committee, he said, “It would be much better if this committee could define 'free, prior and informed consent' in the legislation and determine who can represent and make decisions on behalf of indigenous peoples for the purpose of project approvals. Better yet, this committee can engage indigenous people across Canada to come to a consensus on what 'consent' means before passing this legislation, because you know as well as I do that some people think it's a veto, and if the committee doesn't think it's a veto, then they should make that clear.”We have heard numerous other stakeholders. I know of a comment from Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs, who said “However well intentioned Bill C-15 is, my discussions with legal experts, industry representatives and investment bankers have persuaded me that it is introducing another layer of uncertainty and risk to development in indigenous territories.”People, like myself, our caucus and all Parliament want to get this right. We want to move forward on reconciliation and do better. However, what I worry about, and this is from a passion of mine, is that words, actions and themes and good intent are important, but so are the details in legislation like this. The frank reality is that we will need to take the time, whether it is before the legislation or after, through courts and legal battles that will go on for years over certain projects, certain wording and what it is or what it is not.If we pretend that we will just pass this, that there will be no problems and that it will be all tickety-boo, that will not the case. If we can take the time and get those clarifications through consultations, close, passionate deliberations with first nations communities, we can make the legislation and the process more clear for everybody. That does not hurt reconciliation; that makes it smoother.We have seen in Nova Scotia what has happened. We are seeing some of the concerns of potential investment. This is not big corporations versus first nations communities; these are people with a vested first-person connection to the well-being of our indigenous people and with a better, smoother future that involves economic development that does all these things.This debate is not about whether we are racist, or whether it is laughable and stereotypical or how awful anybody is. These are valid concerns. I know members who support this know that if we pass the bill in this form, there will be serious legal challenges. We will be in courts and litigated, and there will be gray areas for years to come. That will challenge our path to reconciliation. That will challenge better economic development opportunities for communities like Akwesasne in my riding.I thankful for the time to give my voice and my perspective. I am always trying to be positive and constructive, if I can. We can do better and we must do better. As a country and as a Parliament, we will be better off with much clearer black-and-white definitions on some of these things to move our reconciliation process forward in the country. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentFisheries and fishersGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingSplitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662101066210116621012662101366210146621015662101666210176621018662101966210206621021662102266210236621024662102566210266621027JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport), Lib.): (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for his work on other files, protecting rights of people. He always speaks from the heart, which is I really appreciate.I do, however, want to bring up a couple of things. First, I just want to remind everybody in the House that the use of possessive nouns when referring to indigenous people should be avoided at all costs. Indigenous people do not belong to Canada and they do not belong to us, so we should never say “our indigenous people”.The assertion that Bill C-15, one of the most important pieces of legislation that I think we as a generation will ever see in the House, would take steps back on reconciliation or people's rights is really troubling to me. I want to refer to the response of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond to my question two days ago in committee. She said that the most important thing it would do would be to put an obligation on Canada to conduct its policies and conduct its interactions with indigenous peoples on the basis of recognizing indigenous people have rights. I think we can all agree that more rights is never a bad thing. How in the world would more rights have a negative impact on people who have title to land?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621028662102966210306621031EricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryEricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105422EricDuncanEric-DuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DuncanEric_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Eric Duncan: (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague, and I apologize for my wording and my adlibbing. First nations people are not my constituents. They are my friends, they are my neighbours and they are my colleagues, not only locally but across the country. I thank the member for that part of his intervention.We talk about adding rights. Some of the vague definitions and wording in certain parts of the bill, which could be strengthened, could lead to confusion. The rights and the battles could end up in court. We have seen that with different issues when we did not originally take the time to get the definitions right and specific, to come to that balance, to have that cohesion and that reconciliation in certain communities.I am all in favour of enshrining rights. The overwhelming majority of this document is attainable, because we are doing many parts of it and there are many parts on which we can all agree. However, where we could have stronger definitions, that would help a reconciliation process in building rights, strengthening rights, not having them end up in courts for years to come.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662103266210336621034Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104947ChristineNormandinChristine-NormandinSaint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NormandinChristine_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): (1730)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech. It was top-notch as usual.He mentioned that it is important to define certain concepts to avoid legal challenges in the courts. He spoke mainly about free, prior and informed consent. However, Bill C-15 sets out criteria that, if necessary, will guide the courts in assessing what should constitute consent. All of the witnesses who appeared before the committee said that it will take time to come to a consensus or establish a clear definition.Since we need to establish those definitions anyway, should we not just pass Bill C-15 now, rather than delaying the entire process? We should work on those definitions, bill or no bill. The current bill provides direction on how to do that, but it also includes a long-awaited recognition of indigenous rights that should be quickly implemented.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662103566210366621037EricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryEricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105422EricDuncanEric-DuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DuncanEric_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Eric Duncan: (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my colleague from Saint-Jean, albeit virtually. I do miss sitting with her at committee in my former committee role on PROC.I hear what she says about the details needing to be worked out, but I go back to the same thing. We are better off as a country, as a Parliament with respect to reconciliation if these things are ironed out and if the consultations and resolutions happen sooner rather than later.The member alludes to courts and different interpretations. That leads to my argument that we will have many of these consents end up in court for years and years to come. They could create divisions, not unity, when it comes to reconciliation, when it comes to economic development opportunities.I come from a space of not wanting to stop progress but making progress smoother. The member is right that we will have to tackle these definitions. We need to do it sooner rather than later. The sooner and the better the clarity is, the better our path to reconciliation and stronger future for first nations communities in every part of the country.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621038662103966210406621041ChristineNormandinSaint-JeanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1735)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today about my opposition to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.It is evident that much of our contemporary political debate is denominated in terms of human rights, with both sides' various questions using the language and philosophy of rights to justify their conclusions. This is most evident in contentious debates about social issues, where one person's assertion of a right to die is measured against another person's assertion of a right to encounter a health care system that does not make distinctions based on ability, or whether one person's assertion of a right to bodily autonomy conflicts with the potential claims of another person in terms of someone's right to life. In these cases, it clearly is not enough to say one is for or against human rights as such. Rather, one has to develop a procedure for determining which rights claims are valid and which are not, or for determining which rights claims can be justifiably abrogated, or for determining which rights claims take precedence in the case of a conflict.When we are evaluating these questions of how to compare competing rights claims, it matters very much where we think rights come from. We need to establish where rights come from if we are to determine which rights claims exist and which rights claims take precedence. On this point, let us say there are three general categories of options. Rights either come from positive law, from social consensus or from nature.Some seem to take the view that rights exist because they are called “rights” by the state or some multilateral body. This would imply that those rights only come into existence when the associated statutes or declarations are promulgated, and that nothing can be called a violation of rights if it is done legally. This view of rights would imply, falsely in my opinion, that no violation of human rights occurred in the context of horrific, violent actions against indigenous peoples in previous centuries, if those actions were legal. That seems to be a monstrous conclusion. I therefore reject the view that rights come from positive law. Arbitrarily depriving some of their lives, freedom, culture and community is a violation of their rights, regardless of whether it is recognized as such by domestic or international law.The same general issues arise if we see rights as derived from social consensus. There have been many times and places in which a social consensus existed in favour of policies that also arbitrarily deprived people of their lives, freedom, culture and/or community. As such, if we wish to justify the conclusion that these acts of violence have always and would always constitute violations of human rights, then we must start from the premise that human rights emanate from nature as opposed to from law or convention: that is, human rights come from being human.Deliberations in the House or international bodies about human rights are not fundamentally about creating rights, but rather about discovering rights. Rights are discovered, not invented. If rights exist in nature, as gravity exists in nature, then we should be able to identify a procedure for discovering rights objectively. Whether such a procedure can exist or not, it does not seem to be invoked often in this House. More often, we hear the assertion of the existence of a certain right as being self-evident. We hear a call for more rights, not fewer rights. We hear rights referred to as “hard won”, and perhaps referenced in the context of some domestic or international text deemed sacred by our legal tradition.If rights come from nature, then members should argue for how we can know that a right exists, not simply point to a text that says it does. If rights come from nature as opposed to from text, then texts that claim to codify human rights may contain gaps, errors or other problems. It is possible to believe that human rights have all been correctly codified by UN documents because of some metaphysical process by which the deliberation of these bodies is protected from error. However, believing in this idea would require a kind of faith in a metaphysical process: a faith that I do not think can be grounded in reason alone.The particular legislative proposal before us today, with respect to human rights, is to graft UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, onto existing law and practice in this area. Much of the debate today has centred around the importance of indigenous rights. I think we all agree about the importance of indigenous rights, but that is not really the core question we have to evaluate when determining whether to support this legislation.The question really is about what impacts or changes the implementation of this legislation will have on existing rights frameworks, and whether those changes will advance human rights for indigenous peoples or not. With this question, I think it is also important to challenge some of the Hollywood-ized framing of indigenous communities. Many of us will have seen the 2009 movie Avatar: a movie about a group of human colonizers who seek to exploit and destroy a natural environment guarded by an indigenous community that lives in perfect harmony with it.(1740)Although filmed in colour, the moral message of the film is very black and white. Those who fully absorb the message of this film will perhaps come to the conclusion that indigenous communities never want development, but this is, of course, false. The complex history of European settlement in North America involved a great deal of colonial violence and oppression, as well as mutually beneficial exchange and collaboration. Today, many indigenous communities want development.As wonderful as being in harmony with nature in this sense is and that some people ideologize, generally development can be associated with higher standards of living and amenities associated with modern life. For me, defending indigenous rights means respecting the rights and choices of indigenous peoples, and indigenous nations acting autonomously to make their own choices about their own development paths. It is about competing balance: how they balance traditions with opportunities to develop in new ways. These are choices that individual communities and nations should be able to make for themselves. Sadly, we have seen many attacks on indigenous rights by anti-development forces, advancing a kind of green colonialism based on this Avatar-informed view of the world, which seeks to force indigenous people to live in the equivalent of national parks even if they would much rather enjoy the benefits that come from resource development in terms of jobs and convenience. While my friends on the political left like to assume that their opposition to natural resource development aligns them with the wishes of indigenous people, they are increasingly offside with the wishes of indigenous people in areas where resource development is taking place. The anti-development policies of this government are increasingly raising the ire of indigenous people and indigenous proponents of resource development projects, such as those seeking the construction of the Eagle Spirit pipeline, blocked by Bill C-48, or those indigenous people in the Arctic who were not consulted at all when the Prime Minister brought in a ban on drilling.For reasons described earlier, these anti-development voices still frame their positions in terms of indigenous rights, believing that the right to say “no” to development is so much more important than the right of those same people to say “yes” to development. I think we all know and understand that this gets dicey in situations when the rights of some indigenous peoples come into conflict with the desires and rights of other indigenous peoples, when different peoples and different communities disagree about whether a particular project should proceed, or when indigenous proponents find themselves in conflict with members of their own or other communities over how to proceed on a development path.Bill C-15 would establish a principle in law that there must be free, prior and informed consent for resource development to take place within an indigenous community, but it lacks significant clarity about who consents on behalf of indigenous communities or what happens when different communities, perhaps with competing legitimate claims to traditional presence in an area, disagree. The lack of clarity about who gets to decide will make it nearly impossible for indigenous communities that wish to develop their own resources to proceed.We got a sense of the risk associated with this uncertainty last year, when the country faced widespread rail blockades in solidarity with some Wet'suwet'en protesters who opposed the Coastal GasLink project. Members of the House, at the time, seemed to believe that the opposition of a minority of hereditary chiefs required that the project be stopped on the grounds of indigenous rights. These arguments came from an Avatar-inspired world view and a failure to take into consideration the legitimate competing rights claims of the majority of indigenous peoples affected by this project who supported it, the fact that all of the elected indigenous bodies responsible for this project had approved it, and the fact that those who, from a democratic perspective at least, were the representatives of those indigenous people wanted to say yes. It was enough for members of the House that people from a different hereditary leadership who claimed to speak on behalf of those nations wanted to say no. This is the problem that arises when we have competing rights claims. When we lack a procedure, and when there is ambiguity inserted in the law about how to resolve the desires of those people, it ends up always being a path of no development instead of a situation where those communities get to decide. I am suspicious that members of the House who are promoting the bill in the name of indigenous rights are actually happy with that outcome. They are actually happy with an outcome in which development has a hard time proceeding, when investments do not get made even if indigenous people in a particular area, in association with a particular project, overwhelmingly want to see it happen.(1745)As a member who cares deeply about human rights, and well-structured procedures and mechanisms for affirming those rights democratically, I think we need to recognize the existing rights frameworks we have in this country and build on them, but I do not think this particular legislation would do that. It would introduce more confusion and more challenges to development that would, in effect, deny the rights of indigenous peoples in cases where they want to make the choice to develop their resources. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCivil and human rightsConsentEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsPolitical powerSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621042662104366210446621045662104666210476621048662104966210506621051662105266210536621054662105566210566621057662105866210596621060EricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member this. Why does he believe that indigenous knowledge, passed down through languages, passed down through generations and enshrined in our teachings as indigenous people that we should live sustainably within our ecosystem while promoting positive development and smart development, is somehow based on Hollywood notions of Avatar and not within our languages, as has been taught for generations? I am trying to understand his notions on that.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621061GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member ascribed to me views that I do not hold. My view was quite clearly expressed: There are some politicians here who have this Hollywood-informed idea that all indigenous peoples do not want development. The reality is that many indigenous nations and communities across the country want development, and their right to choose to proceed with projects is not respected when the government puts in place a highly ambiguous legislative framework that makes it virtually impossible to demonstrate the consent required by the new procedures and mechanisms in place.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesEconomic developmentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621062JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (1745)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.I asked a Liberal member a question earlier. I asked him why his party had not moved forward with such a bill earlier, since it is such a strong supporter of reconciliation. He said that Mr. Saganash's bill was blocked by the Conservatives in the Senate.I did hear my colleague talk about human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples. He addressed these extremely important points, but I did not hear him say whether he is in favour of implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Will he vote in favour of this bill?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662106366210646621065GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I apologize if it was not clear. I will vote against this bill. I do not support this bill. I do not think this bill is an effective way of advancing reconciliation. The Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contains positive aspirations and values within it that Canada should support and move forward on, but the legal framework contains a lot of problems and ambiguity: problems that would negatively affect indigenous peoples. As Winston Churchill said, “It is not enough to do our best, we have to know what to do and then do our best.” In other words, the mechanism and details matter. We can all have positive aspirations, but we have to get the mechanics right if we want to deliver on those aspirations. That has been the biggest problem with the government when it comes to indigenous peoples. There is a big emphasis on their aspirations, but the government has not been able to deliver on the details. Delivering on the details means sometimes saying that this piece of legislation does not work, and we need something better.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66210666621067KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was nothing short of impressive. I followed his rights framework all the way until I got lost with Avatar. I thought maybe he was going to go full Jason Kenney and start talking about Bigfoot. Make no mistake: The brutal and violent genocide of indigenous peoples by successive French and British settlers in these lands is by no means a Hollywood story. When the member suggests that rights are discovered, does he not acknowledge that the basis of all the legal frameworks we have is the racist and white supremacist doctrine of discovery based on the theory of a terra nullius here, and that indigenous people were less than human upon the arrival of the Europeans?Further to that, does the member's only relationship with and understanding of indigenous rights have to do with the commodification of resource extraction in oil and gas? Does he not see value in these rights outside of the extractionary capitalism of oil and gas?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCivil and human rightsGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662106866210696621070GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, there was a bit of conflation involving the term “discovery”. I was talking about rights being discovered, which is very different from the very legitimate and correct criticism of discovery that the member used in a different context. I think he knows that, but I wanted to clarify that because the word was used in different ways.I agree that there is a great deal of horrific violence associated with various periods up until quite recently, and there are still many instances of racism and violence targeting indigenous people. The question we have to ask ourselves in this debate today is what we can do to advance justice and human rights for indigenous Canadians. That includes the opportunity for economic development. I believe there is a broad spectrum of issues that we need to attend to regarding justice and human rights for indigenous Canadians, and one of them is giving indigenous people the power to develop their own natural resources in co-operation with others and without undue burdens imposed on them by the state.I will not apologize for thinking that economic development matters. It matters for all Canadians. It matters so that people can stay in their communities, find jobs and opportunities—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCivil and human rightsGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662107166210726621073MatthewGreenHamilton CentreBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88567RachelBendayanRachel-BendayanOutremontLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BendayanRachel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, Lib.): (1750)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Parkdale—High Park.Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. In December 2020, our government introduced Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Since then, I have received many letters, calls and emails from my constituents in Mile End, Outremont and Côte-des-Neiges. They asked me to pass the bill quickly, and they urge the House to do more to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples.Most of the people who contacted me told me that they were not indigenous. They were proud to say that as Montrealers, Quebeckers and Canadians, the nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples was important to them. It is an issue that speaks to the foundation of our Canadian identity, no matter our background.We must correct past injustices as much as we can and continue to move forward on the path to reconciliation. Through Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we are taking another step along that path. As its name suggests, Bill C-15 seeks to protect and promote indigenous rights, including the rights to equality and non-discrimination, in order to establish stronger relations with indigenous peoples.The bill provides the necessary legislative framework for Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Through this bill, the Government of Canada will be required to collaborate with indigenous peoples on developing an action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP. If passed, this bill will represent another major step forward in our shared journey toward reconciliation.(1755)[English]Passing Bill C-15, which would ensure consistency between Canadian laws and the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, is an important step forward on the path to reconciliation. The bill requires the development of an action plan to implement the objectives of UNDRIP and requires the ongoing involvement of indigenous peoples at all stages, while mandating annual reports to Parliament.Bill C-15 would enshrine the principles of UNDRIP, which include affirming the general application of international human rights laws to indigenous peoples; the right to participate in decision-making, with free, prior and informed consent; the right to culture, religious and linguistic identity; the protection of treaties and agreements with first nations; and of course the protection of the rights of indigenous women, including an obligation for governments to work with indigenous peoples to end violence against indigenous women.[Translation]Let us talk for a moment about what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada chose to uphold.The findings and evidence of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada forced us to confront the discriminatory and oppressive practices that continued unabated for nearly 150 years in Canada's residential schools. In addition to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action 43 and 44, which call on the government to adopt and fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and develop an action plan to achieve its objectives, all of the calls to action cite the UNDRIP. Our commitment to upholding indigenous rights by acknowledging and redressing the damage caused by assimilation policies and practices is unwavering. Passing Bill C-15 will not only address calls to action 43 and 44, but will also provide the Government of Canada with a framework for broader reconciliation.I would also like to talk about what our government is doing right now to demonstrate our commitment to our first nations.[English]Throughout the pandemic, our government has shown its commitment to supporting indigenous communities in very real and tangible ways. Let us look for a moment at our vaccine rollout.We know that remote indigenous communities are more at risk of getting COVID-19 and that health systems in those communities are more vulnerable to outbreaks. That is why we as a government prioritized indigenous communities in the procurement and delivery of vaccines for COVID-19.To date, nearly 300,000 doses have been administered in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, with over 50% of people having already received a COVID-19 vaccine. In the Northwest Territories, 55% of the entire population has received a first dose. In the Yukon, 59% of the population has received one dose, and already 43% has received both doses. This accelerated rollout has contributed to a dramatic drop in COVID-19 cases in our indigenous communities, with a decline of 80%. That is something we can all be proud of.Let us also discuss for a moment where we are with respect to eliminating boil water advisories. Like many in the House, I am sincerely troubled by the fact that any boil water advisory still exists in any corner of our country, but real progress has been made and is sometimes overlooked.When our government came into power, there were 105 boil water advisories in the country. We have eliminated 106 of them, and as of March 2021, 177 short-term drinking water advisories were also lifted. In fact, access to clean water has been restored to approximately 5,920 homes in first nations communities. I know and understand that much more work still needs to be done on this, but never before have we had a federal government in Canada that is more committed to getting that work done.(1800)[Translation]We have also made historic investments in education, housing, police services and shelters in indigenous communities.The 2020 fall economic statement includes an additional investment of $781.5 million over five years starting this year as well as ongoing funding in the amount of $106.3 million to fight systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples and expand efforts to fight violence against indigenous women, girls and LGBTQ2 and two-spirit people. These proposed investments include the following amounts: $724.1 million to launch a comprehensive violence prevention strategy to expand access to culturally relevant supports for indigenous women, children and LGBTQ2 and two-spirit people facing gender-based violence; $49.3 million to support the implementation of Gladue principles in the justice system in order to help reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice and correctional systems; and $8.1 million to develop administration of justice agreements with indigenous communities to strengthen community-based justice systems and support self-determination.There is still a lot of work to do, but we are working even harder.Bill C-15 is an action plan that will confirm that the declaration is a universal human rights instrument that applies to Canadian law and provides a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the declaration. It is an essential step toward reconciliation, and it is long overdue.I therefore ask all members of the House to pass Bill C-15 as soon as possible.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCOVID-19Drinking waterGender-based violenceGovernment billsImmunizationImprisonment and prisonersIndigenous peoplesIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsPandemicSecond readingSplitting speaking timeUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66210766621077662107866210796621080662108166210826621083662108466210856621086662108766210886621089662109066210916621092662109366210946621095662109666210976621098BruceStantonSimcoe NorthMichelBoudriasTerrebonne//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88651MichelBoudriasMichel-BoudriasTerrebonneBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BoudriasMichel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Michel Boudrias (Terrebonne, BQ): (1800)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the House has a responsibility to recognize the legitimacy of the declaration we are discussing today in our debate on Bill C-15.Since the time of New France, Quebeckers have historically been partners and supporters of indigenous nations. I would even say that our history and our nation are bound up with the well-being of all of North America's indigenous nations. This declaration comes at the right time, as does some of Bill C-15. However, a declaration means nothing without measures to back it up.Since the 1960s, Quebec has signed various agreements on its land regarding the self-government for indigenous nations. Under these agreements, these nations must be provided with as many resources and tools as possible so they can govern themselves. Could my colleague tell us whether her government foresees any major actions to put an end to the vassalage of indigenous nations and allow them greater self-government?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662109966211006621101RachelBendayanOutremontRachelBendayanOutremont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88567RachelBendayanRachel-BendayanOutremontLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BendayanRachel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Rachel Bendayan: (1800)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.I completely agree that Quebeckers want us to move forward with this and that they want to strengthen our nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples.As I mentioned in my speech, I think that not only do we need to adopt the declaration and the principles in it, but we also need to back that up with money, which we did. In the 2020 fall economic statement, we announced historic investments to address the needs of indigenous peoples.We need to adopt Bill C-15, which enshrines the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we also need to invest in equipping indigenous peoples with the best tools possible.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621102662110366211046621105MichelBoudriasTerrebonneDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1800)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke of vaccines in the indigenous community, and that of course leads to the issue of indigenous health. We know that indigenous people in Canada score below the mean on every major health metric, and one of the core elements of health is access to basic nutrition and clean water. However, the government has missed its self-imposed target of removing every boil water advisory by this time.The Liberals have been in government for most of the last 150 years but have failed miserably on indigenous health. Why should indigenous peoples have any faith that the government will make any meaningful progress on actually implementing UNDRIP?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsHealthIndigenous peoplesIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66211066621107RachelBendayanOutremontRachelBendayanOutremont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88567RachelBendayanRachel-BendayanOutremontLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BendayanRachel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Rachel Bendayan: (1805)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. What we have seen through many different statistics is that our indigenous communities are more vulnerable and do have real challenges when it comes to the health systems that are available, particularly in remote communities. That is exactly why this government prioritized indigenous communities in our vaccine rollout. That is why such a significant number of indigenous communities have been vaccinated. As I mentioned in my speech, over 50% of indigenous communities have been fully vaccinated. As I also said, that contributed to an 80% decline in COVID-19 cases in indigenous communities. Our strategy had real and concrete results, and I think we need to continue in that vein as we move forward and continue to support the health and safety of our indigenous communities.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCOVID-19Government billsHealthImmunizationIndigenous peoplesIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsPandemicSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621108DonDaviesVancouver KingswayDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1805)[English]Madam Speaker, I will ask a brief question.In testimony before committee, Mark Podlasly of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition asked for a clear definition of what consent means in the context of Bill C-15. I will not read the quote, as I am conscious of the time.Will the member commit to ensuring that clarity is added to the bill? Many first nations have expressed to me that it lacks a great deal of needed clarity.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662110966211106621111RachelBendayanOutremontAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88567RachelBendayanRachel-BendayanOutremontLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BendayanRachel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Rachel Bendayan: (1805)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I can give a complete answer in 15 seconds, but I will start by saying that free, prior and informed consent, as it does appear in various aspects of the declaration, refers specifically to the importance of meaningful participation among indigenous peoples through their own mechanisms in all of the decisions and processes that could affect them, including with respect to energy projects. It is a way of working together to establish consensus through dialogue and other means, which would enable—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621113AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1805)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today at the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was introduced on December 3 of last year by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.Introducing legislation to advance the implementation of the declaration is a key step in renewing the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabe and, most recently, the territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit first nation. Toronto is now home to many diverse first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples.Many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park are strong advocates for the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a privilege to represent such engaged and vocal individuals. My constituents have been clear about the importance of having a government that respects indigenous rights and plays an active role in reconciliation. This legislation would address those concerns by taking measures to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill is a critical step forward in the joint journey toward reconciliation.[Translation]I know that members are familiar with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but to provide a bit of context, the declaration was adopted in 2007 after many years of hard work by indigenous leaders and countless Canadians.We are grateful for the unwavering dedication of indigenous leaders such as Dr. Wilton Littlechild and many other stakeholders who worked tirelessly for many years to develop and negotiate the declaration.[English]I want to refer specifically to the long-standing work of James Sákéj Youngblood Henderson, who made UNDRIP a key part of his life's work, and who also happens to be the father of my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria. The adoption of this declaration was a very significant moment in human history, with the goal of protecting and promoting indigenous rights around the world.The declaration contains 46 articles that address a wide variety of individual and collective rights, including cultural and identity rights, and rights relating to education, health, employment and language, among others.It is the language piece that I want to focus on very briefly because I do feel that this dovetails with the other work that has been accomplished by our government and by this Parliament. In this, I am referring to the Indigenous Languages Act. In the previous Parliament, I had the ability and the opportunity to work with the minister of heritage on the Indigenous Languages Act legislation. Through that process, I learned not only a tremendous amount about myself as a parliamentarian, but also about the legacy of colonial policies in this country over 400 years of settler contact with indigenous persons. In restoring languages through the Indigenous Languages Act, which we passed in the last Parliament, restoring funding and now ensuring that we are working toward the passage of UNDRIP, we see a continuity in terms of protecting cultural and linguistic rights, among many other rights, for indigenous persons on this land. These rights are sorely in need of protection as we try to give meaning to concepts of autonomy and autodétermination, as we say in French.The declaration itself also recognizes that the situation of indigenous people varies from region to region and from country to country. It provides us with flexibility and the opportunity, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous people, to ensure that rights are recognized, protected and implemented in a manner that reflects the circumstances right here in Canada. In May 2016, our government endorsed the UN declaration, without qualification, and we committed to its implementation. Subsequently, we were very proud to support private member's bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament, which was introduced by former NDP member of Parliament Romeo Saganash. Unfortunately, Bill C-262 died in the Senate in June 2019, due in large part, I will frankly indicate, to stonewalling by Conservative members of the Senate. However, what we did in the 2019 electoral campaign is redouble the commitment of the Liberal Party to reintroducing UNDRIP as a government bill, which is exactly what we have done with Bill C-15. This builds on the foundational work that was presented by the old bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament.Building on support from indigenous groups for the former Bill C-262 and following discussions with indigenous partners, we as a government used the old Bill C-262 as the floor for the development of this new legislative proposal, which is currently before all of us in this chamber.(1810)[Translation]The Government of Canada drafted the bill following consultations with representatives of national and regional indigenous organizations, modern treaty partners, self-governing first nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, indigenous women, gender-diverse and two-spirit people, as well as representatives from other indigenous organizations. The comments received throughout the consultation process helped shape the bill.That was the genesis of Bill C-15, which seeks to affirm the declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law and provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the declaration.[English]Bill C-15 is but one sign of the progress I believe we are making in advancing reconciliation, affirming human rights, addressing systemic racism and combatting discrimination in this country. Members heard some of that in the previous speech from the member for Outremont with respect to other milestones we have reached as a government, but what I think is critical here is when we speak about combatting discrimination, in particular systemic racism. It should not be lost on any members of Parliament how critical the timing of this bill is, given the moment we are in collectively as a nation and as a continent, with a movement taken on by all Canadians to actively combat systemic discrimination and systemic racism. COVID has shone a light on this, and we have been responding to it. Bill C-15 is part of the continuity of work that includes Bill C-22, which is about ending many mandatory minimum penalties that disproportionately impact Black and indigenous Canadians. Bill C-15 is part of that continuity and body of work.This bill, Bill C-15, builds on the significant progress we have been making on implementing the declaration on a policy basis by creating a legislated, durable framework requiring the federal government, in consultation and co-operation with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, to take all measures necessary to ensure that federal laws are consistent with the declaration, to prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration, and to report annually to Parliament on progress made in implementing the legislation.Enhancements we have made to Bill C-15 as a result of the engagement process we undertook with indigenous peoples, which preceded its introduction, include the addition of new language in the preamble, with the following objectives: to highlight the positive contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, healing and peace; to recognize the inherent rights of indigenous peoples; to reflect the importance of respecting treaties, agreements and constructive arrangements; to highlight the connection between the declaration and sustainable development; and to emphasize the need to take the diversity of indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation. Other key enhancements include the addition of a purpose clause to address application of the declaration in Canadian law and to affirm the legislation as a framework for federal implementation of the declaration, and clearer and more robust provisions on the process for developing and tabling the action plan and annual reports.Moving ahead with Bill C-15 is consistent with our commitment to address the TRC calls to action and respond to the national inquiry into MMIWG and the calls for justice therein. Implementing this declaration is the natural next step in our journey to advance reconciliation, something I mentioned at the outset. This would be a significant step forward in our efforts to build a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.(1815)[Translation]The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be used as an essential tool in developing the Canadian framework for reconciliation, which will reflect our own history and our own legal and constitutional framework. [English]The bill proposes a legislative framework for the UN declaration, so that over time, as other laws are modified or developed, they would be aligned with the declaration. To this end, the legislation would require the Government of Canada, “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, [to] take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”, “prepare and implement an action plan”, and table an annual report to align the laws of Canada on the action plan. As written, this bill would require that the action plan include measures to “address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination...against Indigenous peoples” and “promote mutual respect and understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education”. The action plan would also include “measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the Declaration.”I want to spend my last remaining time on an issue that has come up, which is with respect to free, prior and informed consent. Free, prior and informed consent is about doing just that. It is about the effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them, their communities and their territories. The participation of indigenous peoples as full partners in economic development is a reflection of their inherent right to self-determination. Achieving consent is the goal of any consultation or collaboration processes. This means we need to make every effort to reach agreements that work for all parties. To be clear, the concept does not confer veto or require unanimity in these types of decisions. If consent cannot be secured, the facts of law applicable to the specific circumstances will determine the path forward.I would refer members of this House to the testimony of David Chartrand of the Métis National Council who said precisely this. I would also refer members of this House to the previous testimony of people like Romeo Saganash in parliamentary committees when we were studying the old bill, Bill C-262, in the last Parliament who also indicated that it is not the interpretation of the law that free, prior and informed consent, FPIC, would constitute a veto. Indeed, in literally the last 36 to 48 hours, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, as counsel for the Assembly of First Nations said at the standing committee looking into this bill that “The idea that free—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesC-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActConsentGirlsGovernment billsHomicideIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMissing personsPublic consultationRacial equalitySecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWomen6621116662111766211186621119662112066211216621122662112366211246621125662112666211276621128662112966211306621131662113266211336621134662113566211366621137662113866211396621140AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1815)[English]Madam Speaker, this may be my only opportunity to speak to the legislation before us.I am deeply troubled by the fact that this government, which professes the high purposes of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples appears in practice to decide that free, prior and informed consent means to continue to coerce first nations until they give consent to a decision that has already been made. I refer to the Trans Mountain pipeline as an example, which the Government of Canada bought without conferring with first nations, as we should have done. It continues, as elected members of council of the first nation in my territory, which I am honoured to represent, the territory of the W_SÁNEC Nation, have told me that the TMX, now a Crown corporation, comes to them offering money to try to get them to stop objecting. That is not free or prior consent, and yet that is what is being practised right now—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasSecond readingTrans Mountain pipelineUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66211436621144AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arif Virani: (1815)[English]Madam Speaker, this is an important issue. It is an issue that is obviously a dynamic one and an issue that will be considered on an ongoing basis. However, what I was about to relate from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond I think captures the idea in response to the member's question. She said, as counsel for the AFN, that “The idea that free, prior and informed consent is some kind of a veto is simply not supported, and that is not how it's operationalized.” That is an important point to register.With respect to the timing of the negotiations and the timing of the outreach to first nations communities, be they elected leaders, hereditary chiefs or other individuals, that is a very valid point that the member is raising, and something that we will continue to work on as a government and as all parliamentarians to ensure that this consultation is sought at the earliest possible opportunity.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasPublic consultationSecond readingTrans Mountain pipelineUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662114766211486621149AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1820)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about a decision the government made that I think would very clearly violate the principle of free, prior and informed consent. I heard about it when I joined the foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament visiting Canada's north. In December of 2016, the government designated all Arctic waters as indefinitely off-limits to future oil and gas licencing. Indigenous communities in the north told us that they found out about this through a phone call 45 minutes before the announcement was made to the public. Does the government think that it has the same obligation to consult when it introduced these kinds of anti-development policies that hold back the desire of indigenous communities in the north to develop their own resources for their own benefit? ArcticC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasPublic consultationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662115066211516621152ArifViraniParkdale—High ParkArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arif Virani: (1820)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his frequent participation in debate on all matters in this House.The bottom line is that when we enact and seek to enact the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples via Bill C-15 into Canadian law, what we are saying is that we must consult with indigenous peoples in all of their heterogeneity, and I think it is an important point that the member raises. We know that there are indigenous people on the western prairies who believe in resource development, including pipeline development. We know that there are indigenous communities in the north that may believe in drilling in the far north. A requirement to consult and a requirement to do that outreach must apply across the board with all aspects of the community with respect to all projects, whether it is a resource-based project or one that would prevent such a project from moving forward. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasPublic consultationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662115366211546621155GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanSébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104630SébastienLemireSébastien-LemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LemireSébastien_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): (1820)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my friend Richard Kistabish, also known as Ejinagosi, a former chief of Abitibiwinni nation, which is located in my riding, and a former Anishinabe grand chief, was recently appointed to the Global Task Force for Making a Decade of Action for Indigenous Languages, 2022-32. I would remind everyone that the House is located on Anishinabe land.I chatted with him about the bill yesterday, and he told me it was good news because it officially excludes the term “Indian”. He feels that is a starting point for dialogue because that recognition is a prerequisite for conversations about other issues. He sees the passage of Bill C-15 as nothing less than a signal to initiate dialogue. Ever since the Constitution was repatriated, Indians have lost their rights, and I want to point out to the House that the term “Indian” is pejorative. What does the parliamentary secretary think about that perspective? Will there be next steps after the passage of Bill C-15 to initiate a nation-to-nation dialogue with indigenous peoples as equals? C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples662115666211576621158ArifViraniParkdale—High ParkArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Arif Virani: (1820)[Translation]Madam Speaker, after this bill is passed, I am sure that we will begin a new chapter and open a new dialogue in good faith with all indigenous peoples, namely the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621159SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (1820)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have the great honour to finally rise in the House, virtually of course, to speak to Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am also very pleased to give this speech in support of Bill C-15 on behalf of some 20 Cree, Inuit and Algonquin communities in the great riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.I said “finally” because we have waited for this bill for a long time. The United Nations declaration was adopted on September 13, 2007. It is now April 2021, nearly 14 years later, and the declaration has still not been enshrined in Canadian law. Fourteen years is a long time. That is four Parliaments. However, 14 years is just slightly less than the gap in life expectancy at birth between Inuit people and the rest of the Canadian population. In 2017, this gap was 15 years for men. A 15-year gap represents half a generation, or one-sixth of a century, which is a lot of years in a human life. Time goes by and the world changes, but time stands still for indigenous peoples. Nothing moves, nothing changes because procrastination reigns supreme in the kingdom of Canada. It is time for that to change.I am unfortunately running out of time, so I will talk about the history of our political party, the declaration, and the notion of free, prior and informed consent.We believe—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66211606621161662116266211636621164ArifViraniParkdale—High ParkAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58621AlexandraMendèsAlexandra-MendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendèsAlexandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): (1825)[English]Pursuant to Standing Order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Monday, April 19 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.Division on motion deferredC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6621170GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have another east coast lobster dispute. The fisheries minister has said that moderate livelihood lobster fishing by indigenous communities will follow existing DFO seasons, regulations and enforcement rules. However, the Liberal MP for Sydney—Victoria has said that this is wrong, that the minister's announcement is only for this year, an interim measure, and that first nations will be allowed to set their own seasons and rules.Are Liberals mistaking voters for lobsters heading to the traps and the dinner tables?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions66179316617932JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, reconciliation is about recognizing rights that are not to be granted by governments but that are recognized as having been decided, in many cases, decades ago.We are working closely both with commercial fishermen and with Mi'kmaq fishers to ensure that we are moving forward in a way that is both scientifically sustainable and respects the existing rights that Mi'kmaq have towards a moderate livelihood.We know there is a path forward, and we look forward to continuing to work in constructive ways to resolve this challenge in the spirit of reconciliation and for a better future for everyone.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions661793366179346617935JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, in fact, no one is disputing those rights at all. What we are questioning here are the various stories we are getting from the government. I have discovered that the fisheries minister flip-flopped and admitted to CBC Radio that the Liberal government's lobster announcement for fishing is “the plan for this season, or for this year”. The lobster is out of the pot. This is not what maritime Liberal MPs are telling voters down east.Would the PM like to confirm his government is not being straight with maritime fishing families?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions66179366617937JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we have worked to respect people's rights, to respect people's livelihoods and to move forward in a way that ensures a strong and growing economy with opportunities for everyone, in the spirit of reconciliation. It is not an easy thing, but it is an important thing. That is why we are taking it seriously and working step by step to advance in a way that is acceptable to everyone. We will continue to do the right work the right way to move this country forward.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions6617938JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister are not being clear with Canadians. It sounds like this is nothing but a pre-election campaign gimmick to protect Liberal candidates with a policy of deception to secure votes, and the fisheries minister's plan will change the day after the next election, if the government is re-elected.Does voting Liberal down east mean a vote to allow separate indigenous lobster fisheries outside existing DFO seasons, regulations and enforcement rules? Can the Prime Minister confirm which message is correct: what the fisheries minister tells Ottawa, or what the fisheries minister is telling voters down east?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions66179396617940JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have been clear every step of the way, both about ongoing negotiations and also about our values and our understanding of how important it is to move forward in true reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples, in ways that support families that have been fishing in that region for generations. We know this is an extremely important issue. We are going to continue those discussions and negotiations in good faith to make sure that we find the right solution for everyone: indigenous fishers, commercial fishers and everyone who lives in the Atlantic provinces and, indeed, across the country.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions66179416617942JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestHelenaJaczekMarkham—Stouffville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister has told Maritime fishing families that lobster fishing by indigenous communities under the moderate livelihood will follow existing seasons, regulations and enforcement rules, all set by DFO. The Liberal MP for Sydney—Victoria has said that this is wrong, that the fisheries minister's announcement is only an interim measure for this one year and that first nations will eventually be allowed, by the Liberal government, to set their own seasons and rules.Who is right?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions66151936615194DebSchulteHon.King—VaughanBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, we recognize that first nations have a right to a moderate livelihood fishery. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The measures that we have put in place for this year are flexible and allow fishers to get out on the water right now, as we work toward longer term agreements.These are ongoing negotiations with first nations communities. I look forward to having agreements in place.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions66151956615196JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me be sure that Canadians understand this. The Liberal MP for Sydney—Victoria was correct when he said that the minister's pronouncement was only an interim measure. Clarity is extremely important here.Is the minister telling us that flexible, moderate livelihood plans will be established by each first nation outside existing lobster seasons and will not be enforced by DFO after this interim plan is done?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions66151976615198BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleagues to please stop spreading malicious rumours, basically.These are ongoing negotiations we are having with first nations communities so we can get to a long-term agreement. First nations have a Supreme Court-affirmed right to a moderate livelihood fishery. We are working with them to make sure they are able to exercise that right.In the interim, we have put measures in place that allow the moderate livelihood fishery to take place this year.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLobstersMaritime CanadaOral questions661519966152006615201Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [Bill C-15—Notice of time allocation motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsNotice of motionSecond readingTime allocationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples66155306615531JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 394--Mr. Kelly McCauley: With regard to Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) hearings since January 1, 2016: (a) how many times has the government hired external legal representation for CITT hearings, broken down by case (or by department represented if there's an issue of confidentiality) and date of hire; (b) what is the cost associated with the hiring of external legal representation, broken down by case (or by department represented if there's an issue of confidentiality) and date of hire; and (c) what is the cost associated with internal legal representation, broken down by case (or by department represented if there's an issue of confidentiality)?Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the amount spent on legal matters brought before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, CITT, since January 1, 2016, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has waived only solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with matters brought before the CITT since January 1, 2016, amount to approximatively $8,105,000. These cases raise a variety of issues falling within the mandate of the CITT, including customs or excise tax matters, complaints by potential suppliers concerning procurement by the federal government, as well as issues arising under the Special Import Measures Act. In most of these files, the Crown did not initiate the proceedings but rather acted as a defendant or respondent. The services concerned are litigation services and litigation support services provided throughout the life of the file, not solely hearings, at the CITT level. They do not include services provided at other stages, for example at the Federal Court of Appeal, if the CITT decision is challenged. Most of these files are handled by Department of Justice, JUS, lawyers. JUS lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants, and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved legal services hourly rates. Actual costs represent the file-related disbursements paid by JUS and then cost-recovered from the client departments or agencies. The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with files handled by JUS lawyers amount to approximatively $7,004,000. The balance, of approximatively $1,101,000, represents the costs associated with files handled by external legal agents. The Government of Canada has hired external legal agents for CITT matters 17 times since January 1, 2016.The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with files handled by JUS lawyers are based on information currently contained in JUS systems as of February 11, 2021. The costs associated with files handled by external legal agents are based on invoices received from them and taxed by JUS as of February 25, 2021. It was not possible, given the scale of the request and the applicable deadlines, to consult all the departments and agencies responsible for these cases. The amounts provided in this response should therefore be read as approximate.Question No. 396--Mr. John Brassard: With regard to Transport Canada and flight crew and pilot ‘sit time’ for medical purposes and wait time for licenses: (a) how many licensed pilots are currently medically unfit to pilot an aircraft; (b) how many flight crew personal, excluding pilots, are currently unfit to fly; (c) how many licensed pilots and flight crew have completed the two-year ‘sit time’ and have been waiting (i) for three months for paperwork to be completed so they can return to work, (ii) for six months for paperwork to be completed so they can return to work, (iii) longer that six months for paperwork to be completed so they can return to work; and (d) how many pilot licenses are waiting to be signed by Transport Canada?Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), there are 170 pilots who are currently listed as medically unfit to pilot an aircraft in Transport Canada civil aviation’s, TCCA, licensing system.In response to parts (b) and (c), flight crew, according to the definition in Canadian aviation regulations 100.01, “means a crew member assigned to act as pilot or flight engineer of an aircraft during flight time”. TCCA does not have data about cabin crew members, e.g. flight attendants, as they do not require Transport Canada, TC, medical certification to perform their duties.Generally, pilots are not waiting on TC to complete licence paperwork in order to return to work. There are currently various COVID-19-related exemptions in place, which allow for pilots to continue using their current credentials to fly while waiting for licence paperwork to be completed.TC civil aviation medicine, CAM, was one of the first branches at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic to develop exemptions to keep aviators and controllers working without interruption. These CAM exemptions, which were issued in spring 2020 and remain in force, enable renewal of aviation medical certificates, MCs, for pilots, flight engineers and air traffic controllers, while reducing the need for face-to-face medical examinations and the regulatory demand for scarce medical resources. These exemptions allow renewal by attestations and telemedicine consultations. Regular in-person assessments also remain available for renewals and new MC applications.These processes are consistent with the acceptable renewal options permitted by the International Civil Aviation Organization during the COVID-19 pandemic. These exemptions optimize the use of attestations, i.e., self-declaration, and telemedicine to enable low-risk MC holders to be renewed immediately, i.e., no waiting period. Furthermore, civil aviation medical examiners remain able to renew MC in-office at their discretion.These renewal options have been successful in enabling the vast majority of pilots, flight engineers and air traffic controllers to retain their aviation MCs without interruption throughout the pandemic.While the exemptions have proven highly successful in ensuring that aviation MC holders remain certified, COVID-related disruptions to CAM administrative processes, caused by factors such as mail delivery slowdowns and government building lockdowns, have resulted in a significant lag in data entry related to MCs, including for MC holders who have remained fully certified throughout COVID. Thus, the CAM database is not able to provide the data requested.Furthermore, the data requested would be inaccurate, since the database also includes MC holders who have voluntarily allowed their MCs to expire, which is not necessarily indicative of a licensed pilot being medically unfit to pilot an aircraft.In response to part (d), if pilots fall within the parameters specified in the exemptions, they may continue to work with expired aviation document booklets as permitted/specified in the exemptions. If pilots are not covered by any of the exemptions, aviation document booklets continue to be issued in these rare cases, provided that the individual is in adherence to the regulations.Question No. 397--Ms. Sylvie Bérubé: With regard to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: has the government, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, other federal ministers and the provinces, started to develop an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration and, if so, does this action plan include (i) measures to combat injustices, (ii) measures to combat prejudice, (iii) measures to eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination, facing Indigenous peoples, as well as Indigenous seniors, youth, children, women and men, Indigenous people with disabilities and gender-diverse or two-spirit Indigenous people, (iv) measures to promote mutual respect and understanding and good relations, including through human rights training, (v) review or oversight measures, (vi) recourse avenues, (vii) redress measures, (viii) other accountability measures respecting the implementation of the Declaration, (ix) measures to follow up on its implementation, assess it and modify it?Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was introduced on December 3, 2020 and is currently at the second reading stage in the House of Commons. The introduction of Bill C-15 was a key milestone to support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. While the bill continues to advance through the legislative process, the government has begun preliminary discussions with indigenous peoples to determine the best path forward for the development of the action plan.As written, this bill would require that the action plan include, at a minimum, measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination against indigenous peoples; to promote mutual respect and understanding, through human rights education; and to develop monitoring, oversight or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the declaration.It is important to note that Bill C-15 requires preparation and completion of the action plan as soon as practicable, but no later than three years after the day of coming into force, recognizing that the development of an initial action plan in collaboration with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners should take adequate, but not indefinite, time.Question No. 398--Mrs. Stephanie Kusie: With regard to statistics held by the government related to the Pleasure Craft Operator Card (PCOC) and reported pleasure craft incidents: (a) how many reported incidents took place each year on Canadian waters since 1999 (or as far back as PCOC statistics are available), broken down by type of incident (accident, injury, fine, etc.); and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) how many involved an operator with a PCOC, (ii) how many involved rented watercraft?Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department does not have a mechanism in place for mandatory reporting of incidents involving pleasure craft. The pleasure craft operator competency database only holds information related to the person who obtained a pleasure craft operator card; it does not track incidents.Question No. 402--Mr. Scot Davidson: With regard to the agreements between the government and the companies providing the COVID-19 vaccine: (a) on what date did the government ask each of these companies to manufacture those vaccines in Canada, broken down by company; and (b) what was the response of each company, and the rationale provided?Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a negotiation team was assembled in June 2020, led by Public Services and Procurement Canada, to initiate negotiations with leading vaccine suppliers. During these early engagements, both Public Services and Procurement Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada raised domestic options for manufacturing vaccines. The specific details of the negotiations cannot be disclosed as it is confidential commercial information.After reviewing the options, the manufacturers concluded that biomanufacturing capacity in Canada at the time of contracting was too limited to justify the investment of capital and expertise required to start manufacturing in Canada.Question No. 405--Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval: With regard to confidential documents: what is the government’s disclosure policy?Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the security categorization of documents and the disclosure of documents are addressed through separate policies and processes.With respect to security categorization, the directive on security management, www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32614, standard on security categorization, www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32614, requires government institutions to assign security categories to information according to the degree of injury that could result if it were compromised. For instance, if unauthorized disclosure could cause injury to the national interest, the information is categorized as “classified” information, i.e., confidential, secret or top secret. Similarly, if information could cause injury outside the national interest, then this information is categorized as “protected” information, i.e., protected A, protected B or protected C, as defined in the standard on security categorization.With respect to disclosure, government institutions release information through a variety of means, such as by responding to requests submitted under the Access to Information Act. While the security category of a document may indicate the sensitivity of its contents, documents requested under the act may not be withheld on the basis of their security category alone. When a classified document is requested under the act, the government institution processes it like any other document, by conducting a line-by-line review to determine whether any of the exemptions or exclusions listed in the act should be applied to the information contained in the document.Under the policy on service and digital, www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32603, government institutions are also required to maximize and prioritize the release of departmental information and data as an open resource on the Open Government portal, https://open.canada.ca/en, while respecting information security, privacy, and legal considerations.Question No. 406--Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval: With regard to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, since 1993: has the Service signed an information-sharing agreement with the Sûreté du Québec, and, if so, what is the content of that agreement?Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of performing its duties and functions under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, CSIS may, with approval of the minister, enter into an arrangement or otherwise co-operate with any department of the Government of Canada or the government of a province or any department thereof, or any police force in a province, with the approval of the minister responsible for policing the province.Given its mandate and specific operational requirements, CSIS does not generally disclose details related to operational activity, including its information-sharing arrangements.Question No. 411--Mr. Michael D. Chong: With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments on February 16, 2021 about “not applying it to things that don’t meet the very clear internationally recognized criteria around genocide” in reference to not designating the treatment of the Uyghurs by the Chinese government as genocide: what specific criteria has not been met that is preventing the government from declaring it a genocide?Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.The Government of Canada has been clear in the view that human rights violations are occurring against Uighurs. The nature and scale of the violations by Chinese authorities in Xinjiang, under the pretext of countering extremism, are deeply disturbing. Our government is gravely concerned about the existence of a large network of “political re-education” camps where credible reports indicate that over a million people have been arbitrarily detained. We are also deeply concerned by the reports of mass separation of children from their parents.There are severe restrictions on freedom of religion or belief and the freedoms of movement, association and expression as well as on Uighur culture. Widespread surveillance disproportionately continues to target Uighurs and other minorities. More reports are emerging of forced labour and forced birth control, including sterilization. Actions by the Chinese government are contrary to its own constitution, are in violation of international human rights obligations and are inconsistent with the United Nations’ global counterterrorism strategy.The Government of the People’s Republic of China denies any and all allegations of human rights abuses against Uighur people and rejects any accountability for wrongdoing, instead casting blame on the victims and those who choose to speak out. Due diligence is needed given mounting evidence that the Chinese government’s systematic ill-treatment of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity and constitutive elements of genocide.Canada, along with several other countries, has repeatedly called on the Chinese government to allow the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN Special Procedures immediate, unfettered and meaningful access to Xinjiang. Such access would allow independent experts to assess the extent of the human rights abuses taking place.Canada continues to review options in addressing the gross violations of human rights taking place in Xinjiang, and understands that the most effective path lies in coordinating with our like-minded partners to maintain pressure and international focus on this issue.Canada has repeatedly called for an investigation so that impartial experts can observe and report on the situation first-hand. The onus must remain on the Chinese government to demonstrate that human rights abuses have ceased and that its obligations to prevent genocide are being fulfilled. More rigorous and comprehensive investigation and evaluation should occur in co-operation with our allies. Our collective voice, grounded in international law, stands to have the strongest possible impact.Canada continues to take action in addressing the situation based on the information it has regarding this situation. On January 12, the government announced a comprehensive approach to the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including measures to address forced labour. Canada has repeatedly raised concerns alongside our partners at the UN, including before the UN Human Rights Council, HRC, and at the UN General Assembly. In June 2020, during the 44th session of the HRC, Canada and 27 other countries signed a joint statement on the human rights situations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. At the UN General Assembly Third Committee on October 6, 2020, Canada co-signed, along with 38 other countries, a joint statement on the human rights situations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.In coordination with our international partners, we will continue to review available information and consider further options in how we address the situation in Xinjiang. We will continue to work to defend fundamental human rights and freedoms, and to call on China to uphold its international obligations.Question No. 412--Mr. Kenny Chiu: With regard to the processing of student visa applications by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) has IRCC targeted applications from students of certain countries in order to undergo heightened or additional scrutiny; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which countries’ applications are receiving additional scrutiny; (c) what is the reason for why each country has been selected for additional scrutiny, broken down by country; and (d) what is the average additional processing time required by IRCC in order to perform the additional scrutiny?Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, against the threat of potential exploitation of immigration processes by foreign state actors who seek to advance their interests, the Government of Canada leverages a range of tools to protect national security, including from foreign interference actors.Foreign interference is a serious threat to the security of Canadians. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, has the mandate to investigate such threat activities and uses the full mandate of the CSIS Act in order to investigate, advise on and reduce these threats. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, has a broad, multi-faceted mandate that allows it to investigate and prevent foreign interference on the basis of various laws. Immigration officers are highly trained to examine all evidence presented as part of an immigration application, including admissibility recommendations, before rendering a final decision in line with requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.The Government of Canada takes seriously all allegations of interference by foreign states that would intimidate Canadian communities and applies a whole-of-government approach to protect national security, including from foreign interference actors.In response to part (a), IRCC does not target applications from students of certain countries in order to undergo heightened or additional scrutiny. All IRCC temporary and permanent residence applications are assessed for security and criminality concerns on a case-by-case basis, based on various indicators.Since the answer to part (a) is not affirmative, responses are not required for parts (b) through (d).Question No. 414--Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus: With regard to meetings between Public Services and Procurement Canada and either Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada concerning the procurement or production of vaccines since January 1, 2020: what are the details of all such meetings involving officials at the associate deputy minister level or higher or ministers or their exempt staff, including the (i) date, (ii) title of persons in attendance, (iii) agenda items, (iv) summary of decisions made at meeting?Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, PSPC has been in constant contact with key partners including the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, Health Canada, Industry, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, Global Affairs Canada, the COVID Vaccine Task Force and others to plan and execute the procurement of personal protective equipment and medical equipment, such as masks, gloves, sanitizer, gowns, and ventilators; COVID-19 vaccines; and all related supplies, such as syringes and freezers. The minister, the minister’s staff and departmental officials are in constant contact with their colleagues.Through this close, daily collaboration, the Government of Canada has taken an aggressive procurement approach to fulfill emergent and immediate as well as long-term medical supply requirements. As a result, it has secured more than 2.5 billion articles of various personal protective equipment, and continues to receive steady, ongoing deliveries. Departments are also working together to leverage domestic supply chains.Question No. 416--Mr. John Nater: With regard to Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) support, including tax credits, provided to Huawei, since 2016: what is the total amount of SR&ED support provided annually to Huawei, broken down by year and by type of support?Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested, as confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent the disclosure of taxpayer-specific information. Question No. 418--Mrs. Stephanie Kusie: With regard to the impact of the travel restrictions imposed by the government during the pandemic and the study released by Statistics Canada on October 23, 2020, which provided estimates on the amount of job losses and gross domestic product (GDP) reduction resulting from the travel restrictions: (a) what are the updated statistics on the estimated job losses and GDP reduction for 2020; and (b) what is the projected impact of the travel restrictions on job losses and GDP reduction for 2021?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Statistics Canada study published on October 3, 2020, provided a range of estimates on the economic impact of travel restrictions on the Canadian economy in 2020. These estimates were based on several projection scenarios that were possible when the analysis was being performed, and these projection results differ from true estimates of what really happened. The scenarios involved different assumptions on when travel restrictions would be eased and what the recovery would look like after the easing of restrictions. For each scenario, a monthly recovery path for tourism activities from March to December of 2020 was assumed, as shown in chart A1 and chart A2 in the appendix of the study, which can be found at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/ n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626 -x2020023-eng.htm. The study suggested that travel restrictions would lead to a reduction in gross domestic product, or GDP, ranging from $16 billion to $23 billon and to job losses ranging from 284,000 to 406,000 in the tourism industry in 2020.Since the publication of the study, Statistics Canada has published several statistics on the tourism industry, including GDP and employment, up to the third quarter of 2020. With an assumption that the fourth quarter of 2020 is similar to the third quarter, this newly released data suggests that the tourism industry could experience in 2020 a reduction in GDP of about $20 billion and job losses of about 190,000 from their 2019 levels.The estimated impact on jobs as suggested by the newly released data is smaller than what was presented in the study. The difference arises because the initial study focused on the impact of travel restrictions by holding constant other factors. The study explained that behavioural changes made by consumers, businesses and governments in response to shocks are not taken into account; that is, the study assumed no change in the production structure of the economy, no change in the tastes or willingness to work of impacted individuals, and no government intervention. The need for social distancing has introduced changes in the way businesses operate and how individuals work: consumers and businesses rely increasingly on online platforms to purchase and sell products and services.Also, the Government of Canada has responded to the pandemic with business liquidity support programs, including the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or CEWS; the Canada emergency business account; and the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program. The program take-up statistics for the CEWS suggest that the accommodation and food services industry and the arts, entertainment and recreation industry, main components of the tourism industry, are among the industries with the highest take-up rates.With regard to (b), Statistics Canada does not currently have an estimate for the impact of travel restrictions for 2021. Given the substantial changes that have occurred in the economy and the uncertainty regarding how consumer behaviour may have changed because of the pandemic, the methodology used in the initial study would produce estimates with unacceptable margins of error. Question No. 423--Mr. Tom Kmiec: With regard to the federal disability tax credit (DTC) that helps persons with disabilities and certain medical conditions defray unavoidable medical expenses, since fiscal year 2017-18: (a) what is the total number of DTC applicants for fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, broken down by year; (b) what is the total DTC amount claimed for fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, broken down by year; (c) what is the total number of DTC claimants for fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, broken down by year; (d) what is the total number of DTC applications that were denied for fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, broken down by year; (e) of the DTC applications that were denied, what were the tabulated and categorized reasons for their denial; (f) what is the total number of DTC applications that cited a doctor’s recommendation stating the applicant qualified for the DTC; (g) what is the total number of DTC applicants in fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, that were previously approved for the DTC; (h) of the DTC applicants in (g), how many were rejected; and (i) in deciding whether or not to approve a re-application for the DTC, what are the criterion utilized by the Canada Revenue Agency to make such a determination, and how are these criterion logged and recorded?Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (c) and (d), information is available on the Government of Canada website. This information is compiled by calendar year rather than by fiscal year.The publication entitled “Disability Tax Credit Statistics – 2011 to 2019 Calendar Years”, which is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/ revenue-agency/programs/ about-canada-revenue-agency-cra /income-statistics- gst-hst-statistics/ disability-tax-credit- statistics/dtc -statistics-2019.html, provides statistics based on information that the CRA processed from applications for the disability tax credit, or DTC, or from individuals who claimed the DTC on their individual T1 income tax and benefit return. Tables 1 to 10 present demographic data by calendar year, while tables 11 to 13 present data on DTC determination and utilization for calendar years 2011-2019.Tables 1 to 10 contain the number of individuals with an accepted DTC certificate by restriction, age, gender, marital status and province.Table 11 provides a breakdown of DTC determinations by basic activity of daily living, or BADL, for DTC certificates processed during the calendar year.Table 12 provides the breakdown of the number of claimants from T1 returns assessed or reassessed over the calendar year. The breakdown by BADL is estimated by allocating that number by the proportion of accepted determinations by BADL published in Table 11.Table 13 provides the breakdown of DTC utilization from T1 returns assessed or reassessed over the calendar year. The breakdown by BADL is estimated by allocating the “Total Amount of DTC Utilized” by the proportion of accepted determinations by BADL published in Table 11.Tables 11, 12 and 13 replace the former “Disability Tax Credit at a glance” publication. The CRA is now publishing data by calendar year rather than by fiscal year.In some cases, totals may not add up due to rounding or suppression for confidentiality purposes. Please refer to the “Confidentiality procedures” section of the explanatory notes for more information.With regard to (e), the CRA is guided by the criteria as set out in the Income Tax Act, the ITA, and based on the specific medical information provided, the CRA does not record the information in the manner requested.With regard to (f), the CRA administers the DTC in accordance with the ITA. To that end, the CRA only captures the data needed to administer the DTC as prescribed under the ITA. For this reason, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested, as there is no legislative requirement to capture the information in this manner.With regard to (g) and (h), this data is not readily available. It would require a manual search that cannot be completed within the time provided under Standing Order 39(5)(a).With regard to (i), the CRA administers the DTC in accordance with the ITA. To that end, the CRA only captures the data needed to administer the DTC as prescribed under the ITA. For this reason, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested, as there is no legislative requirement to capture the information in this manner.Please note that the CRA’s role is to determine eligibility for the DTC based on the legislation and the information provided by the medical practitioner who certifies form T2201, the disability tax credit certificate. If the medical practitioner provides the CRA with information that suggests the patient’s severe limitations may improve over time, DTC eligibility is allowed on a temporary basis. When that period ends, it is necessary to submit a new T2201 in order for the CRA to redetermine the eligibility based on the current situation. The determining factor in all cases, whether a first-time claim or a reapplication, is based on the effects of the impairment on a person’s ability to perform the basic activities of daily living, or BADL.Although the ITA allows the CRA to request a new completed form T2201 at different intervals, all efforts are made to lessen the burden on the taxpayers and the medical practitioners.Once a determination has been completed, a notice of determination, or NOD, is sent to the taxpayer; the information is updated on the DTC database; and the taxpayer can view the disability information using the CRA’s My Account.Question No. 428--Mr. Gérard Deltell: With regard to communication between the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Privy Council Office or the Office of the Prime Minister and the Office of the Clerk of the House of Commons between noon on February 17, 2021, and 4:00 p.m. on February 18, 2021: what are the details of all such communication, including the (i) date and time, (ii) type of communication (email, text message, phone call, verbal exchange, etc.), (iii) names and titles of the participants, (iv) sender and the receiver, if applicable, (v) subject matters, (vi) summary of the contents of the communication?Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons consults and interacts with all parties and MPs, as well as with representative of the House of Commons, in order to facilitate the mandate that the Prime Minister has given to him to lead the House leadership team to bring a collaborative and effective approach to the minority Parliament, placing a priority on transparency and communicating with Canadians on the work of their Parliament.Question No. 430--Mrs. Rosemarie Falk: With regard to the impact on the Canadian economy of the decision by the President of the United States to cancel the permits related to the Keystone XL pipeline project: (a) what are the government’s estimates on the number of job losses, both direct and indirect, as a result of the decision; and (b) what are the government’s estimates on the economic losses, both direct and indirect, as a result of the decision?Mr. Marc Serré ((Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the recent decision of the U.S. administration on Keystone XL, which the Government of Canada strenuously objected to, the project proponent has stated that 1,000 construction jobs were impacted as construction season activity ceased. It had been anticipated that 2,800 construction jobs would be created in Alberta and Saskatchewan at the height of construction. The proponent has also stated that the project had been expected to create up to 17,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada.Question No. 437--Mr. Arnold Viersen: With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) hiring additional temporary employees for the 2021 tax season: (a) how many temporary employees is the CRA hiring; (b) prior to hiring individuals outside of government, did the CRA consider seconding individuals from other government departments or agencies who are on leave or unable to complete their regular work responsibilities due to the pandemic, and, if not, why not; and (c) how many temporary employees hired for this year's tax season were seconded from other government departments or agencies?Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the 2021 filing season, the hiring target for CRA call centres was approximately 2,000 temporary employees by March 31, 2021.With regard to (b), at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CRA was called upon to help administer emergency benefits on behalf of the Government of Canada. The CRA worked closely with Employment and Social Development Canada call centres to ensure adequate support was available to Canadians facing hardship as a result of the pandemic.In April of 2020, the CRA made a call to employees across the agency, asking those whose workloads had been deemed non-essential to work as temporary call agents. Approximately 7,000 CRA employees came forward to help. However, as CRA business resumption began, the CRA employees began returning to their regular duties.The CRA did not approach other government departments or agencies because we had made plans for recruitment and training of 2,000 external hires for filing season.With regard to (c), none of the temporary agents hired for this year's tax season were seconded from other government departments or agencies.Question No. 438--Mr. Marc Dalton: With regard to the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman: (a) how many complaints has the ombudsman received during the pandemic, since March 1, 2020; (b) what is the breakdown of complaints by type of products or services involved; (c) what is the breakdown of complaints by type of complaints; (d) how many of the complaints involved tenders related to products purchased as part of the pandemic response (PPE, ventilators, etc.); and (e) how many of the complaints involved tenders related the administration or implementation of government programs announced in response to the program?Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), as per the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the procurement ombudsman can review two types of complaints: complaints respecting compliance with regulations made under the Financial Administration Act regarding the award of certain contracts; and complaints respecting the administration of certain contracts.Since March 1, 2020, the ombudsman has received a total of five complaints regarding the award or administration of federal contracts.With regard to part (b), the breakdown of complaints by products or services involved is the following: environmental studies; audiovisual services; air charter services; professional, administrative and management support services; and vehicles, motor vehicles and cycles.With regard to part (c), of the five complaints, four were regarding the award and one was regarding the administration.With regard to part (d), there were no complaints regarding the tender of products purchased as part of the pandemic response.With regard to part (e), there were no complaints related to government programs in response to the pandemic.Question No. 440--Mr. James Bezan: With regard to the former Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Mr. Gary Walbourne: (a) on what dates between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, did he meet with the Minister of National Defence; and (b) on what dates between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, did he hold a scheduled or unscheduled (i) phone call, (ii) video chat (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, etc.), with the Minister of National Defence?Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), concerning meetings between the Minister of National Defence and the former ombudsman Mr. Gary Walbourne between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, there was one meeting on March 1, 2018.Question No. 441--Mr. James Bezan: With regard to the Minister of National Defence: (a) on what dates between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, did the Minister of National Defence meet with the former Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Mr. Gary Walbourne; and (b) on what dates between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, did the Minister of National Defence hold a scheduled or unscheduled (i) phone call, (ii) video chat (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, etc), with Mr. Walbourne?Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, the Minister of National Defence met with the former National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman once, on March 1, 2018.Question No. 443--Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to the email exchanges of February 11 and 12, 2020, between Kevin Chan, global director and head of public policy at Facebook, and Owen Ripley, director general at Canadian Heritage, regarding a job offer from Facebook, and the statement from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on January 29, 2021, “I did ask the department to look into the matter”: (a) on what date did the minister become aware of the email exchanges; (b) on what date did the minister ask the department to review the email exchanges; (c) based on which laws, regulations or codes did the minister ask the department to review the email exchanges; (d) what issues did the minister ask the department to review or check; (e) how long did the department’s review last; (f) under which laws, regulations or codes was the review conducted; (g) what were the findings of the department’s review; (h) when did the minister receive the department’s review; (i) what decisions did the department and the minister make following the review; and (j) what is the department’s position on requests to distribute or share job offers from registered lobbyists among public servants?Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the minister became aware of the email exchanges on October 28, 2020.With regard to part (b), on October 28, 2020, the minister’s chief of staff raised the email exchanges with the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage. As the official responsible for ensuring effective departmental management, including the conduct of departmental staff, the deputy minister informed the chief of staff of her intention to carry out a review of the circumstances surrounding the email exchanges.With regard to part (c), the deputy minister, as the official responsible for ensuring effective departmental management, including the conduct of departmental staff, reviewed the matter pursuant to the values and ethics code for the public sector, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s code of values and ethics, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Treasury Board policy on people management, the Treasury Board directive on conflict of interest, and the Treasury Board directive on terms and conditions of employment.With regard to part (d), the deputy minister, as the official responsible for ensuring effective departmental management, including the conduct of departmental staff, reviewed the matter pursuant to the values and ethics code for the public sector, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s code of values and ethics, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Treasury Board policy on people management, the Treasury Board directive on conflict of interest, and the Treasury Board directive on terms and conditions of employment.With regard to part (e), the department’s review lasted from October 28, 2020 to November 3, 2020.With regard to part (f), the deputy minister, as the official responsible for ensuring effective departmental management, including the conduct of departmental staff, reviewed the matter pursuant to the values and ethics code for the public sector, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s code of value and ethics, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Treasury Board policy on people management, the Treasury Board directive on conflict of interest, and the Treasury Board directive on terms and conditions of employment.With regard to part (g), based on the information specific to this matter, the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage determined that sharing publicly available information was not a reprehensible act.With regard to part (h), the results of the review were communicated orally to the minister on November 4, 2020.With regard to part (i), the deputy minister determined that, based on the facts related to this matter, no further action was required.With regard to part (j), each situation should be assessed based on their specific facts. While sharing publicly available information is not in and of itself a reprehensible act, departmental staff are expected to meet the highest standards with respect to conflict of interest, values and ethics. The Department of Canadian Heritage takes values and ethics very seriously, and has a solid framework in place to prevent and follow up on such matters.Question No. 450--Mr. Corey Tochor: With regard to the impact on the government’s estimates of the importance of the Enbridge Line 5 project: (a) what are the government’s estimates on the number of jobs at stake, both direct and indirect, dependent on the project succeeding; and (b) what are the government’s estimates on the economic impact to the Canadian economy, both direct and indirect, which is dependent on the project?Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is fully committed to the continued, safe operation of Line 5. According to Enbridge, the Line 5 Sarnia petrochemical complex supports over 4,900 direct jobs and 23,500 indirect jobs. It is also responsible for over $65 billion in direct and indirect revenues, based on $28 billion in direct annual trade between Canada and the United States. In Quebec, Line 5 is a critical source of supply for the province’s refineries, supplying about two-thirds of the crude oil consumed in the province. This supports the refineries’ 1,080 employees, and more than 200 contract workers.Air transportationAlghabra, OmarBarsalou-Duval, XavierBérubé, SylvieBezan, JamesBloc Québécois CaucusBoulerice, AlexandreBrassard, JohnCabinetCanada Revenue AgencyCanadian International Trade TribunalCanadian Security Intelligence ServiceChampagne, François-PhilippeChinaChiu, KennyChong, Michael D.Classified documentsClerk of the House of CommonsComplaintsConservative CaucusCOVID-19Dabrusin, JulieDalton, MarcData sharingDavidson, ScotDeltell, GérardDepartment of Public Works and Government ServicesDisability tax creditEconomic conditionsEconomic impactEmployment and labourEmployment opportunitiesEnbridge Inc.Falk, RosemarieFergus, GregForeign policyForeign studentsGenocideGovernment contractsGovernment policyHuawei Technologies Co., Ltd.ImmunizationIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationInternational tradeKeystone Pipeline ProjectKmiec, TomKusie, StephanieLametti, DavidLamoureux, KevinLayoffs and job lossesLebouthillier, DianeLegal servicesLiberal CaucusLightbound, JoëlMacKinnon, StevenMaritime safetyMcCauley, KellyMendicino, MarcoMeta Platforms Inc.Nater, JohnNational Defence and Canadian Armed Forces OmbudsmanNew Democratic Party CaucusOffice of the Prime MinisterOffice of the Procurement OmbudsmanOil and gasOliphant, RobertPassports and visasPaul-Hus, PierrePersons with disabilitiesPerson-to-person communicationsPilotsPipeline transportationPleasure craftProduct of CanadaPublic consultationPublic Service and public servantsQ-394Q-396Q-397Q-398Q-402Q-405Q-406Q-411Q-412Q-414Q-416Q-418Q-423Q-428Q-430Q-437Q-438Q-440Q-441Q-443Q-450RegulationScientific research and scientistsSecurity intelligenceSerré, Marc G.StaffingTelecommunications networksTochor, CoreyTravel restrictionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesUyghurVandenbeld, AnitaViersen, ArnoldWalbourne, GaryWritten questions6612362661236366123646612365KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 360--Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to the support units and bases of the Canadian Armed Forces and subcontracts, broken down by fiscal year since 2011-12: (a) what are the details of each contract, including (i) the supplier, (ii) the amount, (iii) the commodity description, (iv) the sourcing, sole or not; and (b) for each contract in (a), why was this work not performed by the Department of National Defence?Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence issues thousands of contracts each year to facilitate its operations and to better serve Canadians at home and abroad. These contracts are subject to national defence’s procurement processes, which allow the department to deliver the right equipment and quality service to the Canadian Armed Forces in a timely manner.As part of its commitment to openness and transparency, the Department of National Defence proactively discloses all of its contracts over $10,000. Details of these contracts, ranging from 2011 to 2020, can be found at the Open Government website using the following link: https://open.canada.ca.National defence does not centrally track subcontract data broken down by location. Providing the requested details would require a manual search and validation of over 160,000 contracts, which could not be completed in the allotted time.Question No. 361--Mr. Pierre Poilievre: With regard to private debt guaranteed by the government: what is its total value, including all Crown corporations like the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Export Development Canada?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the outstanding principal under loan guarantees issued by the government on the borrowings of third parties stood at $14.5 billion at December 31, 2019. At September 30, 2020, the date of the most recent finalized quarterly data available, the outstanding principal under loan guarantees totalled $15.8 billion.In addition, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, CDIC, operate insurance programs related to third-party debt for the government. CDIC operates the deposit insurance fund, which provides basic protection coverage to depositors for up to $100,000 of eligible deposits with each member bank, trust or loan company. CMHC operates the mortgage insurance fund, which provides insurance for mortgage lending on Canadian housing by private institutions. At December 31, 2019, total insurance in force amounted to $1,280,849 million. At September 30, 2020, the date of the most recent quarterly data available, total insurance in force amounted to $1,405,991 million. In the event that the corporations have insufficient funds, the government will have to provide financing. The government expects that the corporations will cover the cost of both current claims and possible future claims.Question No. 362--Mr. Randall Garrison: With regard to the government’s commitment to expunge the criminal records of LGBTQ2+ Canadians for historical offences that are no longer criminal offences as part of the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act: (a) how many people have applied to have their records expunged for unjust convictions; (b) what percentage of the applicants have been successful in having their records expunged; (c) of the unsuccessful applications, what reasons have been given for their rejection by category and how many rejected applications fall into each category; and (d) is there a deadline for applying for expungement under this act and, if so, will that deadline be extended to take into account the impact of the pandemic on the ability of those affected to complete applications?Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from December 2019 to January 26, 2021, with regard to (a), PBC received 37 applications for expungement.With regard to (b), 10) applications were accepted as eligible, and expungement was ordered for nine of them, 90%. The remaining application was refused because, upon investigation, the activity for which the person was convicted remains a criminal offence under the Criminal Code.With regard to (c), 27 applications were returned or were not admissible because the individual did not meet one or more of the legislated eligibility criteria—i.e., their convictions were not on the list of eligible convictions for expungement. Additionally, the board did not have jurisdiction—i.e., expired absolute/conditional discharge—over two of the ineligible applications.With regard to (d), there is no deadline for applying for expungement under this act.Question No. 369--Mr. Jack Harris: With regard to Global Affairs Canada, from August 2020 to the present: (a) how much funding was (i) allocated, (ii) spent by month to promote the candidacy of Bill Morneau to the presidency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; (b) how many public servants were involved in substantial activities related to Mr. Morneau’s candidacy; and (c) how many person-hours were dedicated to substantial activities related to Mr. Morneau’s candidacy?Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.The Government of Canada was disappointed to learn that Bill Morneau did not obtain sufficient support to become the next Secretary General of the OECD. Bill Morneau was an ideal candidate to lead the OECD in these difficult times and his commitment deserves to be recognized. Although this result was not what Canada hoped, Canada will work with the next Secretary General of the OECD, Mr. Mathias Cormann, and would like to congratulate him on his appointment.In response to (a), consistent with its goals to contribute to an effective and high-performing rules-based system that serves Canadians and Canada’s interests, the government campaigned for a Canadian to become the next Secretary General of the OECD. It provided diplomatic support, advocacy and strategic advice.As is the case in campaigns for leadership positions in multilateral organizations, outreach with key decision-makers in members’ capitals and members’ representatives to the organization is required. Based on the Treasury Board’s special travel authorities and the approach taken for travel-related costs in similar campaigns supported by the department in the past, existing resources of up to $98,385.19 were budgeted. No new resources were allocated. As of January 27, 2021, the total costs incurred by the government in relation to the campaign are $10,899.73.In response to (b), the department has not assigned any officials exclusively for the purposes of the OECD Secretary-General campaign. Nevertheless, as the lead department responsible for the relationship with the organization, to varying degrees and in line with their regular duties, 19 officials in the department and at the permanent delegation of Canada to the OECD provided punctual support to the campaign at different moments in time.In response to (c), the work performed by government officials is part of their regular duties, such as preparing briefing or communications materials, managing relations with the OECD and undertaking outreach with foreign countries.Question No. 370--Mr. Rob Morrison: With regard to the negotiations between Canada and the United States to renew the Columbia River Treaty: (a) what is the current schedule of the negotiations; (b) which organizations and individuals have been granted observer status for the negotiations; (c) which organizations and individuals have requested observer status but were not granted it; and (d) what is the government's specific reason for denying the request for each organization or individual in (c)?Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.With regard to (a), Canada and the United States have held 10 negotiation rounds on modernization of the Columbia River Treaty, the CRT. Round 11 has not yet been scheduled.With regard to (b), in April 2019, the Minister of Foreign Affairs granted observer status to representatives from the Ktunaxa, Okanagan-Syilx and Secwepemc nations. These three indigenous nations work closely with Canada and British Columbia as part of these treaty negotiations.With regard to (c), the member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia has requested observer status. This status has not been granted.With regard to (d), the negotiating teams from both Canada and the United States are made up of non-political public servants. There are no political representatives from federal, provincial or state governments or other political representatives.The Canadian delegation consists of personnel from the federal government, provincial government, BC Hydro and the three indigenous nations official observers covering the range of CRT-related issues. The Global Affairs Canada negotiating team and chief negotiator continue to engage with and update Columbia River basin community groups, the Local Governments Committee and political representatives at provincial and federal levels. The provincial members of the team provide regular updates to the responsible minister and B.C. political representatives and host regular town hall meetings to ensure local communities are briefed on the negotiations and to receive feedback from people in the basin. The representatives from the Ktunaxa, Okanagan-Syilx and Secwepemc nations engage their leadership and communities on the CRT and bring back their interests to the Canadian delegation.Question No. 372--Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner: With regard to COVID-19 vaccines: (a) how many will Canada receive, broken down by week, between January 29, 2021, and the end of 2021; and (b) what is the breakdown by manufacturer with whom Canada has procurement agreements, including those manufacturers whose vaccines have not yet received Health Canada approval?Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of March 16, 2021, the quarterly breakdown of expected deliveries of approved vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen) is eight million by the end of March, 28.5 million between April and the end of June, and 81.5 million between July and the end of September, for an aggregate total of 118 million by the end of September 2021. This includes accelerated doses of 1.5 million in March and one million in April and May. PSPC continues to work with vaccine suppliers to negotiate the early delivery of doses to Canadians, and as such, the information is subject to change.In addition, information about the quantities of COVID-19 vaccines that have been delivered to provinces and territories to date is published by the Public Health Agency of Canada on the Vaccines and treatments for COVID-19: Vaccine rollout website at https://www.canada.ca/en/ public-health/services/diseases/ 2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/ prevention-risks/ covid-19-vaccine-treatment/ vaccine-rollout.html#a4. This information is updated weekly.With regard to (b), information on Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine agreements, including a breakdown by supplier and number of doses, is published on Public Services and Procurement Canada’s Procuring vaccines for COVID-19 website at: https://www.canada.ca/en/ public-services-procurement/ services/procuring-vaccines- covid19.html.To protect Canada’s negotiating position and to respect confidentiality clauses in our vaccine agreements, Public Services and Procurement Canada cannot unilaterally disclose details of specific agreements. We continue to seek opportunities to be as transparent as possible about our procurements in support of Canada’s COVID response, while respecting confidentiality agreements and protecting our negotiating position.Question No. 373--Mr. Bob Saroya: With regard to illegal firearms entering Canada: what is the government’s estimate of the number of illegal firearms that have entered the country since 2016, broken down by year and by method of entry (air cargo shipments, land passenger vehicle smuggling, etc.)?Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that our border remains open to legitimate trade and travel while closed to those who seek to traffic or smuggle weapons or drugs.Following significant cuts by the previous Conservative government to our security agencies, in the last Parliament our government announced an investment of $327 million to combat gun and gang violence, with $86 million to prevent cross-border smuggling of illegal firearms. Of this, the CBSA is being provided an extra $51.5 million to enhance screening, detection and training around firearms smuggling, and $34.5 million for the RCMP’s integrated criminal firearms initiative to enhance intelligence gathering, technology and investigations.Upon the introduction of new legislation that will strengthen gun control at our borders, we announced additional anti-smuggling investments for the RCMP worth $42.4 million over 5 years, with $6.1 million ongoing. At the same time, for the CBSA we announced enhanced intelligence and investigative capacity of $21.8 million over 5 years, and $3.3 million for ongoing AI threat detection, with $1.7 million over 5 years.We welcome the opportunity to discuss ways to prevent cross-border firearms smuggling, considering that during the study of Bill C-71 study at SECU, the Conservative MPs proposed amendments that “there be no punishment for include ‘false statements to procure licences’, ‘false statements to procure customs confirmations’—so, importing or trafficking”, as seen at https://openparliament.ca/search/?q=%22randall+koops%22&page=3At every point in the travel continuum, the government undertakes activities to prevent the smuggling of illicit firearms. Pre-border, the government works closely with domestic and international law enforcement agencies to identify and disrupt criminal networks involved in smuggling or facilitating the smuggling of illicit firearms, through intelligence sharing and operations. The Canada Border Services Agency’s, CBSA’s, national targeting centre also uses intelligence, information and other indicators to conduct pre-arrival risk assessments of goods and people entering the country to identify high-risk shipments or travelers.If firearms are smuggled into Canada, the CBSA works closely with its law enforcement partners to identify smuggling routes and individuals involved, and to lay the appropriate criminal charges after a thorough criminal investigation. Where a foreign national may be involved, the CBSA can also remove the individual from the country, as such criminal involvement would likely deem the individual as inadmissible to Canada. From January 1, 2014 to September 6, 2020, the CBSA seized 4263 undeclared firearms at the border.Just recently, we announced that we will be re-establishing the cross-border crime forum with the U.S. while exploring the creation of a cross-border task force to address gun smuggling and trafficking.To fight the criminal act of gun smuggling and trafficking at our border, under Bill C-21 we will increase the maximum prison sentence to highlight how serious this offence is. Additionally, we will increase sharing of data between the RCMP and local law enforcement agencies to better prosecute trafficking offences, and will table an annual report for greater transparency and accountability.We welcome the support of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who “wholeheartedly endorse all efforts to strengthen border controls and impose stronger penalties to combat firearms smuggling and trafficking”.Question No. 374--Mr. Pierre Poilievre: With regard to ownership of government bonds: what is the total ownership of bonds, broken down by wealth quintile?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a search of the records of the Department of Finance did not produce any results, as neither the department nor the Bank of Canada collects data regarding holdings of government bonds, either in general or by wealth quintiles.Question No. 375--Mrs. Cathay Wagantall: With regard to the directives outlined in the Supplementary mandate letter of January 15, 2021, addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence and signed by the Prime Minister: (a) what are the specific programs and services that will be reviewed to ensure veterans, their families, and their primary caregivers receive the best possible mental health supports, including timely access to service; (b) what are the metrics by which each program and service will be reviewed; and (c) when will a review of each program and service begin and end?Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs Canada recognizes the impact that military service has on the mental health and well-being of both veterans and their family members, and understands the importance of family to the overall health and wellness of veterans. As emphasized in the Prime Minister’s supplementary mandate letter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is committed to ensuring that eligible veterans, their families and their primary caregivers have access to the mental health support they need, when they need it. Veterans Affairs Canada fully supports these efforts and is engaged in activities that are working towards delivering on this mandate commitment, including a review of mental health supports to ensure that veterans, their families and primary caregivers have the best possible mental health services. The timing and metrics are still being determined.Question No. 376--Mr. Michael Kram: With regard to the decision to layoff air traffic control workers at the Regina International Airport and the statement by the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons on January 28, 2021, that "No decision has been made. It is important to note that any changes in the level of service proposed by Nav Canada will be subjected to a rigorous safety assessment by Transport Canada": (a) why were layoff notices provided to workers prior to January 28, 2021, if "no decision has been made"; (b) on what date was the decision made; (c) on what date was Transport Canada first notified of the decision; (d) what are the details of how the "rigorous safety assessment by Transport Canada" was conducted; and (e) what were the results of the safety assessment?Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Nav Canada is a private, arm’s-length entity and Transport Canada is not involved in the company’s day-to-day management decisions. That said, Transport Canada assesses service level reductions to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on safety.With regard to parts (b) to (e), no decisions have been made by Transport Canada on a potential service level reduction. Transport Canada is still awaiting receipt of Nav Canada’s aeronautical study, which it will review to determine if the department is supportive of any proposed service level reduction at Regina International Airport. This assessment will begin once the study is received from Nav Canada.Question No. 377--Mr. Michael Barrett: With regard to the various travel restrictions and border measures put into place during the pandemic: (a) what is the government's criteria or exit strategy regarding when each restriction or measure will be eased, including the targeted number of vaccinations, cases or hospitalizations before the government will consider easing each measure; and (b) does the government have any projected timeline for when each criteria in (a) is expected to be met and, if so, what is the timeline?Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada’s top priority is the health and safety of Canadians. To limit the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in Canada, the Government of Canada has taken unprecedented action to implement a comprehensive strategy with layers of precautionary measures.Between February 3, 2020, and February 14, 2021, the Governor in Council has made 45 emergency orders under the Quarantine Act to minimize the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in Canada, to reduce risks from other countries, to repatriate Canadians and to strengthen measures at the border to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in Canada. Together, these measures have been effective. By limiting incoming travel to Canada, requiring mandatory quarantine for asymptomatic travellers, with some exceptions, and requiring mandatory isolation for symptomatic travellers, the number of travel-related COVID-19 cases in December 2020 was a fraction of the travel-related cases seen in March 2020 at the beginning of the pandemic.In consultation with provinces, territories, and industry stakeholders, and in recognition of the low number of domestic cases, some travel restrictions were eased in October 2020. These include restrictions for extended family members of Canadian citizens, permanent residents and persons registered as Indians under the Indian Act; compassionate entry and limited release from quarantine for reasons such as funerals or to provide care to someone residing in Canada; international students; regular cross-border students; children in shared custody agreements; and residents of isolated border communities.However, as the numbers increased again and new variants of concern emerged, more stringent measures were introduced once again. In December 2020, the Minister of Transport announced a 72-hour emergency travel ban on all incoming flights from the United Kingdom, and by January 7, 2021, travellers flying into Canadian airports were required to provide proof of a negative molecular test taken prior to departure, with exceptions. This was followed later in January with the ability of travellers to provide proof of a positive COVID-19 test taken at least 14 days and not more than 90 days prior to travel. At this time, strengthened measures continue to be necessary as new variants of the virus that causes COVID-19, which are more transmissible, may have an impact on the efficacy of some vaccines and drugs. Therefore, additional testing and quarantine requirements for travellers arriving by both air and land, as announced by the Prime Minister on January 29, 2021, came into effect on February 14. Under these new measures, travellers arriving at Canada’s land ports of entry are required to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 molecular test, and as of February 21, all travellers arriving in Canada will be required to take a COVID-19 molecular test on arrival and again later during their quarantine, with exceptions. Also as of February 21, travellers arriving by air will be required to reserve and stay in a Government of Canada-approved hotel for up to three nights, at their own cost, while they await the results of the COVID-19 molecular test they took upon arrival, with limited exceptions.A certain proportion of travellers will require the use of clinical resources for care. In addition, infected travellers can cause secondary transmission to household members or in the community. Therefore, travel continues to present a risk of importing cases, including cases of new variants of the virus, and increases the potential for onward community transmission of COVID-19. To increase monitoring for importation of variants of concern, and to allow our health care system to recover, these stricter measures are necessary to reduce immediate risks associated with new variants and to protect Canadians.Border measures are developed through consultation with provincial, territorial and international governments, and are based on national and international evidence-based risk assessments, including evaluation of available scientific data and assessment of domestic and international public health measures. The Government of Canada continues to review the available scientific evidence to determine future border measures, including the use of both testing and vaccination to protect the health and safety of Canadians.The Government of Canada recognizes that entry prohibitions, mandatory quarantine requirements and testing protocols place significant burden on the Canadian economy, Canadians, and their immediate and extended families. However, these measures remain the most effective means of limiting the introduction of new cases of COVID-19 into Canada. The Government of Canada continues to work with provinces and territories to gather evidence to guide policy and decision-making and to incorporate all available options to permit further easing of border measures. While approved COVID-19 vaccines protect an individual from the severe effects of illness, there is limited evidence regarding the ability of a vaccinated individual to transmit the virus to others. Questions also remain regarding the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing illness related to new variants of concern of COVID-19. We continue work towards a time where measures can be eased for those who are vaccinated.With the advent of new, more transmissible variants of the virus, the Government of Canada continues to take a precautionary approach to border measures in an effort to preserve domestic health capacity and reduce the further introduction and transmission of COVID-19 in Canada.Question No. 378--Mr. Marty Morantz: With regard to the impact of interest rate hikes on the government’s finances: what are the Department of Finance’s projections on the amount of interest the government will have to pay to service the debt in each of the next 10 years under the (i) current interest rate levels, (ii) increased interest rate levels, broken down by rate?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the most recent projections for Government of Canada debt charges can be found in the fall economic statement 2020, which was released on November 30, 2020, and is available at https://www.budget.gc.ca/ fes-eea/2020/ home-accueil-en.html. Specifically, the projection for interest paid on the federal debt for the current and following five years can be found in Table A1.5 on page 126, in the row labelled “Public debt charges”. The Department of Finance does not produce 10-year projections.These public debt charge projections have been calculated using interest rate projections provided by private sector forecasters through a survey conducted in September 2020. Further details and the results of the September survey can be found on pages 119 -121 of the fall economic statement 2020, including the private sector projection of the Government of Canada three-month treasury bill and the 10-year bond rates.Question No. 380--Mr. Bob Zimmer: With regard to the planned layoffs at the air traffic control towers in St-Jean, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie, Regina, Fort McMurray, Prince George and Whitehorse: (a) how many air traffic controllers have received layoff notices, broken down by each airport; (b) does the Minister of Transport agree with the decision to lay off these air traffic controllers, and, if not, has he asked Nav Canada to reverse the decision; and (c) did Transport Canada conduct an analysis on the impact of these layoff decisions, and, if so, what methodology was used, and what were the findings, broken down by airport?Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), Nav Canada is a private, arm’s-length entity, and Transport Canada is not involved in the company’s day-to-day management decisions.In response to parts (b) and (c), and having said that, Transport Canada assesses service level reductions to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on safety. No decisions have been made by Transport Canada on potential service-level reductions currently under consideration. The department is still awaiting Nav Canada’s aeronautical study, after which the assessment will begin.Question No. 381--Mr. Chris Warkentin: With regard to the government’s response to Order Paper question Q-313, regarding SNC-Lavalin and COVID-19 programs and spending measures, and the $150,000,000 contract awarded on April 8, 2020, to SNC-Lavalin to design and deliver mobile health units: (a) was this contract solesourced, or was there an open competition; (b) if the contract was awarded through an open competition, how many other competing bids were received; (c) was the tender for this contract advertised and, if so, between what dates was the contract advertisement online, prior to the bid deadline; (d) on what date did the Minister of Public Works and Government Services approve the contract; (e) did this contract receive sign off or approval at any cabinet committee and, if so, on what date, and at which committee; (f) what are the terms of the contract, including any delivery dates; (g) what are the start and end dates of the contract; (h) has the value of the contract been amended since it was originally signed and, if so, what is the (i) original contract value, (ii) revised contract value, (iii) date of amendment; and (i) what specific products, and how many, have been delivered to date as a result of the contract, and where are each of the products currently located?Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), a contract in support of the government’s COVID-19 response was awarded to the SNC-Lavalin PAE Joint Venture, SNC-Lavalin PAE Inc., on April 9, 2020, to design and deliver mobile health units following a limited tender solicitation. This contract is valued at $150 million.With regard to (b), two Canadian contractors were invited to submit proposals based on their proven record on complex logistics work: SNC-Lavalin PAE Inc. of Ottawa, Ontario, and Weatherhaven Global Resources Ltd. of Coquitlam British Columbia.With regard to (c), the tender was not publicly advertised. The two contractors were invited to submit proposals based on their proven record on complex logistics work. SNC-Lavalin PAE Inc. was invited because of its past and current contracts related to supporting the Department of National Defence with camp logistics for deployed military operations, e.g., in Kandahar, Afghanistan.With regard to (d), the deputy minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada approved the SNC-Lavalin PAE Inc. and Weatherhaven Global Resources Ltd. contracts on April 9.With regard to (e), the $150,000,000 contract awarded on April 8, 2020, to SNC-Lavalin to design and deliver mobile health units did not receive approval from any cabinet committee.With regard to (f), in accordance with the statement of work, the supplier is to provide up to 10 transportable 100-bed mobile health units, MHUs, with an option for additional units, and to also provide services, as and when required, through task-authorizations. Each MHU is to be a fully self-sufficient unit that can provide targeted care for persons with acute respiratory disease and distress.During the MHU contract period, the supplier may be asked to provide and warehouse up to 10 MHUs deployable kits; establish a program management structure and team to execute the work; and provide logistic support services, on an as and when required basis.With regard to (g), the contracts were issued with a six-month term and two six-month options. The award date for the two contracts was April 9, 2020. Both six-month extensions have been exercised on both contracts, which now have an end date of October 8, 2021.With regard to (h), the maximum contract value of both contracts has not increased from the original value of $150 million.With regard to (i), for the SNC-Lavalin PAE Inc. contract, the contractor was required to provide up to five MHUs’ worth of medical consumables and medical equipment. The contractor has delivered three designs for different MHU configurations, including a container and pod solution. Project management services and warehousing of products continues.Some of the medical equipment has been transferred to the Public Health Agency of Canada for distribution to provinces to address provincial needs. The rest of the medical equipment and consumables remain within the contractor’s warehouse.Question No. 382--Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner: With regard to the government’s contracts for COVID-19 vaccines: (a) what recourse or financial penalties were written into each contract for (i) a delayed delivery schedule, (ii) deliveries with fewer doses than stated in the delivery schedule; (b) what was the original vaccine delivery schedule written into each contract; (c) what is the current vaccine delivery schedule for each contract; and (d) what intellectual property provisions were included in the contracts related to licensing for domestic manufacturing?Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to protect Canada’s negotiating position and to respect confidentiality clauses in our vaccine agreements, Public Services and Procurement Canada cannot unilaterally disclose details of specific agreements. We continue to seek opportunities to be as transparent as possible about our procurements in support of Canada’s COVID response, while respecting confidentiality agreements and protecting our negotiating position.For further information regarding vaccine procurement, please see https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/procuring-vaccines-covid19.htmlQuestion No. 383--Mr. Jamie Schmale: With regard to procurement practices applied to contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what constitutes a COVID-19-related contract or supplier; (b) what policies or requirements have been paused, removed, suspended, or deferred for contracts related to COVID-19; (c) have integrity checks been downsized or compacted to accommodate tighter supply timelines; and (d) what policies or requirements have been waived for companies bidding on COVID-19-related contracts?Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), as a common service provider for procurement, PSPC has been engaged by its clients to procure a broad range of goods and services related to the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This has included requirements such as personal protective equipment; medical/laboratory equipment and supplies; vaccines, logistics; professional services; software; health related services; guard and security services; cleaning services; and communications, advertising, and contact center and construction services.PSPC has been disclosing supplier names and contract values for contracts that it has entered into on behalf of other government departments and agencies for personal protective equipment, PPE, as well as medical/laboratory equipment and supplies at https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/comm/aic-scr/contrats-contracts-eng.html. The information released will be adjusted over time as the procurement environment evolves.With regard to part (b), no policies or requirements have been paused, removed, suspended, or deferred for contracts related to COVID-19. However, the Treasury Board amended the contracting policy to confer time-limited increased emergency contracting limits to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement for COVID-19-related procurements.In addition, the Public Health Agency of Canada made a request on behalf of the federal government that PSPC invoke a national security exception, NSE, with respect to the acquisition of goods and services required in order to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. That invocation, which covers a broad range of goods and services, is time-limited and applies only until the World Health Organization no longer declares the COVID-19 pandemic a public health emergency of international concern. An NSE invocation removes procurements from the obligations of Canada’s trade agreements for reasons of national security. NSEs are provided for in trade agreements to ensure that parties to the agreements are not required to compromise their national security interests through application of the trade agreements.With regard to part (c), the Government of Canada’s integrity regime and its verification process have been consistently applied throughout the pandemic, including for applicable COVID-19 related procurements. The verification process has not been impacted and the department continues to provide high-quality services to complete all requests within its prescribed service standards.With regard to part (d), no policies or requirements have been waived for companies bidding on COVID-19 related contracts.Question No. 384--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to the consultations conducted before the tabling of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: (a) what are the details of all in-person and virtual consultations and meetings conducted by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs with all First Nations, Inuit, and Metis stakeholders, between August 1, 2018, and December 3, 2020, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the First Nations, groups, organizations or individuals consulted, (iv) recommendations that were made to the minister; and (b) what are the details of all in-person and virtual consultations and meetings conducted by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, with all provincial ministers of Indigenous Affairs and all third-party stakeholders, between August 1, 2018, and December 3, 2020, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the groups, organizations or individuals consulted, (iv) recommendations that were made to the minister?Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question was interpreted as referring specifically to consultations conducted on Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Consultations on this bill began in early 2020, with a focused engagement period from September 2020 to November 2020. Between October and November 2020, the Government of Canada held 28 sessions with modern treaty and self-governing rights holders on a nation-to-nation, government-to-government basis as reflected in their agreements. The Government of Canada met bilaterally with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the Métis National Council. Our government also met with other national and regional organizations, including indigenous women’s organizations, LGBTQ2S+ groups, indigenous youth and indigenous law students.Justice Canada, with the support of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC,, will publish a what-we-learned report, which will be made available to members of the public soon.Question No. 385--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to offers or proposals received by the government to manufacture or produce COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, or to develop facilities for such production, since January 1, 2020: what are the details of any such offers or proposals, including (i) the name of the individual or firm making the offer or proposal, (ii) the summary of the offer or proposal, including the timeline, (iii) whether or not the offer or proposal was accepted by the government, (iv) the reason the offer or proposal was rejected, if applicable?Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does not comment on whether specific applications for federal funding, including from the strategic innovation fund, SIF, may be under consideration. Details related to applicants and/or applications are subject to commercial confidentiality and cannot be disclosed. The process for strategic innovation fund projects can be consulted on the program website at https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/125.nsf/eng/00023.html.In the course of the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development’s efforts to map the vaccine and therapeutic manufacturing landscape in Canada, departmental officials conducted a comprehensive outreach across a range of companies to better understand their capabilities in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature and content of these conversations are commercially confidential. The Government of Canada also established the Vaccine Task Force, Therapeutics Task Force and the joint manufacturing subcommittee, comprising scientific experts and industry leaders, to make evidence-based recommendations to the government. All promising leads and offers to the government have been thoroughly evaluated for their specific scientific and technical merits and their ability to make a timely contribution to Canada’s biomanufacturing landscape, and investment decisions are made on that basis.To date, more than 20 proposals have been submitted that are related to biomanufacturing, vaccines and/or therapies. The Government has announced three of these projects, Precision NanoSystems, Abcellera and Medicago, and multiple others are in various stages of due diligence or other consideration, in consultation with the some of Canada’s leading scientists and industry experts in vaccinology, immunology, therapeutics and commercialization. Further projects will be announced in due course.On May 3, 2020, the government announced a $175.6-million investment in AbCellera through SIF to support its antibody therapy discovery and to establish a good manufacturing practice facility in Vancouver.On October 23, 2020, the government announced an investment of up to $173 million in Quebec City-based Medicago through SIF. The project, valued at a total of $428 million, will involve developing a vaccine through clinical trials, including phase 3, and establish a large-scale vaccine and antibody production facility to increase Canada’s domestic biomanufacturing capacity.On February 2, 2021, the government announced an investment of up to $25.1 million in Vancouver-based Precision NanoSystems Inc. for a new biomanufacturing centre to expand Canada’s capabilities in the production of ribonucleic acid, RNA, vaccines and future genetic medicines.A backgrounder that highlights the list of investments that have been made can be found at the following website: https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2021/02/backgrounder--government-of-canada-investments-in-covid-19-vaccines-and-biomanufacturing-capacity.html.Question No. 389--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to the agreement between the government and the Enoch Cree Nation related to the Yekau Lake Practice Bombing Range: (a) what is the summary of the terms of the agreement; and (b) is the text of the agreement publicly available and, if so, how can the public access the agreement?Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, insofar as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is concerned, the response is as follows.With regard to (a), the Enoch Cree Nation submitted its Yekau Lake Practice Bombing Range specific claim in November 2007, on the basis that the Crown breached both its fiduciary and statutory obligations under the Indian Act in respect of the lease of the former Yekau Lake Bombing Range as part of Canada's war effort during the Second World War. Canada has provided $91 million in compensation to fully and finally resolve the Yekau Lake Practice Bombing Range specific claim. Please see https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39817&lang=en for additional details.With regard to (b), the text of the agreement is not publicly available and is protected by settlement privilege.Agreements and contractsAir traffic control and air traffic controllersAlghabra, OmarAnandasangaree, GaryBarrett, MichaelBoulerice, AlexandreChampagne, François-PhilippeColumbia River TreatyConservative CaucusCOVID-19Criminal record suspensionDepartment of Foreign Affairs, Trade and DevelopmentExecutive Secretary GeneralExpungement of convictionsFirearmsFreeland, ChrystiaGarrison, RandallGay and lesbian personsGovernment borrowingGovernment contractsGovernment loansHajdu, PattyHarris, JackImmunizationImportsIndigenous land claimsIndigenous rightsInterest ratesKram, MichaelLametti, DavidLayoffs and job lossesLiberal CaucusLightbound, JoëlMacAulay, LawrenceMacKinnon, StevenMcLeod, CathyMental healthMilitary bases and stationsMorantz, MartyMorneau, BillMorrison, RobNegotiations and negotiatorsNew Democratic Party CaucusOliphant, RobertOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPandemicPersonal debtPoilievre, PierreProduct of CanadaPublic consultationPublic debtQ-360Q-361Q-362Q-369Q-370Q-372Q-373Q-374Q-375Q-376Q-377Q-378Q-380Q-381Q-382Q-383Q-384Q-385Q-389ReginaRempel Garner, MichelleSaroya, BobSchmale, JamieSecuritiesSelection processSmugglingSNC-Lavalin Group Inc.Travel restrictionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVandenbeld, AnitaVeteransVeterans benefitsWagantall, CathayWarkentin, ChrisWritten questionsYekau LakeZimmer, Bob657618665761876576188KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced that from now on, indigenous fishers would have to keep to the same fishing seasons as traditional fishers in the Maritimes and Quebec. There was a public outcry to this announcement in all of the coastal communities affected, both indigenous and non-indigenous, which were upset that they had never been consulted.Now that the government has made this unexpected statement, what does it plan to do to ensure the survival of all of the coastal communities that depend on the same resource?Atlantic CanadaFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsOral questions65548426554843RobertOliphantDon Valley WestMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88449Marie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Marie-Claude-BibeauCompton—StansteadLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BibeauMarie-Claude_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, our government is committed to an approach that recognizes first nations treaty rights, that focuses on conserving and ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks, and that allows for stable and transparent fisheries management.Fisheries officers are responsible for enforcing the Fisheries Act for all fishers, and anyone fishing without a licence is subject to sanction. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is committed to working with all parties to ensure a safe, orderly and sustainable fishery for everyone.Atlantic CanadaFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsOral questions65548446554845RichardMartelChicoutimi—Le FjordRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, on March 3, DFO tweeted a statement from the fisheries minister that was supposed to be “a new path for First Nations who want to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood this season.” Indigenous and non-indigenous harvesters have rejected the minister's statement, and now she is the only one on her new path.No Canadian wants to see a repeat of the chaos that the minister's mismanagement created last fall, but her inability to provide any clarity is only increasing uncertainty and tensions. We know that where there is uncertainty, there will be instability. When will the minister provide a clear and full plan for implementing treaty rights for the sake of all harvesters?Atlantic CanadaFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsOral questions655484665548476554848Marie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—StansteadMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88449Marie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Marie-Claude-BibeauCompton—StansteadLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BibeauMarie-Claude_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the court affirmed the first nations treaty right to fish, and we have never stopped working on implementing that right. This is a path that allows first nations to exercise their right safely this season before a final agreement is negotiated. Seasons ensure that stocks are harvested sustainably, and any approach has to be based on conservation of stocks and stable and transparent management of the fishery.Atlantic CanadaFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsOral questions65548496554850RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, on March 3, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard issued a statement that was supposedly meant to bring clarity and certainty ahead of the spring lobster fishery. This 180° change in direction has failed to set a path that would bring back peace, security and fairness for all participants in the lobster fishery. We did not get an answer for the member for Tobique—Mactaquac. However, could the minister confirm today in the House when the details of her so-called interim plan will be finally disclosed?Atlantic CanadaFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsOral questions65548516554852Marie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—StansteadMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88449Marie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Marie-Claude-BibeauCompton—StansteadLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BibeauMarie-Claude_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): (1135)[Translation]Madam Speaker, our government is committed to adopting an approach based on recognition of first nations treaty rights, conservation and sustainability of fish stocks, and transparent and stable management of the fishery.Lobster stocks are healthy, and this approach, which includes established fishing seasons, will ensure that stocks continue to be harvested sustainably and will ensure stable and transparent management of the fishery. Conservation is a priority for all fishers, including first nations, and they will all benefit from an orderly and peaceful fishery.Atlantic CanadaFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsOral questions65548536554854Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaSébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, the government has failed to take action on systemic racism against Mi'kmaq fishers in Nova Scotia and now, instead of engaging in a nation-to-nation relationship, it is imposing unilateral decisions on them that continue a pattern of paternalistic and oppressive behaviour. That is not reconciliation. The minister has failed to protect Mi'kmaq fishers and uphold treaty rights and her latest decision could lead to more harm and violence against indigenous peoples. If this is the government's most important relationship, when will the minister reverse her unjust decision that will punish Mi'kmaq fishers?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions65549726554973DebSchulteHon.King—VaughanMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88449Marie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Marie-Claude-BibeauCompton—StansteadLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BibeauMarie-Claude_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): (1205)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court has affirmed the treaty right of first nations to fish, and we have never stopped working to implement that right. It is a way for first nations to exercise their right safely this season, before negotiating a final agreement. Fishing seasons guarantee that stocks are harvested sustainably, and any measure that might be taken must be based on conservation of fish stocks, in view of stable and transparent fisheries management.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6554974GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgRoutine ProceedingsThe EnvironmentInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (1050)[Translation]Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale and as the Bloc Québécois climate change critic, I am very pleased to present this petition, which has been certified correct and has been signed by more than 2,630 concerned citizens who are calling on the Government of Canada to contribute its fair share to climate justice.Canada's current climate policies are woefully inadequate to limit average global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and they are putting us on a path to catastrophic warming. It is great to propose net-zero emissions by 2050, but we must take the necessary steps to reduce our national greenhouse gas emissions. We need to do more, and we need to do it now. Time is running out.Climate change and global warmingIndigenous rightsInternational development and aidPetition 432-00657Women65525476552548MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose HillKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105854TaylorBachrachTaylor-BachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BachrachTaylor_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessClimate Emergency Action ActInterventionMr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton Centre for his powerful words. I also want to begin by thanking our colleague from Winnipeg Centre for bringing forward this bill, which makes such an important contribution to a conversation about an issue that many of us feel is the most critical issue facing not just our country, but our planet.I want to acknowledge that I am speaking today from the unceded lands of the Wet'suwet'en people here in my home community of Smithers, British Columbia. It is such an honour to speak to this bill at this juncture in time when we are searching for answers so desperately. After decades and decades of knowing about the severity of the climate crisis and after so many false starts, the sad fact is that, as a country, we are failing. All of our actions over all of that time have had so little impact.I started becoming concerned about the climate crisis as a teenager. Now I am old enough to have teenagers of my own, yet so little has been done. Time and time again, we have made commitments, and set targets, timelines, and dates. Time and time again, we have failed to act in a concerted and consistent enough manner to realize the goals we have made for ourselves.What Canada has shown is a commitment to building and expanding the fossil fuel infrastructure of this country. This has erased so much of the progress we have made through things like energy efficiency and clean energy production. With so little time left on the clock, we are still searching for ways to mobilize our government and fight the climate crisis, this climate emergency, with the seriousness and dedication it demands from us.Canadians, especially young Canadians, and my colleague spoke so eloquently to this, want some mechanisms to break this pattern of complacency and apathy. They want to hold today's decision-makers to account for their promises, not at some distant date well outside the time horizons of our political process, elections and political calculuses, or the investment horizons of the private sector. After decades of failure, we know that does not work. What Canadians want is regular, binding, short-term and enforceable accountability measures that hold today's leaders to account.This bill before us, Bill C-232, has a number of strengths. To me, its greatest strength and most important contribution is that it centres our work on the climate crisis and it centres in that work the rights of indigenous people. This is such an important thing to bear in mind and keep at the centre as we go forward together.It was good to see in the government's own accountability legislation, for all of its flaws, a passing reference to the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. By comparison though, Bill C-232 calls not only for the full involvement of indigenous people in the creation of a climate emergency action framework, but it also calls for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to ensure that the framework upholds all of the provisions of the U.N. declaration and that it specifically takes into account indigenous knowledge and science.Reading this bill and reading, in particular, the clauses around the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People made me think of all the indigenous nations in northwest B.C., this incredible part of our country that I am so deeply honoured to represent in this House. Indigenous people in northwest B.C. are on the front-line of climate impacts, and the changing climate is affecting so many aspects of their daily lives.Thinking about our environment and thinking about the resources and goods produced by this bountiful place, there are few species that are more iconic than wild salmon. All five species of wild salmon swim up our rivers from the ocean every single year. In the fall, if someone goes on social media, they will see so many photos of smiling people processing salmon, drying salmon, smoking salmon, sharing recipes, and sharing techniques and traditions that have been handed down generation after generation.It is at the very centre of the way of life in northwest B.C. However, with warming ocean waters and ocean acidification, the introduction of invasive species and droughts affecting spawning channels, things are looking very precarious for this iconic species.(1835)I spoke today to Walter Joseph, the fisheries manager at the office of the Wet'suwet'en, and he spoke about the challenges in the tributaries where the salmon spawn, but what really has Walter worried, is what is happening in the ocean. He described the ocean as a black box. When the salmon go out to the ocean we do not know what happens. What we do know is that, for so many wild salmon stocks, the numbers are declining every single year, and we know that climate is having a huge impact on that.On Haida Gwaii, we have seen tremendous die-offs in the yellow cedar, a tree species that is so critical to the Haida people. We know from work done by the University of British Columbia that this is a direct result of low winter precipitation and warmer temperatures. A team from the University of Victoria also found that sea level rise on Haida Gwaii is greater than anywhere else along our coast. In the eastern part of our region we have seen the mountain pine beetle ravage our forests. We have seen years with extreme wildfires and 2018 was one of the worst years on record for wildfires. It left thousands upon thousands of hectares scorched. It left communities evacuated. It burned buildings from Fort St. James and Burns Lake all the way to Telegraph Creek in the northern part of this beautiful region.Speaking of Telegraph Creek, I wanted to call to mind a young fellow who is really remarkable. His name is Montay Beaubien-Day. He is a 13-year-old member of the Tahltan and the Wet'suwet'en nations. When Monty saw his family's ranch in Telegraph Creek burn in the massive wildfires of 2018, it inspired him to join with other young people, such as Haana Edenshaw from the Haida nation and 13 others from across the country in a lawsuit against the Government of Canada for failing to attack the climate emergency. At the heart of that suit brought forward by these young people is a deep-seated frustration with Canada's inaction on the climate emergency. The plaintiffs went to court because they wanted this country to be accountable for its promises and to take responsibility for the future it is handing their generation. How did we get to the point where our children, the young generation, has to take the country to court to ensure that they inherit a basic semblance of a livable future?Indigenous communities are not just on the front lines of climate change when it comes to impacts, but when it comes to solutions as well. I have been so inspired by the work done by the Heiltsuk's climate action team on the central coast led by climate action coordinator. They are engaging residents and creating a community energy plan grounded in the Heiltsuk community's needs. Their plan is to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, bring the community back in line with Heiltsuk values and laws, improve the health and safety and create a green economy for the Heiltsuk people. Their aim is to have 129 heat pumps installed by the end of March. They are for almost one-third of the homes in their community and they will reduce emissions by as much as five tonnes per household.I think of the Nuxalk Nation, which is also on the central coast. Their clean energy initiative is focused on building a run of the river hydro project which will be able to reduce the Bella Coola Valley's diesel consumption by up to 80%. On Haida Gwaii, the Swiilawiid Sustainability Society is engaging island residents, especially youth, in a conversation about a clean energy future.I spoke with chief councillor of Skidegate, Billy Yovanovich, a couple of summers ago. His community has installed 350 heat pumps. The Haida are leading in so many other ways. Many of these communities are working hard to take action on climate change and these are not big communities. They are not metropolitan centres. These are small villages, many of them with only a few hundred residents, yet they understand inherently that they have a responsibility to be a part of the solution. They are taking responsibility for their part of the challenge, and Canada needs to have their backs. The impacts we are seeing will not slow without our country also taking responsibility and doing its share. The sad truth—C-232, An Act respecting a Climate Emergency Action FrameworkClimate change and global warmingIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPrivate Members' BillsSecond reading65536266553627MatthewGreenHamilton CentreAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessClimate Emergency Action ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1850)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues, particularly from the New Democratic Party, whose wisdom and power today pierce my heart and give me hope.It is my pleasure to speak on my private member's, Bill C-232, the climate emergency action act. We have international commitments to fight the climate emergency and to uphold human rights. This includes the UN Convention on Climate Change, the Paris agreement and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bill C-232 would uphold these international agreements and would recognize the right of all Canadians to a safe, clean, healthy environment as a human right.More than 100 countries in the world have recognized the human right to a safe, clean, healthy environment in their legislation and/or constitution. Instead of building more pipelines and investing in companies around the world that violate indigenous rights and hurt Mother Earth, it is time for Canada to follow their lead.I know many people in the House will shamefully vote against this legislation at a time when we are in the middle of a climate crisis, and we see violent attacks on our Mother Earth. Everything we value is at risk.Exploitive resource extraction companies continue to contribute to the ongoing genocide and an epidemic of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, as noted in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.The exploitation of our Mother Earth continues to violate the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples and all peoples across these lands we now call Canada.Indigenous communities and nations continue to be denied the right to traditional land-based practices, the use and management of their own territories, while other human rights to housing, clean drinking water and health go unmet.Even the Canadian Paediatric Society is raising the issue of climate anxiety being experienced by young people, who are the front lines, fighting to save our earth.The government introduced Bill C-12, but it is not nearly good enough. In fact, it is a slap in the face to science and will not allow us to meet climate targets.Bill C-232 proposes a framework for developing a made-in-Canada plan to address the ever-more pressing climate emergency, while it offers a clear strategy for kick-starting our country's green economic transition and rapidly reducing our emissions, while also leveraging this moment as an opportunity to right the wrongs of our colonial past and address violence faced by BIPOC communities in our country.Despite the opportunity that we have before us, I sense that most members here today will vote no to Bill C-232. Before they do that, I hope they will consider what is at stake: every single thing we know and value; our Mother Earth; our health and wellness, and even the existence of future generations; our air quality; our oceans and coasts; water and food security; more fires, hurricanes and droughts; the further displacement of indigenous peoples, BIPOC and coastal communities; and even an increase in future pandemics. To turn down this opportunity in the middle of a climate crisis and at a time when we need to plan for post-pandemic economic rebuilding is shameful. I ask the members of the House to think about how history will remember us in relation to this legislation. The science is clear about the actions we must take right now to avoid the worst impacts of a runaway climate crisis. This must be done while respecting the human rights of indigenous peoples and all peoples of the world.C-232, An Act respecting a Climate Emergency Action FrameworkCivil and human rightsClimate change and global warmingGreen economyIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPrivate Members' BillsSecond reading6553670GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville, Ind.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, Mi’kmaq chiefs, the national chief and senators, among others, have strongly condemned the fishery minister's so-called “new path” that unilaterally sets out conditions for a moderate livelihood commercial lobster fishery.Why has the minister chosen to diverge from the true path of reconciliation based on rights recognition and co-operation that this government promised and as set out in the 10 principles and UNDRIP?Will the minister please respect the preferred means of the Mi’kmaq to exercise their treaty rights, uphold the honour of the Crown and get off this paternalistic path that risks a return to unrest? Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions654739965474006547401OmarAlghabraHon.Mississauga CentreBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, first nations have the Supreme Court-affirmed treaty right to fish, and we have never stopped working to implement that right. This is a new path for first nations to realize their right and will allow them to fish this season. Seasons ensure that stocks are harvested sustainably. They are necessary for a predictable and well-managed fishery, and this approach respects the Marshall decision. Marshall II states that moderate livelihood fisheries may be regulated if those regulations can be justified on conservation grounds.We will continue to work with first nations to make sure that this treaty right is implemented this year.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions654740265474036547404JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am rising this morning to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents and petitioners outside my community. They are calling on the government to respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to embed UNDRIP into our laws, and specifically to move to address the unresolved issues related to the rights of the people of the Wet'suwet'en nation, to move expeditiously to hear their concerns and to implement UNDRIP in relation to the pipeline moving through their territory.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 432-00547Wet'suwet'en First Nation6509423GregMcLeanCalgary CentreStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to make remarks on the use of the very ableist and possessive language my colleague used when speaking about “our” indigenous and disabled people. I want to remind her that we are sovereign, independent individuals capable of making our own decisions and owned by nobody. In her arguments, the member used the term “self-determination”. I agree that indigenous and disabled people have a right to self-determination as referred to in the UN charter of human rights. I wonder if she applies the same right to self-determination, particularly for indigenous people, when she refers to resource extraction projects, which include things like pipelines, mining, any sort of resource extraction. Does she provide them the same level of respect for self-determination? C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Consideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsHealth care systemIndigenous rightsMedical assistance in dying65099366509937TamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105774TamaraJansenTamara-JansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JansenTamara_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMrs. Tamara Jansen: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I was reading a quote by Tyler White, the CEO of Siksika Health Services. Therefore, everything I said when I used that terminology were not my words; I was simply reading from what Tyler White said. It is inappropriate, at a time when we are discussing such a massive change to our health regime and euthanasia, to talk about pipelines.C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Consideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsHealth care systemIndigenous rightsMedical assistance in dying65099386509939LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreMarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks a lot about how the government's relationship with indigenous peoples is the most important one. The Liberals talk about it during elections, they talk about it after they are elected, and they talked about it when they introduced legislation on UNDRIP, Bill C-15. However, that bill was introduced three months ago and we have only had two hours of debate, with no further debate scheduled. What is going on? It is almost like the Liberals do not want this bill to pass. If this relationship is really the government's most important one, when will the Liberals stop talking and get to work proving their words?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6508051PattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, our government remains firmly committed to implementing Bill C-15, which would ensure that indigenous rights are considered when reviewing and updating federal laws that affect those rights. At core, this is a human rights issue. It is about protecting the rights to self-determination, self-government, equality and non-discrimination. This bill is a major step forward in our reconciliation journey. We support it wholeheartedly. It remains one of our top priorities and we will see this through.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6508052RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, exactly one year ago today, an emergency debate took place in the House addressing the Wet'suwet'en fight for their inherent right of self-government on their ancestral territory. Time has passed, but nothing has changed. Land guardians in Nunavut are now forced to defend their rights and their territory in the face of the Mary River Mine expansion. Once again, indigenous voices are trampled on, ignored or distorted. The Minister of Infrastructure recently said that government investments are almost binary, that we either increase emissions or reduce them.If it is binary, on which side is the government? Will it fight the climate crisis or pretend to do so? Will it respect indigenous rights and international covenants, like UNDRIP, or legislate them out of existence?Climate change and global warmingIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples65050816505082IrekKusmierczykWindsor—TecumsehGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, in 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada encouraged the parties in its decision in the Delgamuukw case to pursue good-faith negotiations regarding aboriginal rights. This MOU establishes a path for substantive negotiations toward agreements that would describe the implementation of the Wet'suwet'en rights and title. The parties are working toward an agreement on recognition of rights and the title that will set the stage for future negotiations and implementation. Such agreements, once reached, will be taken back to all Wet'suwet'en people through a ratification process that must clearly demonstrate their support.Climate change and global warmingIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6505083JenicaAtwinFrederictonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, an APTN report showed us that the government knew that violence against the Sipekne'katik Nation was likely to happen before they launched their moderate livelihood fishery, and yet the Liberals did nothing. They allowed lives to be threatened, and only showed concern after these acts of terror took place. This is textbook systemic racism, and indigenous fishers do not need more symbolic gestures by the Liberals. They need leaders who will keep them safe.Could the Prime Minister tell us why the government stood by when Mi'kmaq fishers needed him to step up?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions65025036502504JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been working with indigenous leaders in Nova Scotia and indeed across the country on advancing their rights and recognizing them and moving forward on reconciliation and supporting them. We deeply, deeply condemn and regret the actions of a few in Nova Scotia, and that is why we are there to continue to support and move forward to build a better future for the Mi'kmaq and for everyone across the country.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6502505GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since I first raised concerns about the fisheries crisis in West Nova with the Minister of Fisheries, and we all know how bad events played out due to her inaction. Spring fishing is just around the corner, and although the minister says that she has been holding discussions with stakeholders, no official agreements have yet been made.Will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Fisheries to take on her responsibility and assure indigenous and non-indigenous fishers in Nova Scotia that they will not have to relive another season of insecurity, fear and violence?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions65025116502512JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for giving me the opportunity to highlight the extraordinary work that the Minister of Fisheries is doing in resolving this issue, moving forward on the moderate livelihood for Mi'kmaq fishers and ensuring the commercial fishers in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada continue to benefit from a strong future for their communities as well.We know that this is a situation that has been in place for many, many decades, but it is time to recognize those rights that have been identified for many years but not been fulfilled. This is what we are working on now and hope to resolve soon.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions65025136502514Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, yet again we are given more dither, delay and denial from the Prime Minister. Canadians are realizing more each day that they have, yet again, walked to the far side of a disappointing decision by entrusting the Liberal government to deal with the challenges of these times. The fact of the matter is that the government has demonstrated a pattern of neglect and lack of communication. The Atlantic fishing crisis is just one example of how the government has failed on numerous occasions to keep stakeholders informed and a part of the process.When will the Prime Minister do his job and look out for the livelihoods of all Canadians, including those in the fishing sector?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions650251565025166502517JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, over the past five years, we have demonstrated what a government that is focused on Canadians can actually deliver for Canadians. Whether it was lifting a million people out of poverty or whether it was creating a million new jobs, these are the kinds of things we worked on. Then the pandemic hit, and we had an opportunity and demonstrated the ability to be there for Canadians. We made a simple promise that we would support Canadians as much as it took, as long as it took, to get through this pandemic, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing it for fishers in the Atlantic. We are doing it for farmers on the Prairies. We are doing it for community members in the north. We are doing it for all Canadians.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions65025186502519RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacMelArnoldNorth Okanagan—Shuswap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.)(1800)[Translation] moved that Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-15. Second readingHe said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the second reading debate on Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to remind the House that it has taken decades of work to get to where we are today. Negotiations and discussions have been taking place at the United Nations for over 20 years. Many Canadian indigenous leaders, speaking on behalf of the indigenous people of the world, have been strong advocates for a human rights instrument that would take into account the unique experiences and historical situations of the world's indigenous peoples.I must acknowledge the tremendous efforts of parliamentarians and indigenous leaders in Canada who have proposed legislative frameworks for the implementation of the declaration since it was adopted by the United Nations in 2007.I especially want to recognize the efforts of our former colleague Romeo Saganash, who introduced private member's Bill C-262 in the last Parliament. This bill was read and studied in quite some detail. His efforts brought us to this point and remind us of the constructive discussions that contributed to the drafting and presentation of Bill C-15. I thank Mr. Saganash.Bill C-15 and our endorsement of the UN declaration are intended to renew and strengthen the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, a relationship based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, partnership and reconciliation.(1805)[English]It is also part of a broader work to make progress together on our shared priorities for upholding human rights, affirming self-determination, closing socio-economic gaps, combatting discrimination and eliminating systemic barriers facing first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an international human rights instrument that affirms the rights that constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples. It includes 46 articles that affirm a broad range of collective and individual rights, including rights related to self-determination and self-government; equality and non-discrimination; culture, language and identity; lands, territories and resources; and treaty rights, among others.The declaration also recognizes that the situation of indigenous peoples varies from region to region and country to country. As such, it provides flexibility to ensure rights are recognized, protected and implemented in a manner that reflects the unique circumstances of indigenous peoples across Canada. This means that implementation of the rights it describes must respond to the specific and unique circumstances in Canada.In Canada, both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015 and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in 2018 called upon governments in Canada to fully adopt and implement the UN declaration in partnership with indigenous peoples. We heard these calls, and in 2016 the Government of Canada endorsed the declaration without qualification and committed to its full and effective implementation.We have been making significant progress on the implementation of the declaration on a policy base. While we have done this, Bill C-15 would create a legislated, durable framework requiring government to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to make steady progress in implementing the declaration across all areas of federal responsibility. This reflects the sustained transformative work that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and so many others have repeatedly told us is required to truly advance reconciliation in Canada.[Translation]Some of the declaration's principles are already included in several Canadian laws, policies and programs, such as section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the right to equality, and the protections against discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.Working within Canada's legal framework, the Government of Canada has also taken measures to better reflect the declaration in federal policy and legislation, such as the recent initiative, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, and the Indigenous Languages Act. Bill C-15 represents another important step forward. By working in co-operation and partnership with indigenous peoples, we are creating new opportunities to dismantle colonial structures, establish strong, lasting relationships, close socio-economic gaps, and promote greater prosperity for indigenous peoples and all Canadians.(1810)[English]I would like to turn now to the key elements of Bill C-15.The bill makes a number of important statements in the preamble by acknowledging the importance of the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, healing and peace; recognizing inherent rights; acknowledging the importance of respecting treaties and agreements; and emphasizing the need to take diversity across and among indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation.The preamble also specifically recognizes that international human rights instruments, such as the declaration, can be used as tools to interpret Canadian law. This means that the human rights standards they outline can provide relevant and persuasive guidance to officials and courts. While this does not mean that international instruments can be used to override Canadian laws, it does mean that we can look to the declaration to inform the process of developing or amending laws and as part of interpreting and applying them. This principle is further reflected in section 4, which affirms the Government of Canada's commitment to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples and the declaration as a universal human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. Together, the objective of these acknowledgements is to recognize existing legal principles and not give the declaration itself direct legal effect in Canada.The bill also includes specific obligations intended to provide a framework for implementing the declaration over time. By requiring the Government of Canada to, first, take measures to align federal law with the declaration in clause 5; second, to develop an action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples in clause 6; and third, to report to Parliament annually on progress in clause 7, Bill C-15 proposes a clear pathway to stronger, more resilient relationships between the government and indigenous peoples.Bill C-15 would also contribute to our efforts to address discrimination, socio-economic disparities and other challenges on which we continue to make progress. By mandating a collaborative process for developing a concrete action plan on these and other human rights priorities, we should see an improvement in trust and a decrease in recourse to the courts to resolve disputes over the rights of indigenous peoples.[Translation]I would now like to talk about how Bill C-15 was developed. This bill was the result of our collaboration and consultation over the last several months with indigenous rights holders, leaders and organizations. Using the former private member's bill, Bill C-262, as a starting point in these discussions, we worked closely with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council. We also received valuable input from modern treaty and self-governing nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, and regional and national indigenous organizations, including organizations representing indigenous women, two-spirit and gender-diverse people.All of this feedback helped shape this proposed legislation, and we thank everyone who participated. We also held talks with the provincial and territorial governments, as well as with stakeholders from the natural resources sector.These discussions were enriched by the contributions of indigenous representatives and provided an opportunity to learn about many of the efforts and initiatives already under way in the provinces and territories, and in various natural resource sectors, to further engage indigenous communities, create partnerships and lasting relationships, and work collaboratively to support responsible economic development that includes indigenous peoples.People always say that young people are our best hope for the future. There is a lot of truth in that, and we held a virtual round table with indigenous youth to ensure that their perspectives and their vision of the future were included in the process.First nations, Inuit and Métis youth from across the country shared their views on the bill and their priorities for the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am grateful that they took the opportunity to ask me many difficult questions.Looking back on that event, it is clear to me that young indigenous people have a vision for a better Canada. This stems from the vision of the future that they have for their nation and their people. They see a future in which strong, self-determined indigenous peoples thrive and are connected to the land and culture.Young indigenous people see a future in which indigenous-Crown relations are truly nation-to-nation, reflecting equality and respect, and not colonial attitudes.Clearly, we still have a long way to go together to build that better future. However, it is also clear that Bill C-15 will enable us to harness the full potential of the declaration in building that better Canada.(1815)[English]To this end, and consistent with this government's mandate commitment, Bill C-15 builds on the core elements of former Private Member's Bill C-262 including the requirement to align federal laws with the declaration over time, develop and implement an action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, and report to Parliament on progress annually. However, our recent engagement process led to a number of key enhancements. In addition to new language in the preamble highlighting the contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, to sustainable development, and to responding to prejudice and discrimination, the addition of a purpose clause and more detail with respect to the development of an action plan and annual reporting requirements build on and enhance what was set out in Bill C-262.Over the course of our engagement, we heard some questions about the scope of Bill C-15 and the concerns that it might create economic uncertainty. Let me be clear: Bill C-15 would impose obligations on the federal government to align our laws with the declaration over time and to take actions within our areas of responsibility to implement the declaration, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples. It would not impose obligations on other levels of government. However, we know that the declaration touches on many areas that go beyond federal jurisdiction. The preamble, therefore, recognizes that provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous governments have and would continue to take actions within their own areas of authority that can contribute to the implementation of the declaration. Our goal is not to get in the way of good ideas and effective local action, but to look for opportunities to work collaboratively on shared priorities and in ways that are complementary.The declaration and, by extension, the legislation provides a human rights-based framework for the development of the relationships required to support the effective exercise of the indigenous peoples' right to self-government and self-determination. The exercise of these rights contributes in turn to creating more prosperous, resilient and self-reliant communities.[Translation]Arising from the right to self-determination, “free, prior and informed consent”, as it appears in various articles of the declaration, refers specifically to the importance of meaningful participation of indigenous peoples, through their own mechanisms, in decisions and processes affecting them, their rights and their community. Free, prior and informed consent is a way of working together to establish a consensus through dialogue and other means and of enabling indigenous peoples to meaningfully influence decision-making.Free, prior and informed consent does not constitute veto power over the government's decision-making process. After all, human rights and the resulting obligations and duties, particularly those provided for in the declaration, are not absolute.The declaration states that indigenous peoples have individual and collective rights equal to those of other peoples. That means that the provisions of the declaration, including those that refer to free, prior and informed consent, must be taken in context. Different initiatives will have different impacts on the rights of indigenous peoples and will require different types of approaches.Thus, free, prior and informed consent could require different processes or new creative ways of working together to ensure meaningful and effective participation in decision-making.If passed, this bill will not change Canada's existing duty to consult with indigenous peoples or the other consultation and participation requirements under other legislation such as the new Impact Assessment Act. As also explained in section 2, it would not diminish constitutional protection of the indigenous and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in section 35.The bill would inform the government on how it plans to phase in its legal obligations in the future. In addition, the bill would do so in a way that would provide greater clarity and foster greater certainty over time for indigenous groups and all Canadians.(1820)[English]When indigenous peoples have a seat at the table for decisions that may affect their communities, we are respecting their rights and encouraging stronger economic development and outcomes. As we work to implement the declaration federally and to support indigenous peoples' inherent right to self-determination, we will help develop a stronger, more sustainable and predictable path for indigenous peoples, the Government of Canada and industry. We are ready to work with all levels of government, with indigenous peoples and other sectors of society to achieve the declaration's goals. I would now like to turn to the road map this bill would lay out for the future. If passed, the bill would require the Government of Canada to develop an action plan in consultation and co-operation with first nations, Inuit and Métis to ensure that we achieve the objectives of the declaration. I believe the additional details included in Bill C-15 with respect to the action plan are very important. Indeed, the action plan is a central pillar of this legislation. As outlined in clause 6 of the bill, developing and implementing the action plan would mean working together to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination, against indigenous peoples, including all forms of racism against indigenous peoples; promote respect and mutual understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education; and measures related to monitoring oversight, recourse or remedy and other accountability with respect to the implementation of the declaration, and include measures for the review and amendment of the action plan.[Translation]Some have also wondered why this bill is being introduced right in the middle of a global pandemic.We know that racism and discrimination have not stopped during the pandemic. On the contrary, COVID-19 exacerbated many existing inequalities and hit many people particularly hard, including indigenous people and Black or racialized Canadians. We must not delay efforts to make Canada more just, inclusive and resilient.Bill C-15 could help structure discussions on addressing the inequalities and discrimination against indigenous peoples, which are the root cause of these many vulnerabilities.[English]There will be many benefits as we work together to identify new measures to reflect the rights and objectives in the declaration. Through the process, we will continue to renew and strengthen the nation-to-nation, Inuit, Crown and government-to-government relations; better respect and implement the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples; build on the momentum to increase the ability of indigenous peoples to exercise their right of self-determination; support indigenous peoples as they restore and strengthen their governance systems and reconstitute their nations as they collectively address the impacts of colonialization and as we create a framework that will help increase clarity and certainty in the long term with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples and their implementation.The bill would provide a road map for generational and transformational work, including how to support, while also getting out of the way of, indigenous self-determination. I thank the leadership that has helped develop this and for the consultations that are continuing. I am happy now to answer any questions in this regard. I am proud to support the bill.AccountabilityAction plansC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCivil and human rightsConsentFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLaw enforcementLegislationPublic consultationRacial equalityRegional diversitySecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rightsYoung people65026956502696650269765026986502699650270065027016502702650270365027046502705650270665027076502708650270965027106502711650271265027136502714650271565027166502717650271865027196502720650272165027226502723650272465027256502726650272765027286502729650273065027316502732650273365027346502735650273665027376502738650273965027406502741AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1820)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that on this side of the House we do support free rights and the process of reconciliation with the indigenous peoples of Canada, and we also believe that the path to reconciliation lies in taking meaningful action to improve the lives of indigenous peoples and ensure that they are able to fully participate in Canada's economy.I listened to the minister's speech and note that some of the concerns that we have on this side of the House pertain to some of the broadly worded provisions and the implications of that wording and the lack of definition of a number of them. I will go a little further. The bill requires a plan to be developed within three years, but it really does not have a time frame to complete that work, nor are there clear and agreed upon objectives to be laid out in that plan.If one does not even have an agreement or clarity on the work plan, on what basis can it be claimed that an entirely new approach based on free, prior and informed consent can be implemented?Action plansC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples650274265027436502744DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there is support on the other side of the House for treaty rights and other indigenous rights. Hopefully that will lead to support for the bill more generally.The fact that the action plan is only called for in the legislation within a three-year time frame is indicative of the fact that we have to co-develop that action plan with indigenous peoples on a nation-to-nation basis, as well as with other indigenous organizations across Canada in the variety of leadership structures that exist across the diverse indigenous peoples of Canada. Those include treaty holders, right holders, organizations representing a particular group such as indigenous women. We will need to co-develop that plan. We feel that we have given ourselves enough time to co-develop that plan with our partners.It is actually a strength of the plan and indicative of what has to be a new approach in working with all peoples in Canada, indigenous and non-indigenous, to do things that better society.Action plansC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples650274565027466502747JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think we can agree that Bill C-15 is certainly imperfect and is going to require some amendments. For example, we know in Canada that that there is a growing white nationalist movement here and abroad. We hear in the news about issues of ongoing racism in policing, and issues with health care, where people are literally dying in hospitals as a result of racism. Let us not forget the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling that required an immediate stop to racial discrimination against first nations, a ruling that this government fails to respect, a clear indication of systemic racism. I know the bill mentions systemic barriers. I do not think that goes far enough.Would the minister be open to amending the eighth paragraph of the preamble and subclause 6(2) to include a reference to racism? I certainly know that the calls have been strong from the leadership and people on the ground that this be included in the bill. Would the minister be open to that amendment?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsRacial equalitySecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples65027486502749DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her hard work in this area. I know that she has travelled across the country with a predecessor of the bill helping to explain it and really support its development.As the Minister of Justice, I am open to discussing all good faith amendments brought forward in the view of making this a better bill. We certainly have recognized that systemic racism exists in Canada. I have done so publicly, and a number of my colleagues have done so publicly, and we have accepted the ruling of systemic racism from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. We have a difference of opinion over jurisdiction and are negotiating in good faith to resolve those cases in a number of class action processes. Certainly I am open to working with all members of the House to make this a better bill.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsRacial equalitySecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples65027506502751LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister very much for his work in this area. I want to also commend him for acknowledging the extraordinary work of former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash, and all the work that was done when it was a private member's bill. I agree with the comment from the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, but I have a sense, which I want to put to the hon. minister, that we will be disappointed. Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes it clear that before projects, administrative or legislative changes can happen that affect indigenous peoples, the state party, in this case Canada, must ensure free, prior and informed consent.We bought the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and knew at the time we bought it that it was opposed in court by the Tsleil-Waututh, the Musqueam and the Squamish. We know that to this day it is opposed by the Tsartlip Nation. I do not know how we can go forward with the notion of free, prior and informed consent when many projects across Canada have been undertaken and, in the case of Trans Mountain, subsidized to the tune of $17 billion in public funds in direct opposition to, and in violation of, the notion of free, prior and informed consent.I know that, as the Minister of Justice, this is not exactly his responsibility area, but how do we square that circle?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasPipeline transportationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6502752650275365027546502755DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her dedication, both to the rights of indigenous peoples and the advancement of so-called indigenous causes, and also to the protection of the environment.My understanding of free, prior and informed consent is that it targets a process in which indigenous and non-indigenous people work together from the beginning to evaluate and develop projects. I hope that will become enshrined in everything that we do as a result of UNDRIP. I hope that we can do a better job of moving forward with respect to the co-development of projects. I hope that free, prior and informed consent means partnership from the get-go and through all the stages in a very meaningful and significant way.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasPipeline transportationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples65027566502757ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his leadership in this. This is a very important bill, as he has indicated, and I want to thank him for his work, as well as his entire team and those at Crown–Indigenous Relations.The issue of reconciliation is imperative for Canada. It is really not a choice. It is something that we need to move forward on. Many of the TRC calls to action have been fulfilled, but this is one of those critical pieces that is still outstanding. In the minister's view, how important is UNDRIP, and implementing UNDRIP in Canada, toward the path of reconciliation?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples65027586502759DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work in helping us with the consultations that led to the tabling of this bill. It is critically important. The metaphor that I like to use is that this becomes our North Star for reconciliation. It gives us a road map for generational and transformational work and really teaches us how to rethink the country such that indigenous people finally have an equal place. That is the dream of Canada. That is the goal of Canada, and this helps us get there. Dr. Willie Littlechild, a former member of the House for the Conservative Party and one of the people who helped draft the UNDRIP at the United Nations, said, “We're at the starting line again, but this time we get to run the race together.” That is really the way I feel about this, and it is a fantastic step forward.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples650276065027616502762GaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a bill that has had seven iterations since 2008. Right from the beginning, Conservatives have seen the value in UNDRIP as an aspirational document that provides guiding principles toward reconciliation. We also recognize that many of the articles of UNDRIP are supportable. However, the impact of free, prior and informed consent and its impact on the cultural, social and economic development of indigenous peoples remains unclear. This is not coming as a surprise to the government. Conservatives have been clear from day one that this needed clarification. The fact that the government in its legislation has failed to clarify free, prior and informed consent yet again indicates it simply does not care about the implications that this bill would have for indigenous and non-indigenous communities.Let me be clear. Conservatives support indigenous communities and their rights. We support the process of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people, including the importance of education, economic development, and employment and training opportunities. We supported the Indigenous Languages Act and legislation relating to indigenous child welfare. We support many of UNDRIP's articles, but what we oppose is the government's lack of due diligence in putting forward legislation without reaching a common understanding of how free, prior and informed consent will be interpreted. We also do not think that enough consultation has been done with indigenous communities. This is something that has been echoed across the country, in fact. This will lead to uncertainty and could potentially undermine trust if expectations are not met, which could in turn set back reconciliation.The government will say not to worry, and that this will be sorted out later. We have heard this many times. In fact, this is exactly what the justice minister told the Assembly of First Nations recently, but when it comes to taking action that will impact the lives of indigenous peoples, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, the Liberals have consistently failed to keep their promises. The Liberal government has a track record of saying it will sort it out later and then never delivering, so how can we trust them this time to do anything differently? That is why we have to worry with the Liberal government. We have to worry that the undefined statement of free, prior and informed consent could be interpreted as a de facto veto right, and thus have profound detrimental effects not only for a variety of industries across Canada, but for indigenous communities as well. National Chief Perry Bellegarde stated on May 12, 2016, that free, prior and informed consent “very simply is the right to say yes, and the right to say no.”What if two or more indigenous communities want different things? The exact impacts on workers across regions and industries are unknown. The impacts on indigenous entrepreneurs are unknown. However, with the uncertainty created by the Liberals around the interpretation of free, prior and informed consent, the cost to communities, labour unions, indigenous businesses, and provincial and territorial governments could be astronomical. If existing laws and regulations could be superseded by implementing UNDRIP, the regulatory burden on industries could increase and deter business in Canada. This uncertainty hurts both prospective development and indigenous communities. There is a lack of clarity regarding how UNDRIP will work with Canadian jurisprudence and within each level of government. Everyone has a different interpretation. The only people who stand to benefit from a lack of clarity or a lack of definition are lawyers.During a December 3, 2020, briefing for parliamentarians, representatives from the Department of Justice stated that Bill C-15 respects Canadian jurisprudence, while officials from Natural Resources Canada stated that the bill does not create requirements for industry, but for government. Which representatives were correct? We know from the Wet'suwet'en dispute that many indigenous Canadians believe the government and all industries operating in British Columbia, where a bill similar to Bill C-15 was passed, are bound by UNDRIP. In this case, hereditary chiefs maintained that they had not given their free, prior and informed consent for the pipeline. This was despite the proponent entering into agreements with all elected chiefs and councils along the approved route.(1835)What if two or more indigenous communities want different things? Even within the same community, what if there is conflict between what the elected band council and hereditary chiefs want? Whose free, prior and informed consent trumps whose? Government officials appear to believe that the Indian Act and therefore elected chiefs would take precedence, but then why did the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations enter into an agreement with hereditary chiefs and ignore the elected chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en? There is not enough clarity.There are many more examples.Article 3 states:Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. How does that work, regarding Supreme Court decisions such as Marshall I and Marshall II, which state there are limitations on economic rights subject to definition by the responsible minister and the Badger test?Article 19 states:States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.How does that work with the October 11, 2018, Supreme Court decision, which clearly states that the duty to consult does not extend to the legislative drafting phase?Further, article 28.1 states:Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.What does that mean for the City of Ottawa, for example?Furthermore, it should be noted that the Supreme Court established in 1901 that it does not need to be bound by previous decisions, meaning it could subsequently choose to revise certain decisions once UNDRIP is affirmed as a tool for interpreting Canadian laws, including the Canadian Constitution.Another important question is that of how land claims and modern treaties will be affected by UNDRIP. Currently, for example, article 4 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement lays out a division of powers within the territory. It includes a political accord granting powers, such as in other provinces and territories, to a public government and creating space and decisions that would affect the socio-cultural development of Inuit for input from the beneficiary organization. However, the lack of a clear definition of free, prior and informed consent may lead to the reopening of that land claim, as is already happening in Nunavut.ITK president Natan Obed stated on December 3, 2020, in an interview with a news agency that “There are many things that the land claims are silent on.” Since devolution has not occurred, these discussions can still happen between Canada and Nunavut Inuit.Is it possible that modern treaties and established land claims across the country may move to reopen negotiations to reclaim rights groups feel they may have given up in exchange for self-government? In its December 2008 resolution, the AFN specifically states that the relationship between first nations and the Crown has been, and must continue to be, governed by international law. It added that treaties concluded with European powers are international treaties created for the purpose of co-existence rather than submission to the overall jurisdiction of colonial governments, and that the Canadian government has at no point been able to provide proof that first nations have expressly and of their own free will renounced their sovereign attributes. This statement clearly suggests an unwillingness to accept Canadian jurisprudence as the ultimate authority, calling into question how discrepancies between Supreme Court rulings and UNDRIP articles would be resolved. That is of critical importance.Clause 5 of the bill states:The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.Not some laws, but the laws of Canada: not just federal, but provincial and municipal as well. Has the government consulted with the provinces and municipalities? (1840)On November 27, six provincial ministers of indigenous affairs sent a joint letter to the government to share their concerns with this legislation. That included Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec. They were concerned that they were only given six weeks to review the legislation and about the impact it will have on the laws and regulations in their provinces. The letter states:...delay is necessary both to allow for appropriate engagement with provinces, territories, and Indigenous partners on the draft of the bill, and to allow time for Canada to fully and meaningfully consider and address the legitimate...concerns that we have already raised about the draft bill in its current form.The letter goes on to say:A hasty adoption of ambiguous legislation that could fundamentally change Confederation without the benefit of the widespread and necessary national and provincial consultation and consensus not only risks undermining reconciliation, but will create uncertainty and litigation and risk promoting deeper and broader divisions within our country. The list goes on.The lack of clarity in this bill could have sweeping implications. The purpose of legislation is to make the law clear. As I said earlier, this bill fails to do that. The Liberal government has failed to do the real work necessary to make good on its promise to implement UNDRIP. Instead, it has presented a bill that is woefully incomplete because all it wants to do is check a box, but this bill is nowhere near a promise kept. It is yet another in a long line of the Liberal government's broken promises to indigenous communities.On December 17, the National Coalition of Chiefs wrote to the Prime Minister, expressing its concern:While the affirmation of Indigenous rights is always welcome, there are implications to this legislation, as currently drafted, that is likely to have negative impacts on the many Indigenous communities that rely on resource development as a source of jobs, business contracts and own source revenues. I do not want to see symbolic gestures of reconciliation come at the expense of food on the table for Indigenous peoples.That is worth repeating: The legislation “is likely to have negative impacts on many Indigenous communities". How is that keeping with reconciliation?Industry stakeholders are generally supportive. Like Conservatives, they share an understanding of the aspirational spirit of UNDRIP and the need for renewed nation-to-nation discussions on the path to reconciliation. However, they also share concerns, similar to those of Conservatives and many indigenous communities, that before Bill C-15 is passed, the government must clarify free, prior and informed consent. They are seeking clarity and want to ensure they understand the rules, but most concerning is the lack of consultation on Bill C-15 with indigenous communities.The National Coalition of Chiefs expressed concern, stating: ...the lack of consultation is a flag for Indigenous leaders and communities across Canada. While the NCC was able to meet once with the Minister of Justice, there was an understanding that we would meet further to discuss our issues and concerns. The current comment period is far too short for us to consult with our representatives of Parliament. Legislation of this magnitude only warranted one meeting.On February 3, the elders of Saddle Lake Cree Nation wrote to the Prime Minister. They expressed deep concerns and indicated that they fully disapprove of Bill C-15 and the process that has been followed to date by the Government of Canada. This is because the government had not made any attempts to meet with them, or to provide adequate time and opportunity to consult. The Liberal government has repeatedly demonstrated its inability, or perhaps just its unwillingness, to properly consult, let alone come to any agreements on the definition of “indigenous rights”. It is this uncertainty in the ability and willingness of the government to really deliver on Bill C-15 that has so many worried. Leaving interpretation to the courts over the ensuing years will lead to uncertainties that will have enormous implications for Canada. While the Conservative Party supports the goals and aspirations of UNDRIP, we are concerned the government is going ahead with legislation, enshrining it into Canadian law, before we have developed a common understanding of what concepts such as free, prior and informed consent actually mean. There is currently a lack of consensus in the legal community. Without a common understanding, we risk creating uncertainty and misunderstanding in the future. That would mean letting indigenous Canadians and their communities down yet again. (1845)Conservatives believe that the path to reconciliation lies in taking meaningful action to improve the lives of indigenous peoples and ensuring that they are able to fully participate in Canada's economy. We are concerned that a lack of clarity and common understanding about key concepts in the bill could have unpredictable and far-reaching effects that could undermine reconciliation in the long term.Without a clear definition of free, prior and informed consent, there are several outstanding and troubling questions left unanswered. Whose consent must be sought when it is clear that consent has to be given? Could an unelected individual or group undermine the will of elected indigenous representatives or invalidate the decision of an indigenous-led process, an institution, or a public government?I appreciate that the government feels that free, prior and informed consent does not mean a veto. The National Post reported the justice minister saying, “The word veto does not exist in the document.” In that same article, David Chartrand, the national spokesperson for the Métis National Council said, “We made it very clear, this is not a veto, we’re not out to kill industry.”Why not then include a definition of free, prior and informed consent in this document? Why not spell it out for all Canadians that it does not mean a veto? If this process is about providing clarity for indigenous communities, non-indigenous communities and industry, let us start with some clarity around Bill C-15.When it comes to taking practical actions that will impact the daily lives of indigenous peoples, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, the Liberals have, unfortunately, failed to keep their promises. I feel that Bill C-15 may be just another failed promise. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentCourt ordersFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGovernment compensationIndigenous land claimsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentJurisprudenceOil and gasPipeline transportationPolitical powerPublic consultationSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeto rights650276365027646502765650276665027676502768650276965027706502771650277265027736502774650277565027766502777650277865027796502780650278165027826502783650278465027856502786650278765027886502789650279065027916502792650279365027946502795650279665027976502798650279965028006502801650280265028036502804650280565028066502807DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1850)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's intervention today, but I fundamentally disagree with his approach, because a lot of what he said is what we heard during debate on Bill C-262. Members will recall that Bill C-262 was stalled at the Senate by Conservative senators. As a result, the hard work of former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash, in essence his life's work, did not pass in the last Parliament.The consultation that he and many others did during that process was unprecedented. Essentially, with the member for Winnipeg Centre in many cases, he went community to community to do the consultations. Bill C-15 is built on the work of Bill C-262. The consultation has been extensive. It is never perfect, but it has been extensive. On the discussion with respect to the premiers, and with the greatest respect to our provincial and territorial counterparts, it is worth noting that there has been 13 years to implement that essential human rights legislation. Sadly, many jurisdictions have not taken that step forward. One notable exception is British Columbia, which has implemented it in a fairly successful way—C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples650280865028096502810JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (1850)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend across the way for that question, and I do mean “friend” in the true sense of the word. I appreciate his work on the file as well. However, there are a number of indigenous communities that are concerned about the wording of Bill C-15. We have even had letters from provincial ministers responsible for those files saying the exact same thing. As we come out of this pandemic, those in industry will be looking for certainty. They will be looking for markets that allow them to invest their money and have light at the end of the tunnel, if they meet all of the requirements. Until we have a definition of free, prior and informed consent, that certainty remains up in the air. When we are trying to rebuild the economy, bring these jobs back and bring opportunities to some of these first nations communities that, in many cases, rely on natural resources as their source of revenue and jobs, we need to have that certainty. C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples650281365028146502815BruceStantonSimcoe NorthSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (1850)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, experience has shown us that failure to obtain consent for development projects often leads to crises involving indigenous peoples. That is what happened with the Oka crisis and with the Wet'suwet'en this winter.Can the member tell us what the problem is with making sure natural resource development projects are carried out properly in accordance with the FPIC standard?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples65028166502817JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (1855)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree that everything has to be done in the proper way. Whether it be natural resources projects, or anything really, the rules have to be clearly defined and outlined, so people undertaking the application process understand the path forward and if there is a path forward. If we do not know that at the beginning, it makes it very difficult to continue on a project or even start one in the first place.That is why we keep saying that we approve of the aspirational part of UNDRIP and of Bill C-15. However. What we are opposing and questioning, which is no secret, is the lack of due diligence in putting forward this legislation without coming to a common understanding of what free, prior and informed consent actually means.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsOil and gasSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples65028186502819SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105854TaylorBachrachTaylor-BachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BachrachTaylor_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1855)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my hon. colleague's remarks. I have a lot of questions, and I know I only have a short time to ask them.The member spent a lot of time speaking about this conflation between the concept of consent and the concept of a veto, which has been spoken to at length by legal experts and dozens of witnesses at committee. It is clear that there is a distinction between these two concepts, so it is unfortunate that he continue to conflate them.Part way through his speech, he said something along the lines of supporting the goals and aspirations of UNDRIP. However, I listened carefully, and 90% of his speech was speaking negatively about the risks he feels it poses. I am curious what parts of it he supports and feels are worthy of his support.In his question for the minister, he indicated that he supports treaty rights. Does he support section 35 rights of indigenous people in the Constitution of Canada?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6502820650282165028226502823JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (1855)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there, and I will try to get through it as quickly as possible.On his first point regarding free, prior and informed consent, if what he is saying is true, then why is it not included in the bill? If it is that simple and clear, why not put it in the bill and get unanimous support for this bill? The problem is that it is not there, which is causing issues. We are in this chamber to discuss issues such as this, which could have profound impacts on the way forward. It does not have to be natural resources projects. I keep saying it is a larger impact than that. We should be debating this in the chamber. We should be debating it instead of pushing it through. If it is clear, let us make sure it is clear.In terms of his negative comment, yes, there are lots of positive things in there addressing issues of discrimination and racism. However, what we are trying to do is reach a consensus on the part we disagree with so we can get to what we do agree with and get this passed. Let us address the issues that we have on this side of the House, which are with the definition of clear, free, prior and informed consent. If it is clear, put it in the bill and we will be a lot happier with that. I am sure industry will be as well.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6502824650282565028266502827TaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1855)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague rightly pointed out some of the issues and questions on free, prior and informed consent with the Wet'suwet'en, where even within the band there were people who did not agree.I have had conversations in my own riding with the leaders of various aboriginal groups. They had no expectation of having the right of veto. They agreed that no individual Canadian should be able to stand against something that is in the national interest. They asked why we could not just put a clarification in the bill to make that clear. They then asked if there was anything else we would not support.Is there anything else, other than that free, prior and informed consent, that would keep the member from supporting the bill?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples650282865028296502830JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (1900)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is a big part of it, but, as I said, we are not opposing UNDRIP per se. We are opposing the government's lack of due diligence. When it comes to free, prior and informed consent, that is a big piece of it. We saw, as the member rightly mentioned, this with the Wet'suwet'en community.The elected chiefs and the band councils, which had just gone through an election process in which many of the candidates were victorious on pro-energy platforms, wanted to move ahead with the energy project that was pre-approved. Then the hereditary chiefs expressed concern. When we talked to the members of the elected bands and councils, they felt that their voices were not even heard in this debate.This is why we need that clarity. This is why we need the certainty for industry and we need to ensure that consultations are done properly and in a meaningful way, so we have certainty and also the conversations to address any problems.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesConsentGovernment billsIndigenous rightsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples650283165028326502833MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88595MoniquePauzéMonique-PauzéRepentignyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PauzéMonique_BQ.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Genetically Modified Foods]InterventionMs. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ): (1010)[Translation] Mr. Speaker, because transparency with respect to genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is seriously lacking in Canada, because the government refuses to make the labelling of GMOs mandatory despite the strong consensus in Quebec and Canada, because Canada was the first country in the world to authorize the commercial production of a genetically modified animal, salmon, and Canadians were the first to consume it without their knowledge, I am pleased to present a petition today signed by 4,390 people from many groups, including Vigilance OGM, that want the government to step up and protect consumers and ecosystems.Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Environmental protectionGenetically modified organismsIndigenous rightsPackaging and labellingPetition 432-00475United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6479918ClaudeDeBellefeuilleSalaberry—SuroîtAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition signed by constituents of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to commit to upholding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action by immediately halting all existing and planned construction of the Coastal GasLink fracked pipeline project in Wet’suwet’en territory and prioritizing the real implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 432-00463Wet'suwet'en First Nation6471584GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking this morning from the traditional territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ Nation, the indigenous peoples of this territory.In brief, the petition from my constituents relates to a call to recognize and truly respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, specifically referencing the situation on Wet'suwet'en lands. It calls for nation-to-nation negotiations and asks for work on the fracked gas pipeline to cease immediately.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 432-00453Wet'suwet'en First Nation64689536468954CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleMelArnoldNorth Okanagan—Shuswap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateCOVID-19 VaccineInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (2325)[English]Madam Speaker, like my hon. colleague, I too am losing faith in the government. However, he spoke about indigenous communities, and I just want to remind him part of the reason we are in this crisis in indigenous communities is because of willful human rights violations, lack of access to clean drinking water and housing. Every time the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is put forward, including with Bill C-262, Conservatives vote against it. If Conservative members are concerned about the health and welfare of all people living on Turtle Island, I am wondering if the member will support Bill C-15 and fully support the adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCOVID-19Emergency debatesImmunizationIndigenous rightsPandemicUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples646799164679926467993EricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryEricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105422EricDuncanEric-DuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DuncanEric_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateCOVID-19 VaccineInterventionMr. Eric Duncan: (2325)[English]Madam Speaker, I share my NPD colleague from Manitoba's concern about the fate of what is going on with COVID-19 in first nations communities. As I mentioned in my comments, the long-term care home on Akwesasne has had an outbreak, and there have been several cases on Akwesasne, on the island and in the region.I share her concern, and her desire for reconciliation and a better quality of life. The fact we have boil water advisories and no access to clean water in any community, let alone first nations communities, in the 21st century is concerning. I share her commitment. We are going to get back to discussing that, but I think we are all on the same page with the same goal. We must do better. We can do better, and we will do better with first nations communities in this country.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesCOVID-19Emergency debatesImmunizationIndigenous rightsPandemicUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples64679946467995LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 209--Mrs. Stephanie Kusie: With regard to air travel complaints sent to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) since February 1, 2020, and broken down by month and subject: (a) how many air travel complaints were received; (b) what is the status of the complaints in (a) (e.g. resolved, investigation ongoing, no action taken yet, etc.); (c) what is the CTA service standard relating to resolving air travel complaints; and (d) what specific action, if any, did the CTA take to ensure that the processing and investigation of complaints would continue during the pandemic?Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to air travel complaints sent to the Canadian Transportation Agency, CTA, since February 1, 2020, broken down by month and subject, the answers for part (a) are as follows: February: 4776, March: 3625, April: 2349, May: 1396, June: 1128, July: 1199, August: 897, September: 943, October: 1029, and November: 260, as of November 10. The total is 17,602The CTA is currently processing the complaints received for the period referenced. A detailed breakdown of the subject of each complaint is not available.The CTA reports on the subject of complaints received in its annual report. The 2019-20 annual report can be found at: www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/annual-report-2019-2020#sec10With regard to part (b), of the complaints referenced in part (a), the CTA has processed over approximately 6,000 complaints since February 1, 2020.With regard to part (c), the answers are as follows. With regard to facilitation, of all air travel facilitations closed, 80% are completed within 30 calendar days/20 business days from the communication of the initial position of both parties to the conclusion of facilitation.With regard to mediation, of all air travel complaint mediations closed, 100% are completed within 30 calendar days/20 business days or within such longer period as requested by both parties.With regard to adjudication, 80% of all air travel complaint adjudications are processed within 120 calendar days/85 business days from the opening of pleadings to the issuance of a decision, net of any pleadings filed beyond the standard answer/reply period, as established in the dispute adjudication rules.With regard to part (d), between March 25 and June 30, 2020, the CTA temporarily paused interactions with airlines related to dispute resolution activities, to permit them to focus on immediate and urgent operational demands like repatriating Canadians stranded abroad. However, during this period, CTA staff continued to triage and process complaints, communicate with passengers and address issues raised where possible.Notwithstanding the pause and the sudden and sustained shift to remote work, the CTA has maintained productivity levels comparable to last year’s. It has processed over 6,000 complaints since the beginning of the pandemic, including over 3,100 complaints pertaining to flight disruptions.The CTA anticipates that resolution of complaints filed in the period after the APPR came fully into force and before the pandemic disrupted global air travel will be facilitated by the major inquiry it launched in February 2020, which focuses on alleged failures by airlines to respect their communications-related obligations under the APPR. The report of an inquiry officer assigned to gather evidence on those allegations was recently published.Question No. 210--Mr. Martin Shields: With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) what specific support measures, if any, is VAC taking to ensure that branches of the Royal Canadian Legion are able to cover their operational costs and financially survive the pandemic; and (b) does VAC have any statistics or projections on the financial impact of the pandemic in relation to Legion branches, including how many branches may not survive without assistance from VAC and, if so, what are the statistics or projections?Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), Canada’s COVID-19 economic response plan has helped to protect millions of jobs, provide emergency support to families and keep businesses afloat throughout the pandemic.Through Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, the Government of Canada is providing $20 million to support veterans organizations facing hardship due to COVID-19. All funds were to be provided to veterans organizations by December 31, 2020.The Government of Canada is helping organizations that serve veterans access the money they need to replace critical charitable and other revenue lost because of COVID-19. The veterans organizations emergency support fund, VOESF, will give them the resources needed to continue to operate and support the veterans community.The $20-million veterans organizations emergency support fund was announced in November 2020, as part of the Government of Canada’s COVID-19 economic response plan. It was created to support veterans organizations experiencing financial challenges due to COVID-19. The $20-million VOESF will help the recipients cover operational costs like rent, utilities, administration and wages, and will allow them to continue to deliver important services for veterans and their families throughout the global pandemic.Organizations that access these funds will be able to continue their work with veterans and their families during a time when it is needed most.On December 17, 2020, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that $2.8 million from the VOESF will go to 38 veterans organizations across Canada. These organizations are in addition to the four announced when the VOESF was launched in November 2020: Royal Canadian Legion, ANAVETS, True Patriot Love and VETS Canada.Through the VOESF, the government was able to help a total of 42 organizations that serve over 280,000 veterans.These organizations play a critical role in supporting the well-being of veterans and their families across the country. They carry out a range of services, such as mental health support, social and community support, commemoration efforts, animal therapy, healing through physical activity, healing through nature and counselling.On December 21, 2020, the Royal Canadian Legion announced the Legion branches that will receive support through the VOESF. The Legion, the largest veterans organization in Canada, received $14 million from the Government of Canada to distribute to its branches across the country. This funding will help Legion branches with operational expenses such as rent, insurance, utilities and administrative costs so they can focus on providing important programs, services and support to veterans and their families, and continue their strong community presence. To date, 701 branches of the Legion have been supported through the VOESF and more funds will be disbursed in the coming weeks by the Legion’s Dominion command.The Legion’s branches are some of the government’s most important partners in supporting veterans, and in making sure that Canadians remember the sacrifices they have made. The Government of Canada has provided them with the funding they need to make it through the pandemic and continues to work together with the Legion on behalf of veterans and their families.Question No. 215--Mr. Jeremy Patzer: With regard to the application process for Senate appointments since October 28, 2019: (a) how many applications were received for Senate appointments; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were unsolicited applications and how many were nominated; and (c) of the nominated candidates, how many were nominated by (i) government employees, (ii) parliamentary staff, (iii) ministers or members of Parliament within the governing party?Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the number of applications and nominations received for Senate appointments will be disclosed by the independent advisory board for Senate appointments in its next report to the Prime Minister.The process to nominate an individual for a Senate appointment involves submitting a form via the advisory board’s website with the name of the person or organization and email of the nominator; the name, email and province/territory of residence of the nominee; and a description of why the person would be well suited for the role.The advisory board does not collect or track the title or place of work of the nominator, and it keeps the nominator’s information confidential. All individuals need to apply, whether they were nominated or not, by submitting an application package through the advisory board’s website.Question No. 216--Mr. Dan Mazier: With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada limiting its research activities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what research activities were reduced; (b) what research activities continued unimpeded; (c) what research activities remain suspended; and (d) what is the specific plan regarding when each of the research activities, which remain operating at less than full capacity, will resume operating at full capacity?Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), at the beginning of the COVID-19 shutdown, most of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s, AAFC, research and development centres remained open in a limited capacity to take care of non-research, critical services such as care of livestock and collections, insects and germplasm, and the maintenance of specialized equipment and biocontainment facilities; and activities to ensure long-term stewardship of land and protect long-term studies, maintain plant germplasm, field equipment and infrastructure, maintain bee colonies and hives, and provide critical material to the sector, e.g., breeder seed.In May and June, many field-based research projects that were time-sensitive to the planting season resumed, including registration/co-op trials, early generation variety plots to support genetic development, agronomic trials, integrated pest management research and agri-environment research.AAFC started re-entry back into its research facilities in the middle of August. As of October 13, 2020, all 20 AAFC research centres have resumed a number of laboratory, greenhouse and barn research activities.With regard to part (b), projects and activities that could be conducted virtually have continued throughout the pandemic.With regard to part (c), many of AAFC’s research projects are reduced in capacity activity-wise due to COVID-19, but the extent to which these reductions will be evident at the end of fiscal has yet to be determined, as circumstances are still evolving.With regard to part (d), specific plans to resume full operations of research activities have not been established at this time. AAFC continues to monitor the situation and is ready to adapt its approach as appropriate. The health and safety of AAFC employees continues to be the number one priority in all decision-making matters, and the department will be closely monitoring the situation across the country and continuing to adhere to guidance from local and provincial authorities.Question No. 219--Mr. Randy Hoback: With regard to the decision by the government to have Nuctech security equipment installed in Canadian embassies and consulates and the subsequent contract awarded to Deloitte to review purchasing practices for security equipment: (a) what is the complete list of Canadian embassies, consulates, or other missions abroad that have installed the X-ray scanners from Nuctech; (b) what is the total value of all contracts Nuctech has had with Global Affairs Canada (GAC) since November 4, 2015; (c) what is the value of the contract awarded to Deloitte to review the purchasing practices for security equipment; (d) what is the scope of the Deloitte review; (e) when will the review be completed, and will the results be made public; and (f) did the government receive any written guarantees from Nuctech that any information obtained, either directly or indirectly, from the company’s dealings with GAC or the government, would not be provided to the Chinese government and, if so, what are the details of any such guarantees?Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), Global Affairs Canada has not purchased any X-ray scanners from Nuctech.With regard to part (c), information on contracts worth more than $10,000 for the time period requested is available under proactive disclosure on the Open Government site at: https://open.canada.ca.With regard to part (d), Deloitte was mandated to conduct a review of Global Affairs Canada’s procurement process for security equipment, including a review of the go-forward options for the use of the recently established standing offers for security equipment and a review of the procurement options to support the future acquisition of mission equipment, including a review of the appropriateness of creating a new national security exception for security equipment.With regard to part (e), the final versions of the review in French and English were received on November 19, 2020, and were provided to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 27, 2020. They are available at: www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/OGGO/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10994670With regard to part (f), Global Affairs Canada has not purchased equipment from Nuctech, therefore no guarantees have been sought.Question No. 224--Mr. Dave Epp: With regard to rent increase notices issued to clients renting space in government-owned buildings during the pandemic: (a) how many rent increase notices have been issued since March 1, 2020; (b) what was the average increase in (i) percentage, (ii) dollar amount; (c) as of March 1, 2020, what was the vacancy rate in government-owned buildings for (i) retail space, (ii) other clients; and (d) what is the current vacancy rate in government-owned buildings for (i) retail space, (ii) other clients?Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is the information with regard to rent increase notices issued to clients renting space in government-owned buildings during the pandemic. With regard to part (a), from March 1, 2020 to November 5, 2020, in Public Services and Procurement Canada-owned buildings, 42 rent increases have been issued to tenants that do not require rent relief, are currently not participating in the rent deferral program or the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, CECRA, and are currently paying full monthly rent. There are 60 notices of rent increases as per the lease provisions that have not been issued to tenants that are currently participating in the rent deferral program or the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, CECRA.With regard to part (b), the average increase was 1.82% and $1,839.66. The amount increase ranged from $-905.72 to $24,650.78.With regard to part (c), the vacancy rate in government-owned buildings as of March 1, 2020, was as follows: as of March 31, 2020, the marketable vacancy retail space was 5,600m2, which represented 6.7% of PSPC’s complete retail space of 83,000m2 within its portfolio.For other clients, this is not applicable.With regard to part (d), the current vacancy rate in government-owned buildings as of November 5, 2020, is as follows: as of November 1, 2020, the marketable vacant retail space is 6,300m2, which represents 7.5% of PSPC’s complete retail space of 83,800m2 within its portfolio. It should be noted that the increase in vacancy, compared to March 31, 2020, is due to leases that have ended since that time; and there was an additional 800m2 of new retail space added since March 31, 2020.For other clients, this is not applicable.Question No. 226--Mr. Dan Mazier: With regard to the Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations: (a) how many applications has the government received for funding; (b) what is the total amount dispersed by the fund since its official formation; (c) how many applications were from the constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa; (d) how many applications were received from applicants in the province of Manitoba; (e) how many of the applications in (d) were successful; and (f) what are the details of all funding provided through the fund, including (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) organization type, (v) federal riding?Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canadian Heritage, or PCH, the answer to part (a) of the question is 6,143. The answer to part (b) is $390,697,000. With regard to part (c), PCH’s financial system does not capture information by federal riding. The answer to part (d) is 234. This number does not include applications from the athlete assistance program as these are disclosed on an annual basis. The answer to part (e) is 231. This number does not include successful applications from the athlete assistance program. With regard to part (f), information pertaining to grants and contributions is publicly available on the Open Canada website at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/.With regard to the Canada Council for the Arts, the answer to part (a) of the question is 7,083. The answer to part (b) is $62,685,608, and the answer to part (c) is three. With regard to part (d), the answer is 184. The answer to part (e) is 98. With regard to part (f), disclosure of grant and prize recipients can be found at https://canadacouncil.ca/about/public-accountability/proactive-disclosure/grant-recipients.With regard to Telefilm Canada, the answer to part (a) of the question is 665, and the answer to part (b) is $29,450,367. With regard to part (c), Telefilm Canada’s operational system does not capture information by federal riding. The answer to part (d) is 22, and the answer to part (e) is 18. With regard to part (f), information pertaining to grants and contributions can be found at https://telefilm.ca/en/transparency/proactive-disclosure/grant-contribution/reports-by-quarter.Question No. 228--Mr. Damien C. Kurek: With regard to statistics related to federal correctional inmates since 1980: (a) how many inmates were sentenced to serve two or more life sentences; (b) of the inmates in (a), how many were granted parole, conditional release, or compassionate release; and (c) of the inmates in (b), how many reoffended while on parole, conditional release or compassionate release?Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Correctional Service of Canada is unable to provide a response to this question, as doing so would involve the extraction and analysis of a significant amount of information, which cannot be completed within the given time frame.Question No. 229--Ms. Leona Alleslev: With regard to information on services provided by Canada Post since October 2017 and broken down by province or territory and by month for each part of the question: (a) what was the volume of lettermail; (b) how many letters received postmarks the day they were mailed; (c) what are the Canada Post lettermail delivery time performance standards; (d) what were the average, median and mean delivery times for the lettermail; (e) what volume and percentage of the lettermail were delivered exceeding the performance standards; (f) how is the loss of lettermail determined and reported; (g) what volume and percentage of lettermail was lost; (h) what is the audit process to evaluate the security, effectiveness and timeliness of the end-to-end lettermail pickup to delivery process; and (i) how many audits were conducted?Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, for the volume of Lettermail, refer to the attached annex. It was not possible to provide a breakdown of the data by province and territory and month by month within the allotted time.With regard to part (b), unless a piece of mail is tracked, Canada Post Corporation, CPC, cannot determine what is not delivered. CPC would know the volume of mail through its machines but not how much “should have” gone through the machine, i.e., inducted but not processed. Similarly, CPC would not know what was processed but not delivered.Regarding part (c), according to the Canadian Postal Service Charter, the delivery time performance standards are two business days within a community, three business days within province and four business days between provinces.With regard to part (d), from October 2017 to November 2020, CPC’s on-time delivery performance within the above-mentioned two, three and four business day standards was 95.4% in 2017, 93% in 2018 and 95.3% in 2019. The 2020 delivery performance is not yet available. CPC is unable to provide a breakdown of this data by province and territory and month by month within the allotted time.Regarding part (e) of the question, the volume and percentage of Lettermail delivered beyond or past CPC standards was 4.6% in 2017, 7% in 2018 and 4.7% in 2019. The 2020 performance is not yet available. CPC is unable to provide a breakdown of this data by province and territory and month by month within the allotted time.With regard to parts (f) and (g) of the question, please refer to the answer for part (b).Regarding part (h), security of the mail is accomplished through a number of security controls. It starts from the security of mailboxes, which were designed with security in mind and are the result of years of evolution and enhancements, from the metal used to construct the boxes to the design of the locks to secure the inducted products through the course of post. These are tested with the assistance of many key stakeholders and suppliers, engineers, as well as internal knowledge of the security environment. The mail is then brought to depots where ongoing threat, risk and vulnerability assessments are conducted. The security assessment is called a facility security index, or FSI, which is a holistic security assessment based on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police threat risk assessment approach. The process assesses not only the physical security and controls at the facility but also compliance to these controls and to security processes. As a result, an extensive report is provided to management with action plans and a follow-up audit that will be conducted for any significant deficiencies, along with proper communication plans on recommended corrective and preventive measures.With regard to part (i) of the question, at the beginning of 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 11 FSI reviews were conducted. As these are normally focused on larger urban outlets, where there is a higher risk of COVID exposure in conducting these audits, once the pandemic began attention instead shifted to conducting rural reviews at smaller rural corporate outlets. As such audits take less time to complete than FSIs, with FSIs taking typically a week and rural reviews being completed within a day, more reviews could be conducted, with more than 226 completed so far. In comparison, 39 FSI reviews were completed throughout 2019, 25 in 2018, and 50 in 2017, which was when the process was implemented.Question No. 231--Mr. Randall Garrison: With regard to the government’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by its departments and, specifically for the Department of National Defence (DND): (a) what are the current greenhouse gas reduction targets for DND; (b) what is DND's current status with meeting those targets; (c) have the greenhouse gas impacts of replacing the CF-18 fighter jets been taken into account in the department’s gas reduction targets and plans; (d) have greenhouse gas impacts been incorporated into the bidding and selection process for new fighter jets; and (e) what action is the government taking to ensure the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the new fighter jets are mitigated in their operation and maintenance?Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, National Defence is taking concrete steps to reduce its carbon footprint in its real property and its fleets. This includes greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures such as energy performance contracts at defence installations across the country, clean-energy purchases and improved energy management.National Defence’s continued investments to upgrade and replace critical National Defence infrastructure and fleets will contribute to the government’s efforts to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.With regard to part (a) of the question, when “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, Canada’s defence policy, was released in 2017, National Defence’s goal was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030. More recently, National Defence, in its 2020-23 defence energy and environment strategy, has adopted a more ambitious target that aligns with the Government of Canada’s greening government strategy. This is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its real property and commercial light-duty fleets, where feasible, by 40% from 2005 levels by 2025, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.Separate from its real property and commercial light-duty fleets, National Defence is also committed to bringing emissions from its national safety and security operations fleets to net zero by 2050, in accordance with the Government of Canada’s updated greening government strategy. For the national safety and security fleet, which is comprised of Canadian Armed Forces aircraft, marine vessels and tactical land vehicles, the 2050 target will consider the use of environmentally friendly technologies and low-carbon fuels when available, affordable and operationally feasible.With regard to part (b), National Defence’s 2016-19 defence energy and environment strategy committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030. As of March 31, 2020, National Defence has reduced its emissions from its real property and commercial light-duty vehicles fleets by 31% below 2005 levels and is on track to reach the 40% reduction target by 2025, a full five years ahead of the original schedule.Greenhouse gas emissions from National Defence’s national safety and security fleet operations, however, are 11% above 2005 levels as of March 31, 2020. These emissions are tied to Canadian Armed Forces activities required to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. These emissions will vary over time, as the number of times that the CAF is deployed will impact the amount of emissions that are emitted.National Defence is committed to ensuring its activities are conducted in a sustainable manner without compromising the safety and security of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.As outlined in the 2020-23 defence energy and environment strategy, National Defence is committed to exploring the use of alternative energy options in national safety and security-related fleet operations. Canada is leading the path in this area as one of the few countries making a commitment to manage its military fleet in a sustainable manner.Regarding parts (c) and (d) of the question, through Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”¸ National Defence commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions while remaining operationally effective. The defence energy and environment strategy commits the department to make every effort to consider environmental and energy implications of its purchase decisions, operations and asset management.Under this strategy, all new military equipment procured is required to consider energy efficiency to reduce overall operating costs and environmental impacts.As part of the future fighter capability project’s life-cycle cost evaluation process, aircraft that have lower fuel consumption are favoured, which affects the greenhouse gas emissions of the aircraft. It is anticipated that newer propulsion systems technology in future fighter aircraft may result in reducing greenhouse gas emissions of the new aircraft fleet.National Defence is also investigating the use of alternative fuels with a reduced carbon footprint for its fleets.With regard to part (e), as the future fighter aircraft will be replacing an existing capability, the overall impacts on greenhouse gas emissions are anticipated to be similar to those generated by the existing CF-18 fleet. However, operational emissions may be reduced as a result of newer propulsion systems technology in the future fighter aircraft. The level of emissions will also depend upon how often these aircraft are used.National Defence is also working to reduce the emissions for maintenance activities by improving maintenance practices and facilities. The Bagotville and Cold Lake facilities that will house the future fighter aircraft will be designed and constructed to increase energy efficiency wherever possible.National Defence is committed to demonstrating leadership in environmental and energy sustainability and will continue to strive to meet its obligation to manage its assets and operations efficiently.Question No. 235--Mr. Dan Albas: With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-35, which stated that the government provided "up to $30 million to small and medium-sized forest sector firms" during the pandemic: (a) which firms received the funding; (b) how much did each firm receive; and (c) on what date did each firm receive its payment from the government?Mr. Paul Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, following the announcement by the Minister of Natural Resources on July 10, 2020, Natural Resources Canada consulted stakeholders and finalized the implementation plan for this initiative. This program will provide up to $30 million to small and medium-sized forest sector operations to offset costs associated with the implementation of COVID-19 health and safety measures.With regard to part (b), contribution agreements with participating provinces and territories have advanced, with most expected to be completed in early January. Provinces and territories were allocated base-level funding, supplemented by a top-up increment that is based on a combination of each jurisdiction’s share of total forest sector employment and each jurisdiction’s share of total trees planted. Once agreements are in place, participating jurisdictions will compile and submit claims for reimbursement to the federal government. Once claims are validated and paid, this will enable provinces and territories to reimburse eligible small and medium-sized forest sector businesses, likely starting in early 2021.With regard to part (c), eligible costs will have been incurred by companies between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Payments will be made on a retroactive basis and participating jurisdictions will report which firms received support. As this program is ongoing, there is insufficient information available to answer this question.Question No. 236--Mr. Kerry Diotte: With regard to the government's commitment to modernize the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD): (a) how much funding has been committed toward modernizing NORAD; and (b) what is the breakdown of the funding commitment by year for each of the next five years?Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as outlined in Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, National Defence is committed to continental defence and to the protection of North America. This includes commitments to ensure that the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, is modernized to meet existing and future threats and challenges.In response to part (a), National Defence is currently examining a wide range of capability requirements and potential investment opportunities with regard to NORAD modernization. This includes examining the best way to fulfill the direction in the Minister of National Defence’s mandate letter regarding the renewal of the North Warning System.Delivering on these commitments will build on the significant investments in core continental defence capabilities already included in “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. These include the commitments to acquire six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, 88 future fighter aircraft, remotely piloted systems for enhanced surveillance capabilities, and improved space capabilities for Arctic surveillance and communications.In response to part (b), Funding and timelines specifically earmarked for the modernization of NORAD have yet to be determined. These decisions will take into consideration the full range of threats and challenges facing Canada and North America and will be informed through consultations with the new administration in the United States.Investments will be informed by, and build on, the multi-year, $133-million programmed investment by Defence Research and Development Canada’s all-domain situational awareness, ADSA, S&T program, which is now close to completion. This S&T program explored enhanced domain awareness of air, maritime surface, and maritime subsurface approaches to Canada and North America, with a focus on the Arctic. The highly successful ADSA S&T program made significant progress in several key areas, including over-the-horizon radar, which could support a future system of systems against evolving threats. The knowledge gained from the ADSA S&T program will inform scientific advice for the modernization and augmentation of the North Warning System capability as part of such a system of systems.Question No. 238--Mrs. Alice Wong: With regard to the government’s response to the request or pending request from the mayor of Vancouver to decriminalize a number of illegal drugs, including cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth, within the city: (a) will the government allow cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth to be decriminalized within the city; and (b) does the Prime Minister still hold the position that “[w]e’re not looking at full decriminalization at all”, which he stated in an interview with Global News that aired on September 24, 2019?Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada’s approach to substance use issues has been comprehensive and collaborative, guided by our federal drug strategy—the Canadian drugs and substances strategy (CDSS), introduced in late 2016. The CDSS takes a public health-focused approach and lays out our framework for evidence-based actions to reduce the harms associated with substance use in Canada. It includes four key pillars—prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and enforcement.Since 2016, the Government of Canada has taken urgent action to address the overdose crisis through significant federal investments of over $600 million, as well as legislative and regulatory action. This includes working with provinces and territories to improve access to harm reduction services such as supervised consumption sites, increase access to pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to the illegal contaminated supply, i.e., a safer supply, raise awareness of the risks of opioids, and remove barriers to treatment, including stigma. More recently, to build on funding provided in budget 2018 and budget 2019, the government provided an additional $66 million over two years, starting in 2020-21, to support community-based organizations responding to substance use issues, including to help them provide front-line services in a COVID-19 context.The Government of Canada recognizes that in many regions of the country the COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating long-standing challenges regarding substance use and the overdose crisis, with some communities now reporting record high numbers of overdose deaths, hospitalizations, and emergency medical service calls. To help address these challenges, the Government of Canada has taken actions to implement important measures to enable the health system to better meet the needs of people with substance use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, we have issued class exemptions to pharmacists and eased restrictions on the transportation of controlled substances to make it easier for people to access the medications they need during the COVID-19 pandemic while following public health advice, such as physical distancing. We have also made it easier for overdose prevention sites to be established rapidly in temporary community shelters and other locations. In addition, through Health Canada’s substance use and addictions program, the Government of Canada is providing funding to support 11 projects in providing a flexible safer supply of pharmaceutical-grade medications for people with opioid use disorder in British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick. These investments will help provide pathways to care and treatment.The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the ongoing overdose crisis. We have lost too many Canadians to overdose, and all levels of government must redouble our efforts to save lives. For example, the federal government has been working with the Government of British Columbia and Mayor Stewart on options that respond to their local and regional needs, guided by the recommendations of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. We are reviewing the City of Vancouver’s request to address criminal penalties for simple possession of small amounts of controlled substances, and the Government of Canada will continue work to get Canadians who use substances the support they need.The Government of Canada will continue to encourage the formation of partnerships between law enforcement and health and social services to help divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and towards appropriate health services and social supports. For example, in May 2017, the Government of Canada passed the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act. This act provides some legal protection for individuals who seek emergency help during an overdose. The Government of Canada in also funding a three-year project in Peterborough, Ontario, to develop a multisector response, with a team dedicated to caring for people at risk of experiencing overdoses, in order to direct people away from the justice system and into care. Further, on August 18, 2020, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada issued guidance to prosecutors directing that alternatives to prosecution should be considered for simple possession offences, except when there are serious mitigating circumstances. This policy is available at https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p5/ch13.html.The overdose crisis is a complex public health issue, but the Government of Canada is committed to working closely with provinces, territories, and key stakeholders to address substance use issues and to ensure that people who use drugs have the support they need.Question No. 242--Mr. Eric Duncan: With regard to directives given by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission since January 1, 2016: what directives have been given and what was the date of each directive?Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has the power to issue directives to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, exclusively under subsection 23(3) of the Broadcasting Act. Moreover, directives under subsection 23(3) pertain exclusively to conditions imposed by the CRTC to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the corporation, in consideration of those conditions. The minister has not issued any directive under that section since January 1, 2016.However, the Governor in Council, GiC, may issue directions to the CRTC under subsections 7(1), 26(1) and 27(1) of the act. The GiC may also request the CRTC to “hold hearings or make reports on any matter within the jurisdiction of the [CRTC]” under subsection 15(1) of the act.Since January 1, 2016, the GiC requested one report under subsection 15(1) of the act. The request, dated September 22, 2017, P.C. 2017-1195, was to report to the GiC no later than June 1, 2018 in regard to the following matters: a) the distribution model or models of programming that are likely to exist in the future; b) how and through whom Canadians will access that programming; c) the extent to which these models will ensure a vibrant domestic market that is capable of supporting the continued creation, production and distribution of Canadian programming, in both official languages, including original entertainment and information programming.Since 2016, the GiC has issued one direction to the CRTC under subsection 27(1). The directive, dated April 3, 2020, P.C. 2020-231, was in respect of the implementation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA.Other than the aforementioned two matters, the GiC has not issued any directions to the CRTC during the time frame in question, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage has not issued any directives to the CRTC during the same period.Question No. 250--Mr. Marty Morantz: With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-6, regarding loans made under the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA): (a) what specific types of businesses are classified as "other services", and what are examples of such businesses; (b) what specific types of businesses are classified as "public administration", and what are examples of such businesses; and (c) did any of the CEBA loans classified as "public administration" go toward any province, territory, municipality, or other level of government and, if so, what are the details of any such loans, including (i) amount, (ii) recipient?Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Export Development Canada, EDC, is proud to be part of the Government of Canada’s response to COVID-19. EDC collaborated in the design of the Canada emergency business account, CEBA, and works to deliver the program by providing support to Canadian financial institutions through funding, validation checks and administration. EDC will continue with current stimulus initiatives, as well as work to identify new opportunities, along with our government partners, to meet the evolving needs of Canadian companies.In response to (a), Canada emergency business account or CEBA data, as it relates to industry, is reported in the Standard Industrial Classification, SIC, or the North American Industry Classification System, NAICS, when available and provided by the financial institutions. “Other services” as reported in Order Paper question Q-6 includes the following SIC and NAICS classifications.SIC code R, “Other Service Industries” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=53446&CVD=53447&CPV=R&CST=01011980&CLV=1&MLV=4, includes the following subsectors: amusement and recreational service industries, personal and household service industries, membership organization industries, other service industries.NAICS code 71, “Arts, Entertainment & Recreation” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=307532&CVD=307533&CPV=71&CST=01012017&CLV=1&MLV=5, includes the following subsectors: performing arts, spectator sports and related industries; heritage institutions; amusement, gambling and recreation industries.NAICS code 81, “Other services (except public administration)” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1181553&CVD=1181554&CPV=81&CST=01012017&CLV=1&MLV=5, includes the following subsectors: repair and maintenance; personal and laundry services; religious, grant-making, civic and professional and similar organizations; private households.Details identifying a specific recipient cannot be provided without prior consent from the financial institution and the borrower. CEBA is administered by EDC, who is working closely with Canadian financial institutions to deliver these loans to qualifying businesses.In response to (b), CEBA data as it relates to industry is reported in SIC or NAICS, when available and provided by the financial institutions. “Public administration” as reported in Order Paper question Q-6 includes the following SIC and NAICS classifications.SIC code N, “Government Service Industries” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=53446&CVD=53447&CPV=N&CST=01011980&CLV=1&MLV=4, includes the following subsectors: federal government service industries, provincial and territorial government service industries, local government service industries, international and other extra-territorial government service industries.NAICS code 91, “Public Administration” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1181553&CVD=1181554&CPV=91&CST=01012017&CLV=1&MLV=5, includes the following subsectors: federal government public administration; provincial and territorial public administration; local, municipal and regional public administration; aboriginal public administration; international and other extra-territorial public administration.Details identifying a specific recipient cannot be provided without prior consent from the financial institution and the borrower. CEBA is administered by EDC, who is working closely with Canadian financial institutions to deliver these loans to qualifying businesses.In response to (c), details identifying a specific recipient cannot be provided without prior consent from the financial institution and the borrower. CEBA is administered by EDC, who is working closely with Canadian financial institutions to deliver these loans to qualifying businesses.As per the requirements of the program set out by the Government of Canada and found on the CEBA website, https://ceba-cuec.ca/, when applying for a CEBA loan the borrower needs to confirm that it is not a government organization or body, or an entity wholly owned by a government organization or body; that it is not a non-profit organization, registered charity, union, or a fraternal benefit society or order, or an entity owned by such an organization, unless the entity is actively carrying on a business in Canada, including a related business in the case of a registered charity, that earns revenue from the regular supply of property/goods or services; that it is not an entity owned by any federal member of Parliament or senator; that it does not promote violence, incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, religion, age, or mental or physical disability, contrary to applicable laws.Question No. 254--Mr. Warren Steinley: With regard to the economic impact of the government's Clean Fuel Standard: (a) did the government do any analysis on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on Saskatchewan's economy and, if so, what are the details and findings of the analysis; (b) did the government do any analysis on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on Saskatchewan's oil and gas industry and, if so, what are the details and findings of the analysis; (c) did the government do any analysis on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on Saskatchewan's agricultural sector and, if so, what are the details and findings of the analysis; and (d) has Farm Credit Canada done any analysis or projections on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on farm incomes and, if so, what are the details and findings?Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposed clean fuel standard regulations were published in Canada Gazette, part I, on December 19, along with the regulatory impact assessment statement, which includes provincial, regional, and sectoral considerations. These documents can be found at http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2020/2020-12-19/html/reg2-eng.html.Question No. 257--Mr. Kelly McCauley: With regard to the Deloitte report on contracts with Chinese-based companies, referenced by Global Affairs Canada at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 18, 2020: (a) what was the date that the report was commissioned; (b) what was the date that the report was delivered; (c) what was the final cost of the report; (d) what was the scope of the report; (e) what was the title of the report; (f) what were the findings or conclusions of the report; and (g) was the report tendered competitively and, if not, why not?Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. In response to (a), the report was commissioned on August 10, 2020.In response to (b), the report was delivered on November 19, 2020.In response to (c), information on contracts worth more than $10,000 for the time period requested is available under “Proactive disclosure” on the Open Government site at https://open.canada.ca.In response to (d), Deloitte was mandated to conduct a review of Global Affairs Canada’s procurement process for security equipment, including a review of the go-forward options for the use of the recently established standing offers for security equipment and a review of the procurement options to support the future acquisition of mission equipment, including a review of the appropriateness of creating a new national security exception for security equipment.In response to (e), the title was “Global Affairs Canada: Security Equipment Procurement Review”.In response to (f), Deloitte conducted an independent review of the procurement process for security equipment. The review confirms that officials followed all the rules and policies related to security equipment and that there were opportunities for improvements in the areas of increased integration of security in the materiel management life cycle, broader consultation throughout the procurement process for security equipment and additional guidance with respect to publishing technical requirements. Global Affairs Canada’s revised procurement approach, currently under development with Public Services and Procurement Canada, will integrate these recommendations and will include consultations with security experts and possibly creating a national security exception to limit solicitations to trusted suppliers with the required security clearances.In response to (g), the report was tendered competitively.Question No. 260--Ms. Heather McPherson: With regard to Canada's emergency wage subsidy since its creation, broken down by province: (a) which enterprises have applied for the subsidy; (b) of the enterprises in (a), which enterprises have been eligible for the subsidy; and (c) what is the reason for refusal for each of the enterprises that have not been deemed eligible?Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what follows is the response from the CRA as of November 25, 2020, the date of the question. With regard to parts (a), (b) and (c), the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2, S.C. 2020, c. 6, notes that CEWS is available to qualifying entities, sets out definitions for the terms that apply to the emergency wage subsidy and provides definitions of both eligible employees and qualifying entities. The CRA’s role is to administer legislation as it has been approved by Parliament and assented to by the Crown.While this legislation amends the Income Tax Act, affording discretion to make public the name of any person or partnership that makes an application for CEWS, it does not permit the publication of specific CEWS application information, including province or reason for denial in the manner requested in the question.As of November 25, 2020, a public registry of CEWS recipients was in development. Once it is available on Canada.ca at https://www.canada.ca/ en/revenue-agency/services /subsidy/emergency- wage-subsidy.html, it will allow Canadians to identify employers benefitting from the CEWS.As of November 25, 2020, though the CRA has begun a preliminary small-scale CEWS post-payment audit program, it has not yet compiled statistics on reasons for denying claims. Therefore, the CRA cannot answer the question in the manner requested.Question No. 261--Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) program, since its inception: (a) what is the total amount paid out through the program; (b) how many individual companies have received payments, broken down by (i) country of physical address, (ii) country of mailing address, (iii) country of the bank account the funds were deposited into; (c) for all of the companies in (b) that are located in Canada, what is the breakdown down by (i) province or territory, (ii) municipality; (d) how many audits have been conducted of companies receiving CEWS; and (e) for the audits in (d), how many have found that funding has been spent outside of Canada?Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA as of November 26, 2020, the date of the question. The COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2, S.C. 2020, c. 6, notes that Canada emergency wage subsidy, CEWS, is available to qualifying entities, sets out definitions for the terms that apply to the emergency wage subsidy and provides definitions of both eligible employees and qualifying entities. The CRA’s role is to administer legislation as it has been approved by Parliament and assented to by the Crown.With regard to part (a), financial transactional data regarding amounts “paid out” and “received” as suggested in the question is not available in the manner requested. Rather, general statistical information is available on Canada.ca regarding the CEWS, including total approved applications, all approved applications by value, the number of applications received and the dollar value of subsidies paid. This information can be found under “Claims to date - Canada emergency wage subsidy (CEWS)” at https://www.canada.ca/en /revenue-agency/services/ subsidy/emergency-wage- subsidy/cews-statistics.html.With regard to parts (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), information is not captured in the manner requested in the question.With regard to parts (c)(i) and (c)(ii), financial transactional data regarding amounts paid out and received, as suggested in the question, is not available in the manner requested. Rather, general statistical data on CEWS claims providing the total approved claims broken down by province/territory where applicant resides, industry sector and size of applicant is available on the Canada.ca website at https://www.canada.ca /en/revenue-agency/services/ subsidy/emergency-wage- subsidy/cews-statistics/ stats-detailed.html and can be found under “CEWS claims – detailed data”. Information is not available by municipality.With regard to part (d), as of November 26, 2020, the date of the question, the CRA had not launched its CEWS post-payment audit program.However, the CRA did launch a small scale CEWS post-payment audit research project that targets a limited sample. The intent of this pilot project is not only to learn about audit and verification challenges, including the types of non-compliance and the levels of compliance with respect to this benefit program, but also about conducting compliance activities during the COVID-19 pandemic and, by extension, other global crises. The CRA can confirm that as part of this research project, as of November 26, 2020, the CRA has contacted over 700 taxpayers and business in many ranges.With regard to part (e), since the CRA has not yet launched the full CEWS post payment audit program, the CRA is not yet tracking audit results in the manner requested in the above-noted question.Question No. 269--Mr. Scot Davidson: With regard to the announcement made by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs in Barrie, Ontario, on October 9, 2019, promising a four-year, $40 million funding commitment for Lake Simcoe: (a) how much of the $40 million commitment was or will be delivered in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021, (iv) 2022, (v) 2023; and (b) what are the details of all funding actually delivered since October 21, 2019, as part of the commitment, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description?Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contained in the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s mandate letter is a commitment to develop further protections for and take active steps in the cleanup of the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Simcoe and other large lakes.Environment and Climate Change Canada is currently exploring approaches to further protect and restore vital freshwater ecosystems to support the delivery of the minister’s freshwater-related mandate commitments, including Lake Simcoe.Question No. 272--Mr. Randall Garrison: With regard to Health Canada’s approval of the first HIV self-test kits for use in Canada and the government’s promise to distribute 60,000 of these self-test kits: (a) how and through what program will the government distribute these test kits; (b) how many of the 60,000 self-test kits will be designated for distribution to communities who face greater barriers to accessing testing and in particular to guarantee access to Indigenous, racialized and low income people, and those who live in rural and northern communities; and (c) what are the long-term plans to ensure continued broad and free distribution to those most at risk?Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Public Health Agency of Canada itself does not undertake the distribution of self-test kits, as this does not fall under its jurisdiction. The REACH/MAP Centre initiative will be distributing test kits. There will be 60,000 self-tests kits made available through an implementation science program led by the REACH/MAP Centre initiative at St. Michael’s Hospital. This initiative was made possible through funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, along with other sources.The REACH/MAP Centre initiative is working with two key community-based organizations to support access to and distribution of 60,000 self-test kits across Canada, with peer navigation services free of charge and a telehealth platform. The launch of this program is expected to begin on January 1, 2021. Self-test kits will be distributed throughout the country via the Community-Based Research Centre, CBRC, for gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirit and queer men, GBT2Q; and Women’s Health in Women’s Hands, WHIWH, will distribute to racialized women from the African, Black, Caribbean, Latin American and South Asian communities.With regard to (b), as noted above, the CBRC and WHIWH, two key community-based organizations involved in the REACH/MAP Centre initiative, have networks throughout Canada and are recognized for engaging with indigenous, racialized and low-income people. Distribution will be possible through mail, thus allowing reach to those who live in rural and northern communities.With regard to (c), the distribution of self-test kits and the provision of associated services falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments.Question No. 274--Mr. Chris d'Entremont: With regards to the role of First Nations fisheries and reconciliation: (a) how many meetings or briefings has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had regarding reconciliation since November 20, 2019; and (b) what are the details of all meetings in (a), including the (i) date, (ii) attendees, (iii) location, (iv) purpose of the meeting or briefing?Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, implementing the Marshall decision is critical to the work of reconciliation, and it is a priority of our government. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard has met and continues to meet on a regular basis with first nations leadership and commercial industry representatives. Our government is working with communities to discuss their fishery plans and reach agreements. Together we will ensure that the treaty right to pursue a moderate livelihood is implemented in a way that ensures safe, orderly and sustainable fishing. Our goal is, and always has been, to develop a strong, stable and productive fishery for the benefit of everyone involved.Information regarding briefings is proactively disclosed in accordance with the Access to Information Act and can be found at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/bn/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=bn-search-orgs=Fisheries%20and%20Oceans%20Canada.Question No. 278--Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: With regard to the national security review of the proposed takeover of TMAC Resources Inc. by Shandong Gold Mining Co. Ltd.: (a) when was the review ordered; (b) when will the review commence; (c) when is the review expected to be completed; (d) when will the government make a decision on the proposed takeover; and (e) has the government received any communication from the Chinese government advocating for the approval of the takeover and, if so, what are the details of any such communication?Mr. Ali Ehsassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (Innovation and Industry), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the Investment Canada Act, all foreign investments are subject to a national security review. Canada remains open to investments that create jobs, growth, access to global trade and value chains, and long-term prosperity for Canadians, while protecting Canada’s national security interests. Reviews are conducted on a case-by-case basis as part of a rigorous and evidence-based process.With regard to the proposed investment, Innovation, Science and Economic Development can confirm that on October 15, 2020, TMAC publicly announced that an order for the national security review of the investment under the act was made by the Governor in Council and that on November 27, 2020, TMAC announced that the national security review of the investment was extended for a further period of up to 45 days.Further details of specific transactions under review are subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Investment Canada Act.Question No. 279--Mr. Mark Strahl: With regard to the Employment Insurance fund: (a) what was the balance of the fund as of March 1, 2020; (b) what is the current balance of the fund; (c) how much has been withdrawn from the fund for Employment Insurance payments since March 1, 2020; and (d) how much has been withdrawn from the fund for other programs such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit since March 1, 2020, broken down by program?Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the balance of the fund as of March 1, 2020, is not available. However, the audited financial statements of the employment insurance operating account were prepared for the year ended March 31, 2020. These statements were tabled in the House of Commons as part of the Public Accounts of Canada, section 4, consolidated accounts, as at March 31, 2020. Financial information related to measures in response to the Canada emergency response benefit is captured separately in these statements: https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2020/pdf/2020-vol1-eng.pdfWith regard to (b), the current balance of the account is not available, as the fiscal year is still in progress. The audited financial statements will present the balance of the fund for the year ending March 31, 2021.With regard to (c), the total benefits and support measures charged to the employment insurance operating account since March 1, 2020, are not available, as the fiscal year is still in progress. The total benefits and support measures charged to the employment insurance operating account for the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, will be presented in the audited financial statements for the year ending on March 31, 2021.With regard to (d), the total benefits and support measures charged to the employment insurance operating account since March 1, 2020, are not available, as the fiscal year is still in progress. As per section 153.111 of the Employment Insurance Act, the employment insurance operating account will be credited by an amount determined by the Minister of Finance that corresponds to the total cost of the employment insurance emergency response benefit under this act, including all costs related to the benefit and its administration. We can confirm that this is the only Canada emergency response benefit that will be paid but later funded by the consolidated revenue fund out of the employment insurance operating account, as seen at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.6/page-39.html#h-1261609.Question No. 280--Mr. Peter Kent: With regard to the impact of the changes to the broadcasting industry proposed in Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) does the government have a projection of what the Canadian media market will look like in five years without the changes in Bill C-10; (b) does the government have a projection of what the Canadian media market will look like in five years with the changes in Bill C-10; (c) what are the government's projections related to the scenarios in (a) and (b); and (d) if the government does not have the projections in (a) or (b), then on what basis are the changes proposed in Bill C-10 being made?Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), yes, the government has projections of what Canadian production will look like in five years without Bill C-10.With regard to (b), yes, the government has projections of what future contributions to Canadian content will look like in five years with the changes in Bill C-10. With regard to (c), a major goal of Bill C-10 is to ensure that all broadcasters, including Internet giants, contribute in an appropriate manner to the Canadian broadcasting system. The bill gives the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission, CRTC, the tools it needs to effectively regulate online broadcasters. To that end, the government prepared estimates of what Canadian content production would look like in both a scenario without Bill C-10, and with the inclusion of online broadcasters in the Canadian regulatory framework after the adoption of the measures in Bill C-10.In further response to (a), with regard to a business-as-usual projection of future production volumes for Canadian television content, internal PCH projections find that without Bill C-10, falling commercial broadcasting revenues are expected to lead to a decline in the production of Canadian television content of around $1 billion by 2023 when compared with 2018. The projected decline would represent a 34 per cent decrease in production volume between 2018 and 2023.This figure relates to total volume of Canadian television production, i.e., the total budgets of all television productions that meet the definition for “Canadian content” in a given year. In addition to Canadian television broadcasters, there are many other sources of financing for television production in Canada, including the Canada media fund, foreign financing, Canadian distributors and federal or provincial tax credits. Statistical analysis of historical data for 2012 to 2018 from multiple sources was used to create these projections. Statistical relationships between broadcasting revenues and production were determined and applied to arrive at projections for production.In further response to (b), with regard to the projection of Bill C-10’s impact on future contributions to Canadian audio and audiovisual content, internal PCH estimates find that if the CRTC requires online broadcasters to contribute to Canadian content at a similar rate as traditional broadcasters, online broadcasters’ contributions to Canadian music and stories could amount to as much as $830 million annually by 2023.This figure relates to total regulatory requirements imposed by the CRTC on broadcasters to contribute to Canadian content and creators, rather than total volume of Canadian production, which relates to producers’ spending on Canadian content, drawing from multiple sources of financing. The contributions of online players would result in total contributions to Canadian content and creators in 2023 being 35 per cent higher than in a scenario where traditional broadcasters alone spend on Canadian content.There are two main sources of uncertainty in this estimate of Canadian content funding. First, since online broadcasters typically do not provide data to the CRTC or publicly disclose their revenues, projections were prepared based on estimates of online revenues and historical trends in those estimates. Second, after holding public hearings, the CRTC may impose regulatory requirements on online and/or traditional broadcasters that vary from its current practices. This could significantly change the number above, which is based on online broadcasters contributing at similar levels as traditional broadcasters do now.It is important to note that $830 million in contributions from online players does not equate to an $830 million increase in production volume, e.g., the effect will not make the $1 billion loss a $170 million loss. In practice the impact on production volume may be more or less than $830 million, depending on the extent of any “spillover effects” and several other factors that cannot be estimated with available data.With regard to (d), it is not applicable.Question No. 283--Mr. Philip Lawrence: With regard to the section on page 116 of the Fall Economic Statement 2020, which reads, "CRA will allow employees working from home in 2020 due to COVID-19 with modest expenses to claim up to $400, based on the amount of time working from home": (a) how many Canadians does the government project will be eligible for the deduction; (b) what is the required amount of time working from home to be eligible for the full $400 deduction; (c) what is the required amount of time working from home to be eligible for a deduction less than $400, and what is the formula used to calculate the eligible deduction amount; and (d) what is the specific eligibility criteria to determine if someone who worked from home is eligible for this new deduction, as opposed to the traditional work from home deductions for individuals who worked from home prior to the pandemic?Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the response from the CRA is as follows. With regard to part (a), the CRA cannot respond in the manner requested as it does not have information on the projected number of Canadians who will be eligible for the deduction.With regard to part (b), if an employee worked more than 50% of the time from home for a period of at least four consecutive weeks in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they can claim $2 for each day they worked from home during that period. They can then also claim any additional days they worked at home in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The maximum amount of $400 would be achieved at 200 days working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic.With regard to part (c), if an employee worked more than 50% of the time from home for a period of at least four consecutive weeks in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they can claim $2 for each day they worked from home during that period. They can then also claim any additional days they worked at home in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The formula to calculate the deduction is $2 x the total number of days the employee worked from home in 2020 due to COVID-19, to a maximum of $400.With regard to part (d), the deduction for home office expenses itself is not new. Rather, the CRA has introduced a new temporary flat rate method to simplify claiming the deduction for the 2020 tax year. However, employees can still choose to use the existing detailed method if they have larger claims. The eligibility criteria to use the new method are as follows: they worked from home in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic; they worked more than 50% of the time from home for a period of at least four consecutive weeks in 2020; they are only claiming home office expenses and are not claiming any other employment expenses; their employer did not reimburse them for all of their home office expenses.Question No. 290--Mr. Eric Melillo: With regard to the government’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution plan for Indigenous and remote communities: (a) what is the government’s specific plan for vaccine distribution; (b) during which month is each community projected to receive enough doses of the vaccine to inoculate the population; and (c) how will the vaccine be delivered or made available to those living in the most extreme remote communities, including those where traditional transportation methods may not be readily available?Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, and its Special Operating Agency, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, are concerned, the response is as follows. With regard to (a), Indigenous Services Canada is working with the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, and the National Operations Centre for COVID Vaccine Logistics, and provinces and territories to plan and implement vaccine distribution to all indigenous populations. According to the most recent guidance of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, indigenous peoples have been identified as a first priority population for receiving the vaccine. For decades, indigenous peoples have been neglected and subjected to systemic discrimination in Canada’s health care institutions. This historic and continued discrimination has resulted in an understandable mistrust in Canada’s health care systems. We will continue to work with all partners, including provinces and territories, to ensure cultural safety and respect for first nations, Inuit and Métis when administering the COVID-19 vaccine.Further sequencing recommendations will be made based on considerations of ethics, equity, feasibility and acceptability, such as the clinical characteristics of the vaccines and the exact timing of supply. Allocations of vaccines and their rollout will be informed by NACI advice, with outreach and collaboration with indigenous partners.With regard to (b), as of December 23, 2020, Pfizer and Moderna are the only vaccine candidates to have received authorization from Health Canada and the first shipments of these vaccines have been received at various locations and are being administered to priority populations. COVID-19 vaccines will be distributed in Canada in a phased manner, and it is anticipated that supply will begin to meet demand over the course of 2021. The quantity and schedule of availability of vaccines will be the subject of ongoing discussion with provinces and territories who will manage rollout and delivery. The following webpage shows the total vaccine distribution amounts by province and territory, and its updated weekly: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks/covid-19-vaccine-treatment/vaccine-rollout.html#a4With regard to (c), given the varying storage requirements of different vaccine candidates, planning is under way to determine the best way to safely deliver vaccines to remote communities. Efforts to support coordinated planning include an Indigenous Services-led COVID-19 vaccine planning working group with regional representatives, indigenous partners, PHAC, and provincial/territorial representatives.Provinces and territories receive an allocation of the federally procured COVID-19 vaccine and are responsible for allocating the vaccine to all of those within their jurisdiction, including first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. Indigenous Services Canada is working with partners to advocate for the prioritization for of first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and to support the planning and logistics. ISC will support vaccine distribution capacity in communities if needed.Question No. 291--Mr. Michael Kram: With regard to page 25 of the Liberal Party of Canada election platform, which stated that “we will merge existing financial and advisory services currently scattered between several agencies into Farm Credit Canada (FCC)”: (a) what specific action, if any, has been taken since the 2019 election related to the commitment; (b) which specific entities and services will be merged into FCC; (c) as a result of this merger, how many jobs are expected to be (i) eliminated, (ii) transferred to FCC, broken down by entity; and (d) what is the timeline for this merger, including a timeline of when each entity merged into FCC will wind down their own separate operations, if applicable?Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in early 2020, the government began analyzing the platform commitment referenced by the member of Parliament for Regina-Wascana in Q-291 on December 3, 2020, with respect to Farm Credit Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had been in the process of undertaking an environmental scan of the agricultural financial lending situation in Canada, including agriculture and agri-food-sector-related financial products and services, including those offered by FCC. An approach to implementing this commitment was being developed in alignment with the mandate letter for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This work was put on hold with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.Question No. 298--Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to the design and implementation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $10 billion growth plan announced on October 1, 2020: (a) were contracts awarded to private suppliers and, if so, how many; (b) what are the details of each of the contracts awarded in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final contract amount, (v) supplier, (vi) country of the supplier?Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the design and implementation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $10-billion growth plan announced on October 1, 2020, and contracts awarded to private suppliers, Infrastructure Canada has nothing to report.Question No. 299--Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and spending related to the “Panama Papers” and “Paradise Papers”: (a) were contracts awarded to private-sector suppliers, and, if so, how many; and (b) what are the details for each of the contracts in (a), including the (i) contract award date, (ii) description of the goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final amount of the contract, (v) supplier, (vi) country of the supplier?Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, the CRA did not award any contracts related to the “Panama Papers” and “Paradise Papers” to private sector suppliers for the period of December 1, 2019, to December 4, 2020, the date of the question.Question No. 309--Mr. Kevin Waugh: With regard to the Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations: (a) what is the total amount dispersed through the fund since March 1, 2020; (b) what are the details of funding provided through the fund, including the (i) recipient, (ii) location of the recipient, (iii) amount?Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canadian Heritage and (a), the answer is $390,697,000. With regard to (b), information pertaining to grants and contributions is publicly available on the Open Canada website at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Canadian%20Heritage This website excludes awards provided by the athlete assistance program, as these are disclosed on an annual basis, at the conclusion of each fiscal year.With regard to the Canada Council for the Arts and (a), the answer is $62,685,608. With regard to (b), disclosure of grant and prize recipients can be found at https://canadacouncil.ca/about/public-accountability/proactive-disclosure/grant-recipients/recipients-2017-present?form=submitted&page=1&year=all&discipline=Strategic+Funds&program=COVID-19+Emergency+Support+Fund&recipient=&province=all&city=&area=all&riding=all& Sort1=Recipient&Sort2=Recipient&Sort3=Recipient&firstfiscalyear=2017&lastfiscalyear=2147483647With regard to Telefilm Canada and (a), the answer is $29,687,367. With regard to (b), information pertaining to grants and contributions can be found at https://telefilm.ca/en/transparency/proactive-disclosure/grant-contribution/reports-by-quarterQuestion No. 311--Mr. John Nater: With regard to Canadian diplomats and diplomatic staff suffering from symptoms associated with what is commonly known as Havana Syndrome: (a) on what date did Global Affairs Canada (GAC) first become aware that diplomats and diplomatic staff in Cuba were suffering from symptoms; (b) what specific symptoms does GAC acknowledge are associated with Havana Syndrome; (c) how many current or former diplomats, diplomatic staff, or their family members have reported experiencing symptoms; and (d) why did the government warn diplomats in 2017 not to say anything about the symptoms experienced by those stationed in Havana?Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.Since the beginning of the health incidents, the health, safety and security of diplomatic staff and their families has been the top priority.Canada’s diplomatic staff and their families have Global Affairs Canada’s full support. This has been a very distressing experience for these diplomats and their families, and the department will continue to take the necessary steps to help them.While we are exploring all avenues, no definitive cause of the health incidents has been identified to date.For privacy and security reasons, we cannot comment on the specifics of the ongoing investigations, individual cases, nor on specific security and briefing measures.Question No. 332--Mr. Blaine Calkins: With regard to the decision by the government and Destination Canada to no longer fund tourism promotion related to hunting and outfitting: (a) when was the decision made; (b) who made the decision; (c) was any analysis done on the impact of such a decision on the economies of areas of Canada that rely on hunting and outfitting tourism, and, if not, why not; (d) if an analysis was conducted, what are the details, including findings; and (e) did the government or Destination Canada consult or notify the hunting and outfitting tourism industry in relation to the decision, and, if so, what are the details?Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada continues to value the contribution of the hunting and outfitting sector to the Canadian tourism economy.For the 2016-2018 period, Destination Canada received a one-time, special funding envelope of $30 million to launch a major tourism campaign in the United States. This campaign, entitled “Connecting America”, included a co-operative marketing fund where Destination Canada co-invested into its partners’ integrated U.S. marketing initiatives. Partners were invited to submit proposals for various initiatives that focused on specific activity-based markets, i.e., hunting, fishing, skiing, festivals and events, culinary. Destination Canada did not lead the creative on any of these co-op marketing initiatives.In 2017, one initiative led by Tourism Saskatchewan for a national hunting program was submitted and approved as part of this co-op marketing fund. Destination Canada co-invested funds alongside partners Tourism Saskatchewan, Travel Manitoba and Spectacular Northwest Territories for a national program designed to generate awareness of hunting opportunities in Canada and to enable Canadian partners to gain a foothold in the hunting-focused U.S. travel industry.Canada’s regional development agencies, RDAs, work to advance and diversify the regional economies. Through regular programming, RDAs have provided support to the hunting and outfitting industry to expand, modernize, and diversify its product offering, as well as support for marketing. To support the stabilization of the economy as a result of the impacts of COVID-19, RDAs are delivering the regional relief and recovery fund, RRRF, designed to provide liquidity support to small and medium-sized enterprises and stabilize the economy. Tourism operators in the outfitter sector are eligible recipients of the RRRF. Projects are searchable on the Open Government website: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/Question No. 344--Mr. Alex Ruff: With regard to applications received by the government for a new Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) or a new Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence (RPAL), during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what was the exact date when new applications for PALs and RPALs (i) stopped being processed during the pandemic, (ii) began being processed again; and (b) how many new (i) PAL, (ii) RPAL applications were processed between March 15, 2020, and December 1, 2020, broken down by week?Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), the Canadian firearms program stopped data entry of new applications for possession and acquisition licences into the Canadian firearms information system by the central processing site the week of March 16, 2020. Chief firearms officers continued to approve applications that had already been entered into the Canadian firearms information system.With regard to (a)(ii), the Canadian firearms program restarted the data entry of new applications for possession and acquisition licences into the Canadian firearms information system by the central processing site the week of April 13, 2020.With regard to (b), the requested information is provided in Annex 1. Statistics for the period between March 15 and December 1, 2020, for new applications for possession and acquisition licences, non-restricted or restricted, associated to the data entry of these applications by the central processing site.Agricultural researchAIDS and HIVAir transportationAlbas, DanAlghabra, OmarAlleslev, LeonaArts, recreation and travelAssociate Minister of National DefenceAudits and auditorsBendayan, RachelBibeau, Marie-ClaudeBoulerice, AlexandreBroadcastingCalkins, BlaineCanada Emergency Business AccountCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyCanada Post CorporationCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionChinaCity of VancouverClean Fuel RegulationsComplaintsConservative CaucusCOVID-19CubaCulture and creativityDabrusin, JulieDamoff, PamDavidson, ScotDecriminalizationDefenceDeloitted'Entremont, ChrisDepartment of National DefenceDigital mediaDiotte, KerryDiplomacy and diplomatsDrug use and abuseDuncan, EricEconomic impactEhsassi, AliEmbassies and consulatesEmergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport OrganizationsEmployment insurance accountEpp, DaveFarm Credit CanadaFillmore, AndyFinancial institutionsFinancial managementFirearms permitsFisher, DarrenFisheries and fishersForestryGallant, CherylGarrison, RandallGovernment assistanceGovernment contractsGovernment facilitiesGovernment policyGreenhouse gasesHealth screeningHoback, RandyHuman diseases and disordersImmunizationImprisonment and prisonersIncome and wagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsInfrastructureInvestmentJoly, MélanieJordan, BernadetteKent, PeterKram, MichaelKurek, Damien C.Kusie, StephanieKusmierczyk, IrekLake SimcoeLamoureux, KevinLawrence, PhilipLebouthillier, DianeLefebvre, PaulLiberal CaucusLightbound, JoëlLoansMacAulay, LawrenceMacKinnon, StevenMazier, DanMcCauley, KellyMcPherson, HeatherMelillo, EricMergers and acquisitionsMinister of Agriculture and Agri-FoodMinister of Economic DevelopmentMinister of Environment and Climate ChangeMinister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast GuardMinister of National RevenueMinister of Official LanguagesMinister of TransportMinister of Veterans AffairsModernizationMorantz, MartyNater, JohnNational securityNew Democratic Party CaucusNorth American Aerospace Defense CommandNuctech Company LimitedOliphant, RobertOutfitting operations and outfittersPandemicParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian HeritageParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability InclusionParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign AffairsParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of HealthParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous ServicesParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and CommunitiesParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (Innovation and Industry)Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National DefenceParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural ResourcesParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and ProcurementParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International TradeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of CommonsPatzer, JeremyPolitical appointmentsPostal servicesPublic consultationQ-209Q-210Q-215Q-216Q-219Q-224Q-226Q-228Q-229Q-231Q-235Q-236Q-238Q-242Q-250Q-254Q-257Q-260Q-261Q-269Q-272Q-274Q-278Q-279Q-280Q-283Q-290Q-291Q-298Q-299Q-309Q-311Q-332Q-344Remote communitiesRoyal Canadian LegionRuff, AlexSecuritySenate and senatorsShields, MartinSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSports and recreationSteinley, WarrenStrahl, MarkStubbs, ShannonTax deductionsTax havensTeleworkingThird party consultationTMAC ResourcesTourismVandenbeld, AnitaWater qualityWaugh, KevinWilkinson, JonathanWong, AliceWritten questions646440364644046464405KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, Fort Albany was founded in 1697, over 100 years before Toronto ever came into existence. The Cree were negotiating directly with the Europeans for 200 years before Canada. Of course, Fort Albany is where the notorious St. Anne's residential school was and where the current government continues to spend millions of dollars fighting survivors. The Liberals are very good at symbols, but they are absolutely vicious when it comes to denying the rights of the survivors of some of the worst abuse. How do we ensure that when we move forward on these important symbols, we are actually holding the government to account to respect the legal rights and historic rights of the people who have been neglected and abused over the years?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading64265146426515PhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Philip Lawrence: (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, as always, the hon. member brings a passionate eloquence to the chamber. I support what he is saying in that we need action and we need clean drinking water for all first nations people. We need to make sure no indigenous child is left behind. There is so much opportunity, not just for indigenous children, but for what they will bring to Canada, namely the diversity of opinion, thoughts and leadership, which will no doubt come from indigenous communities if they are given the opportunity.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading6426516CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition dealing with the ongoing issues on Wet'suwet'en traditional territory. The petitioners call for the government to respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to respect the Wet'suwet'en views regarding the Coastal GasLink project and to withdraw efforts to force that project to completion.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 432-00373Wet'suwet'en First Nation64187126418713RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersRights of Indigenous PeoplesInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the work of all indigenous and grassroots leaders across these lands, faith groups, human rights advocates and thousands of people who fought for the adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Bill C-15 is the result of decades of work by people who I walked side by side with. We wrote, gathered, rallied and published, fighting for human rights. These include Anna Collins, Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild, Dr. Ted Moses, Steve Heinrichs, Jennifer Preston, Jennifer Henry, Cathy Moore-Thiessen, Charlie Wright, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Tina Keeper, Denise Savoie, Paul Joffe, Ellen Gabriel, the member of Parliament for Scarborough—Rouge Park, my partner Romeo Saganash, who introduced Bill C-262, and so many others.I look forward to this piece of legislation being passed to ensure that all indigenous people in Canada have their fundamental human rights upheld. It is always a good day for human rights.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsStatements by MembersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples640958464095856409586AliEhsassiWillowdalePatFinniganMiramichi—Grand Lake//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)(1000)[English] moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Bill C-15. Introduction and first reading (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesGovernment billsIndigenous rightsIntroduction and First readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6404700KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day for indigenous people: 13 years ago, the United Nations General Assembly voted to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Many scholars across several nations, including my father, Sákéj Youngblood Henderson, worked for decades on the UN declaration.Will the Minister of Justice update the House on the Liberal government's commitment to introduce a bill on the UN declaration before the end of 2020?C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples64055026405503AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, I honour the member's father, the great Professor Sákéj Henderson, for his scholarship and his leadership in the training of young indigenous lawyers, particularly at the Indigenous Law Centre in Saskatchewan.Today, in partnership with indigenous peoples, we have taken another step on our shared path of reconciliation. Building on former private member's bill, Bill C-262, the Romeo Saganash bill, we have introduced legislation to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration affirms the rights of indigenous people to self-determination, self-governance, equality and non-discrimination. It is an essential part of building a more just and fair Canada for the future.C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples64055046405505JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaRobMorrisonKootenay—Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Indigenous Affairs]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1000)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petition 10865888. The petitioners ask the House of Commons to look at the situation, particularly on Wet'suwet'en territory and lands, in relation to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They point out that the Coastal GasLink project being built across Wet'suwet'en lands does not have the approval of the Wet'suwet'en nation, and specifically that the Coastal GasLink project will involve the release of vast quantities of the greenhouse gas methane.The petitioners call on the House to move quickly to bring Canada into compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 432-00321Wet'suwet'en First Nation63941156394116RonMcKinnonCoquitlam—Port CoquitlamRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105908LaurelCollinsLaurel-CollinsVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CollinsLaurel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, climate accountability legislation is so important. Why is it important? I had a question asked of me a few times this week by journalists. They asked why people should care about this. When I say we have missed every international climate target we have set, every single one, it does not really get to the heart of what is happening. We are so used to broken promises. We are so used to a government telling us we are on track, that it is taking action and that it understands the urgency, when its actions and urgency in no way match the scale of the crisis we are facing.Why does this matter? For one thing, it is because we are stealing the future from our children. The young people know it, and they should not have to feel that fear. They should not have to march in the streets because politicians are not protecting their futures.Before I ran for office, I taught a course at the University of Victoria that covered climate change and social movements. I remember that during one of the breaks, a young woman in my class came up with to me tears in her eyes. She asked me how she should study and work on the things we were talking about when scientists are telling us that we have a decade to turn this around. She said that if we fail, it means the collapse of ecosystems, mass extinctions and millions of people dying, along with our food systems and our future. We talked about how we maintain hope, how we make space to grieve and how to tap into fear and pain while continuing to fight for a livable planet. She went on to help organize climate strikes in Victoria.Her wisdom and leadership, and the wisdom and leadership of kids across Canada and around the world, often bring me to tears. They motivate me to action.What this young woman was doing was listening to the science and looking at the challenges we face, straight on. She was seeing and feeling the urgency. When people do that, when they choose not to look away and let themselves feel the real threat of what we are facing, what our children are facing and what it means for their futures, it is devastating, heartbreaking and terrifying. If people are willing to stay with that feeling, then they have no choice but to act and no choice but to act with the urgency that matches the crisis.When Greta Thunberg said to world leaders, “How dare you...look away”, this is what she was talking about, and given that the government has put forward a bill that puts off climate accountability for the next 10 years, I can only assume that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Environment and every Liberal MP are choosing to look away. Maybe they do so because it is politically inconvenient to feel. Maybe they do so because it is unparliamentary to show emotions while debating legislation. Maybe they do so because it is scary to stand up, speak out, act with courage and face the consequences. However, whatever the reason, I say, “How dare you look away.”However, it is not too late. We could still turn this small step in the right direction into something meaningful and real, and something that would give those young people some hope that the politicians who have so often betrayed them feel the urgency and are going to do something to turn this around.We could still amend the bill to put in a milestone target of 2025. We could strengthen the accountability measures in the bill. We could ensure that the targets we set are in line with the best available science, our international obligations and equity principles.(1700)I encourage every member, especially those on the government side of the House, not to look away and to take a moment to feel the scale of the crisis we are facing, the urgency. I hope they will work with us to make the bill something our children can be proud of.In that spirit, I want to go through the parts of the bill I was really glad to see and then the parts that are missing.I will mention the top three pieces that I appreciate about the bill. First, putting a commitment to net zero by 2050 into law is essential. The bill would not only ensure that the net-zero target is put into law, but also ensure we legislate our other long-term targets. Second, it was good to see the bill explicitly name the government’s commitment to upholding section 35 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Third, I am glad there would be progress reporting two years before each milestone target, with an opportunity to adjust and take additional actions if we are off track.When it comes to the things that are missing, of course the most egregious omission is the lack of any real accountability for the next 10 years and the glaring omission of a 2025 milestone target. Scientists have been clear that this decade is the most important. The next 10 years are the ones the IPCC says are crucial if we want to have any hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change. It is hard to wrap my head around how the government can put forward a climate accountability bill that would put off and avoid accountability for the most important 10 years. It is hard for me to understand how Liberal members of Parliament, especially those with children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, can stand behind the bill, how they can look young people in the eyes and tell them they have to wait another decade. It is an easy fix: Put in a 2025 milestone target. The second big gap is in the need for stronger accountability mechanisms, both with the arm’s-length advisory body, which only gives advice right now but does not have a defined role in assessments or reviewing progress, and with the environment commissioner, who, in the bill, would only have to do one report every five years. Neither of these bodies have the capacity or mandate in the bill to properly hold the government to account. As it stands, the minister is mainly accountable to himself. The government determines what targets should be set, opening up the opportunity to set weak targets, and whether the government is on track to meeting those targets.To fix these issues we need to strengthen and clearly define the advisory body's role in establishing targets, reviewing climate plans and evaluating progress reports and assessment reports. We also must guarantee that this body is composed of independent experts from all regions of Canada, and that it includes indigenous and worker representatives and does not include fossil fuel executives or industry representatives. These fixes would strengthen the advisory body, but we also need to ensure the environment commissioner is reporting on whether our targets are in line with the best available science, whether our climate plan will actually get us to our target, whether our progress report and the assessment report are accurate and whether our proposed corrective actions are adequate for addressing the times when we are not on track. The environment commissioner could play an important role in this legislation, but we learned last week that the environment commissioner currently does not have the resources to do its regular environmental work, and that its staff and environmental experts can be reallocated to other projects by the Auditor General. We need to make the environment commissioner an independent officer of Parliament.The third gap is the fact the government has given itself up to nine months, after the bill gets royal assent, to set a target for 2030 and therefore create a plan to meet that target. (1705)This means it could be up to a year from now until we see a plan to reach our 2030 target, yet in the Liberal government's most recent throne speech, the Liberals said they would immediately bring forward a plan to exceed Canada's 2030 climate goal. They said “immediately”. I do not know who defines “a year later” as “immediately”. I feel like we need to remind the government, again, that a plan to create a plan is not a plan. We know that climate accountability means nothing without climate action, so where is the government's climate action plan? When will we see the new target that exceeds our 2030 climate goals, and when will we see the plan to get us there? We need to see investments in green infrastructure, in transportation, in building retrofits and in building green affordable housing. We need a just and sustainable recovery, a green new deal that creates good family-sustaining jobs in the low-carbon economy. We need a just transition for workers, and all of this needs to be outlined in a climate plan that will get us to our targets, ones that are ambitious and that are based on keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5°C. There are a number of gaps that I will not cover in as much detail, but we should be talking about carbon budgets instead of milestone targets, about Canada's fair-share contribution to 1.5°C, and we should be requiring the minister to meet strong standards when setting targets, as well as strong standards when creating and adjusting plans. Currently, the bill would allow future governments to set weak targets and create plans without much detail. If we fail at strengthening the bill, we have to tell young people and tell Canadians that we were not courageous enough to put the measures in place to avoid catastrophic climate change, that we were not courageous enough to protect their future.For most of this speech, I have been speaking about the future and the severe consequences of our present action and inaction. That future outlined in the IPCC report is scary, but this is not just about our future. The impacts of the climate crisis are already being felt in Canada. In my riding of Victoria and in B.C., it was not too long ago that we were choking on the smoke from the climate fires south of the border. We know that temperatures in Canada are increasing at twice the global rate. The impacts are felt particularly in the Arctic along the coasts, and are disproportionately felt by indigenous, rural, marginalized and racialized communities. Canadians want real action on the climate crisis, and they want a government that not only promises to fight climate change but will actually deliver on that promise.When I say, again and again, that our government has missed every single climate target and that the current Liberal government is not even on track to meet Stephen Harper's weak targets, I hope that the members in this chamber feel the seriousness of this failure, that they do not look away and that they feel the urgency. We need climate accountability now, not in 10 years. We need climate action now, not in nine months to a year. It was back in 2008 that the United Kingdom created its climate accountability framework, the Climate Change Act. This act was the first of its kind in the U.K., and it remains highly regarded and has served as a model for legislation in other jurisdictions, including Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Germany and Spain. The U.K. has set five-year carbon budgets covering immediately from 2008 onward, and regular reporting to Parliament has enhanced transparency and accountability. The U.K. also has an expert advisory committee, the Committee on Climate Change, that is much stronger than the advisory body proposed by the current government.(1710)Two years before the U.K. implemented this bill, in 2006, Jack Layton, the leader of the NDP at the time, originally introduced the first climate accountability act in Canada. The bill passed at third reading by a vote of 148 to 116. The Harper Conservatives voted against it, but the bill died in the Senate. The NDP has introduced the climate change accountability act as a private member's bill in the 39th, 40th and 41st Parliament, by Jack but also by former MP Megan Leslie. Imagine where we would be if we had passed strong climate accountability legislation back then. Since implementing climate accountability, the U.K. has successfully reduced its emissions over the past decade, in stark contrast to Canada, whose emissions continue to increase despite the government's empty words and claims to climate leadership.In this Parliament, my NDP colleagues, the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Elmwood—Transcona, have both put forward legislation in Parliament that calls for strong climate accountability. I want to thank my Bloc colleague for introducing Bill C-215.I want to highlight one important piece of the member for Winnipeg Centre's bill, Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework. It provides for the development and implementation of a climate emergency action framework. It explicitly outlines how a climate emergency action framework and climate accountability legislation must be built on a foundation that recognizes the indigenous inherent right to self-government, that upholds the provisions in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that takes into account scientific knowledge including indigenous science and knowledge as well as the responsibilities toward future generations.While I was glad to see that the government included a commitment to upholding section 35 in UNDRIP in the preamble of the bill, so far the Liberals have failed to enshrine UNDRIP into law. When will the government put action behind its words when it comes to reconciliation and put the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law? We have a lot of work to do and we must come together if we want to do it.As I wrap up, I want to note again that there can be no climate accountability without climate action. The government has missed every single climate target that it has set. Climate accountability is important, but the Liberals are not only putting it off for 10 years. They are also putting off a new target and a plan. They are putting off a climate action plan for up to another year. Where is the government's climate action plan? Part of that plan has to include an end to all fossil fuel subsidies. Stop giving away billions of dollars to profitable oil and gas companies. Stop throwing good money after bad at the Trans Mountain expansion. Please invest those billions of dollars in creating the good, sustainable jobs that people need right now.We need investments in green infrastructure, in transportation and in building retrofits. We need a just and sustainable recovery, a green new deal, one that creates good jobs in a low-carbon economy. We need a plan that is based on science and in line with keeping global temperatures below 1.5°C. We must move forward with climate action and climate accountability legislation immediately. We needed it in 2006 when Jack Layton first put it forward and Jack would not want us to wait another 10 years for climate accountability. We needed it in each iteration of the IPCC report. We needed it when we read about the catastrophic impacts of global warming. We needed it last year when young people were marching in the streets, begging politicians, begging decision-makers to listen to the science, to not look away, and we need it now. (1715)I will be pushing the government to make this bill stronger. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We are running out of time. Young people and Canadians are watching us, and they will not forgive us if we fail them, if we lack the courage do what is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. They are telling us to wake up.AccountabilityAdvisory bodiesC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Climate change and global warmingCommissioner of the Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentGovernment accountabilityGovernment assistanceGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesIndigenous rightsMinister of the EnvironmentOil and gasOrder-making powerProgramsSecond readingSustainable developmentThird party consultationUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples637442163744396374440KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersLobster FisheryInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, the small, beautiful fishing villages that dot West Nova from Lower East Pubnico to Digby are getting ready to head back to the sea for the all-important District 34 lobster season.When bigger boats are tying up for the winter, Canada's most important fishery gets under way. Fishers have worked hard to provide a moderate living for their families, and they once again brave the cold, and sometimes angry, north Atlantic.To add to the normal anxiety that a new season brings, these fishers find themselves in the middle of a fishing crisis created by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' inaction. The crisis has taken disproportionate turns. Violence took the dialogue space and is still a constant threat between commercial and indigenous fishers.I flagged this very important and sensitive issue to the minister months ago, so commercial and indigenous fishers could continue to work together safely and with understanding. We are still waiting for answers, and the minister's lack of leadership is unacceptable and shameful.I want to reiterate my support for all fishers in West Nova who are deeply affected by this crisis, and I continue my work to ensure that it comes to an end quickly and peacefully. Good luck to all the fishers with their upcoming fishing season, and please stay safe.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaStatements by Members63687546368755636875663687576368758PeterKentHon.ThornhillHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, the minister previously said that she had not read the Marshall decisions that led to the indigenous fishery and the dispute in Nova Scotia. Has she since read the two Marshall decisions?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marshall decisionMi'kmaq6369588BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, I have read the Marshall decision. The decision is extremely important. It affirms the Supreme Court decision on the right for first nations to fish. We will continue to work with them to ensure we implement that right.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marshall decisionMi'kmaq6369589ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1905)[English]What does the second Marshall decision of the Supreme Court of Canada refer to, Mr. Chair?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marshall decisionMi'kmaq6369590BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, the second Marshall decision actually clarifies the first Marshall decision, because there were questions around that decision. The second has ensured that it is clarified so we can make sure we move forward to ensure we implement the right.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marshall decisionMi'kmaq6369591ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, implementing the right and providing for conservation means that Indigenous Crown-Relations and Fisheries and Oceans must meet together to get this done. How many regular meetings on a monthly basis does she have with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern AffairsDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaq6369592BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, our government takes a whole-of-government approach to reconciliation. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has been extremely active in this file with me. I meet with her on a regular basis. She has met with me and first nations throughout this process. We have to continue to do that. It is important that the minister is involved, as well as a number of ministers, with regard to this issue.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern AffairsDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaq6369593ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, so I take from that there are no regular ongoing meetings between those two ministers to direct negotiations on this dispute.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern AffairsDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaq6369594BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, I meet with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations probably on a daily basis about this issue. It is extremely important to me that we have a whole-of-government approach to reconciliation. I will continue to do that. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has a lot of knowledge she offers to this file, and I continue to learn from her every day.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern AffairsDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaq6369595ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, the minister's mandate letter specifically outlines the need to resolve an indigenous-related negotiation in British Columbia. There is no mention of Atlantic Canada. Why is that?Atlantic CanadaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-20216369596BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, our government has been committed to reconciliation from day one. We know how important it is to implement the Marshall decision. We are going to continue to work toward implementing it. Reconciliation is a key priority for our government.The previous government left reconciliation on the table. We are not going to do that. We are going to continue to work to ensure we are working with first nations communities. Atlantic CanadaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-202163695976369598ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, which minister is the lead on finalizing this indigenous right? Is it the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or is it this minister?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern AffairsDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2020-20216369599BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, as I have said, we take a whole-of-government approach to reconciliation. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is actively involved with me on this file to ensure we are moving forward in a positive way in reconciliation, but recognizing that Fisheries and Oceans is actually my file. I am very involved with this as well; we both are.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern AffairsDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2020-20216369600ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1905)[English]Mr. Chair, by “whole of government”, I take it that there is no lead on this file. The minister could clearly clarify that if she wanted.The previous minister to her was able to negotiate two indigenous-led rights agreements. How many have been negotiated under her tenure as minister?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Negotiations and negotiators63696016369602BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, I am very proud of the fact that we got three agreements in place in the last two years. Previous to that, when that member was part of the government for 10 years, not one agreement was signed. We have moved forward with reconciliation. We are putting in place the things we need to do to ensure we have agreements with first nations communities. Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Negotiations and negotiators6369603ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, to clarify, she expanded the time period. Would she confirm that none have been confirmed under her watch as minister?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Negotiations and negotiators6369604BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, we are working diligently to ensure we sign more agreements. We have signed three so far since we have formed government. As I said, that member was a member of a government that did not get one agreement signed in 10 years.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Negotiations and negotiators6369605ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, for people watching at home, the first minister was Minister Tootoo; no action. The next minister, now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, was known for clam scam. The previous minister to her got a few agreements done. There has been nothing under her watch. Nor will she even confirm whether there is a schedule of ongoing meetings with fellow ministers.Why has there been no action on something she considered vital to the economy of rural Nova Scotia?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNegotiations and negotiatorsNova Scotia63696066369607BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, working on negotiations for these agreements is a complex issue. It is something that requires ongoing negotiations. We are doing that. We have been working expeditiously with the first nations communities to reach agreements. We are looking at fisheries plans now. We will continue to do that. We know how important it is to get these agreements done, and I am committed to ensuring we get them there.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNegotiations and negotiatorsNova Scotia6369608ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, indigenous leaders have expressed concern, even calling for the need of peacekeepers. The Municipality of Barrington, commercial fishery representatives and even the premier of Nova Scotia have been critical of the minister's inaction.When everyone was calling for her to act, why did she appoint a retired Liberal politician to take the lead for her?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments63696096369610BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, I have been involved in this file and engaged in it since day one. We have appointed a special representative to work with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and me. He is a neutral third party. He is there to bridge the gap between first nations communities and industry. This is actually something industry asked for.We have full confidence in Mr. Surette. We will continue to work with him to make sure we are going forward in the right way. It is extremely important that commercial harvesters and indigenous people, who have fished side by side for generations, continue to do that. We are looking for the right path forward.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments63696116369612ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, how many names were considered alongside Mr. Surette's?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6369613BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, I cannot speak to confidential negotiations on who was involved in that process. We are extremely proud of—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6369614ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, my question was how many names did the minister consider for the special appointment before she appointed a former Liberal politician?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6369616BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, Mr. Surette has a long-standing history of community advocacy. He has been a well-respected member in his community. He has worked in fisheries negotiations in the past. I have full confidence in his abilities, and I will continue to make sure we work closely with him to see what his report comes out—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6369617ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, I will chalk that response up to a whole-of-government approach to considering it. I hope people in Nova Scotia are seeing the minister's inability to respond to simple questions.On September 16, the minister said that unauthorized fishing activity would not be tolerated. Of course, this was on the eve of the commencement of the commercial lobster fishery. Was she referring to the commercial fishery, and that she wanted it to stop in Nova Scotia?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia63696196369620BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, the Marshall decision is clear that first nation communities have a right to fish. We are working with those communities to make sure that we are able to implement that right. It is a critical piece of work for reconciliation, and it is a priority for this government. We are working with communities to discuss their fishery plans now. We are moving forward with negotiations. It has been a positive process. We will continue to do the hard work necessary to make sure we have agreements in place.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia63696216369622ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1910)[English]Mr. Chair, it is perhaps fitting to end here. In the member's maiden speech, she said the commercial fishery was vitally important to rural Nova Scotia. In recent weeks, she has been complaining that it is unauthorized.Does she understand why many constituents in Nova Scotia are disappointed with the minister?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia63696246369625BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1915)[English]Mr. Chair, the commercial fishery in Nova Scotia is extremely important to our economic growth. It is important to our rural coastal communities. It is something I have stood behind since I was first elected, and I will continue to do that.I do not appreciate the member opposite putting words in my mouth. I am extremely committed to making sure we find the right path forward, which not only addresses indigenous rights, but also makes sure we address the concerns from commercial harvesters.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia63696266369627ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1915)[English]Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today.The primary reason I am here today is to discuss the spending plans for Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the 2020-21 fiscal year. In these main estimates, I am seeking a total of $3.5 billion, which represents a $469 million increase over last year. For the most part, this increase is primarily the result of new funding to advance reconciliation between the Crown and indigenous peoples by implementing agreements and treaties, as well as engaging with indigenous communities and stakeholders on fisheries policy.It also represents incremental funding to continue the Canadian Coast Guard's fleet recapitalization projects, which will help to modernize the fleet and extend the life of its existing vessels, ensuring that the Coast Guard can continue to deliver critical services in support of the safety of Canada's coasts, waterways and oceans.Planned spending will help my department provide important economic opportunities to Canadians in coastal communities, sustain and rebuild fisheries to ensure that they remain healthy for future generations, and protect and promote our oceans, coasts and waterways.As the federal minister responsible for fisheries and oceans, I am responsible for ensuring that our marine resources are managed for the long term and in the public interest. It is also incumbent upon me to advance Canada's commitment to reconciliation by ensuring that my department works in close collaboration with indigenous peoples to manage Canada's fisheries.This can only be done through the co-development of new solutions that are consistent with the constitutional protections provided to aboriginal and treaty rights, and meaningfully advance Canada's important relationships with indigenous peoples, while ensuring a stable, predictable fishery for all participants.Funding for reconciliation on indigenous rights issues will be used to implement reconciliation agreements and treaties, as well as engage with indigenous communities and stakeholders on fisheries policy. These landmark agreements are designed to help close economic gaps through the development of partnerships and co-management regimes, and by increasing aboriginal access to fisheries licences and quotas, thereby augmenting their participation in fishing-related activities.Our government is committed to working alongside indigenous peoples to collaboratively manage this vital resource and ensure that as stewards of our land and waters they have a rightful place at the table when it comes to the management of our fisheries.One of the most important priorities is restoring the health of wild salmon stocks and other important fish stocks across Canada. As members know, our government announced an additional $107 million to support the implementation of stock assessment and rebuilding provisions in the renewed fisheries act to sustain Canada's wild fish stocks.We also launched the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund and the Quebec fisheries fund, both modelled on the very successful Atlantic fisheries fund to support projects focused on building resilience thorough restoration, promotion of science partnerships, innovation and adoptive technologies.Our government is also making an additional contribution of $5 million to the Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund Society to support the important work of the Pacific Salmon Foundation to engage community groups in salmon conservation. These new funds will enable the foundation to be even more effective going forward.These are among many activities that support our wild salmon policy implementation plan over the next five years to support important changes to the management of our aquaculture policies.Keeping mariners safe and protecting our marine environment is a duty we entrust to the brave women and men in the Canadian Coast Guard. They are the backbone of one of the strongest marine safety systems in the world. Our government is committed to providing the Coast Guard with the tools it needs to keep Canadians safe and keep our economy moving.In 2019, we announced the largest investment ever made to renew the Coast Guard fleet with 24 new large ships, 16 multi-purpose vessels, two Arctic offshore patrol ships, and six program icebreakers. Additionally, our government also announced investments of over $2 billion for the comprehensive vessel life extension program for the Coast Guard's existing fleet. Building whole new classes of vessels takes a great deal of time, planning, money and effort. Repairs, refits and vessel life extension work must be carried out on the existing fleet until new ships are delivered under the national shipbuilding strategy.We recently marked the completion of the first class of ships built under Canada national shipbuilding strategy with the acceptance of three offshore fishery science vessels. These are Canada's first-ever vessels purposely designed and built for vital offshore fisheries research, science and monitoring.The Canadian Coast Guard would not be what it is today without the tremendous support of Canada's shipbuilding and marine industry, which fuels innovation and skills development, and creates new opportunities for workers and businesses across the country.(1920)Our significant commitment to renew the Coast Guard fleet will provide our crews with state-of-the-art equipment and preserve the world-class marine safety regime that Canada enjoys.On oceans protection, our government has exceeded its marine conservation targets to protect 10% of our oceans by the end of 2020. We are at nearly 14% now and already working toward our 25% target by 2025. That is with real protections that will have biodiversity benefits for generations to come.This past summer, Canada joined the United Kingdom's global ocean alliance. One of the key focuses of this alliance is advocating for the adoption of the global target of 30% by 2030, which is a key pillar of next year's Convention on Biological Diversity, COP 15 meeting. Our historic $1.5-billion oceans protection plan is creating a world-leading marine safety system, restoring and protecting marine and coastal ecosystems and habitats, enhancing environmental and local emergency response, and strengthening our ability to trade with confidence and safety.As we go forward, we will accelerate the use of tools such as marine spatial planning to allow us to plan our ocean spaces in collaboration with provincial and territorial partners, indigenous peoples, and industry and environmental stakeholders. Our government has invested in Canada's ocean supercluster, composed of businesses, academia and non-profits, to accelerate innovation in sustainable economic growth in our oceans. We are mobilizing internationally to deliver the scientific knowledge, innovation and capacity needed to strengthen oceans protection because science and innovation will be the critical pillar of the strong, blue economy.Our government is committed to promoting economic opportunities for Canadians while ensuring our oceans and resources remain healthy for future generations. As part of the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion project, our government put forward eight accommodation measures to address concerns raised by indigenous peoples.We are implementing four of these measures, which focus on building capacity and enhancing long-term relationships with indigenous groups. These measures seek to advance shared objectives for maintaining and restoring fish habitat, understanding and monitoring the cumulative effects and improving spill prevention response capacity. I look forward to sharing more about these and other developments with my fellow parliamentarians in the months ahead. Our nation's prosperity depends on making sure that the benefits of growing the economy are felt by more and more people with good, well-paying jobs for the middle class. We are well positioned to deliver on the government's priorities, and the investments I have mentioned will allow DFO and the Coast Guard to continue to carry out the important work of service to Canadians. Canadian Coast GuardCoast guard servicesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersFisheries stocksIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marine conservationOceansOil and gasPacific salmonPipeline transportationShipbuilding industryShips and boatsTrans Mountain pipelineWild salmon63696306369633636963463696356369636BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1955)[English]Madam Chair, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans negotiators are proposing a new approach for first nations to increase their food, social and ceremonial access. The proposed approach goes by the name “single allocation” and requires first nations to purchase fishing access to increase their FSC access. First nations can use either government funding provided for this purpose or their own revenue.Can the minister explain to first nations why this single allocation mandate was developed without any consultation with first nations in British Columbia?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-202163697676369768BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1955)[English]Madam Chair, first nations have a right to fish for food, social and ceremonial reasons. We recognize that. We are going to make sure they have these rights. We take this as a priority, but conservation has to take top priority over everything.Through the aboriginal fishing strategy, DFO and first nations seek to negotiate mutually acceptable FSC fisheries agreements. These agreements contain provisions related to the amounts that may be fished for FSC purposes, species, gear, area and other factors—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-202163697696369770GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1955)[English]Madam Chair, we hear about the government and its relationship with first nations and see how it has failed to honour section 35 rights. We have heard from witnesses that a large part of the issue is that DFO does not have the mandate to negotiate on a nation-to-nation basis. Witnesses say that responsibility falls to the government and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and that she should be leading this discussion.What can she say to ensure true nation-to-nation discussions are happening that are not based on existing regulations and colonial procedures?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-202163697726369773AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (1955)[English]Madam Chair, when it comes to reconciliation, our government takes a whole-of-government approach. I work directly with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on the agreements we have with first nations, particularly right now in Atlantic Canada given what we are dealing with regarding the moderate livelihood fishery. It is extremely important that those negotiations and conversations include the minister and me.We are going to continue to make sure we address the concerns we hear. We will continue to work on the path of reconciliation. It is not an easy thing to do, but we are committed to making sure we get there.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-202163697746369775GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89236TerryBeechTerry-BeechBurnaby North—SeymourLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BeechTerry_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (2000)[English]Madam Chair, I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to today's discussion at this gathering of the committee of the whole. I have about nine or 10 minutes of comments and then I will proceed to questions at the end of my time.As the minister has indicated, the funding we are seeking relates to our government's priorities of promoting economic opportunities for all Canadians, advancing reconciliation with indigenous people, strengthening environmental protections and making sure our waters are safe and navigable. Our government is focused on not just protecting the environment, but restoring it for the benefit of future generations. We know that the foundation of a strong economy can only be built with a clean and thriving environment. In fact, there is no better demonstration of how the economy and the environment go hand in hand than our wild Pacific salmon. Serving and restoring Pacific salmon and ensuring a stable and predictable fishery for all participants, both indigenous and non-indigenous, is a responsibility we take very seriously. In many rural and coastal communities, salmon fisheries are a real economic driver that generate jobs and opportunities for thousands of Canadians. Salmon fisheries are part of the cultural identity of the province of British Columbia and play a critical role in building coastal indigenous economies, enabling indigenous groups to develop improved capacity for self-governance and self-determination. To many of our indigenous communities, wild Pacific salmon are not just an economic opportunity, but a way of life that is an important, if not sacred, tradition. Our government is committed to working with indigenous peoples to explore opportunities to further recognize rights and advance reconciliation in the context of fisheries, oceans, aquatic habitats and marine waterways. Canada's wild salmon policies speak to the importance of maintaining the biodiversity of these important stocks, as well as their significance to commercial and recreational fish harvesters, indigenous peoples and, really, all Canadians. We have collaborated closely on the creation of a $142-million B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund, a federal-provincial cost-shared program funded jointly with the Government of British Columbia. We have made an additional contribution of $5 million to the Pacific salmon endowment fund to support the Pacific Salmon Foundation, which is doing incredible work to restore wild Pacific salmon and its habitat. We announced $15 million in additional annual funding to support stock assessments, wire tagging and catch monitoring. These investments contribute to our obligations under the Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty and are targeted toward better managing west coast salmon fishing. We are investing $107 million to support the sustainability of Canada's major fish stocks through implementation of the renewed Fisheries Act. We have also invested significant resources in restoring natural passage on the Fraser River after the devastating Big Bar landslide, and we are committed to transitioning from open net-pen finfish aquaculture on the west coast of Canada. British ColumbiaConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersFisheries stocksIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Pacific salmonWild salmon6369787BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsTerryBeechBurnaby North—Seymour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (2015)[English]Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time this evening with the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.I am glad to hear that the minister has taken the time to read the Marshall decision since she was before our committee last week. It is one of the most important and foundational decisions as it pertains to fisheries. Now that she has read the decision, could she outline for us the role of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard as highlighted in that decision?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marshall decisionMi'kmaqSplitting speaking time63698286369829AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (2015)[English]Madam Chair, the Marshall decision is extremely important to ensuring we address the concerns of first nations. The Supreme Court decision was clear that they have a right to fish for a moderate livelihood.The Government of Canada is working to ensure we implement that right. I am working with first nations communities on their fisheries plans right now. It is extremely important we move this forward. That is one of the things—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marshall decisionMi'kmaq63698306369831RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, why did the minister decide to pass the buck and ignore her responsibilities under the Marshall decision, which is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the authority over the fishery, by appointing a third party mediator to do her job?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6369833AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, I would like to be very clear that it is not a mediator. This is a special representative for whom a number of stakeholder groups had asked. We wanted to ensure we heard from all concerned parties to bridge gaps we had seen between the commercial harvesters and indigenous communities.Mr. Surette is a well-respected member of his community. He has worked in the fishery before. He understands the issue. We are looking forward to seeing his interim report in December and his final report in March.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments63698346369835RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, has the minister's personally appointed special representative read the Marshall decision?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6369836BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2015)[English]Madam Chair, I am assuming that Mr. Surette has read the Marshall decision. I am sure he has at this point. This is extremely important as we go forward. Mr. Surette is working with the first nations communities. He is speaking to commercial harvesters. He is speaking to stakeholders. All—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6369837RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, perhaps it can be forgiven that the minister appointed a third party special representative or mediator to deal with the fishing crisis before she read the Marshall decision. Now that she has read the Marshall decision, she knows that it is her responsibility to regulate the fishery. Why has she refused to do so?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6369839AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the first nations have a right to a moderate livelihood fishery. We are working with first nations to ensure we implement that right. This is extremely important for reconciliation. It is important to our government. It is important for first nations communities. It is a very complex issue. It takes a lot of time and effort to ensure that we get this right. We are committed to working with those first nations communities to ensure that right is implemented.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments63698406369841RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, given that the Marshall decision clearly outlines that the minister can regulate both indigenous and non-indigenous fisheries for the purpose of conservation, is the minister willing to ensure that conservation seasons are respected by all fish harvesters?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaq6369842BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, conservation underpins everything we do at DFO. No decision will be made that will affect the conservation of the species. We need to ensure that it is sustainable for the long term. Nobody wants to do anything that will change that, including commercial harvesters and indigenous people. Conservation will always be the number one priority as we make these decisions going forward.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaq63698436369844RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, we have heard testimony at committee from indigenous leaders, representatives from the commercial fishery, academics, scientists, former DFO employees and politicians, including the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia. We have even heard concerns from the minister's own caucus colleague, a former chair of the fisheries committee, the hon. member for Malpeque. The one common thread among them is that they are unsatisfied with her efforts. Does the minister think she is doing a good job solving this crisis?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersGovernment performanceIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia63698536369854BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2020)[English]Madam Chair, this is a very complex issue. If there were a simple solution it would have been had 21 years ago. A number of issues within issues are involved. We are continuing to work with first nations to make sure we implement this right. The previous government, in 10 years, did not sign one agreement with first nations. We already have two signed, and we are working diligently to make sure there are more. I will continue to do that hard work.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersGovernment performanceIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia63698556369856RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacMelArnoldNorth Okanagan—Shuswap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88316SeanFraserSean-FraserCentral NovaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FraserSean_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.): (2030)[English]Madam Chair, I will begin my 15 minutes of questions with the minister on the issue of the moderate livelihood fishery.Obviously, in Nova Scotia in recent months, this issue has been the subject of much coverage and controversy. When I speak with those who are members of indigenous communities who want to exercise their right to a moderate livelihood, it is clear that they rely on the law we adopted in Canada in the treaties of the 1760s. Of course, the right was embedded more fully and with some more clarity in the Marshall decision of the late nineties.One of the things I find to be a major source of frustration is that when I talk to people independently, either indigenous fishers or commercial fishers, a lot of them want the same things. They have grown accustomed to fishing alongside one another. They both, for the most part, recognize the existence of the right to take part in a moderate livelihood fishery. I find it frustrating because my career before politics was in litigation, where two sides would come together completely in disagreement on virtually everything, yet we would often come to a resolution.In the present instance, I hear that there is an appetite to recognize a moderate livelihood, but it is peppered with fears. There are sincerely held fears among commercial fishers about the ability to practise their fishery, because they are worried about the conservation outcomes that may arise if there is increased effort placed on the fishery. They are subject to rules that have been built up over decades. There are people in my office saying that they want to support increased participation among indigenous fishers, but they are worried for their livelihoods.I am curious if the minister can offer some comfort or commentary around the subject of conservation and the importance that she, as minister, will place on that very important principle as any kind of a framework is developed to implement the right to a moderate livelihood.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia63698826369883636988463698856369886BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (2035)[English]Madam Chair, at DFO every decision we make is based on conservation. It is the number one priority. We want to make sure that the fishery is sustainable for the long term, for generations to come.I will say that this is a goal shared by commercial harvesters as well as indigenous fishers. This is something that we all agree on. What we need to find is the path forward. I understand that, in coastal communities, our commercial harvesters are worried for their livelihoods. We need to make sure that we are not increasing fishing efforts. That is one of the top priorities for me, as well as making sure that conservation objectives are met. These are tricky negotiations, as I have said. They are full of bumps along the way, but we are committed to making sure that we find the path forward to implement the moderate livelihood fishery, address the concerns of commercial harvesters, make sure conservation is the number one priority and that there is not an increased fishing effort.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia636988763698886369889SeanFraserCentral NovaSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. John Williamson: (2050)[English]Madam Chair, that is good.Premium Brands Holdings Corporation, in its presentation to investors, says that the benefit of the Mi'kmaq coalition purchasing 50% of Clearwater is a “strategic long-term relationship for the sale of inshore fishery catches”.Can the minister advise the House how her department plans to ensure that only in-season DFO-regulated lobster harvested in the inshore will be enforced?Clearwater Atlantic Seafoods Inc.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLobstersMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaq63699246369925BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2050)[English]Madam Chair, our government welcomes a collaboration between industry and first nations to grow our Canadian seafood industry. This project represents a positive step in building strong partnerships between indigenous communities and the commercial seafood sector. We are continuing to work with all our partners in the seafood sector to promote sustainability and productive commercial fisheries across Canada.This, of course, is a relatively new deal. We are still doing our due diligence on this new purchase, and we will continue to do the work we need to do to make sure that we are protecting the Canadian fishery.Clearwater Atlantic Seafoods Inc.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLobstersMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaq63699266369927JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Dave Epp: (2120)[English]Madam Chair, on October 23, the Walpole Island First Nation's chief, Charles Sampson, announced they were moving forward with commercial fishing in surrounding and traditional waters. What is the ministry's plan in response?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Walpole Island First Nation63700386370039CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2120)[English]Madam Chair, we work with first nations on reconciliation and a number of issues. We will continue to work with them. Fisheries is an extremely important part of reconciliation. Those are all questions and comments we are working to address as we go forward.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Walpole Island First Nation6370040DaveEppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonDaveEppChatham-Kent—Leamington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Dave Epp: (2120)[English]Madam Chair, the minister has stated that the definition of a moderate livelihood is locally determined, so who are the parties to this determination and what is the process for this determination?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Walpole Island First Nation6370041BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2120)[English]Madam Chair, moderate livelihood fisheries is a Supreme Court decision that impacts the first nations communities in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. The Supreme Court has stated that first nations have a right to a moderate livelihood, and we are working to make sure we implement that right with those first nations.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Walpole Island First Nation6370042DaveEppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonDaveEppChatham-Kent—Leamington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Dave Epp: (2125)[English]Madam Chair, what is the minister's message to the commercial fishers with existing commercial fishing licences and quota levels, with respect to how their interests will be represented?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Walpole Island First Nation6370043BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2125)[English]Madam Chair, I have been working and meeting with commercial harvesters since day one of becoming minister. I will continue to do that. They are listened to. They are an extremely important voice in the fishery. We want to make sure we continue to work in partnership with them. Commercial harvesters have fished side by side with first nations for generations. We know there is now a gap there that has never existed and we want to make sure we do everything we can to address that.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Walpole Island First Nation6370044DaveEppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88308RobertMorrisseyRobert-MorrisseyEgmontLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorrisseyRobertJ._Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Robert Morrissey: (2130)[English]Madam Chair, the issue that is getting the most attention, and one of the most serious on the east coast, is the conflict between first nations fishers and commercial fishers. One of the areas I hear the most concern about, and it comes both from departmental staff as well as fishers both commercial and indigenous, is the lack of enforcement capability within the department.Madam minister, could you give an opinion on the level of enforcement capability in the department? Is it adequate to do the job that we expect it to?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia63700826370083CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2135)[English]Madam Chair, the C&P officers have a very difficult job, but they do a very good job. We did see cuts under the previous government to C&P, but we want to ensure they have the tools they need to do the jobs they are given. I know that conservation is a top priority for not only commercial harvesters, but for indigenous people as well. We want to ensure we have a long-term sustainable lobster fishery. That is one of the reasons we need to work to address the concerns around a moderate livelihood and implement the right that was granted under the Supreme Court decision.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia63700866370087CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRobertMorrisseyEgmont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88308RobertMorrisseyRobert-MorrisseyEgmontLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorrisseyRobertJ._Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Robert Morrissey: (2135)[English]Madam Chair, could the minister elaborate a bit on Mr. Surette's role, whom I view as a very credible individual to advise you on this issue? You indicated earlier that he was going to report to you at a particular time frame. Could you just explain a bit to the House his role as it relates to you, as the minister? He is not doing the negotiations on moderate livelihood, but it is my understanding he is advising you and meeting with the commercial fishers.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6370091BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2135)[English]Madam Chair, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and I both appointed Allister Surette to act as a special representative in this issue with regard to moderate livelihood. Mr. Surette is a well-respected member of his community. He has experience in fisheries files in the past. His job is going to be to meet with commercial harvesters, to meet with first nations communities and to meet with stakeholders like the municipalities to find out what the best path forward is in order to rebuild relationships, in order to provide clarity to industries—Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments63700946370095CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88308RobertMorrisseyRobert-MorrisseyEgmontLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorrisseyRobertJ._Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Robert Morrissey: (2135)[English]Madam Chair, could the minister be clear to the House, as was asked several times before, regarding the commercial fishery. Who has the responsibility in the department to ensure that the rights of the commercial fishing industry and the owner-operator policy that our government enshrined is taken into consideration during these negotiations and that the commercial fishers' rights are protected?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia6370097CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2140)[English]Madam Chair, I have met with commercial harvesters on a regular basis throughout all of this, listening to their concerns. Making sure that we hear from them is extremely important to me, as is making sure that Mr. Surette also has the ability to talk to them, so that when he files his interim report at the end of December, we will have another voice heard.We know how important it is to have the commercial voice at the side table. That is one of the reasons we are listening to them. We want to make sure that we address the concerns that they have.I am committed to hearing from commercial harvesters, and that is why I continue to meet with them.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova Scotia637009863700996370100RobertMorrisseyEgmontYvesRobillardMarc-Aurèle-Fortin//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (2200)[English]Madam Chair, today I rise during committee of the whole to speak and ask questions. I would like to speak for about nine minutes and then ask some questions to the minister for about six minutes.I have been listening to the discussion tonight and a lot of it focuses around the Marshall decision when we are talking about moderate livelihoods. Some will talk about it as Marshall one or Marshall two. To many MPs and people around Canada, it is just a name on a piece of paper or the title of a case, nothing more, nothing less. However, as the only Mi'kmaq who has ever sat in the House, I think it is important to give context on who Donald Marshall Jr. was. To the Mi'kmaq, there is much more to this. We know the man. I can think of his smile right now and his moustache and the bell cap he usually wore out and about in Cape Breton. He was known as “Junior” to most of the Mi'kmaq because his father was the grand chief of the Mi'kmaq nation for 27 years, until his peaceful death in 1991.I remember as a young child listening to Donald Marshall Jr. when he went to classrooms to talk about his fight to change the justice system, after spending 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Donald Marshall Jr. spoke to Mi'kmaq youth at youth conferences about his personal views of justice and what he endured. He taught about resilience and that each one of us has a responsibility to fight for justice, whether in a courtroom, at home or even in jail.I remember watching a movie at a very young age called Justice Denied that talked about his story and his fight for justice. We often ask in Nova Scotia how this could happen. It was the focus of a provincial commission, the “Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr. Prosecution”, which found, on page 1, “The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall Jr. at...every turn from his arrest and his wrongful conviction” in 1971. It called it a “miscarriage of justice”. It stated that the reason was, at least in part, because Donald Marshall Jr. was indigenous.Despite all he had gone through, just four years after his commission, Junior was fighting for justice again, but this time on behalf of a nation. After years of litigation, the Mi'kmaq who had validated their treaties at the Supreme Court case in 1985 now turned to Donald Marshall Jr. for the most important litigation the nation had ever been a part of. Unlike any other case, it was not about surviving but thriving as a nation. It was a court case about a Mi'kmaq person being able to move from poverty to a moderate or modest living.Elder Kerry Prosper, a chief then, described it as a win for our nation. It was the first time many chiefs felt a collective win as a nation. Unfortunately, the jubilation for the Mi'kmaq and Junior was brief. Only two months later, our Supreme Court of Canada, based on political and economic pressures, decided to clarify this decision. As far as I know in my academic career and legal knowledge, I can point to no other Supreme Court of Canada case that has ever needed clarification. I can only imagine what Donald Marshall Jr. went through and what it must have felt like to hear his victory on behalf of the nation required an unprecedented clarification.In both cases the facts were the same and the verdict was the same, which was that Donald Marshall Jr. caught and sold eels out of season and was protected by a Mi'kmaq treaty right to do so.Donald Marshall Jr. passed away a hero in 2009, a hero to his nation. I felt it was important to give this context to the legacy we are dealing with when we speak of the Marshall decision. I am only sad that Junior died before seeing his home community of Membertou become one of the owners of the largest fisheries company in this country. I congratulate his home community, Chief Terry Paul of Membertou and its council for making sure Junior's legacy will always be a positive one.(2205)I have heard people speak about the Marshall decision over the past few months. Many quote the case as if the Mi'kmaq lost this case, as if they did not have this right. Unfortunately, understanding the Marshall decision requires understanding indigenous case law from 1929 until today. Understanding the Marshall decision requires understanding the Constitution of Canada, specifically section 35, which recognizes and affirms all existing aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as section 52, which states: “The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with...the Constitution is...of no force or effect.”I wanted to give that context because I thought it was important for the Mi'kmaq, and for the House of Commons, to understand that when Marshall decisions 1 or 2 are talked about, it means a lot to the Mi'kmaq people because he was one of our heroes. I miss him. Many of us do today.I will now pivot my questions to the minister. I would like to start off by thanking her for her valuable work during the early stages of COVID. I acknowledge her for the many conversations that we had about some of the difficult situations that were going on within the fisheries in the early months in the spring and her success in advocating for the fish harvester benefit and grant. I ask the minister if she could give us the numbers of how many fishermen we helped in Nova Scotia during these difficult times.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeCOVID-19Department of Fisheries and OceansFish Harvester BenefitFish Harvester GrantFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Marshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPandemic6370179637018063701816370182637018363701846370185637018663701876370188637018963701906370191BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (2210)[English]Madam Chair, in the Fisheries Act passed in 2019, among other things, two very important sections were included in that.Section 2.3 says:This Act is to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.As well as this key clause, which is law and which I will ask the minister about, under “Duty of Minister”, it says:When making a decision under this Act, the Minister shall consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.Minister, with all that is going on, do you believe these two sections were key parts of our government's continued commitment to reconciliation and ensuring nation-to-nation respect was continued to be paid around aboriginal and treaty rights?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021637020263702036370204637020563702066370207BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2210)[English]Madam Chair, I want to thank Senator Christmas particularly, who made the amendments to those clauses to which the member has referred. That strengthens the act and the language that we use when it comes to first nations rights, section 35. All Canadians have to learn more about our obligations, treaty rights and what it means to have an affirmed right to fish for a moderate livelihood. We have seen a real interest from people on this issue.The Supreme Court upheld this decision and we want to ensure we implement it right. That is why we are working with first nations communities. The member of course is well aware of how complex the issue is. He has lived it himself. He knows there is still work to be done and we are committed to doing it.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021637021063702116370212CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont: (2225)[English]Madam Chair, I will move on because I have so many questions and not enough time. In testimony at committee the other night, when the minister was asked about the definition of “moderate livelihood”, she said she did not have one, that it was something to be decided on by the community she was dealing with. We have an ATIP on a moderate livelihood gap analysis with 21 pages of the 23 pages blacked out. Could you table that document for folks to see?Access to informationConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-202163702626370263BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2225)[English]Madam Chair, with respect to the definition of “moderate livelihood”, that is not something the Government of Canada is going to impose on first nations. That is determined by the first nations communities. Every community looks at this differently. We want to ensure we work with them in the negotiation process to address what a moderate livelihood is to them. The last thing a first nations community wants is the Government of Canada dictating to it what it thinks a moderate livelihood should be.Access to informationConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-202163702666370267CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont: (2225)[English]Madam Chair, the minister already has a definition. Her department did a gap analysis on it. We have a document with 21 pages blacked out. Therefore, it would be nice for the sake of transparency that we see what those are.I have a quick question about Mr. Surette. The minister said that she was consulting with the industry. Which industry members suggested Mr. Surette? Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments63702686370269BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2225)[English]Madam Chair, with respect to Mr. Surette, what I said was that a number of ministry representatives wanted to see someone they could talk to outside of DFO. That is what we have put in place with Mr. Surette. He is, as the member for West Nova knows, a very well-respected member of the community. He is someone who has a knowledge of fisheries issues and he will be a valuable asset to us as we move this file forward.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments6370270Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21]InterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont: (2225)[English]Madam Chair, commercial fishery districts 33 and 34 are opening next Monday. Why did the department ask for an interim report well after that season got under way? Why would it not have asked for that before? Can the minister table the terms of reference from Mr. Surette?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Fisheries and OceansFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMain estimates 2020-2021Mi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolitical appointments63702716370272BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25446DeanAllisonDean-AllisonNiagara WestConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AllisonDean_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West, CPC): (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Markham—Unionville.I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, and I would also like to thank my colleague, the shadow minister on this file, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, for her hard work in the chamber and in committee on this issue. She has a very important job to do in holding the government to account when we begin to reopen the country and welcome immigrants back who will eventually become part of our Canadian family.I rise today to speak on Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94.I want to start by saying that I will be voting for the bill. Most of the public know what it is designed to do, which is to change the oath of citizenship. I believe that this is a very important piece of legislation that would put us one step closer to reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people.Just to be clear, the current oath of citizenship is: I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.The version proposed in the bill would change the ending to: ...and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.It is worth acknowledging that Canada is a nation of immigrants who have come, and continue to come, for better lives. We are also a nation that stands on the traditional territories of, and shoulder to shoulder with, first nations, Inuit and Métis people. I think we should be proud that Canada is one of only a few countries in the world where indigenous and treaty rights are entrenched in our Constitution. By recognizing and affirming the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis in the oath of citizenship, we are also educating Canadians, especially new Canadians, about these rights. Our Constitution is one of our most important documents, if not the most important document, and being aware and understanding some of the resolved and unresolved treaty rights in different parts of the country is something we should share with new Canadians. Educating new Canadians on the relationship with indigenous peoples is a key part of the path to reconciliation that is critical to our nation's future. I am confident my colleagues would agree that a top priority for all of us in this chamber should be to work towards reconciliation with our indigenous peoples. For those at home watching, I was in the House of Commons in Centre Block at the time when Prime Minister Harper offered a full apology on behalf of Canadians for the residential school system. It was a historical moment, and one I will never forget. The treatment of children in Indian residential schools was a sad chapter in our history, and it had to be acknowledged. The government had to apologize for it, and rightfully did so. It was also the previous Conservative government, under Prime Minister Harper, that established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or the TRC, to facilitate reconciliation among former residential school students, their families, communities and all Canadians. Between 2007 and 2015, the government provided about $72 million to support the commission's work. The TRC spent six years travelling to all parts of Canada and heard more than 6,500 witnesses. It also hosted seven national events across Canada to engage the Canadian public, educate people about the history and legacy of the residential school system and share and honour the experiences of former students and their families. The TRC created a critical historical record of the residential school system and, as part of the process, the Government of Canada provided over five million records to the TRC. The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation at the University of Manitoba houses all the documents collected by the TRC.Given the incredible work done by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, many of us in the House are concerned that the government has been slow to respond to the report's calls to action. In fact, a new analysis reveals that “dreadful progress” with disappointing results has been made on the TRC's 94 calls to action. The Prime Minister embraced the calls to action at the 2015 unveiling, describing them all as a blueprint to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. However, it is clear that things are not what they need to be, and the sole reaction to the TRC's calls to action is not the only broken promise from this government. We also have the promise on boil-water advisories. The Prime Minister recently appeared to walk back his government's promise to end all boil-water advisories in first nation communities by March 2021. He would not commit to meeting the 2021 deadline, and said that the federal government was working to lift the remaining drinking water advisory “as soon as possible”. When is “as soon as possible”? Is it months from now, years from now or perhaps longer? (1255)Let us take the Neskantaga First Nation as an example, which has been under a boil water advisory for more than 25 years. Officials shut off its water after an oily sheen was found in the water reserve. Tests later showed the water was contaminated with hydrocarbon. Over 200 residents have now been evacuated to Thunder Bay, where they are being housed in hotels.The Neskantaga chief said that elders, children, infants and people with chronic health conditions were flown out of the community after the water shutdown, which closed the schools and nursing station. With no running water, the remaining residents have had to use buckets to collect water from the lake in freezing temperatures. The chief said, “I've never had access to clean drinking water and I’m 50 years old. You hate to see your relatives, your children, your future, living in this condition.” The chief goes on to say, “Right now we are being offered band-aid solutions.” The government originally stated in December 2015 that the community would get a new treatment plant up and running by the spring of 2018. It is November 2020 and it seems like the government has broken its promise.Also, let us not forget winter is coming. The Prime Minister said his government has lifted many drinking water advisories since 2015, but the Indigenous Services Canada website shows that 61 first nation reserves are still living under long-term drinking water advisories.Let us also not forget first nations people are going through a housing crisis that the government has not handled very well. Last year, the Cat Lake first nation declared a state of emergency over excessive mould, leaky roofs and other poor housing conditions. Things became worse when a Cat Lake resident died from respiratory issues. Her family was clear the death was caused by extensive mould problems in her home. There is evidence that almost half of the homes on Canadian reserves have enough mould to cause serious respiratory problems and other illnesses.With respect to Cat Lake, I do have to say the government did provide portable homes and construction material to build new ones. However, everything it does on this file seems to be reactionary. It has to see a major crisis first, and then it acts. The government should not be complacent. This housing crisis in first nations communities should not be costing people their lives. Indigenous leaders say that an epidemic of mould, undrinkable water and overcrowding in first nations homes remains a nationwide problem that has been largely ignored. We have another issue in Nova Scotia, where tensions are very high over a long-standing fishery dispute. There has been violence and a lot of heated rhetoric. There have been years of concern about the issue. It is not like the government found out about it when it recently flared up. Once again, the government is being reactionary. There have been years of talks but there has been no solution. The government has now been in place for five years and little has been done. It needs to do better, and Conservatives are more than willing to help. All this to say that indigenous people deserve government attention and reconciliation should be a top priority for all of us in this place. Although more can and should be done, this bill is a step in the right direction for indigenous people, and therefore, I will be supporting it.It is not often I agree with my colleague the parliamentary secretary, but I cannot have a conversation about an oath of citizenship without talking about the extreme honour of being involved. He was bang on when he talked about what an honour it is, as members of Parliament, to be involved.In my 16 years, certainly one of the highlights of my job is having the opportunity to attend the citizenship ceremonies. They come in all different shapes and sizes, and I have attended them on July 1, which is absolutely a particularly important and special day. I have also done them in schools, legion halls and all across Niagara. It is quite an honour to do that, so I want to recognize what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the government in the House of Commons said. As members of Parliament, we have a pretty unique role. Just having the opportunity to hear people's stories of getting to our great country, as well as some of the hardships they have had to endure is completely inspiring.It has been an honour to talk on this particular bill, Bill C-8. As I mentioned before, one of the amazing privileges we have as members of Parliament is having an opportunity on a fairly regular basis to attend citizenship swearing-in ceremonies, where we have the opportunity to hear great stories from people coming from all around this great world to become citizens of this great country. C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityComprehensive land claimsDrinking waterFisheries and fishersGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingSocial housingSplitting speaking timeTruth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada6362878KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88721JulieDzerowiczJulie-DzerowiczDavenportLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DzerowiczJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speech in support of Bill C-8 was moving and beautiful.I have a very simple question for him. He spoke passionately about the importance of including the aboriginal peoples of Canada treaty rights in our oath, but I wonder whether he feels it is just one step in many steps in recognizing aboriginal treaty rights in our nation.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading63630106363011SukhDhaliwalSurrey—NewtonSukhDhaliwalSurrey—Newton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31098SukhDhaliwalSukh-DhaliwalSurrey—NewtonLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DhaliwalSukh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Sukh Dhaliwal: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, it is totally true that this is just one step moving forward. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report has many different aspects.I know the ministers are working very closely with indigenous leaders across the country to ensure access to clean water and good health and ensure other issues faced by indigenous communities are taken care of as well.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading63630126363013JulieDzerowiczDavenportAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition. I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ Nation. Hych'ka Siem.The petitioners are calling for the House assembled to follow through on commitments to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to follow through on commitments to meet the calls for action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The petitioners specifically note the ongoing situation on Wet’suwet’en territory and the Coastal GasLink. They also note the pervasive ways in which implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be incorporated into Canadian law.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 432-00264Wet'suwet'en First Nation63633116363312EdFastHon.AbbotsfordGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1605)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am joining the debate today from my home and would like to acknowledge I am on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act to change Canada's oath of citizenship. The bill proposes to insert text into the oath that refers to the rights of indigenous peoples. The new oath would include the following words, “which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.” This change continues to fulfill our government's commitment to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, specifically call to action 94. Recognizing treaty rights is important not just for new Canadians but for all Canadians.In March, I attended a wampum belt exchange in Oakville on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the signing of Treaty No. 22. The mayor of Oakville, Rob Burton, and Mississaugas of the Credit chief, Stacey Laforme, led the exchange, with community leaders witnessing the event, one that traditionally marks events, alliances and kinship between different peoples.At this event, Wendy Rinella, the CEO of the Oakville Community Foundation, commented that most Canadians had the mistaken notion treaties signified surrender by indigenous peoples. In fact, the Two Row Wampum signified a treaty to live in harmony with the people of Canada and their government. Recognizing the significance of indigenous and treaty rights is an important step as we walk the road to reconciliation. In a letter I send to new Canadians in my riding, I speak about how our nation is a nation of immigrants who have worked hard and sacrificed much to be part of shaping the equitable, diverse and thriving democratic nation we call Canada. Like many of us in the House, I have attended citizenship ceremonies and have seen the unbridled joy and pride new Canadians show for their chosen country, much like the member for Surrey—Newton described earlier in his speech. I recall in particular my friend Hisham receiving his citizenship and how the citizenship judge had the new citizens wave a Canadian flag at the end. It brought tears to my eyes.As we welcome those who chose Canada as their country, it is important they learn about the toll colonization has taken on indigenous peoples in Canada. As we make this change to the oath of citizenship, it is also important to respond to Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 93 to update the information kit for newcomers to reflect a more accurate history of Canada and of the diverse indigenous peoples whose lands on which Canada is now built. This includes information about treaties and the obligations Canadians have to uphold the agreements that were made to live in harmony. Treaty education needs to include more than just a list of rights and responsibilities. It must also provide potential new Canadians with information about how Canada has failed to live up to its treaty promises, how generations of Canadians have acted in bad faith and legislated harmful and racist policies that have led to great harm, specifically highlighting the intergenerational trauma of residential schools and how it is the responsibility of every Canadian to work toward reconciliation and healing our shared country.In 2016, I held a screening of the documentary We Were Children about two first nations children's experience at a residential school. During the panel discussion afterward, two new Canadians asked why they never learned about residential schools and the history of indigenous peoples when they became Canadians citizens. In 2017, I was pleased to support Burlington resident Mariam Manaa, who worked with local indigenous knowledge keeper Steve Paquette on e-petition 1228. I had the privilege to table the petition in the House of Commons on February 13, 2018, which was signed by over 600 Canadians. The petition called on the government to continue to work in consultation and partnership with indigenous nations located across Canada as well as the Minister of Indigenous Services to redevelop the Discover Canada study guide curriculum and citizenship exam so it would acknowledge indigenous treaty rights, require applicants to answer a question regarding the traditional territories they were currently inhabiting, if applicable, and uphold the spirit of the commitment to educate new Canadians on residential schools and the legacy of colonialism. (1610)It is imperative when crafting policy with regard to indigenous peoples that the government do so in consultation and partnership with indigenous peoples. An updated guide needs to educate new Canadians about residential schools and be transparent with regard to the ongoing legacy of colonialism and racism by the Canadian government. The guide could also address the sixties scoop and shed light on the current crisis in the foster care system today.It is my belief that new immigrants who make the choice to become citizens deserve to know about the history of this land. That includes the good as well as the bad. People who immigrate to Canada are emigrating from countries that may have thousands of years of recorded history. We do a disservice to those new immigrants when we pretend that the land we inhabit has only been around for 150 years. We can share stories about Vimy Ridge and the 1972 Summit Series, but if those stories are not accompanied by the lived experience of survivors of residential schools, we are impairing their ability to fully enter the public discourse on what it means to be Canadian. I am of the opinion that once people take their oath of citizenship, they are equally entitled to all the benefits and the baggage that Canadian citizenship entails. In addition to educating new Canadians on the legacy of residential schools and colonialism, we need to do a better job of educating new Canadians about the traditional territories they currently inhabit when they are studying for their citizenship exam. I understand this recommendation would require curriculum to be different, depending on where the new immigrants were studying for their exam, but if we properly inform newcomers as to the history of the land they occupy, we will better be able to understand the ongoing process of reconciliation and the issues facing indigenous nations today.(1615)[Translation]Lastly, I feel it is essential that we teach all Canadians, including those who are about to become new citizens, about the history of the influential indigenous peoples who shaped Canada's identity. Too many of us learn only about the pre-Confederation history of indigenous peoples.[English]While Tecumseh and Joseph Brant were undoubtedly historical figures who shaped the history of Upper Canada, we need to highlight the work of contemporary indigenous leaders, intellectuals, artists and activists of which there are many notable examples.When this bill was introduced, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said:The Oath is a solemn declaration that all newcomers recite during the citizenship ceremony. With this amendment, we are changing the Oath of Citizenship to be more inclusive, and taking steps to fundamentally transform the nature of our relationship with Indigenous Peoples by encouraging new Canadians to fully appreciate and respect the significant role of Indigenous Peoples in forming Canada’s fabric and identity.The change to the citizenship oath is an important step, but only one step that needs to be taken for new Canadian citizens to fully understand and respect our shared past with indigenous peoples. It is my sincere hope that a new study guide will be shared quickly, so we can fulfill both calls to action regarding newcomers to Canada.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Canadian historyCitizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationOathsSecond reading636339463633956363396SukhDhaliwalSurrey—NewtonAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1796LarryBagnellHon.Larry-BagnellYukonLiberal CaucusYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BagnellLarry_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionHon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency), Lib.): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment from the traditional territory of the Ta’an Kwach’an Council and the Kwanlin Dun, which both have signed modern treaties and self-government agreements. I want people watching to think about how they would feel if they bought a house and when they went to move into it someone decided the house was not theirs and it was not being given to them. They can imagine how first nations and indigenous people felt when they signed treaties that were not honoured. It would be the same feeling. This bill would give comfort and acknowledgement to immigrants. As I mentioned in a recent previous debate, we did not learn about this in school in any sufficient amount so this would give recognition of indigenous rights, which is in the Constitution, and the sanctity of the treaties we must abide by and, by the honour of the Crown, we should have been abiding by them from the very beginning. It would be a great recognition of that.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading636348963634906363491TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraTonyVan BynenNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is a question, but if the statement is that we should be committed to and go forward with the commitments from the Crown to indigenous peoples, I fully agree with him.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading6363492LarryBagnellHon.YukonTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105854TaylorBachrachTaylor-BachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BachrachTaylor_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-8 at second reading. It is a bill that seeks to amend the oath of citizenship to include reference to the aboriginal and treaty rights of indigenous people.I support the bill, firstly, because it reflects call to action 94 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and, secondly, because in my consultation with indigenous leaders in northwest B.C., the region I am so privileged to represent, it seems to be a welcome step forward.I want to recognize the leadership of former member of Parliament, Romeo Saganash, and the current member for Vancouver East. Their leadership helped move this change forward as well and they should be recognized.It has been mentioned by previous speakers that progress on implementing the TRC's calls to action has been far too slow. Five years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its calls to action, only 10 of the 94 have been implemented, and none since 2018. We are debating this relatively small, relatively symbolic change at a time when our government is still fighting indigenous kids in court, when far too many communities in this country still lack clean drinking water and when we continue to see evidence of systemic racism against indigenous people in our country's institutions.An oath is a promise. Perhaps as we ponder requiring new Canadians to make a solemn promise to indigenous people, we in this chamber should ask if we are keeping the ones we ourselves have made. This is the third time a version of the bill has been introduced in the House, and it does beg the question of how the more significant calls to action will be legislated when such a simple change has suffered so many false starts. Yet, Bill C-8 does represent a step forward and should be passed into law as quickly as possible. It has been rightly noted that the true value of the bill will not come through the 19 words to be inserted into the oath but rather if this change creates an educational framework within which new Canadians can learn about and reflect on the rights of indigenous people, which will truly be a step forward.Northwest British Columbia comprises the unceded lands of the Tahltan, the Tlingit, the Tsimshian, the Haida, the Heiltsuk, the Gitga'at, Gitxaala, Wuikinuxv, Haisla, Nuxalk, Wet'suwet'en, Gitxsan, Carrier Sekani and Kaska nations. It is also the homeland of the Nisga'a people who are so proudly signatory to British Columbia's first modern treaty.In reflecting on the bill, I asked myself what new Canadians living in Prince Rupert, Terrace, Houston, Smithers and Fraser Lake might learn about the first peoples of their adopted home. Of course, and in light of the bill's origin, new Canadians must learn about the atrocity of residential schools, that such a thing may never happen again in our country. They might also learn about Delgamuukw, the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en landmark Supreme Court case that affirmed the fact that indigenous title was never extinguished by colonization. They might learn that the indigenous rights referenced in the amended oath of citizenship are still very much contested, and that there is so much work left to be done on the path to a just coexistence. They might learn about the Nisga'a Treaty, which took the Nisga'a people, including leaders such as the late Joseph Gosnell, 113 years to achieve. They might learn about the feast system, a pillar of traditional governance and about Canada's efforts to eliminate it forever in the name of assimilation. I spoke briefly on the weekend with the Gitxsan hereditary Chief Gwininitxw, Yvonne Lattie, a wonderful woman who shared an hour of her time. I talked to her about this legislation to get her thoughts. She shared her hope that new Canadians will learn about her people's way of life and about how their system still works for them today. New Canadians might learn about indigenous resources stewardship that has been practised for millennia, and how many nations are once again taking a lead role in managing their resources, including wild salmon, which are so important to the region I represent. (1655)They might learn the tragic story of the Lake Babine people's fishing weirs on the Babine River, destroyed by the federal government in 1904, or the fishing site at Hagwilget, destroyed by DFO's blasting of rock in 1959.They might learn about the nation-building efforts of nations that are crafting modern constitutions based on both their traditional governance systems and the contemporary needs of their communities. Similarly they might learn about the many indigenous languages and the fight to revitalize them. Those efforts in communities throughout northwest B.C. have been so inspiring. It is incredible to watch indigenous people, especially young indigenous people, learn these languages from the elders, and it is work we must support and resource, now more than ever.Most of all, I hope that new Canadians will learn of the incredible resilience of indigenous people in the face of a politics of extinguishment. In the words of Chad Day, the president of the Tahltan central government, “It would be good if they learned that we are still here.”In consulting indigenous leaders in northwest B.C., a question came up regarding the wording of the amended oath, which we have heard read many times over the course of this debate, but I will read it again. The amended oath would read: I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples....Increasingly, the term “first nation” is used to refer to a band created under the Indian Act, and “indigenous nation” to refer to larger groups of indigenous peoples, and I want to recognize the CBC journalist, Angela Sterritt, for helping me understand this important distinction. For instance, the Gitsxan Nation includes five bands, many of which have changed their names to use the term “first nation” instead of “band”, and members can understand why this might be the case. The word “band”, of course has its origin in the Indian Act, which is so problematic. In the case of the Wet'suwet'en, there now exists both a Wet'suwet'en Nation and a Wet'suwet'en First Nation, the latter of which used to be called the Broman Lake Indian Band.This may seem like somewhat of a pedantic technical point, but the question of which group is the proper rights holder under section 35 of our Constitution is very much contested. One has only to look at recent conflicts over resource development in northwest British Columbia and across Canada to see how this is playing out and the tensions it is creating.In northwest B.C. there are many examples where the indigenous group pursuing affirmation of indigenous rights is an indigenous nation, not a band, constituted under the Indian Act. The Haida, the Heiltsuk, the Gitsxan, the Wet'suwet'en and the Nuxalk are all examples of this. It will be important, therefore, for the amended oath to recognize them as the proper holders of those section 35 rights. I would note I recently consulted British Columbia's new declaration act, which brings the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into B.C. law. I did a word search for the term “first nations”, and it does not seem to appear in that legislation, so it is clear that there is an evolution in the words used to describe indigenous groups.I am certain that the wording of the amended oath has undergone a legal review, however it would be helpful if the government clarified whether the term “first nation” refers to a band or to a larger nation of rights holders.We have heard from other members in this place of the significance of citizenship ceremonies. There have been some very moving stories. We heard one just a few moments ago, and I would like to share a story of my own.(1700)In 2012, very shortly after being elected the mayor of Smithers, I was invited to a local citizenship ceremony. It was held in the gymnasium of Muheim Elementary School in the community of Smithers. About 20 Smithereens, and yes, that is what residents of Smithers are called, were gathered to complete their journey toward becoming Canadian citizens. Some of these Smithereens were new to Canada and they had worked very hard to get to this point as quickly as possible. Others had lived in our country for decades and were only just then coming to the point of taking their citizenship oath.A citizenship judge had travelled to Smithers, I believe from Victoria, to deliver a speech and to officiate the taking of the oath. I do not recall the exact content of his speech, but I remember that it was eloquent and inspiring. A group of school kids sang at the ceremony. They sang in English, French and Wet'suwet'en, the language of the place.What I remember most was the audience of family, friends and community members who had come out that day to watch their loved ones take the oath of citizenship and take this important step. It was really moving and I remember thinking at the time that, as mayor, I should promote this ceremony so that next year the entire community could come out and bear witness to this important event and share in what I had just experienced.I never got that chance because later that year the federal government cut funding for citizenship ceremonies in small towns across rural Canada. Residents of my home community of Smithers now have to drive four hours in all kinds of weather to take their citizenship oath in Prince George. I understand that, now, with the circumstances we are living in, people are taking their citizenship oaths virtually. However, even before the pandemic, I do not believe there was a single in-person citizenship ceremony in all of northwest B.C. The taking of the citizenship oath is a significant moment for many people. All the more significant if it is done in one's home community in front of one's family, friends and loved ones. Let us not only amend the oath of citizenship. Let us also take steps to restore citizenship ceremonies across rural Canada so that new Canadians may take their oath on the lands belonging to the people whose rights they will be pledging to uphold.I will conclude my remarks with the words of Murray Sinclair from the preface to the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which he writes, “Reconciliation is not an Aboriginal problem; it is a Canadian one. Virtually all aspects of Canadian society may need to be reconsidered.”The oath of citizenship is one very small component of Canadian society. Let us make this change swiftly and move on to the most pressing challenges facing our relationship with indigenous people.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Canadian historyCitizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingTerminologyTraditional knowledge63635006363506636350763635086363509TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and presentation on Bill C-8. I was fortunate to be a member of the legislative assembly when the Government of Saskatchewan introduced treaty education to the curriculum throughout the province, as a big part of our walk toward truth and reconciliation, to ensure young people and students throughout elementary school were learning about treaty education, what happened and how treaties were signed. It is incumbent on all of us to take up that mantle and be advocates, and talk to our provincial governments. In B.C., is there a move toward treaty education? I am not quite familiar with it. In the member's own area, has he been a strong advocate for treaty education throughout the curriculum in elementary and high schools?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityComprehensive land claimsCurriculumGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading63635256363526TaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105854TaylorBachrachTaylor-BachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BachrachTaylor_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Taylor Bachrach: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is familiar, but northwest British Columbia is home to only one treaty. Yes, treaty education is very important. When I talk to the Nisga'a leadership, they would very much like non-indigenous people to become more familiar with the terms of their treaty. However, the larger importance of education rests with an understanding of unceded indigenous title and indigenous rights, which represent such an important part of our work together in northwest British Columbia. There are many people who do not understand the Supreme Court case law and the evolution of our understanding of indigenous title and rights. That is very much an important part of education, moving forward. I believe that the B.C. government has made some important steps on moving it into the curriculum in British Columbia.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityComprehensive land claimsCurriculumGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading6363527WarrenSteinleyRegina—LewvanMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1735)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my colleague from Peace River—Westlock will be supporting Bill C-8.I have a comment first. Before European colonization of North America, first nations and Inuit people all had very distinct legal customs and norms pre-contact. They had fully functioning societies with their own laws and rules. Then of course after contact, many of those were subsided under European contact.If we are truly to acknowledge a nation-to-nation relationship, there has to be an acknowledgement of what existed pre-contact. With this new affirmation, we are recognizing the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. I am glad to hear his acknowledgement and support of that. How does that stance jibe with his vote in the previous Parliament against Bill C-262, which affirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? How does he differentiate between those two sets of rights? I would like the member to comment on that. C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading6363592636359363635946363595ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1740)[English]Mr. Speaker, this question is very similar to the one I was asked by the Bloc about who the charter applies to. I addressed it a bit in my speech. Not all Canadians signed on to the charter when it was brought into place, but it has now existed for 30-some years. This speaks to the fact that it does not matter where someone lives in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to them and that those rights and freedoms can be used in relation to any government.As for the UN declaration, there are UN declarations on multiple things. One of the UN declarations I am working hard to advocate for in Canada is the Palermo protocol. This is a UN declaration that gives us the ability to identify whether somebody is being trafficked in Canada. This is not something we would just write into Canadian law. Instead, we would make Canadian law jibe with the Palermo protocol. I think the same applies for indigenous rights.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading63635966363597AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordGregMcLeanCalgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments, but I have just one correction: It is not “our” indigenous people. We are not people who are owned. We are sovereign and independent people. The member spoke a lot about the violation of human rights that took place in residential schools. I would like to thank him for acknowledging these human rights abuses, but I would ask him why the Conservative Party continues to vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a minimum human rights document that recognizes the abuses of indigenous peoples around the globe: indigenous brothers and sisters that I will unapologetically always stand up for while we strive to realize these fundamental rights.I am wondering if my hon. colleague will, in recognition of his deep comments about wanting to change the reality of ongoing human rights violations against indigenous people, vote in favour, if it should happen, of the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples636368063636816363682DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer the question, and I apologize if there was any offence. I talk that way about many people that I come into contact with to be inclusive in that regard, and I apologize if there was any offence.When it comes to the UNDRIP that the member referenced, many things are said in that document that all nations that are part of the United Nations should aspire to, but the House of Commons and the Senate are the legislative bodies for our nation. Those documents are calling on nations around the world to ensure that there are those minimum standards of human rights and whatnot that she referred to, but it is the job of this place to develop a legislative framework to ensure that those sacred obligations are fulfilled. C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples63636836363684LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreWarrenSteinleyRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, as the member knows, I agree with him on many of the things he brought up. One of the things he spoke about that I am quite interested in is his discussion on economic justice. In my province of Alberta, there was a bill brought forward, Bill 1 from the provincial government, and at the time the Alberta justice minister, Doug Schweitzer, said that Albertans would not be held economic hostage to law-breaking extremists.Many people have called this particular bill very racist because it very much targets indigenous people and interferes with their ability to ensure their own economic justice. I just wonder what the member would say about that and how there are important ways we need to support indigenous rights to economic justice, and I just wonder how that works in Alberta as well. C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsProtestsSecond reading63637166363717WarrenSteinleyRegina—LewvanWarrenSteinleyRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Warren Steinley: (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, on protests in public areas, people should be able to protest, gather and make their opinions known to people they do not agree with as long as it is safe and they are not breaking the law. I look forward to having the conversation around the member for Foothills' private member's bill about not allowing protests on private property and whether we think people should be able to go on farms and protest, which I am not in favour of. That bill is coming up very soon and we can have a good conversation around that, but people have the right to protest safely on public property.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsProtestsSecond reading63637186363719HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaKennyChiuSteveston—Richmond East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89334KennyChiuKenny-ChiuSteveston—Richmond EastConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ChiuKenny_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Kenny Chiu (Steveston—Richmond East, CPC): (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, I am here today to debate Bill C-8, an act designed to implement a change in the oath of citizenship, in response to recommendation 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a simple amendment to the Citizenship Act to pay lip service to respecting the treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.I find that there is little logic to support this bill when it is so glaringly exclusionary of many Métis, Inuit and B.C. first nations that are not under treaty rights. They have no effective treaties in their respective area.What purpose does the bill serve beyond virtue signalling to hashtag-loving armchair activists on social media? It is more than mere symbolism to say that our nation is a nation of immigrants that stands on traditional territories of, and shoulder to shoulder with, our first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Canada is one of the few countries in the world where indigenous rights and treaty rights are entrenched and enshrined in our Constitution. I do believe that educating Canadians about these rights is an important part of the path to reconciliation.Education is about more than platitudes. I am proud to say that in Canada this education is already taking place. New citizens, having completed their residency requirements, and having studied the handbook of history, responsibilities and obligations, are expected to be aware of the rights entrenched within the Constitution. This gives them at least a general view of the spectrum of resolved and unresolved treaty rights in different parts of our country. In learning about our nation's history, new Canadians develop respect for what is among Canada's existing body of laws. They learn to appreciate the need to fulfill the remaining unfulfilled treaty obligations within the process of reconciliation and aspire to see their new home improved for all.Apparently, the Liberal government believes Canadians are so unsophisticated that they would think this task could be accomplished by merely changing the oath of citizenship. Such empty gestures show that the leadership of our government is more interested in patronizing minorities and photo ops than substantive policy development.Over 30 years ago, I came to Canada as an immigrant. Like a few members of this House, I have taken the oath of citizenship of our great nation. The oath is simple. Unlike the government's promises, it is not a word salad. It represents the final step of a journey from the initial entry to planting roots and eventually becoming a citizen. The oath of citizenship need not be and should not be complicated, nor a thorough examination of the rights and obligations of what it is to be Canadian. It is merely an affirmation of loyalty to the Queen of Canada, representing the head of state of our constitutional monarchy, and an affirmation to obey our laws and obligations as Canadians. These laws include the Constitution. The Constitution, in turn, recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. To accept the proposed legislation is, therefore, an unnecessary redundancy.I ask again: What purpose does this bill serve?As I have mentioned, along the way to becoming a citizen, a new immigrant must read materials relating to the origins of Canada, including Canadian indigenous people. I believe Canada's indigenous peoples would be better served by emphasizing recommendation number 93, rather than 94, of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, by strengthening this education. This recommendation calls upon the federal government, in collaboration with national aboriginal organizations to revise the information kit for newcomers to Canada and its citizenship tests to reflect a more inclusive history of the diverse aboriginal peoples of Canada, including information about the treaties and histories of residential schools. My alternative to Bill C-8 is just this: implementing recommendation 93 would go further to educating new Canadians about history with our first nations and the obligations the Crown has to them.(1835)Such content can also discuss part II of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 35 states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” Despite many months and many new ideas being presented, the government continues to retable the bill verbatim. I and many other Canadians continue to have the same reaction now as we did each time the bill was brought forward. It is yet another insubstantial virtue signal by the Liberal government.Canadians are growing tired of this cliché. The government consistently fumbles through crisis after crisis, desperate to take attention away from its failings when it comes to Canada's indigenous peoples. While the Trudeau government takes pride in this as a form of reconciliation, Canadian indigenous people are still—C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Canadian historyCitizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationOathsSecond reading63637206363721WarrenSteinleyRegina—LewvanCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1900)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments. I have had the great pleasure of working with him on the international human rights committee, and I greatly respect his work. One thing I would like to get his comments on is this. Knowing how important true meaningful reconciliation is to him, as the current government brings forward UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, will he be supporting that legislation?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples63637866363787DavidSweetFlamborough—GlanbrookDavidSweetFlamborough—Glanbrook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31715DavidSweetDavid-SweetFlamborough—GlanbrookConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SweetDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. David Sweet: (1900)[English]Madam Speaker, I think the member may have been talking about UNDRIP. I am not entirely certain. The principles in UNDRIP are very good, but there are some aspects that are problematic. We are one of the few countries that has first nations rights in our Constitution. That is my position.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6363788HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersNova Scotian FisheryInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (1115)[English]Madam Speaker, for months now the Nova Scotian fishing crisis has continued to escalate. Tensions have risen with each passing week. We have heard testimony at the fisheries committee from indigenous leaders, commercial fishermen, DFO representatives and academics. The common thread in this crisis is that no one is happy with the performance of the Liberal government. Even the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia said that he is “very dissatisfied” and that “We need the federal minister to sit down with all sides in a room. It is not enough to sit down with Indigenous leaders or with fishing associations by themselves.” On Wednesday night, the fisheries minister admitted that she has not even read the Marshall decision, which is a foundational ruling in this crisis.Nova Scotians are tired of empty words and inaction. They need a minister who understands her job, does her homework and provides the necessary leadership to de-escalate this crisis. Fisheries and fishersGovernment performanceIndigenous rightsNova ScotiaStatements by Members635925163592526359253DenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, with the crisis that is happening in Nova Scotia with the lobster fishery, if there is one file and decision that the Minister of Fisheries should have read by now, it is the Marshall decision. Shockingly, yesterday at the fisheries committee, the minister admitted she has never read it.How is it that the Minister of Fisheries does not have the time or the interest to sit down, read and know the law on the most important file that she is dealing with?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions63549856354986ChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that.Basically, what I was asked last night at the fisheries committee was if I had read it in its entirety. I have read the Marshall decision. I needed more context on it. I went to legal experts as well as the member for Sydney—Victoria, who is a treaty rights person, to give me more context on the decision. I have since finished reading that decision. It is an extremely important one, but what is really important is making sure we implement first nations treaty rights.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions63549876354988CandiceBergenHon.Portage—LisgarCandiceBergenHon.Portage—Lisgar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, she read it last night is basically what she is telling us.Commercial fishermen were calling for the minister's resignation weeks ago, and now Chief Sack is also calling on her to resign. Why? She has not met with the Mi'kmaq fishers in a month. The fisheries minister does not have the time or interest to read the important legal decisions on her file, and now she cannot be bothered to meet with commercial or Mi'kmaq fishers.Just exactly what is the fisheries minister doing to fix the crisis that is literally threatening the backbone of Nova Scotia's economy?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions635498963549906354991BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have been actively meeting with both first nations leadership as well as commercial harvesters since the onset of this issue. I will continue to do that. I met with Chief Sack this morning, as a matter of fact. I will continue to have those very important conversations. We know that the only way forward, to make sure that we find a long-term solution to this issue, is through negotiations.I will continue to have those conversations.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions63549926354993CandiceBergenHon.Portage—LisgarPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsClimate ChangeInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, I am introducing petition e-2712 on behalf of 2,500 residents of Canada who are members of Canadian faith communities, who have come together united under the banner “For the Love of Creation”. The petitioners call on the government to commit to reducing GHG emissions by 60% below 2005 levels by 2030; to honour the rights of indigenous people through free, prior and informed consent; to commit equal support to international climate action to provide a fair share of $4 billion per year; and, last, to respond to the pandemic in the global south through multilateral debt cancellation and increased grants to international NGOs.Climate change and global warmingIndigenous rightsInternational development and aidPetition 432-0021963312456331246MartinShieldsBow RiverBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing testimony at committee from sectors that have had little to no engagement with the minister over the ongoing fisheries crisis in Nova Scotia. No peaceful resolution will come if the minister continues to refuse meaningful engagement with all stakeholders by shifting responsibility to a third party. The minister needs to take the lead on this. It is her responsibility. When will the minister be meeting with all stakeholders to come to a peaceful resolution?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPublic consultation63318716331872DebSchulteHon.King—VaughanBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting with all stakeholders since the very start of this issue. I meet with commercial harvesters on a regular basis as well as with first nation communities. We know the first nations have the right to fish for a moderate livelihood. We will continue to work with them to ensure we implement this right.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPublic consultation63318736331874RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, the community of Saulnierville has been ground zero for the fisheries crisis in Nova Scotia and the wharf is still being occupied by indigenous fishers. The district 34 lobster season will be under way in a few weeks and the fishers who pay DFO to dock at the Saulnierville wharf are wondering when they will finally be able to get back into preparation mode. Could the minister explain how the port authority can get the wharf back so fishers can prepare for and start their season on time?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions63318756331876BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, we know that these ongoing tensions have been very difficult for everybody involved. We are working diligently to make sure that we have a solution. We are working with first nations communities to make sure they are able to implement their moderate livelihood right. We are also listening to commercial harvesters with regard to the concerns they have, and making sure we are doing everything we can to address those. We will continue to have those conversations and we will continue to move forward to find a peaceful resolution to this ongoing challenge.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6331877Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister has been MIA when indigenous and commercial fishers are relying on her for answers. The motion passed unanimously at the fisheries committee gives the minister until November 20 to appear and explain herself to fishing communities and all Canadians. Nearly every witness we heard from has said the minister dropped the ball. She has been hiding for far too long when Canadians deserve answers.Committee members want to meet with the Minister of Fisheries. When will she be ready to meet with the committee and fulfill her duties? Will she respect the November 20 deadline?Committee witnessesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqMinister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast GuardNova ScotiaOral questionsStanding Committee on Fisheries and Oceans63318786331879BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, I believe I am scheduled to appear before the committee in November. I am happy to do that. I have been engaged in this file since day one. I have met with the commercial harvesters, as well as with indigenous communities. We know how important it is to find a peaceful resolution to this ongoing issue. I will continue to work with all parties involved to make sure we get to that point.Committee witnessesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsStanding Committee on Fisheries and Oceans6331880JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestBryanMayCambridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88595MoniquePauzéMonique-PauzéRepentignyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PauzéMonique_BQ.jpgStatements by MembersThe EnvironmentInterventionMs. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ): (1420)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, 85% of Quebeckers feel that GMO labelling should be mandatory. Surprisingly, Canada is the first country in the world to have authorized the commercial production of a genetically modified animal. That animal is salmon.We were guinea pigs, consuming it unawares. We demand the right to know. We demand transparency. As of January 2021, the first GMO salmon will hit the market here in Canada, endangering wild salmon populations.The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance does not support the commercial production of this salmon. Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities have also identified threats to the survival of wild salmon posed by GMO salmon.It is my honour to sponsor petition e-2877, which calls on the government to institute mandatory labelling of foods and consumer products that contain GMOs and to respect the rights of indigenous nations.I urge everyone to sign petition e-2877.Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Environmental protectionFood labellingGenetically modified organismsIndigenous rightsStatements by MembersUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples63275026327503632750463275056327506RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverAlexRuffBruce—Grey—Owen Sound//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105908LaurelCollinsLaurel-CollinsVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CollinsLaurel_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessClimate Change Accountability ActInterventionMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very glad to be speaking in the House today in support of climate accountability legislation. While the world has been reeling from the impacts of COVID-19, the climate crisis has not gone away. It poses an ever-increasing threat to our environment, our ecosystems, our food systems, the health of our families, the future and our children's future. It also threatens the economic well-being and health of our communities. I do not know if I can adequately communicate the fear and anxiety that young people have communicated to me about their future or that parents have expressed about what kind of world we are leaving to our children, but it is not just about the future. The impacts of climate change are already being felt in Canada, in the smoke from the climate fires, the fact that temperatures in Canada are increasing at twice the global rate and the impacts on permafrost. The impacts are felt particularly in the Arctic and along the coasts and are disproportionately felt by indigenous communities, rural communities and marginalized and racialized communities.There is a broad scientific agreement that an increase in the global average surface temperature of 1.5 °C or more above pre-industrial levels would constitute dangerous climate change. Canadians want real action on the climate crisis, and they want a government to not just promise to fight climate change, but to actually deliver on that commitment. The Liberals have missed every single climate target, and we are not even on track to meet Stephen Harper's weak targets. In a fall 2019 report, the commissioner of the environment said there is no evidence to support the government's statement that its current or planned actions would allow Canada to meet its targets. The list of Liberal commitments on environmental targets that the current government has missed or is on track to miss is long. We are not even close to being on track to meeting our targets of selling 100% zero-emissions vehicles by 2040. The government committed to plant two billion trees by 2030, and not a single dollar has been allocated to that target. The clean fuel standard, a key part of the pan-Canadian framework on climate change, has been delayed. I could go on, but in many ways, all of these are symptoms of a government that has not been accountable to its climate commitments. Climate accountability is needed. This bill focuses on our climate targets. Reporting on how we get to those targets should include how the government intends to meet all of these vital climate-related policies. As has been mentioned, in 2008 the United Kingdom created a climate accountability framework, the Climate Change Act. This act was the first of its kind and remains very highly regarded. It has served as a model for legislation in other jurisdictions including Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain and New Zealand. The U.K. has set five carbon budgets, and regular reporting to Parliament has enhanced transparency and accountability. The U.K. has an expert advisory committee, the committee on climate change. Two years before the U.K. implemented its bill, in 2006, the leader of the NDP at the time, Jack Layton, introduced the first climate change accountability act in Canada. This bill passed third reading by a vote of 148 to 116, with the Harper Conservatives voting against it, but Jack Layton's bill died in the Senate. The NDP has introduced the climate change accountability act as a private member's bill in the 39th, the 40th and the 41st Parliaments, by Jack and also by former MP, Megan Leslie. In this Parliament, my NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, has put forward a bill, Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework, which would provide for the development and implementation of a climate emergency action framework. It explicitly outlines the need for an action framework ensuring the transition toward a green economy; increasing employment in green energy, infrastructure and housing; and ensuring economic well-being.Importantly, it explicitly states that the climate emergency action framework, climate accountability legislation, must be built on a foundation that upholds the provisions in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.(1845)The bill we are debating today, put forward by my Bloc colleague, is a really good start. It is headed in the right direction, but I see some gaps and some areas that need strengthening.First, as outlined in the member for Winnipeg Centre's bill, Bill C-232, climate accountability legislation must be explicitly built on a foundation that recognizes the inherent indigenous right to self-government, that upholds the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that takes into account scientific knowledge, including indigenous science and knowledge, as well as the responsibilities we have toward future generations.I applaud, in Bill C-215, the inclusion of interim targets every five years, although 2045 seems to be missing, and applaud the requirement to outline the methods, measures and tools for measuring and assessing greenhouse gas reductions. However, the bill needs strengthening in relation to what these targets will be. It relies on the Paris Agreement, and we need to acknowledge that the Paris targets and net-zero by 2050 are not enough. Our greenhouse gas reduction targets need to be ambitious and consistent with Canada’s fair share contribution. They need to be strong targets that help us stay below a temperature increase of 1.5°C.The last IPCC report is telling us that we need to at least cut our emissions in half by 2030, and the new targets need to reflect this. Yes, our targets need to be set into law, but we also need to include mechanisms so that they can be strengthened when the experts advise.The next area that is in need of strengthening is accountability. We need experts involved not only in strengthening targets, but also in reporting and analyzing our progress. It is essential that these experts be at arm’s length, and their mandate needs to focus on climate accountability. The NDP has pushed for an independent climate accountability office and the appointment of a climate accountability officer, who would undertake research and gather information and analysis on the target plan or revised target plan; prepare a report that includes findings and recommendations on the quality and completeness of the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analysis used to establish each target in the target plan; and advise on any other climate change and sustainable development matters that the officer would consider relevant to climate accountability. Environmental advocates and organizations have also called for an independent arm’s-length expert climate advisory committee drawn up from all regions of the country, one that would specifically advise on long-term targets, the five-year carbon budgets and climate impact reports. These experts would also monitor and report on governmental progress toward achieving the short-term carbon budgets, long-term targets and adaptation plans, and would provide advice to the government on climate-related policy. Another element that we need to look at is carbon budgets, both national and subnational.While all these areas need attention, I believe they can be addressed in committee. It is essential that we move forward with climate accountability legislation immediately. We needed it back in 2006, when Jack Layton first put it forward. We needed it when each iteration of the IPCC report came out, outlining the catastrophic impacts of global warming. We needed it last year, when young people were marching in the streets begging politicians and decision-makers to listen to science. We need it now.The Liberals promised climate accountability legislation in their election platform and again in the throne speech. In fact, in the most recent throne speech, they said that they would immediately bring forward a plan outlining how they are going to meet and exceed Canada’s 2030 emissions reduction goals. They also committed to legislating net-zero by 2050. That was back in September. I am not sure what the Liberal government's definition of “immediately” is, but it is now November and neither of these things have happened. If the Liberals vote against this bill, it will be another example of how they are content to make climate promises but are unwilling to take climate action. We need to remember that this is the government that declared a climate emergency one day and bought a pipeline the next.I implore my fellow MPs to support this motion. I will be—AccountabilityAdvisory bodiesC-215, An Act respecting Canada's fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligationsClimate change and global warmingCommissioner of the Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentGreenhouse gasesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsPrivate Members' BillsScientific dataSecond readingUnited Kingdom632816663281676328169DanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1615)[English]Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciate the fact that the member expressed support on behalf of the Conservatives for the bill.The member for Thornhill, speaking in the last round about the proposed citizenship oath amendments, said that if indigenous peoples continue the protest of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, they would lose support for such an amendment. This kind of statement is completely ignorant of the rights of indigenous peoples.If the Conservatives support the recognition of the inherent rights of indigenous people, as is proposed in the bill, would they also support article 10 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples about free, prior and informed consent?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityCoastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectConsentGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWet'suwet'en First Nation63223346322335RaquelDanchoKildonan—St. PaulRaquelDanchoKildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho: (1615)[English]Madam Speaker, the member for Thornhill was referring to the public outcry at the railway blockades, but also referring to the immense support from the Wet'suwet'en elected band council and some of their hereditary chiefs. For example, hereditary chief Helen Michelle mentioned, “A lot of the protestors are not even Wet'suwet'en” and “Our own people said 'go ahead'” with Coastal GasLink. Further, she said that they talked to the elders. They talked and talked, and they kept bringing them back. She said that they walked the very territory where Coastal GasLink was going and they were going to give it the go-ahead.Further, Chief Larry Nooski of the Nadleh Whut'en said, “Coastal GasLink represents a once in a generation economic development opportunity for Nadleh Whut'en First Nation. We negotiated hard...to guarantee that Nadleh people, including youth, have the opportunity to benefit directly and indirectly from the project, while at the same time, ensuring that the land and the water is protected”. I believe my colleague's response in his speech was regarding those comments.Further, regarding UNDRIP, Conservatives are supportive of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. That path must be studied and furthered across all levels of government. I am eager to see what, if anything, the government puts forward as soon as possible. It has been four years since it said it would adopt it, yet no action has been brought forward. Again, it is an area that needs study and I look forward to seeing that being studied.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityCoastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectConsentGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWet'suwet'en First Nation632233663223376322338JennyKwanVancouver EastChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak in support of Bill C-8 on behalf of the NDP. The NDP has consistently called for the full implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. In fact, I tabled an amendment to revise the citizenship oath to recognize and affirm the aboriginal and treaty rights of the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in a previous immigration bill, Bill C-6, back in 2016. Sadly, that amendment was not accepted. Even though this change was in the former minister's 2017 mandate letter, the Liberals failed to act until the dying days of the last Parliament, just before the 2019 election. As a result, the bill did not even make it to second reading.The Prime Minister has claimed that the new relationship with indigenous peoples is his most important relationship, yet it has taken the minister three years to act on this priority from his mandate letter. I ask the members to think about it. It is astonishing that it has taken this long for the Liberals to act. There is simply no good reason for this not to be accomplished already.The Liberals have missed the opportunity to ensure that the many new citizens who took their oaths since 2017 began their journey as Canadian citizens with a full understanding of our collective obligation to honour the rights of indigenous peoples. If it takes the Liberals this long to add a line to the citizenship oath, is it any wonder they are failing on their nation-to-nation relationships with indigenous peoples on so many levels?In 2017, when the Prime Minister declared, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples”, all of Canada was hopeful. Perhaps we would finally be able to work on redressing this country's historical wrongs and heal the trauma caused by Canada's colonial history. Perhaps we would finally be on the right side of history and move forward with a new relationship that puts the rights of indigenous peoples front and centre. Sadly, the actions of the Prime Minister indicate otherwise. All we have to do is take a good hard look at the lived experiences of indigenous peoples to know that Canada has failed and is continuing to fail to meet its obligations to indigenous peoples. Look at what is happening with indigenous children. In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada guilty of “wilful and reckless” racial discrimination by knowingly underfunding on-reserve child welfare services.Why did it take 10 non-compliance orders against the federal government to force it to act? Why did Dr. Cindy Blackstock have to fight for so long and so relentlessly for the government to treat indigenous children fairly and equitably? Why is it that the basic human rights for indigenous peoples are so hard to honour for the Liberal government, and for the Conservative government before it? It is truly hard to comprehend.Successive governments' foot-dragging in meaningful implementation and in upholding indigenous rights has had devastating impacts on the lives of indigenous communities across the land for generations, from the young to the old and all of those in between. We see the effect of this in our communities every single day. It is in the violence currently being committed against the Mi'kmaq fishers.As stated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they have the right to self-determination. This right was enshrined in the peace and friendship treaties and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 by the Marshall decision. The Marshall decision affirmed their treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a “moderate livelihood” 20 years ago, yet successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have failed to negotiate with indigenous communities to define “moderate livelihood” and pave a path for indigenous fishers to fully exercise their rights, rights which are enshrined in Canada's Constitution.(1655)How is this possible? Would anyone think, even for a minute, that, if this were a Supreme Court ruling for non-indigenous peoples, it would take more than two decades for the government to act? As a result of the inaction, the Mi'kmaq fishers are faced with violence, intimidation and domestic terrorism. Crimes were committed against them. People were injured, and they have suffered property damage.Two weeks ago, the Liberal ministers agreed with the NDP that this warranted an emergency debate in the House of Commons, yet during the debate Liberal members voted against the NDP's unanimous consent motion to affirm the inherent rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people. The Liberals have refused to confirm their rights, which are enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and by the Supreme Court of Canada. They refuse to recognize that the Mi'kmaq nation deserves full and equal protection under the law from violence, intimidation and domestic terrorism.Now, according to media reports, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs is alleging that the DFO is planning to seize the gear and traps of the Mi'kmaq fishers. Do the Liberals really think this is reconciliation? It is utterly shameful.The Liberal government must stop making a mockery of the meaning behind this bill and act with integrity by taking real action to affirm the rights of all indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister must also pause and reflect on the message he is sending to young indigenous peoples when they witness the blatant inaction of the RCMP when it comes to ensuring the Mi'kmaq nation is afforded the same protection as everyone else.This situation is more disturbing when compared to the situation of the Wet'suwet'en land defenders, where an ample number of heavily armed RCMP officers surrounded them as they attempted to assert their rights against the Coastal GasLink pipeline. It was truly shocking to learn that the RCMP officers were instructed to “use as much violence toward the gate as you want.”It is as though the 1997 landmark decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada found that the rights of the Wet'suwet'en nation had not been extinguished, did not exist. The Liberals are pushing ahead with the Trans Mountain pipeline extension. The voices of the land defenders are being ignored. There is a total disregard for article 10 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which explicitly outlines the need for the government to fully respect the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples when it comes to resource development on their land, including and especially when the answer is “no”.When the violation of the rights of indigenous peoples are so blatant, how can the Liberals go on pretending that they are affirming the rights of indigenous peoples? Sadly, this kind of injustice is not new, nor is this kind of doublespeak.My questions for the Prime Minister are theses: What will it take to stop the human rights violations against indigenous peoples? What will it take for him to internalize the fact that the trauma of such human rights abuses is intergenerational?My colleague, the member for North Island—Powell River, shared the very real lived experiences of her children as indigenous peoples. No parent should have to see their children suffer under the weight of such systemic racism. No parent should have to fear for the safety of their children because they are indigenous, yet this is their everyday reality.My constituents, who continue to witness this ongoing abuse by the government, are saying that reconciliation is dead. They see an unprecedented number of indigenous children being taken away from their families through the child welfare system. They see police brutality being levied against indigenous peoples. They see racism permeating the health care system. They continue to see indigenous women and girls go missing.The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls determined that colonial structures and policies, which persist in Canada, constitute a root cause of the violence experienced by indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQ2IA people. This violence, the report concludes, amounts to a race-based genocide against indigenous peoples, especially women, girls and 2SLGBTQ2IA people.(1700)To remedy this and put an end to this Canadian genocide, the final report of the national inquiry put forth 231 calls for justice. When the final report on the national inquiry was released, the federal government promised that a national action plan would be in place on the anniversary of the annual release. Families, survivors and indigenous organizations have emphasized the need for an indigenous women-led national action plan to implement the 231 calls for justice. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, the national action plan has been delayed indefinitely. The longer the government stalls, the longer people suffer. For example, many of the calls for justice include addressing racism in health care settings and hospitals. The disturbing death of Joyce Echaquan, an indigenous mother of seven children, after experiencing racist and derogatory treatment from health care staff in a hospital, is a sharp reminder that it is inexcusable for the Liberal government to delay the implementation of the calls for justice. While the government is using the pandemic as an excuse for inaction and delays, the community has been advocating for real concrete actions to improve the safety and well-being of indigenous women and girls on the ground for decades. These include access to safe and affordable housing, reforms to the child welfare system, reforms to the justice system and policing, improving health care access for indigenous people as well as providing core funding support for providers of culturally sensitive and trauma-informed support in community services.The pandemic is not an excuse to delay what should be a top priority for Canada. On the contrary, the pandemic is the reason to accelerate action. In fact, the pandemic has exposed many issues. Imagine what it is like to not have access to clean drinking water in a pandemic, yet the Liberal government has recently backtracked on its promise to end all drinking water advisories in indigenous communities by March 2021, which is only five months away. Just last month, the Neskantaga First Nation's community was evacuated amidst a global pandemic after high levels of hydrocarbons were discovered in the water supply. While the government is using the pandemic as an excuse for the delays in fulfilling its promise, this situation was not caused by the pandemic. The community of the Neskantaga has been under a boil water advisory for 25 years. With the COVID-19 pandemic, access to safe water to meet hygiene needs is more important than ever. The pandemic should be a catalyst for urgent action rather than an excuse for delays. The health and safety of indigenous peoples matter. The lives of indigenous peoples matter.Tied to the issue of clean drinking water is access to safe, secure affordable housing. Canada is struggling with a preventable affordable housing and homelessness crisis. The crisis impacts indigenous communities much more acutely due to the historic and ongoing displacement and systemic racism experienced by indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are 10 times more likely to become homeless than non-indigenous Canadians. Indigenous communities in rural, urban and northern communities face some of the worst housing conditions in all of Canada. My colleague, the MP for Nunavut, went on a housing tour in her region. All the families she visited were living in overcrowded situations and all had serious problems with mould. Some homes were in such poor condition that beds were frozen to the wall. Overcrowded homes and lack of housing means that many people are often forced to remain with abusers. Children are removed from their homes and families because there is no safe habitable housing available to families. As my colleague states, “Putting Inuit in situations where they are dying, getting sick or losing their kids because of inadequate housing is modern-day colonization.”(1705)Urban and rural indigenous communities also face unique and drastic housing challenges. My riding of Vancouver East is one of the hardest hit by Canada's ongoing homelessness crisis, a crisis that disproportionately affects indigenous peoples.Of all the community members currently living in the Strathcona Park tents right now, it is estimated that 40% of the residents are of indigenous ancestry, despite indigenous people only comprising 2.5% of the population of Metro Vancouver.The lack of access to housing, a basic human right, is a root cause to the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care and removed from their families. It is a root cause of the violence experienced by indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. It is stressful, trauma-inducing and injurious. It is simply incredulous that the housing needs for urban, rural and northern indigenous peoples were completely ignored in the national housing strategy. Despite all the talk over the years, there is still no plan for a rural, urban and northern indigenous housing strategy led by indigenous people for indigenous people.The amended citizenship oath affirms what should have been true all along; that recognizing and affirming indigenous and treaty rights is at the core of fulfilling one's duties and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen. The government must act now to fulfill its own obligations to recognize and affirm indigenous and treaty rights.While the amended Citizenship Act helps new Canadians better understand, we, at the same time, also have a crucial role to play in ensuring that Canada meets its obligation to indigenous peoples. It is treaties that give settler Canadians the privilege of living on indigenous lands and with that privilege comes the collective responsibility to commit ourselves to recognizing and affirming indigenous and treaty rights.Justice Murray Sinclair summarized this obligation best, “Reconciliation is not an aboriginal problem—it is a Canadian problem. It involves all of us.” It is incumbent on the federal government to show that leadership every single step of the way. It is incumbent on the Liberal government to do better than what it has done so far.Having only completed 10 calls for action is not good enough. Indigenous people should not have to continually wait for their rights to be honoured and for their basic human rights to be respected. Incremental reconciliation should not be the path forward. We need to see action and we need to see it now. We cannot allow for the pandemic to be that excuse. We need to accelerate the program and to move forward. Generations have been waiting for it. Indigenous peoples deserve better.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Care for childrenCitizenship and identityCoastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectDrinking waterFamilies and childrenFisheries and fishersGovernment billsGovernment compensationHomelessness and homelessHomicideIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsInquiries and public inquiriesMi'kmaqMissing personsNational Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and GirlsNova ScotiaOathsSecond readingSocial housingViolence against womenWet'suwet'en First Nation6322449632245063224516322452632245363224546322455CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKodyBloisKings—Hants//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104947ChristineNormandinChristine-NormandinSaint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NormandinChristine_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): (1710)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her inspiring speech.I would like her thoughts on the fact that the bill would include the existence of indigenous rights in the citizenship oath when we still have not implemented the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.What message does she think it sends to recognize these rights in the oath when we are still not on track to implement UNDRIP?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples632248463224856322486JennyKwanVancouver EastJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan: (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, it is absolutely dismaying to me that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has not become law. It should be the blueprint for the Canadian government going forward with all our policies and laws, yet that is not the case. Given the action of the Liberal government, it has demonstrated time and again that it has not put the basic human rights of indigenous peoples at the forefront. Why else would the Liberal government continue to challenge indigenous children in the courts? Why did it take Dr. Cindy Blackstock decades to get the governments to move forward on that? Why did the government not abide by the 10 compliance orders from the Human Rights Tribunal? All of this tells us that the Liberals have not been focused on doing this work and they are not sincere with what they say to match up with what they actually do. Going forward, it is essential for all of us to push the government to get the job done. Indigenous peoples, the first peoples of this land, deserve to be recognized, honoured and respected, and their basic human rights must be honoured.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6322487632248863224896322490ChristineNormandinSaint-JeanHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague's comments were moving. I thank her for the advocacy she does to help those who are experiencing homelessness. I think all my colleagues in the House would recognize that the member for Vancouver East is the pre-eminent advocate and voice for those experiencing homelessness. I do really appreciate what she does. The member was a sitting member in the last Parliament when NDP MP Romeo Saganash introduced a bill to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. The work has been done, the bill has been written, yet the Liberals still have not gotten around to tabling it. Like my colleague from the Bloc Québécois mentioned, we still have not seen UNDRIP become part of our legislation. Does the member feel that the Liberals are deliberately delaying the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples632249163224926322493HanDongDon Valley NorthJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan: (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her kind words.The Liberals have been slow-walking in moving forward with UNDRIP. We saw that in the last Parliament. The government could have moved the bill on UNDRIP forward with a much quicker pace than was done. However, that did not happen and the bill died on the Order Paper. Now, in the new Parliament, we have yet to see the bill introduced. I do not know what the holdup is other than to there is a lack of political will from the government to move forward, to charge ahead so it can finally honour indigenous peoples with respect to their basic rights.UNDRIP should be the blueprint for the government and for everyone going forward. There is simply no excuse why UNDRIP has not become law already.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples632249463224956322496CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingLenoreZannCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104544LenoreZannLenore-ZannCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ZannLenore_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Lenore Zann (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that I am on the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq, the People of the Dawn, in Nova Scotia. I want to thank the hon. member for her impassioned speech, and I would agree with most of what she said. However, we have already said several times that, as a government, we plan to introduce UNDRIP before Christmas. I hope the member would support it when we do.When we introduce the legislation, will the member support it?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples632249763224986322499JennyKwanVancouver EastJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan: (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, of course the NDP will support UNDRIP. In fact, it was a former NDP member, MP Romeo Saganash, who tabled that bill. He worked and dedicated his life in bringing it forward to the House.The real question is this. Why is the Liberal government waiting until December or sometime before December to introduce it? Why not introduce now? Why not introduce it yesterday? How much longer do indigenous people have to wait for their rights to be honoured? How much longer do they have to wait to see the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples become law in Canada? C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples63225006322501LenoreZannCumberland—ColchesterKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1720)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the Wet'suwet'en and the police action there. Was she aware that it was the B.C. NDP government that gave the RCMP their orders? Would she like to see that pipeline cancelled as well and put an end to the fracking and the LNG projects the NDP are pushing through Wet'suwet'en territory?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityCoastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingWet'suwet'en First Nation6322506JennyKwanVancouver EastJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan: (1720)[English]Madam Speaker, I support the indigenous people and their rights. That is why I am here, and that is what I am fighting for. It is time for us to honour their rights.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityCoastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingWet'suwet'en First Nation6322507PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithHanDongDon Valley North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/376MarioBeaulieuMario-BeaulieuLa Pointe-de-l'ÎleBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BeaulieuMario_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): (1825)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.The government has been in power for more than a year. How is it possible that the government has yet to introduce a bill on implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in that year?C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6322658RandeepSaraiSurrey CentreRandeepSaraiSurrey Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89339RandeepSaraiRandeep-SaraiSurrey CentreLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SaraiRandeep_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Randeep Sarai: (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, as members can tell, we are on bill number eight of this Parliament. Shortly after we were elected to government, the world's greatest pandemic hit this country and the globe. This impeded a lot of bills that should have been brought out early and quickly, as we had to make sure that Canadians had food on their table, they were secure, and their mortgages and bills were being paid.I think that took priority right away. However, that does not diminish the importance of making sure that UNDRIP and other measures that are part of our commitment are addressed. We will continue to get going on that and have that done.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples63226596322660MarioBeaulieuLa Pointe-de-l'ÎleMichaelMcLeodNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1905)[English]Madam Speaker, I liked hearing my colleague's words about how important it is that we deal with things like boil-water advisories, and how important it is that we deal with the calls for action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the calls for justice from the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls tribunal. My problem is that sometimes I feel like the Conservatives pick and choose when they want to support indigenous rights and when they do not.The former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, said that his primary concern with the bill was that recognizing indigenous rights to free, prior and informed consent would hurt the economy. I wonder if the member could speak about the need to not pick and choose which indigenous rights we fight for and when we stand up for indigenous peoples in our country.C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading6322743MartyMorantzCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyMartyMorantzCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105511MartyMorantzMarty-MorantzCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorantzMarty_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMr. Marty Morantz: (1905)[English]Madam Speaker, the reality is that while members of the NDP want to take partisan political shots at us and want to focus on us, we are focused on Canadians. The things I described that we did in Winnipeg, we did in a year. The government has been in power for six years and only today are we discussing changing the oath.There is so much more we can do, and I really understand the frustration in indigenous communities about how long things take, because I know we can do things faster. C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading63227446322745HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree with having a national day for truth and reconciliation. It is an important step in the right direction. However, what is even more important is for Canada to recognize the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am wondering how long it is going to take for that piece of legislation that is so needed, and we are seeing that across Canada right now. When is that going to be tabled?C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples63198796319880KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government, in fact Liberal members of Parliament, have been very clear in support of it. I suspect it is only a question of time. There was an attempt previously that made it fairly far; unfortunately, it got stalled at the Senate level. I appreciate the question.C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6319881RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, it is my honour to be speaking virtually from Toronto, but in the House of Commons, on Bill C-5. This is an important piece of legislation on the path to reconciliation, which I firmly believe will help in shaping a better future.I want to note, first of all, that when I speak from my riding of Parkdale—High Park, I am located on the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabe and, most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit. I would also like to say meegwetch, which means “thank you” in Algonquin, for giving me the chance to speak before the chamber on this important topic, acknowledging that the parliamentary precinct where you are, Madam Speaker, is on unceded Algonquin territory.Before beginning, I also want to acknowledge the important work done on this initiative by former NDP member of Parliament, Georgina Jolibois, who presented this bill in the 42nd Parliament. At that time, during debate, she said:This bill will not solve the housing crisis indigenous people live through and it will not fix the overrepresentation of indigenous children in foster care and it will not close the education gap that leaves indigenous children behind. However, it will give Canadians the opportunity to fully understand why those problems exist.That is a very succinct and sound analysis of the situation and also of the importance of the bill. I thank her for her advocacy during the 42nd Parliament.We have heard during debate on this bill about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the TRC. We know it released its final report in 2015 and that the Liberal government under the Prime Minister accepted the conclusions of the TRC. This in-depth study of Canada's history was mainly looking at the legacy of the residential school system. There were 94 calls to action, of which we have heard about many. Bill C-5 will address, in particular, call to action number 80, which states:We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to establish, as a statutory holiday, a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to honour Survivors, their families, and communities, and ensure that public commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.The relationship with indigenous peoples is a critical one and the implementation of this call to action is one step forward toward that reconciliation. Clearly, there is a long way to go, and we have heard about that from many speakers on this bill today and last week. Canada, indeed, has a poor history and track record when it comes to its relationship with indigenous persons. In a debate like the one we are having today, it is important to acknowledge mistakes from the past in order to build forward better. We are all now well aware of the atrocities that happened in residential schools and their consequences, and I will touch on the point of education a little later. We are aware generally of the intergenerational impacts on survivors and their families. We are also aware of the consequences of the sixties scoop that took so many indigenous kids away from their families. Finally, we are aware of the ongoing systemic racism and discrimination that is still happening in Canada. We saw the heartbreaking video published by Joyce Echaquan during the last minutes of her life, mentioned by the previous speakers of the Bloc Québécois. We know about the systemic racism being faced by Mi'kmaq fishers in Nova Scotia as we speak, fishers who dared to exercise their treaty right to fish for a moderate livelihood, as upheld in two Supreme Court decisions in the Marshall case 21 years earlier. The violence we have seen in Nova Scotia is never acceptable, and the systemic racism we have witnessed in Nova Scotia must be eliminated via leadership on the part of all parties, including law enforcement in Nova Scotia. That is why we need to move forward with all of the calls to action from the TRC. However, I want to focus now on call to action 80 and urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation talks about September 30 and we have heard about this in the context of Orange Shirt Day, the current moniker for September 30. Established in 2013, Orange Shirt Day helps raise awareness about the long-lasting impacts of residential schools and honours the resilience and courage of survivors, while focusing on the experiences of students at residential schools and, indeed, those who did not survive. This day is based on the heartbreaking story of Phyllis Webstad, which remained, unfortunately, unknown to many Canadians. For those who are not aware of it, Phyllis was sent to the Mission school out west in 1973. Even though her family did not have a lot of money, her grandmother bought her a brand new outfit before she had to leave for her first day of school. Part of that outfit was a shiny new orange shirt. Her joy at attending school at the tender age of six did not last very long. When she arrived at the school, the authorities took away all of her possessions, including her clothes, and that brand new orange shirt was never returned. I had the opportunity to meet Phyllis Webstad in the government lobby during the last Parliament and she talked to me about her story.(1300)She also provided me with a copy of her book and inscribed it for my children, who at the time were about three and seven. They are now nine and six. What I have done since that time is read my kids that story periodically and educate them about this very basic concept. During this pandemic I can say that the anticipation my children had of returning to school was very high, but the notion of them being prevented from wearing something that I or my wife might have purchased for them really hit home as a visceral example of the injustice and unfairness of the residential school system.I am glad my kids are learning about this, but the point is not just about Phyllis's book or my children. It is about all children and all of us, as Canadians, learning about this important story. We know that Phyllis, at the age of 27, started a healing journey. Since then she has been able to share her story, but that story needs to be shared widely. We also have to think about the unshared stories of those who did not come out of that Mission school, who never returned from residential school, or who never found their voice or had the courage to tell it the way Phyllis has. That is why this is such an important initiative.I want to acknowledge that there are those who push the envelope on the part of reconciliation and indigenous awareness all the time. I am proud to call many of those my constituents in Parkdale—High Park. There are many people who are actively engaged at a local level, community by community, around this country with reconciliation. People speak to me about the pace of reconciliation and how it needs to be hastened. People in my riding speak to me about the legacy of residential schools. I have been heartened by the fact children at a very tender age in my riding are already learning about this in their classrooms. This is critical, because it is not learning I ever received in the 1970s or 1980s as a young student here in Toronto.I am also heartened by the fact that people are aware of the territory we are on, here in Toronto; of the naming of streets, and how that was occasioned in places in and around High Park; of blanket exercises, and even of such things as the magnificent indigenous murals and art that decorate parts of my riding, including the beautiful mural by Philip Cote at the corner of Roncesvalles Avenue and Garden Avenue. While there are those who are aware in my community, throughout the city and throughout this country, there are still far too many people who are unaware. That is what this bill clearly seeks to address.Let me talk a bit about education at this point.[Translation]To move forward on the path to reconciliation, it is imperative that we continue to educate our society on the issues facing first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. As a government, we have a duty to ensure that Canadians are aware of the difficult history of indigenous peoples and the consequences of the trauma they have experienced. Statistics show that around half of Canadians have little to no knowledge of the residential schools and their impact.That is why it is so important to create a national day for truth and reconciliation. By creating this day, we will help increase general knowledge about the first peoples and their history. These conversations need to take place, at home, among friends and among colleagues, to raise awareness about reconciliation.(1305)[English]I want to talk about my own education. I alluded to my own experience at elementary school as a young boy here in Toronto. I practised law prior to becoming a parliamentarian and did so for 15 years. I practised constitutional law. Obviously, that means I was at law school and then was engaged in practice. While at law school I learned very little, almost nothing, about the residential school system. During my practice, I did not touch this area of law. It was generally understood at the time that aboriginal law, as it was then known, was quite complicated, complex and usually quite desperate in terms of leaving one feeling despondent that nothing was going to improve.Upon entering life as a parliamentarian in 2017, I had the occasion of serving as the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of heritage, who at the time was charged with working with first nations, Inuit and Métis individuals to co-develop language protection legislation. She turned to me and asked if I would help her in this work. Originally, I was puzzled as to why the ask was put in and what I could contribute, but that ask has been quite pivotal to my understanding of this issue, my understanding of the broader cause of reconciliation, and my maturation as a parliamentarian.What I learned as I led those consultations around the country, from coast to coast to coast, meeting with teachers, elders, academics, leaders, pupils and chiefs from first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, is how critical language is as a feature of reconciliation, and how critical it is to work on initiatives like this in a co-development model. One study resonated with me, and I will repeat it now. We learned in British Columbia that those groups who have knowledge of their mother tongue, their own indigenous language, have a suicide rate six times lower than the provincial average. When the language was removed, it removed people's connection to their people, to their culture and their community. Suicide rates elevated sixfold, far outstripping the provincial average for non-indigenous people. That told me there is a clear link between restoring people's language and people's connection to their culture, their sense of self-esteem, their confidence and, indeed, suicidality rates. It is not far-fetched or hyperbole to say that these are literally life-and-death matters for indigenous people. This bill is more symbolic in nature, but it touches upon the same concept that we need to learn about history in the context of language. Residential schools contributed to erasing that language.I raise the issue because the question has come up, in the context of this debate, of whether enough work is being done. Clearly, more work needs to be done, but I would say that passing the Indigenous Languages Act, passing child welfare legislation and eliminating over 80 boil water advisories are steps in the right direction. Does more need to be done? Absolutely: not one of the 338 members of the House would dispute that. However, it is unfair to say that work has not been done since 2015.I will say that Bill C-5, talks about call to action no. 80. In this bill, we recognize that indigenous people continue to face ongoing discrimination, as I mentioned at the very outset. Systemic racism continues to be a reality. We know that, in the past, indigenous communities have gone out on the streets to express their frustration and their desire for change. I am glad to see now that the rest of society is catching up: slowly, but it is catching up. We see solidarity with indigenous people voicing concerns about the Mi'kmaq and solidarity with indigenous persons voicing concerns about Joyce Echaquan. Non-indigenous people are awakening, and that is a good sign. The fact that parliamentarians are awakening is a critical sign and a necessary one. That solidarity is what this bill endeavours not just to capture but also to promote.Bill C-5 is in line with some of our government's previous actions, such as an announcement in budget 2019 to provide $7 million, over two years, to communities across the country to commemorate the history and legacy of residential schools. By taking this step forward, we keep raising awareness across Canada of the trauma indigenous people have undergone and the intergenerational impacts of such trauma.It is important that we recognize that it is not just about learning this history on one day, on September 30, but each and every day: that we think about it in terms of the practical work that we do as parliamentarians and, indeed, how we live our lives day to day as Canadians. It is a common responsibility and a duty to remember this dark chapter in Canadian history and to ensure a better future for all people in this country. We owe it to indigenous peoples on this land. We owe it to the survivors of the residential school system. We owe it to those who never returned from the residential school system. We owe it to the parents from whom children were taken. We owe it also to the generations to come. Having an open conversation about residential schools and the legacy of racism and colonialism, and the hardship and pain and violence that were endured, is difficult. It is painful. It is uncomfortable. However, we recognize that this is nothing compared with the actual experiences lived by indigenous people who went through these schools. We are committed to doing what is right with respect to Bill C-5, even though that is not an easy path. I hope all members, in a strong spirit of non-partisanship, will support this bill and recognize its importance, so that September 30, 2021, can be the first national day for truth and reconciliation in Canada. Learning our history and moving forward should never be an issue that divides on party lines.C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Child abductionFisheries and fishersGovernment billsIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsInformation disseminationNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationNova ScotiaOrange Shirt DayPublic holidaysRacial equalitySecond reading6320358GabrielSte-MarieJolietteArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105908LaurelCollinsLaurel-CollinsVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CollinsLaurel_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessInstruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentInterventionMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, this motion directs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to undertake a comprehensive study on federal policies and legislation relating to fresh water, and we do need changes to our laws on fresh water. Canada is facing new and intensifying water challenges and we need to modernize our approach to freshwater management along with Canada’s outdated federal freshwater legislation. However, the government has committed to the creation of a Canada water agency and it is aware of the most significant flaws in our waters laws. Therefore, it is important that this study not stop, pause or slow down the creation of the Canada water agency or the updating of the Canada Water Act.There is no denying that the challenges we face when it comes to the protection and sustainability of our fresh water have changed drastically over the past few decades. This is why we need a new approach to freshwater management. If we want to ensure Canada’s waters are resilient to climate change, safe for human health and sustainable in the long term, we need to do this work. We know that climate change is already impacting freshwater issues and the challenges are increasing in severity. However, climate change has also created new and complex issues, such as rising sea levels and increased severe weather systems. Addressing these challenges to our freshwater systems requires coordination and an integrated response at the federal level. Unfortunately our outdated federal water laws and policies failed to account for climate impacts both now and in the future. In particular, water-based natural disasters like flooding and droughts, but also disasters like toxic algae blooms and climate fires, are increasing exponentially both in frequency and severity. This events cost governments billions of dollars, first in direct disaster assistance but also impact our economic revenue and indirectly cost billions more. Canada’s capacity to manage these events is severely hampered by a lack of data and reporting, a lack of national forecasting and prediction capacity and a failure to adequately incorporate climate change impacts. I want to recognize my New Democrat colleague, the MP for London—Fanshawe, and her bill, Bill C-245, which calls for a freshwater strategy and also explicitly includes consultation with indigenous peoples. Indigenous water rights are inadequately recognized in our current water management systems. We need to ensure that our policies are based on a new nation-to-nation governance paradigm, that our policies are consistent with the principles of reconciliation and that they are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We need to ensure that all our water laws recognize indigenous nations’ inherent rights to self-determination. In addition to these issues, our water management capacity is also fragmented across over 20 different federal departments and this governance model impedes governments at all levels across the country and makes our shared water challenges even more challenging. On top of that, watersheds and river basins are composed of many overlapping jurisdictions. Local, provincial, indigenous and federal governments have at times lacked the capacity or the means to effectively work together. Transboundary watersheds and river basins shared by Canada and the U.S. are also in need of governance renewal. The first step to addressing this is to establish a Canada water agency. While the Liberals have committed to this in the most recent throne speech, which is a positive sign, we have heard many environmental promises from the government before. What we really want to see is action. The government has missed every climate target it has set. It is even failing to meet Stephen Harper’s weak climate targets. It said that it would have a plan to meet our international climate commitments “immediately” after the throne speech. Over a month has passed and still no sign of the plan. While I am glad the water agency was mentioned in the throne speech, with no timeline attached and with Liberals not moving forward on the things they said they would tackle immediately, like climate targets, I have to admit that I am skeptical the government will put action behind its words. The water agency is important and we should, at the very least, be getting started now. Its mandate and functions should be co-developed with indigenous nations. They should also be developed in close collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, local authorities, water organizations and the public. (1845)Creating the Canada water agency is just the first step. There is a huge need for broader reforms, including in the Canada Water Act, and the agency would ideally be the foundation needed to start transforming the way water is managed.The Canada Water Act, which urgently needs updating, is Canada’s primary federal freshwater legislation. It has not been adequately or significantly updated in decades. It does not currently reflect or adequately respond to the issues that I outlined, including the impacts of climate change and addressing indigenous water rights. The act also needs to address the evolving role that the private insurance industry plays in flood risk mitigation and damage reduction. I want to acknowledge the work of FLOW, an organization that has been fighting for these issues for a long time. In the same way the water agency needs to be co-developed with indigenous peoples, updating the Canada Water Act should involve a legislative, consent-based co-drafting process with indigenous nations. This process needs to be rooted in nation-to-nation relationships. It has to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.This motion, which instructs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to review federal water policies, may help identify ways forward, but the study should not slow down the urgently needed work. There is no need to wait for the results of the study to begin updating the Canada Water Act.Many organizations, like FLOW and others, have worked hard and identified comprehensive data on the gaps in our freshwater legislation and have identified ways forward. This important work will take time to co-develop with indigenous nations and other partners, and could and should start now.One of the pieces mentioned in this motion is the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. In 2012, the Harper government's omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45, removed key legal protections from over 99% of Canada’s lakes and rivers. In 2015, the Liberals committed to reviewing the previous government's changes and to restore lost protections. Unfortunately, the amendments in the bill did not fully live up to the government's promise to restore lost protections of waterways. It restored some, and the restored legal protections are narrowly focused. They exclude environmental values and in some cases are substantially weaker than the pre-2012 version of the law. The consideration of environmental impacts of projects was not reinstated. However, despite these flaws, it does represent in general a positive step forward from the Harper era that decimated navigable water protections in Canada. I hope this motion can address some of the flaws that remain in this legislation.I am passionate about this issue. Watershed protection is one of the things that got me involved in politics. I want to thank my sister, Georgia Collins, for her leadership when a contaminated soil dump was proposed at the head of the watershed that provided drinking water to her community of Shawnigan Lake. She helped mobilize her community and got me involved. It was being involved in that ultimately successful fight to stop the project that taught me about and sparked my passion for protecting fresh water, and taught me about the dangers that exist for Canada’s watersheds and river basins.The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has just started its first study this week. It concerns me that this motion circumvented the regular process of choosing studies at the steering committee, and I initially worried that it might impede the work of the committee or that it could slow down the needed work on freshwater legislation. However, I want to thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his passion for freshwater protection and his willingness to work across party lines.I have consulted with my colleague, the sponsor of Motion No. 34. I would like to move the following amendment. I hope he will accept it as a friendly amendment.MotionI move:That the motion be amended by deleting subsection (i) and by replacing “(ii) schedule no fewer than 10 meetings, (iii)” with the following: “(i) schedule no fewer than seven meetings, (ii)”. Amendments and subamendmentsClimate change and global warmingDrinking waterFederal institutionsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFresh waterIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsInland watersM-34Motion of instructionNatural disastersRiversStanding Committee on Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentWatersheds631406363140646314070MoniquePauzéRepentignyAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1910)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually during Adjournment Proceedings to address a question I asked on October 19, not that long ago, in relation to the ongoing conflicts between the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia and non-indigenous fishermen, and more specifically in the context of systemic racism. We know that the name Donald Marshall, Jr., as I said on October 19, will always be remembered in Canada as synonymous with injustice and systemic racism. He was jailed for 11 years for a crime he did not commit, and when he was finally out of jail, he continued to play a significant role in indigenous rights for the Mi'kmaq people. Two different court cases bear his name.The Marshall case stands for the proposition that, of course, the treaties of peace and friendship of 1760-61 established that Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy rights to land and resources were never surrendered. Donald Marshall took the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada because the simple act of fishing eels was considered out of season, even though it was completely within Mi'kmaq fishing rights. The systemic racism that I want to address is deeper than the RCMP's actions in failing to protect the Mi'kmaq lobster catch or the lobster pound in West Pubnico, where the Mi'kmaq catch was being stored. As we know, it was burned to the ground while the RCMP stood by. In my question on October 19, I asked why there is never any shortage of well-equipped RCMP officers to move in to arrest non-violent indigenous protesters protecting their land and resources anywhere across Canada, but particularly in my home province of British Columbia, yet there is somehow a failure of the RCMP to protect indigenous property. It is much deeper than these several episodes.Let us look at the statistics of how injunctions are granted. It is injunction law that allows RCMP officers to be converted from public security and public safety officers into essentially the private police of corporations operating on indigenous lands. The Yellowhead Institute, in a study from October 2019, noted that when corporations go to court and seek injunctions to prevent indigenous people from interrupting their commercial enterprises, corporations succeed before the courts in gaining injunctions 76% of the time. In contrast, when indigenous people go to court to seek injunctions to protect their land from corporate operations, they are rejected 81% of the time. Thus, the system in which we operate is, again, systemically racist in that the RCMP are far more likely to show up for corporations.In the case of the Elsipogtog, there were indigenous actions against fracking back in 2013 in New Brunswick. Mi'kmaq residents, in full possession of their rights, in a non-violent protest against fracking, had the police show up with attack dogs. They showed up well armed and arrested people. They arrested them forcefully. This is quite an outrage when we look at the history of how the RCMP operate to enforce injunctions to protect resource-extracting companies. Their rights to extract resources come right up against indigenous rights recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, yet over and over again, it is indigenous people who are not protected by the RCMP while corporations are.When we look at what has happened in British Columbia, certainly injunctive relief was available—Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety6314136631413763141386314139631414063141416314142RachelBendayanOutremontAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88532JoëlLightboundJoël-LightboundLouis-HébertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LightboundJoël_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1915)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you even through the use of technology. I also want to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands whom I am pleased to see again.As usual, she is raising very important questions. I very much appreciated the information she provided on the injunctions and the disproportionate share that is granted to the corporations. It is an interesting element that I will look into. It is true that systemic racism is not limited to the actions of the RCMP. It is much more widespread than that. It is institutional. We acknowledge it, we condemn it and we are working to resolve it.I also want to thank her for allowing me to say a few words about the situation in Nova Scotia. This situation happened in the wake of the implementation of livelihood fishing by the Sipekne'katik nation. I will begin by saying a few words about the criminal acts that were committed during the dispute between the first nation and the commercial fishers. Our government clearly condemns the racism, violence and crimes committed during this conflict. We implore all those involved to support constructive efforts for peaceful de-escalation and dialogue. Moreover, all of this is taking place while we continue to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Our government remains committed to reconciliation and the development of a new and improved relationship with indigenous peoples, one based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and collaboration.While the RCMP has faced complex issues this year, it continues to work to build meaningful, lasting relationships with indigenous peoples. It would be a shame to let the criminal acts committed in this conflict undermine these efforts. Any lasting resolution to this dispute must be based on the recognition of the legitimate Mi'kmaq treaty rights.This means that the threats, racism, violence and intimidation must stop. The primary role of any police force is to protect the public and enforce the laws, including the Criminal Code of Canada. All Canadians enjoy the fundamental freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and demonstration. They should be able to exercise those freedoms safely.However, resorting to violence and putting lives in danger to protest a situation is totally unacceptable. The people responsible for these crimes must be held to account. The RCMP takes its role of ensuring public safety very seriously and has been on site since the start of the conflict. At the same time, the governments, namely the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia, are trying to make the parties reach a lasting solution based on the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Mi'kmaq and the treaties.Charges have been laid and multiple investigations are under way into crimes against persons, in particular the violent assault of Chief Michael Sack. The police is also investigating crimes against property, such as the fire at the lobster pound on October 19. This is a sad episode in our collective history.To further increase the capacity of the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness approved a request put forward by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia to increase, as needed, the number of RCMP members under contract present in Nova Scotia so they can keep the peace as is their duty. To say that the RCMP police presence in the region is unusually high would be an understatement. It will continue to be high as long as necessary. The increased and enhanced presence of the RCMP includes officers in uniform ensuring greater visibility of law enforcement and carrying out random patrols in communities.In addition to officers in uniform there are more strategic tactical operations officers from several authorities. Furthermore, RCMP officers patrol the waters in the region depending on the needs and the RCMP emergency response team has a vessel for immediate deployment if necessary.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety6314144631414563141466314147631414863141496314150631415163141526314153AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionMs. Elizabeth May: (1920)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to contrast for parliamentarians the notion of indigenous people having the right to a moderate livelihood in the lobster fishery of Nova Scotia with Clearwater Seafoods. Its founder, John Risley, has a net worth of $1.2 billion from fishing in Mi'kmaq waters. Clearwater Seafoods has been found guilty by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of gross violations of conservation rules, such as leaving lobster traps on the ocean floor over a period of years, allowing for an illegal catch to take place. Clearwater Seafoods does not have the RCMP showing up to give it a hard time. Clearwater Seafoods takes a huge resource, and I am not against that. I just think the contrast between corporate rights and exploitation and the way indigenous people have been treated in this, seeking a moderate livelihood, is a scandal. I would ask all of us to—Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety6314154JoëlLightboundLouis-HébertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88532JoëlLightboundJoël-LightboundLouis-HébertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LightboundJoël_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Joël Lightbound: (1920)[Translation]Madam Speaker, one minute is not very much time to talk about the serious issues raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.At the request of the Nova Scotia government, the RCMP was sent to help protect people and maintain law and order. That is what everyone should expect here. We need to de-escalate the situation. That is vital. The RCMP will play a role in that.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety63141566314157AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/3633JackHarrisJack-HarrisSt. John's EastNew Democratic Party CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/HarrisJack_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canadians are questioning how Mi'kmaq fishers facing violence, threats and having their property destroyed are being served by the RCMP. The Minister of Indigenous Services publicly disagreed with the commissioner's assessment of the police response. Last week, the Assembly of First Nations announced Commissioner Lucki had lost their confidence and called for her resignation.Indigenous people who are affected by systemic racism deserve leaders who can understand the problem. Could the Prime Minister explain why and how he still has confidence in the RCMP commissioner?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police63118256311826JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, we have strongly condemned any form of violence, harassment or intimidation toward the Mi'kmaq. The police are responsible for ensuring protection and preventing the escalation of violence, which is why we approved a request from the province for more police resources.We have acknowledged, as has the commissioner of the RCMP, that throughout its history, the RCMP has not always treated racialized and indigenous people fairly. There is no question that systemic racism exists, and working with the commission, we will bring forward meaningful change to ensure that police treat all people with dignity and respect.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police63118276311828JackHarrisSt. John's EastAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the last week, the Minister of Indigenous Services and the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations both called on the RCMP commissioner to resign. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been silent. The minister blamed CBSA officers for his failures, and now his own cabinet colleague is calling for the resignation of a chief under his watch. It is hard to believe that minister was once a chief himself.My question for the Prime Minister is simple: Who is in charge of the RCMP?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police63095906309591JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a long history of systemic racism in our institutions in this country, including in the RCMP. We have acknowledged, as has the commissioner, that throughout its history the service has not always treated racialized and indigenous people fairly. There is no question for anyone on this side of the House that systemic racism exists within the RCMP. We are therefore working with the commissioner, who will bring forward meaningful change to ensure police treat all people with dignity and respect.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police6309592ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1850)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to talk about a very important issue facing Canadians from coast to coast to coast. People across Canada have been watching what is happening in Nova Scotia to the Mi'kmaq, to the Sipekne'katik people, and demanding that the government uphold the rule of law to keep Mi'kmaq fishers safe.All Canadians deserve to be safe and have the security they need. This year has been marked by unfounded and unjust violence against Black and indigenous people in Canada and the United States. What has happened in Sipekne'katik cannot be dismissed as just another event. It must be seen as the act of domestic terrorism and that is what it is.We can talk about how shocked we are and about how this is not Canada, but for indigenous people and for Mi'kmaq fishers, this has been the reality for generations. I speak about how the RCMP watched things unfold, the burning of a lobster pound, the intimidation, the assaults that took place and the cutting of traps. DFO and the RCMP sat idly. Only two arrests have been made since then. For weeks, we have been calling for the RCMP to bolster forces to provide safety and security to the people there and that has not happened.I just want to talk about how the response has been different for the Haudenosaunee and the Six Nations. The government showed up with what seemed like a militarized barricade and used rubber bullets on indigenous protesters. I think we are all horrified to be learning of the news of a Secwepemc man near Williams Lake getting literally assaulted by the RCMP just yesterday.The government needs to get body cameras on RCMP officers now. They need an independent investigating officer, not just for the violence inflicted on indigenous people by the RCMP, but also when charges have not been laid and the RCMP have sat idle.In 1999, the Marshall decision upheld the right for the Mi'kmaq to practise their inherent right to fish. They have the constitutional and treaty right to earn a moderate living and when they attempt to practise that right, they are stopped by DFO and are harassed by non-indigenous fishers. The acts of violence are nothing new and the indifference from consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments remains the same.In 1999, the fisheries and oceans committee, of which the hon. member for Malpeque was a member, said that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was caught off guard by the Marshall decision and were unprepared to stop violence and have conversations with fishers.Here we are 21 years later still talking about the Mi'kmaq fishers and their right to a moderate living, and still talking about how to respond to the acts of terror against them. We are talking and talking with no action. It is beyond time the government take its so-called “most important relationship” seriously. The Minister of Fisheries must empower her department to act before violence happens again, ensure that negotiators come to the table with the resources to support that nation so they can accommodate their right to a moderate livelihood and hold people who choose violence to account. I am asking for this urgently.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety63102736310274631027563102766310277631027863102796310280GudieHutchingsLong Range MountainsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, whether it is me now, ministers of the Crown or the Prime Minister, I think the government has been very clear in regard to the issue. The government does fully respect and affirms the right of the Mi'kmaq to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. There should be absolutely no doubt about that.I found it interesting when the member was talking about the relationship. There has been lots of discussion to date on the issue and, no doubt, there will continue to be ongoing dialogue. I think that can be a very positive thing, especially having this issue brought up in the House. It never hurts to do that. The member made reference to that relationship, and the relationship between the national government and indigenous peoples is in fact a very important one. It has been from day one and even before that. I have seen the Prime Minister's commitment and caring attitude in terms of indigenous peoples and wanting to establish that nation-to-nation level of respect. I have witnessed that in terms of the Prime Minister's establishment of two departments. I have seen ministers go out and do whatever they possibly can. I can appreciate that it has been 25 years and that it would have been absolutely wonderful to see the negotiations get to a point where they would never hit what we have witnessed over the last number of weeks. Unfortunately, that is not the case. However, it is important that we are very clear that our government has always recognized and will continue to recognize and respect the affirmed treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Also, every Canadian, everyone, deserves to be safe and be afforded equal protection. There is no question that this applies to all Mi'kmaq and to all Canadians.The member made reference to incidents that have occurred that upset a great deal of Canadians, not only elected officials or people of indigenous backgrounds but Canadians and society as a whole. I have personally received, while representing the riding of Winnipeg North, many emails on the issue. I believe that the government for a long time now has been trying its best to get some sort of resolution to the seriousness of the issue. We have more than two ministers who have dedicated a great deal of their efforts, and the Prime Minister's Office continues to want to see progress on this file.Whether from seeing videos or hearing indirectly through others about some of the things taking place, I have—Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety6310281631028263102836310284631028563102866310287GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, where I live, the government has spent over $21 million on lawyers alone fighting the Nuu-chah-nulth over their right to catch and sell fish.Is this what caring and trying looks like? This is what colonizers, and power and suppression look like. This is what a violation of international human rights looks like. The Supreme Court judge in the Nuu-chah-nulth case, for example, scolded the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for knowingly sending its negotiators to the table empty-handed, disgusted with the attitude of the government.The systemic racism is so deep that we hear it right now in the House of Commons. Another example is what we are hearing from the member: He is caring and trying, and this is the most important relationship, but we will see them in court. That is what we keep hearing from the government.We need better. The Mi'kmaq fishers deserve their right to a moderate living. The Nuu-chah-nulth deserve their right to earn a living, and they deserve to be safe. They deserve to have their human rights protected and respected. That is what the government has a duty to do.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety6310289631029063102916310292AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1900)[English]Madam Speaker, the government is doing its duty. I do not want to turn this into a political discussion, but I can cite many faults of the New Democratic government in Manitoba with regard to how it dealt with issues that are really important for indigenous people. I will make this very clear. On nation-to-nation discussions, I can assure the House and Canadians that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been working diligently on a path forward. He is having regular discussions with first nations leadership to further implement the rights we have referenced.I remind the House that it was made clear by the Supreme Court that the best vehicle for the Government of Canada to accommodate treaty rights is through consultations and negotiations. However, we all know negotiations take time. As these nation-to-nation discussions have been occurring, the minister recently named a neutral third party representative to help foster an understanding between first nations and commercial harvesters. This is a very—Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety631029363102946310295GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, on Friday the government put out an urgent news release on the fisheries crisis at 10:18 p.m. Nova Scotia time. It appointed a former Liberal politician to cover up its inaction on the fishery issue. The only thing the two sides agree on is that the fisheries minister is failing Nova Scotia.We are months into this crisis. When is the government finally going to take the lives and livelihoods of Nova Scotians seriously?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions63063496306350AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84665ChrystiaFreelandHon.Chrystia-FreelandUniversity—RosedaleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FreelandChrystia_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, the people of Nova Scotia and, I believe, the people of all of Canada strongly agree on one thing, and that is that all of us want a peaceful, constructive solution to the fisheries dispute in Nova Scotia. All of us appreciate the huge priority of honouring the rights of indigenous people and first nations in our country. All of us also understand the importance of conservation. That is the approach our government will take.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6306351ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceInterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, people are seeing systemic racism in action in Canada. We have the indigenous services minister publicly stating that he disagrees with the RCMP commissioner. The RCMP commissioner is defending the police response, which left Mi'kmaq fishers in danger and resulted in devastating property damage. The government and the RCMP commissioner must own that the lack of planning is systemic racism and finally address it. On Friday, the Assembly of First Nations called for the commissioner's resignation. I ask the minister to be clear. Does he have confidence in the RCMP commissioner?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police63065056306506DanVandalHon.Saint Boniface—Saint VitalBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceInterventionHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, all police services, including the RCMP, must be committed to ensuring the people they serve and protect are treated with dignity and respect. I had a conversation today with the national chief about his concerns. The issues we discussed are serious, complex and long-standing, and they must begin with an acknowledgement that systemic and structural racism and bias exists throughout our criminal justice system. Police reform must ensure justice and fairness for all Canadians. That reform is the mandate we have given to the RCMP commissioner and what we expect from the RCMP.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police63065076306508RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge I am speaking to you from the traditional territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ peoples and I raise my hands to them. Hych'ka Siem.I am presenting petition no. 10672056, pertaining to the failure to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The petitioners specifically take note of the Canadian Constitution and our human rights obligations, and specifically ask the government to move without delay to nation-to-nation talks with the Wet’suwet’en First Nation and to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 432-00153Wet'suwet'en First Nation63065496306550ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (1020)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.I applaud the introduction of this bill. It is important to take time to reflect and remember, but I think that we need to go much further than that. This bill responds to call to action no. 80 in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report.I would like to draw members' attention to call to action no. 43, which calls upon the federal government to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that we should implement this declaration to truly achieve reconciliation. Will he ask his government to make that a priority?C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6300193StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1025)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.Obviously, we are committed to doing that. It is a priority for our government, and we will move forward with adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6300195KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier of Nova Scotia said to The Chronicle Herald regarding the fishing crisis, “We are in a position where [all parties] are not sitting at a table to find what is a workable solution.... This is only getting more entrenched.” He continued by saying, “We need the federal minister to sit down with all sides in a room. It is not enough to sit down with indigenous leaders or with fishing associations by themselves.” No one is happy with this minister's performance, including the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia.When will the minister meet with both indigenous and non-indigenous fish harvesters to come to a peaceful solution?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions63004016300402CatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa CentreTerryBeechBurnaby North—Seymour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89236TerryBeechTerry-BeechBurnaby North—SeymourLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BeechTerry_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to work collaboratively with first nations communities to fully implement their treaty rights. Right now, our government's number one priority is keeping people safe. We need to work together to lower tensions on the water and find a calm resolution to this impasse.We know these issues are long-standing, complex and deeply personal to everyone involved. The only way to resolve them is through a respectful and collaborative dialogue, and that is exactly what we are doing.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions63004036300404RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, after dithering, hiding and ignoring the dispute over how to implement a moderate living for indigenous communities as outlined by the Marshall decision, the fisheries minister has decided to appoint a negotiator to do her job. However, it is too late. People are speaking out and blaming the minister.Chief Sack has been unhappy for months; so are fishing community leaders. Alan Clarke, who was head of DFO fisheries enforcement in southern New Brunswick for 25 years, also blames the minister. Former MLA and once provincial fisheries minister Sterling Belliveau puts the blame squarely on the hapless MP for South Shore—St. Margarets.Why should Nova Scotians continue to have faith in this minister?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions630040563004066300407TerryBeechBurnaby North—SeymourTerryBeechBurnaby North—Seymour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89236TerryBeechTerry-BeechBurnaby North—SeymourLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BeechTerry_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, we are fully committed to working in collaboration with first nations to implement their treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.Right now, the minister's number one priority is to keep people safe, lower tensions on the water and find a calm resolution to this impasse. She has spoken directly with first nation leadership and industry representatives in Nova Scotia, and our government will continue to work collaboratively with first nations communities to fully implement their treaty rights.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions63004086300409JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/3633JackHarrisJack-HarrisSt. John's EastNew Democratic Party CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/HarrisJack_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, when asked about the grossly inadequate RCMP response to violence against Mi'kmaq fishers in Nova Scotia despite ample warning, the commissioner said that they were “managing this issue.” Most people watching what is happening would agree with Senator Murray Sinclair who said that this answer “flies in the face of the evidence.”The Prime Minister has defended the commissioner. The Minister of Indigenous Services has been less than supportive. What does the minister in charge think? Is it time to look for a new commissioner or does he think she is “managing the issue?”Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police63004876300488AdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the police have a very difficult job to do right across the country, in communities across the country, to uphold the law, maintain peace, prevent crime and serve and protect the people of this country.In Nova Scotia, they are in a very difficult situation. We have taken the steps necessary to ensure they have the resources they need to maintain the peace and uphold the law. They have conducted investigations and laid charges where appropriate. They have a difficult job to do. We are making sure they have the resources to do it.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police63004896300490JackHarrisSt. John's EastJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish to sincerely congratulate the member for North Island—Powell River on that incredible speech. There should not be a dry eye in the House. That was amazing, and I just wish to send her my love and appreciation.The member mentioned the ongoing issue of the fishery dispute in Nova Scotia. Could the member perhaps comment on the juxtaposition of the idea for a national holiday and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with what we are seeing on the ground, regarding protecting the rights of indigenous people, and how we continue to fail? I would like to hear what she would say about that.C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond reading6300670RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMs. Rachel Blaney: (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's congratulations and her response to the important subject we are talking about today and the personal stories I have to share. When I look at what is happening with the Mi'kmaq, I remember a chief saying to me not too long ago that if there is a court decision where the indigenous people do not win, it is implemented the next day, but if a court decision is made and the indigenous people do win, it takes 21 years. I look at this and think, how long do indigenous communities have to wait? How long are we going to have governments that say their rights and title are something they can negotiate, and how long are we going to have decisions that say indigenous people are allowed to make a moderate living? I hope everybody takes a moment to think about what that actually means. It means they can make a little bit, but not too much, because if they have too much what independence could they take that the government could not fight back? That is a continuous concern. Economic development in indigenous communities has been put by the wayside by different levels of government repeatedly, and that is a part of reconciliation we have to own.C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond reading630067163006726300673JenicaAtwinFrederictonAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.I see this bill as a step in the right direction towards reconciliation, but more needs to be done.Earlier I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage whether he agreed that we need to accept and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and he said he agreed. When my colleague asked a question about whether the Indian Act should be amended and quickly, the minister would not commit to anything.Does my colleague think that that legislation is racist and must be amended immediately?C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples63007186300719JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Indian Act is racist legislation. There is no doubt that we need to change it.I really hope we can do so with UNDRIP, being something that takes its place. My father is one of the initial drafters of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is an amazing document and we should move forward on it.When they were trying to change the Indian Act back in 2005, I remember an elder telling me that the Indian Act was like a rusty sword. They had gotten used to it and it no longer cut them. We have to be very careful moving forward on what replaces the Indian Act, because to some it will be seen as a sharper sword. What we have to do is move forward on UNDRIP, while not looking so much at archaic acts that government has passed. We must look to the future. UNDRIP will be that future.C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6300720630072163007226300723KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the land on which I speak today in Fredericton, which is Wolastoqiyik territory, unceded, unsurrendered land operating under the Peace and Friendship Treaties. We cannot just say these words. We must have intention and action behind them, and I implore each member of the House to do just that.It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, and I wish to thank my Conservative colleague for sharing his time with me today. The issue of meaningful reconciliation is an issue that is important to my constituents and to people across this country, and it is particularly close to my heart for many, many reasons. The first is as a mom of indigenous children. My boys are Wolastoqiyik. They are being raised with an appreciation for their identity, language and culture.My oldest son is in grade 3 in a public school that has made incredible efforts to not only include indigenous knowledge, history and culture but to truly celebrate it. It is front and centre at every school assembly and event, and in daily routines. There are integrated educational opportunities for all children, and there are unique learning opportunities for indigenous youth through permanent staff employed by our local first nation community, who work at the school every day in innovative and exciting ways.My youngest son is three years old and attends an on-reserve head start program at the Welamukotuk Early Learning Centre. He receives instruction from his family members and some of our close friends. He is surrounded with love and care and dedication to culturally responsive education. Incidentally, his first day of school was on Orange Shirt Day last year. I could not help but think of the beauty of coming full circle like that, and the symbolic significance that his education will begin and proceed so differently than so many of his ancestors'.My oldest child looks more like me, with Celtic roots and light skin, although he is proud to be indigenous. My youngest looks more like my husband, with dark skin and dark eyes. My prayer for him is always that he will not grow to experience racism and discrimination because of who he is. I pray he will not feel like he does not belong or that he is not represented in the curriculum he learns throughout his educational journey, as my husband has felt. Another reason Bill C-5 is so important to me is due to my passion for teaching. My work in the public school system in New Brunswick was on behalf of first nation communities. I worked to include accurate history and improve access to language and cultural experiences for indigenous students, as well as to advocate for institutional reforms for enhanced social justice equity in our provincial education system.I have seen the many ways our system continues to fail indigenous students. I have also seen the incredible resilience of indigenous students, and I have had the honour to witness inspiring growth, activism and leadership. This generation of youth is ready to tackle our biggest challenges and to lead Canada into a brighter future as the fastest-growing demographic. The seven generations concept comes to mind and reinforces the idea that we bring with us the lessons and experiences of our ancestors and that both trauma and healing pass through the bloodline to the present day, that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable and equitable world seven generations into the future.This brings me to our responsibility as Canadians. Orange Shirt Day, in an educational context, is an opportunity to learn, honour and acknowledge the calls to action, and to create space for indigenous elders and survivors to share their truth and feel our love and appreciation. Schools, businesses and organizations across New Brunswick proudly wear orange and undertake events and activities. This takes the form of healing walks, school assemblies, language lessons, mini powwows and other creative and formative expressions.I worry Bill C-5, which would make this day a holiday, could have the consequence of losing some of the momentum that has been built around awareness, particularly in our schools. I also worry that the concession of this day being only for federal employees may have the consequence of losing the power of the intent of a national holiday. I will certainly do all I can to prevent this in my community, and I would like to see some extra assurances with dedicated investments around this bill.I am also not convinced the bill represents a meaningful act of reconciliation with indigenous peoples, especially considering events that are transpiring around the country. It seems to me the government makes a habit of selecting only the easiest calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, abandoning those that require genuine effort, abdicating responsibility for the hard work we must undertake.I remind the House there is a long list of education and health outcomes that should be our focus, those that would have lasting impacts for positive change, the sorts of changes that would mean indigenous women would not have to suffer as Joyce Echaquan did in her last moments of life and the sorts of changes that would mean Chantel Moore and Rodney Levi might still be with us today.(1410)So far, most of the change I am seeing in Canada is a result of the efforts of indigenous communities and individuals. This is unacceptable. Canada has a responsibility to make things right. Canada must make amends. Canada must have these difficult conversations and must show leadership. Our success will be measured in the way we respond to indigenous nations on an ongoing basis when questions of sovereignty arise, as they have in Nova Scotia in recent weeks. It will be measured in the way we embrace the collective and inherent rights of indigenous peoples, the way we carry out our relationships with these nations, and the way we embolden or chastise racist commentary from Canadians who do not yet understand these rights.I recognize that a national memorial holiday was included in the TRC, and I have committed to stand behind each call to action; therefore, I will certainly vote in favour of the bill. However, I hope the government understands its continuing responsibility to support educational initiatives and to fund events and activities around this national holiday. The work we do today in the House will have repercussions on the next seven generations. It will be the foundation of a future in which we understand the truth of our past and celebrate what we have built together. I implore Canadians to observe this holiday, to learn the true intention behind it and to take on the challenge of becoming allies and champions of reconciliation.I will end with a metaphor sent to me by Eddy Charlie, a member of the Cowichan Nation and a residential school survivor. He described the long-term intergenerational impacts of the trauma inflicted by residential schools as poison leeched into a river, contaminating everything along the way. He said, “We've been contaminated by hate, pain and aggression, and until we clean up that river, we'll always be stuck in a really bad place.”The process of cleaning up that river is under way. It is our job as parliamentarians, and as Canadians, to roll up our sleeves and get to work. C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Government billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous residential schoolsIndigenous rightsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationOrange Shirt DayPublic holidaysRacial equalitySchoolsSecond reading6300808MartinShieldsBow RiverBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fredericton for her remarkable speech. I learned a lot from it.I was also very pleased to hear about her two boys. I am sure that her two little guys are in very good hands.I obviously believe that we must support this bill, which stems from the work of my former NDP colleague, Georgina Jolibois. However, as my colleague from Fredericton stated, we must do even more.I would like to ask her two questions. First, does she think that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be enshrined in all federal legislation? Second, does she agree that the federal government should drop its court challenge against the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling with respect to social services for indigenous children? C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Care for childrenGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsLegal proceedingsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6300821BruceStantonSimcoe NorthJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBills of Exchange ActInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions and for his comments about my children.[English]I absolutely believe that we need to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into our federal framework. I certainly believe that children should not be in court defending their rights, especially when it comes to their social welfare. I wish to add to the record that indigenous communities are more than well equipped to handle child and family services on their own behalf, for their own children, and that we very much need to honour the sovereignty, self-governance and self-determination that I mentioned in my speech. I want to congratulate first nations communities across the country for the incredible work they continue to do on behalf of their children. I implore my colleagues in the House to continue to do our work to catch up to what they have been doing.C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)Care for childrenGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsLegal proceedingsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPublic holidaysSecond readingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6300823AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's failure of leadership turned the tensions over the Nova Scotia lobster fisheries into a crisis. He ignored it until violence erupted. People were hurt and buildings were burned. However, that is his MO, is it not? It is do nothing, send out a couple of tweets, do nothing some more and then blame everyone else. What is worse is that as vandalism and violence escalated, he decided to join the debate here in Ottawa a couple of days ago a thousand kilometres away.Why does the Prime Minister not finally pick up the phone, talk to the people on the ground and actually do his job?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62947806294781JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, obviously we strongly condemn the acts of violence, racism and threats we have seen in Nova Scotia. I have to be clear: For productive conversations to continue, we need to fully implement this right, so the violence must end.We will continue to work with both first nations and industry leadership to find a path forward, ensuring a safe, productive and sustainable fishery for all harvesters. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations will be appointing a special representative very soon to continue fostering further dialogue between commercial harvesters and first nations. We will continue our discussions with the Mi'kmaq, nation to nation.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62947826294783ShannonStubbsLakelandShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, this crisis has raged on for over a month. Fishers on all sides condemn the Liberal government's lack of action. Even a former top DFO official in the region said the government “mishandled this situation terribly”.Now the Prime Minister wants to force an election, just for his own self-interest, just to keep covering up his own scandals. For once, maybe he should actually lead. The Prime Minister could protect indigenous and non-indigenous people, keep their communities safe, and ensure conservation and a prosperous fishery for all in Nova Scotia. The Prime Minister allowed it to become a crisis. What is he actually going to do to fix it?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions629478462947856294786JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, for 21 years, since the Marshall decision, federal governments of all different stripes have made progress on resolving this issue and recognizing the inherent rights of Mi'kmaq first nations fishers. We will continue to do so. A number of years ago, our minister of fisheries from Beauséjour moved forward on strong agreements with the Mi'kmaq. We are continuing to move forward constructively and productively, not to solve this with just a band-aid but to solve this issue once and for all, in partnership with the Mi'kmaq and all people of Nova Scotia.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62947876294788ShannonStubbsLakelandRhéalFortinRivière-du-Nord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Indigenous Affairs]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1005)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take the floor from British Columbia where the sun has not yet risen. I apologize for the darkness.It is an honour to rise this morning to present a petition from petitioners concerned about Canada's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The petitioners point out that Canada has existing obligations under other human rights declarations that apply globally. They specifically point out the need to have a piece of legislation in Canada that brings the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into legal effect in this country, and to update our legislation to reflect Canada's obligations to enforce the rights of indigenous peoples in multiple situations. They specify the Wet'suwet'en territory and the conduct of the RCMP.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 432-00130Wet'suwet'en First Nation62916456291646ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, yesterday we put forward a simple motion. We asked the House to affirm the treaty and inherent rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people, which were affirmed in treaties, confirmed in the Canadian Constitution and upheld in the Supreme Court, but the Liberals voted no. They also refused to acknowledge that the Mi'kmaq deserve the full and equal protection of the law from violence and intimidation. They voted no to recognizing their failure to respect nation-to-nation relationships to accommodate the moderate livelihood fishery that has led to the crisis we are facing today. My question is simple. Why?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62923746292375DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, despite what the NDP say, our government is having nation-to-nation conversations with first nations. That is imperative because we have always said the Mi'kmaq have an affirmed treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood under the Marshall decision.When it comes to safety, everyone in Canada deserves to be protected. That is why we are standing up and making sure the resources that the Province of Nova Scotia needs for the RCMP are there.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62923766292377GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville, Ind.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, the consequences of not recognizing Mi'kmaq jurisdiction and implementing their treaty rights is another high-profile example of why we need an indigenous rights recognition framework.Across Canada, there are literally hundreds of issues, most with limited or no profile, that require a coordinated and comprehensive federal approach. Like the DFO, in relation to fish, the Department of Finance continues to set policy that impedes rights implementation.As a specific example and question, why does the government not support self-governing first nations raising property taxes under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act?Financial managementFirst NationsFirst Nations Fiscal Management ActIndigenous rightsOral questions629245062924516292452AhmedHussenHon.York South—WestonDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the work she has done on the recognition of rights.We are moving forward as a government on a number of different fronts. In my particular case, it is in my mandate letter to advance the passage of UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That will present a first significant step in the recognition of rights, and from there we can move across the country and really advance the quest and path of reconciliation which we, quite frankly, are morally obligated to do in this country.Financial managementFirst NationsFirst Nations Fiscal Management ActIndigenous rightsOral questions62924536292454JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, for a month, the Conservatives have been warning the government about rising tensions in Nova Scotia. This morning, the Minister of Public Safety compared the current situation to a war zone in need of peacekeeping. The government has ignored this issue. The Minister of Fisheries has refused to take her responsibility to indigenous and commercial fishermen seriously, and now, instead of sending in negotiators a month ago, the government has to send in police officers.When will the minister finally do her job before more people get hurt?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62895606289561GregFergusHull—AylmerChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84665ChrystiaFreelandHon.Chrystia-FreelandUniversity—RosedaleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FreelandChrystia_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me join the leader of the official opposition, all members of this House and indeed the vast majority of Canadians in condemning the appalling violence that has taken place.Federal and provincial ministers are working together on solutions to maintain the peace and avoid any further violence. I am sure we all agree on the need for all parties to engage in respectful dialogue aimed at upholding the Marshall decision and the Mi'kmaq treaty right to fish while ensuring conservation and sustainability of the fishery.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62895626289563ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, leadership means acting before people get hurt.[Translation]This government always goes with the worst possible option when it comes to leadership: it waits.The situation in Nova Scotia is getting worse and worse because this Prime Minister and this minister are slow to act. The Conservatives have been calling for mediation for months. Today, the police are on the ground.Will the fisheries minister show some leadership in resolving this problem or do we have to continue to wait?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6289564628956562895666289567ChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84665ChrystiaFreelandHon.Chrystia-FreelandUniversity—RosedaleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FreelandChrystia_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): (1420)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we condemn the appalling violence that has taken place. Federal and provincial ministers are working together on solutions to maintain the peace and avoid any further violence. We agree on the need for all parties to engage in respectful dialogue aimed at upholding the Marshall decision and the Mi'kmaq treaty right to fish, while ensuring the conservation and sustainability of the fishery. Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6289568ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71588JagmeetSinghJagmeet-SinghBurnaby SouthNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SinghJagmeet_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): (1425)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal and Conservative governments have failed the Mi'kmaq people, and as a result, the Mi'kmaq are now the victims of violence, crime and intimidation. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is standing idly by.When will the Prime Minister protect the Mi'kmaq people and their constitutional rights and end the violence?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62895906289591ChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84665ChrystiaFreelandHon.Chrystia-FreelandUniversity—RosedaleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FreelandChrystia_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): (1425)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question.Our government strongly condemns the recent acts of violence in Nova Scotia. We have approved a request for assistance from the province to increase the RCMP presence as needed. These acts of violence will be thoroughly investigated, and the perpetrators will be held to account.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62895926289593JagmeetSinghBurnaby SouthJagmeetSinghBurnaby South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71588JagmeetSinghJagmeet-SinghBurnaby SouthNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SinghJagmeet_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is not a new problem. The government has known about this problem for decades. Both Conservative and Liberal governments have failed the Mi'kmaq people, and as a result we have all seen the horrible images of fires being set to facilities, traps being cut, intimidation and assaults. While all this has happened, the Prime Minister has stood by idly and not acted. Leadership is stepping up.When will the Prime Minister step up, protect the Mi'kmaq people and their constitutional rights, and end the violence? Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62895946289595ChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84665ChrystiaFreelandHon.Chrystia-FreelandUniversity—RosedaleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FreelandChrystia_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with the member opposite that Canada has for decades and centuries failed the indigenous people in Canada, and it is time for us to put this right.We condemn the appalling violence that has taken place, and let me say I believe the vast majority of Canadians feel exactly that way. I think we all also agree on the need for all parties to engage in respectful dialogue in upholding the Marshall decision and the Mi'kmaq treaty right to fish while ensuring the conservation and sustainability of the fishery. Let us work for that.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62895966289597JagmeetSinghBurnaby SouthShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, more than a month ago the Conservatives asked the Prime Minister to de-escalate the Nova Scotia fisheries crisis. The Minister of Indigenous Services even said police are being overwhelmed, but still no action, just tweets. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety said it was the province's problem. Things literally burned to the ground before the minister looked into sending additional police resources to Nova Scotia. Chief Mike Sack said, “Do your job....protect us, and don't just tweet about it.”My question for the minister is simple. Why did he wait so long?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62895986289599ChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me begin by reiterating that our government absolutely condemns the recent acts of violence and criminality that have been taking place in Nova Scotia.The RCMP have continued to increase their presence with each passing day. They are investigating and laying charges for the unacceptable assault on Chief Sack, and for the damages and the arson that have taken place.We did respond to a request for assistance from the Province of Nova Scotia. We are working very closely with the provincial authorities there, on the ground, to ensure that all acts of violence will be thoroughly investigated, that perpetrators will be held to account, and that peace will be maintained.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety628960062896016289602ShannonStubbsLakelandShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, right, so it did finally act by responding to that request, even after he first said the government could not possibly do anything about it and actually respond.More than 200 people overwhelmed police last Tuesday. Vehicles and boats were lit on fire as early as the week before. The situation did not suddenly spiral out of control. It has been going on for more than a month. Colin Sproul of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association said that this Liberal government is “hiding under a desk.”The reality is the public safety minister dithered while livelihoods and decades of relationship-building went up in flames. Here are more words tonight. The potential debate is too little, too late.Why is it that waiting for the worst to happen is the minister's approach to protecting Canadians?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62896036289604628960562896066289607BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is very important to understand that the responsibility of the police of jurisdiction, and in this case the RCMP, is to maintain the peace. They have deployed officers from the very first day, both on land and on the water. They have been working with the Canadian Coast Guard, responding to an escalating conflict in that area.We have continued to increase resources and, at the request of the Nova Scotia government, we have now significantly enhanced those resources. The police have an important job to do in maintaining the peace and, where acts of criminality take place, to thoroughly investigate them and hold those individuals responsible to account. They are doing that job, and we have ensured that they have the resources to do it effectively.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62896086289609ShannonStubbsLakelandShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister actually has an important job to do. Maybe instead of waiting, and blaming others and not doing anything about it, he should actually get on it.It seems that his usual practice is to ignore an issue and hope it goes away until he is forced to actually do something. He waited until people were assaulted and buildings were set on fire to give the RCMP additional resources in Nova Scotia. Of course, that is his pattern. Even in their grief and their horrible loss, loved ones and families of the Nova Scotia mass murder had to fight and beg him to have a public inquiry.Why does the minister always wait until things escalate so far before doing something?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety628961062896116289612BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that the police of jurisdiction in this case have been present right from the very first day. They have been working with both sides of the conflict. There are divisional liaison teams in place, which include Mi'kmaq officers, who have been working with that situation to try to resolve it.When incidents of criminality take place, the police immediately begin investigations. They have gathered the evidence, and they have done their job.Our government's responsibility is to ensure, working with the provincial authority, that they have the necessary resources in place to keep that situation peaceable and under control, and to uphold the laws. We have done that.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety628961362896146289615ShannonStubbsLakelandShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, the name Donald Marshall, Jr. will always be remembered in Canada. It is synonymous with systemic racism and injustice. He spent 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit and then, as a free man, he fished for eels out of season, relying on his constitutional rights. That case got the Supreme Court of Canada 21 years ago finding the right of the Mi'kmaq to a fishery. How is it in this country that there is never any shortage of well-equipped RCMP officers to arrest indigenous non-violent protestors against pipelines in British Columbia, but no one to protect the indigenous catch in a warehouse in Nova Scotia?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62897336289734PattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, Lib.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to let the member know that this matter is top of mind for our government. Our government will continue to condemn the violence we have seen. We will work with all departments and agencies. We know that the Marshall decision needs to be upheld and that is why we will ensure that it is. We are working with a nation-to-nation relationship to ensure that we find a good way forward. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, the majority of Canadians recognize the importance of this issue. We are working on it and will continue to do this important work. Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questionsSafety62897356289736ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsRequest for Emergency Debate [Lobster Fishery Dispute in Nova Scotia]InterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to propose an emergency debate on the urgent need for the federal government to address the domestic violence against the Mi'kmaq fishers in Nova Scotia and their constitutionally affirmed right to fish, as confirmed by the Marshall decision in 1999 to earn a moderate livelihood through fishing.With increased incidents of domestic terrorism, I believe this meets the bar of Standing Order 52, section (6)(a) that the matter proposed be a “genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration”. The debate is urgent and must take place tonight due to the government's inadequate response to this crisis.As parliamentarians, we must take immediate action to protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of Mi'kmaq fishers and make sure they are kept safe from ongoing threats and acts of violence. We must ensure that the federal government is taking immediate action to provide justice for the Mi'kmaq victims of violence.Lastly, we must make sure that the government is at the table, protecting the human rights of the Mi'kmaq people and their right to fish for a moderate livelihood, as was affirmed 21 years ago. The right was already determined in the Marshall case and the 1752 treaty.Given the urgency for a peaceful and equitable resolution to this crisis, I believe it is important to hold an emergency debate in Parliament today.Application for emergency debateFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62898086289809628981062898116289812AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsRequest for Emergency Debate [Lobster Fishery Dispute in Nova Scotia]InterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, I, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Indigenous Services submitted our notice of intention to request an emergency debate regarding the recent increase in violence around the fishery in Nova Scotia.Canadians are concerned about safety and security, and I am indeed working with my colleagues to lower tensions and to create the space necessary for collaborative dialogue.Reconciliation is a Canadian imperative and we all have a role to play. That means ensuring parliamentarians from all parties are part of this conversation. I support the request for an emergency debate on this very important matter.Application for emergency debateFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia628981462898156289816AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsSpeaker's RulingInterventionThe Speaker: (1610)[English]I thank the hon. members for their interventions. I am prepared to grant an emergency debate concerning fisheries in Nova Scotia. This debate will be held later today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.[Translation]Before we proceed, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 43 minutes. Application for emergency debateApplication for emergency debate grantedDecisions of the SpeakerExtension of debateFisheries and fishersGovernment ordersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6289817BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsHelenaJaczekMarkham—Stouffville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of the HouseInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:MotionThat, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the debate tonight pursuant to Standing Order 52, no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the Chair.Dilatory motionsEmergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLeave to propose a motionMi'kmaqMotionsNova ScotiaQuorumRules of debate62899826289983AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of the HouseInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1730)[English]Are there any objections to what the hon. member has proposed? Hearing none, I declare the motion carried.(Motion agreed to)Decisions of the HouseDilatory motionsEmergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLeave to propose a motionMi'kmaqMotionsNova ScotiaQuorumRules of debate6289984KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)(1910)[English] moved: MotionThat this House do now adjourn. He said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for honouring our request to have this very important debate tonight to address the government's lacklustre response to the crisis that is taking place in Mi'kmaq territory.As parliamentarians we must take immediate action to keep Mi'kmaq fishers and their communities safe from the ongoing threats and acts of violence that are happening there. We must ensure the federal government is taking immediate action to provide justice for the Mi'kmaq victims of violence.We need to make sure that they can adequately and properly exercise their inherent, treaty-protected, constitutionally protected right to safely go out, fish and earn a moderate living. Lastly, we must make sure the government is at the table, providing enough resources to accommodate their right to fish for a moderate living, as they should have 21 years ago. Given the urgency for a peaceful and equitable resolution to this crisis, I believe it is important that we have this emergency debate in Parliament today.I want to talk about why it is so important. The Mi'kmaq fishers have established a fishery beyond millennia in Nova Scotia. As we know, their treaty rights in the 1752 treaties of peace and friendship were confirmed again by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall case of 1999. The federal government has had over 21 years to accommodate and negotiate the definition of a “moderate livelihood” with the Mi'kmaq people, a definition that was confirmed but not defined in the Marshall decision. It was not the first or only time the highest court in the land reaffirmed the constitutional rights of aboriginal people to catch and sell fish in their territories. Whether it be the Marshall decision, the Sparrow decision, the Gladstone decision or the Ahousaht et al. decision, these are all rulings by the court reaffirming indigenous rights that were followed by years of utter disregard by the federal government of the day.We talk about the treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq and their implementation. They are out there right now fishing to feed their families, to earn a moderate living with less than 1% of the traps and the crab pots out in St. Marys Bay. We know that the response has been acts of domestic terrorism and intimidation against the Mi'kmaq fishers, who are just exercising their inherent treaty right to fish. In spite of domestic acts of terrorism, which included burning down a Mi'kmaq lobster fishery compound, there has been little response or action by the RCMP to protect Mi'kmaq fishers and their communities from further domestic terrorism. We have seen the assaults on Chief Sack. We have seen elders being abused. It is horrific for us as Canadians to watch what is happening. We have been waiting for the federal government to uphold the rule of law with appropriate actions to protect this constitutionally protected, inherent treaty right of the Mi'kmaq people to fish, but instead—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceSafety6290213629021462902156290216629021762902186290219629022062902216290222BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1915)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for that. I will be sharing my time with our leader, the hon. member for Burnaby South.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSplitting speaking time6290225BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1915)[English]Mr. Speaker, I hope this sounds a lot better, and I appreciate that. This is my first speech virtually in a while, and I am thankful that all members have been accommodated so we can work together. I cannot participate from the unceded traditional territories of the Hupacasath and shíshálh people. I am on Nuu-chah-nulth territory.I talk about being from Nuu-chah-nulth territory. This is a region that has also been in court, the Ahousaht et al. decision. The reason I bring that forward is that they have been to court. In 2009, the Supreme Court sided with them on their right to catch and sell fish. Nine years later, after constant repeated appeals by the Conservative and Liberal governments, which did everything they could to stonewall, Judge Garson, the judge at the time, said: Overall, however, Canada through DFO has the responsibility to represent the honour of the Crown. The lack of a mandate and Ottawa’s stonewalling of suggestions for advancing the development of a right-based fishery are significant factors in the failure of the process to move forward. Ottawa failed to allow the Regional staff to engage meaningfully and wholeheartedly in the Negotiations, at least until the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave the second time. As the plaintiffs repeatedly pointed out, there is no evidence before the court of any engagement by Ottawa staff on this fishery, other than the occasional signature on a Briefing Note, and reference to one meeting with a ministerial assistant which was not coordinated with local managers.This is what Judge Garson stated about the Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada in 2018. That is just an example of the minister sending her negotiators to the table, knowingly empty-handed, to deal with it. Whether it be Marshall, Sparrow, Gladstone or Ahousaht, these court cases that protect treaty and aboriginal rights, the government constantly sends its negotiators to the table empty-handed. This is affirmed by Judge Garson. What we need is the government to come to the table with a mandate to negotiate so that first nations can assert their rights, and the government needs to accommodate those rights.These indigenous communities, whether it be the Sipekne'katik, the Ahousaht or these other nations, are in these conflicts in the courts, which are costing taxpayers millions and millions of dollars fighting them, instead of getting them out on the water fishing, where they want to be, alongside the commercial fishers, so that they can feed their families. Instead, the government is fighting them every step of the way, knowingly. They need to be able to go out on the water and fish and be safe in exercising their rights.Today, we are asking the government to provide that safety and to come to that table with a meaningful mandate for justice, so that those perpetrators of the violence that took place in Mi'kmaq territory are held to account. We have been asking for the government to provide security and safety to the people of those communities, in support of Chief Sack and his community. Instead, we keep getting lip service from the government. I am so appalled at the delays from the government in the response. It is a miracle that nobody has died as a result of the inaction.We have heard the government say the RCMP will be enforcing and supporting with protection, but when we talk to people from the RCMP, they say that the DFO is responsible on the water. We talked to people from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and they say that they are not equipped and prepared to protect fishers on the water and that it is RCMP. These gaps need to be clarified tonight. We are looking for answers. These communities are looking for answers.The indigenous services minister said that we were let down by police and threw the RCMP under the bus, but no, Canada was let down by that minister, the cabinet, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Government of Canada. He cannot absolve responsibility and just download it onto the RCMP or other departments. His responsibility is to provide federal support so that first nations have the safety to implement and exercise their constitutionally and treaty-protected rights. I am appalled.(1920) This is also an issue of international concern. Article 20 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states, “1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.” This has not been upheld. Canada should be ashamed.We want to know what the plan is. We have been asking for weeks. The nation has been asking for weeks. We want a commitment from the government that they will come to the table with a meaningful mandate to accommodate their right to a moderate fishery. We want to know the government is going to come to the table with a meaningful mandate for the other cases that are before the Government of Canada in all indigenous rights, so that they are not being subjected to these violations of the United Nations declaration and international law, never mind violations of the Constitution of Canada.I hope the government comes to the table quickly so that we can heal as a country and come together and fish alongside each other and support this moderate livelihood through and through.Ahousaht First NationEmergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementLegal casesMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety62902286290229629023062902316290232629023362902346290235629023662902376290238BruceStantonSimcoe NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1925)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to have some discussions with respect to this issue. A number of constituents of mine, via email, have expressed concerns. They want to see the government continue to build a more positive atmosphere in the hope that this matter can be resolved. The Prime Minister and ministers have been clear in condemning any sort of criminal activities.Can the member provide his thoughts in regard to this issue? Like many other indigenous issues, this is sensitive but it is also critical that we move forward in the best way we can. At times, it can be frustrating, but we need to continue to work at it.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety62902396290240GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1925)[English]Mr. Speaker, condemning mobster and terrorist type attitudes and criminal activities is not enough. This community needs to know they are safe and have the protection they deserve. All Canadians need to know they are safe. When indigenous people exercise their rights, they need to know they are protected.My colleague's government needs to provide that safety and security. It needs to go to the table with a meaningful mandate. I cited what a judge said in another aboriginal rights case. The government is going to the table knowingly empty-handed and they are leaving these files. This is leading to unnecessary tension. It is all on the hands of the government and on his cabinet—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety62902416290242KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104786AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeAlexis-Brunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Brunelle-DuceppeAlexis_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): (1925)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his heartfelt speech. First, we in the Bloc Québécois strongly condemn criminal acts, expressions of hatred and racism against the Mi'kmaq. Everyone in the House witnessed this, and we cannot close our eyes and bury our heads in the sand. We all saw what happened. Back home, we say that to know where we are going, we have to look at where we have been.Second, the Bloc Québécois laments the fact that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, successive governments and the current government are unable to uphold the Marshall decision and initiate a nation-to-nation discussion.My question for my hon. colleague is the following. Does he not believe that we are here in the House having an emergency debate on what is happening, on the tragic events taking place right now, because Ottawa has been dragging its feet?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290244629024562902466290247BruceStantonSimcoe NorthGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1925)[English]Mr. Speaker, tonight's debate is clear. We need to focus on ensuring that the fishers, that community and all communities across Canada are safe. We need to ensure that indigenous people exercising their inherent and constitutionally protected rights are safe, and that there is justice for the violence that has taken place. We want to see more arrests to deter any more actions like this and pressure on the government to get to the negotiating table with a meaningful mandate to accommodate these rights. We want to get answers as to why it is taking so long, not just here with Marshall, but also Ahousaht and other files. We need the government to take action. No more empty words and empty promises. Why did it take three weeks to get enough RCMP deployed to support the RCMP detachment in Nova Scotia? Why are there are no RCMP boats on the water? These are legitimate—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629024862902496290250AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1925)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for bringing this important debate forward.I want to go back to the whole notion and definition of a “moderate livelihood”. Currently, the Mi'kmaq fishers have less than 0.15% of the traps in St. Marys Bay, unlike the commercial fishers who currently have more than 99% of the traps. I have heard our Liberal colleagues across the way talk about the importance of conservation. I do not think this is an issue of indigenous people not valuing conservation. I think this is an issue of wilfully turning a blind eye while the fundamental human rights, inherent rights and constitutional rights of indigenous people are being violated in Mi’kmaq territory. I would like to hear more of the member's thoughts on that and I wanted to— Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629025362902546290255BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1930)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. First, the nation cares about conservation. The people have been working for three years developing a fisheries management plan. They care more than anybody about the importance of the stocks in St. Marys Bay. When we see commercial fishers out there cutting traplines, leaving lobster pots at the bottom of the ocean, and destroying hundreds and thousands of pounds of live lobster, that is not in the name of conservation. Getting to the table is what the government needs to do, and support the moderate livelihood and accommodation for the nation so that—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62902586290259BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71588JagmeetSinghJagmeet-SinghBurnaby SouthNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SinghJagmeet_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): (1930)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his words and my colleagues for their support of this very important debate today.We all saw the heartbreaking images, the incredibly intimidating images, and frankly, the terrorism and violence perpetrated against indigenous people. We saw the images of indigenous people, the Mi'kmaq people, being physically assaulted, bullied, intimidated and threatened. The threats were to burn the facilities, and then those facilities were burnt down.I ask everyone in the House to consider if those same threats had been made against someone who was not indigenous, in a non-indigenous community. If someone came in, physically assaulted and threatened them, and threatened to burn down their livelihood, would there have been no action in the same way there was no action when it happened to the Mi'kmaq people?If those types of threats were made against anyone else, would the police have stood by and let it happen? If those types of threats were made against any other community, would there be a complete lack of protection for that community? The answer is very clear.In this circumstance, indigenous people are supported by a Supreme Court decision and a right, a constitutional, treaty-protected right, to live off the land. That right was hard won in court 21 years ago. Still, to this day, they have not had a federal government, any federal government, Liberal or Conservative, willing to do the work to ensure they have access to that right. It has been 21 years.We have heard from ministers. The reason we are having this emergency debate is to make the Liberal government do something about it. There has been a court decision for over two decades, yet neither a Conservative government nor a Liberal government have done anything to ensure that the decision that was made is now implemented into law, or that the Mi'kmaq people were able to follow the ruling of the court. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have done anything. We will hear from the Conservatives, while they point the finger at the Liberals, and Liberals will say they are going to do something. It has been 21 years, and nothing has been done.We want answers today. We want commitments today. This is an emergency because, as previous speakers have said, there is a real threat that this violence will escalate and people will lose their lives. That cannot happen. We need immediate action right now. We need a clear plan. We need a plan so that the Mi'kmaq people will be protected, their livelihood will be protected and the violence will end.We need a clear plan that lays out an immediate course of action. We heard from the chief specifically related to where this violence has occurred. The chief said that they do not want a long-drawn-out process. Those in the indigenous community have also made it very clear that what it means to be able to exercise their rights should not be a decision imposed upon them. The indigenous community should be at the table to determine that, based on the evidence and the science.However, as previous speakers have said, there is no question here that there is any threat to conservation. The scale the Mi'kmaq fisheries operation is in no way a risk to conservation. Any suggestion that this is about conservation is wrong. It is clearly an ongoing example of systemic racism. Indigenous people have a constitutional right that has been upheld in court to earn a living. When that right is not implemented into law and is not supported, then the question of conservation comes up. This is not about conservation.This is about indigenous people who have a right, and that right has been violated. That right has been threatened. They need protection, and they need the protection they deserve. We need some clear answers from the government. What is the timeline? How quickly will the government act to make sure what was determined to be a constitutional right, which has been upheld in court, is now put through a clear process to move forward? How quickly can that definition be determined?(1935)We need timelines. We need a clear plan of action to protect the Mi'kmaq people. We need to see a clear plan to protect them in the fisheries operations on land and in water. We need to ensure that there is no more violence or intimidation against the Mi'kmaq people. It has to end. The violence must end. The fact that anyone feels that they can in any way be emboldened to physically intimidate, threaten violence and set fire to the indigenous communities' fisheries is a responsibility that lies squarely at the feet of the Liberal government and the Conservative government. Inaction led to this, and the only way out of this is by clear action led by the indigenous community that is impacted, in this case the Mi'kmaq. We also have to look at all of the other examples. My colleague from Courtenay—Alberni pointed out countless decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada that have affirmed the rights of indigenous communities. To this day, in some cases years, in some cases decades, there have been so many cases where the exact same scenario has unfolded, where rights have been affirmed and the Supreme Court has said yes, the indigenous community has the right, title, claim or the ability to earn a living off of this land, yet the federal government has not done what it takes to make sure that right is translated into some meaningful action for people. This is an ongoing trend, and it has to end. This debate is about getting answers for the people, protecting indigenous communities and changing the way things have been going on for so long. The process in the past has ignored and neglected indigenous communities. They have been failed again and again. This is another failure of the federal government toward indigenous people, and this has to end.What New Democrats are calling for is very clear, and I hope to hear some answers at the end of this debate from the federal government, the Prime Minister and the Liberal cabinet ministers. We need a clear plan of action. The Mi'kmaq people deserve it. They deserve dignity and respect. These are the basic things that have been denied them. We are seeing these painful images. I have heard from so many indigenous community members who are talking about the fear they live with and the threats they receive. We heard a local chief talking about the threats they get on social media, text message threats and threats from people calling anonymously. No one should have to live like that. This is the reality that Mi'kmaq people are faced with, but it is, sadly, not uncommon. This is a reality that so many indigenous communities are faced with. We are looking for answers. We want answers and we want action. We want an action plan to protect this community, to ensure their right is upheld and there is a clear path to achieving it.In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the House (a) affirm its respect for the treaty and inherent rights of the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet people affirmed in the 1752 treaty, confirmed in the Canadian Constitution and in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the 1999 Marshall case; (b) recognize the Mi'kmaq nation deserves full and equal protection by the law from violence, intimidation and domestic terrorism; and (c) recognize the failure of the federal government to respect its nation-to-nation relationship to negotiate with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people, and to accommodate a “moderate livelihood” fishery, has led to the crisis we are facing today.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLeave to propose a motionMarshall decisionMi'kmaqMotionsNova ScotiaRacial equality6290261629026262902636290264629026562902666290267629026862902696290270629027162902726290273629027462902756290276629027762902786290279BruceStantonSimcoe NorthAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionThe Speaker: (1940)[English]This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to the motion to express their disagreement. Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.Decisions of the HouseFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLeave to propose a motionMi'kmaqNova Scotia62902806290281JagmeetSinghBurnaby SouthJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was just about to ask the leader of the NDP if he would mind amending that motion because the 1752 treaty is not the one recognized in the Marshall case. It was the 1760-61 treaty that was recognized in the Marshall case. Other than that, I have no problems with that statement. I just wanted to amend that. I do not know whether it passed, but I just wanted it to be clear, on the record, on some of the rights and treaties that we are passing around. From a Mi’kmaq person, and a treaty education lead in the past, I just want to be factual on certain things.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqMotionsNova ScotiaPoints of order6290282AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionThe Speaker: (1940)[English]Very good. I do not believe we had unanimous consent, so we will go to questions and comments.The hon. member for Winnipeg North.Decisions of the SpeakerFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqMotionsNova ScotiaPoints of order62902836290284JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are parts of the comments that I take exception to. When we talk about the importance of nation-to-nation discussions and dialogues, I believe that we have a government that over the last five years has gone the extra mile. We can see that through budgets, legislation, commitments, meetings and discussions that have been taking place in indigenous communities throughout the country.With regard to the specific issue that we are debating this evening, the Prime Minister has condemned all sorts of violent and criminal actions. I recognize that there is still more for us to do as we try to get to that point.Would the leader of the NDP not agree that, when it comes to the issue of safety, there is an obligation for us also to look to the province, as the province also has a responsibility here?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaProvincial jurisdictionSafety629028562902866290287AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJagmeetSinghBurnaby South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71588JagmeetSinghJagmeet-SinghBurnaby SouthNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SinghJagmeet_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jagmeet Singh: (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about condemning violence. If the member opposite wants to talk about condemning violence, which we should and which most Canadians do, then we have to look at where this violence came from. What is the cause of this? The cause is that, for 21 years, a Supreme Court decision that called on the federal government to take action to defend and protect the rights of indigenous people was not acted on. Therefore, the responsibility lies squarely at the feet of, right now, the federal Liberal government, and at the feet of the previous Conservative government. That is who is responsible for the fact that we have violence right now. This is a question that was not addressed by either government. This was a legal question that was established in law, but then the federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative, did not act. Because of that inaction, we are now faced with this tension. This is squarely the responsibility of the federal government, and that is why we are having this emergency debate to call for the Prime Minister and the Liberal government to do something about it now: to stop neglecting and ignoring indigenous people and do something.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaProvincial jurisdictionSafety629028862902896290290KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our leader for that very important speech. I want to go back to what he kept referring to, something I think is so important, which is that this was a decision made in 1999: 21 years ago. I find it fascinating that the government is saying that this behaviour is a surprise.I am wondering if the member could tell the House what ideas he has around preparing, and recognizing, as the Liberal government says it does, systemic racism and the impacts on local communities.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaRacial equality62902916290292JagmeetSinghBurnaby SouthJagmeetSinghBurnaby South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71588JagmeetSinghJagmeet-SinghBurnaby SouthNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SinghJagmeet_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jagmeet Singh: (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, in response to that question, I ask a question of everyone in the House and to all Canadians who are listening. Imagine working in a community and a person's livelihood, what they rely on to put food on the table for their family and kids, is threatened by somebody. Those threats were specific: someone threatened to set fire to their place of work, where they earn a living for their family. What would the police response be? How would they feel if, after receiving that type of threat, being physically intimated and assaulted, their place of work was then set ablaze and they came to work and saw that it was destroyed? That is what is going on here. It is absolutely an example of systemic racism in our policing. By the fact that the federal Liberal and Conservative governments have not acted to protect the Mi'kmaq people for over 21 years, they are also exhibiting the same behaviour of neglect and ignoring people who deserve respect and dignity, who fought for it and who won it in court but are not receiving it from governments.This is a failure of the Liberal and Conservative governments, and that is why we are in this position right now.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaRacial equality629029362902946290295RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets.As Prime Minister, my number one priority is to keep our communities safe. I want to make it absolutely clear that our government strongly condemns any form of violence, harassment and intimidation toward the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia. There is no place for racism in our country. The appalling violence in Nova Scotia must stop now. It is unacceptable, it is shameful and it is criminal.Yesterday I spoke with Premier McNeil, and we will continue working with him and the provincial government, as well as the RCMP, to make sure that everyone remains safe. The police are responsible for ensuring the protection of every single citizen in this country, including the Mi'kmaq, and preventing the escalation of violence. That is why the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness approved a request from the province on Friday for more police resources to be deployed in order to keep the peace so the Nova Scotia RCMP can effectively do their job.The additional officers will maintain law and order, support ongoing criminal investigations and hold to account the individuals who have perpetrated the outrageous acts of violence and destruction we have seen. There have already been arrests made and charges laid in more than one case, and there are more expected in the days ahead.There is a treaty right to fish, and it is a right that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Marshall decision 21 years ago. Above all, there is a right to live and fish in peace without being subjected to threats or racism. I know some harvesters have had a challenging commercial fishing season this year. Everyone wants to know that the stocks they depend on for their livelihood will be protected. Our government will continue to ensure conservation underpins our decisions while we continue to implement first nations' rights.[Translation]For many Canadians in coastal communities across the country, fishing is not only part of their everyday lives, it is also part of their identities. It is a complex and personal matter and has long been the subject of disputes.Since 2015, our government has been taking concrete action to rebuild relations with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Unfortunately, reconciliation does not happen overnight, especially when the injustices have already gone on for far too long.On the weekend, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard spoke with Chief Sack and the Minister of Indigenous Services. They also spoke with the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs to reaffirm our commitment to working in partnership with them.We are also listening to commercial fishers in Nova Scotia and elsewhere as they share their concerns. One thing is clear: Any solution will require peaceful dialogue, without violence. Perpetrators will be arrested and held accountable.(1950)[English]Twenty-one years ago the Supreme Court affirmed the indigenous peoples right to fish for a moderate livelihood. Five years ago tonight Canadians elected a government that made reconciliation a core priority for the path forward for Canada.Since then, we have invested massively in education. We have built and renovated schools and supported better health and mental wellness. We have eliminated boil water advisories and implemented historic legislation to protect and revitalize indigenous languages and ensure indigenous children are safe in their communities. There is much more to do. The real work of reconciliation cannot just be between the federal government and indigenous peoples. The real work of reconciliation must include all orders of government and, importantly, all Canadians. In order to right historic wrongs, we need an approach that does not just recognize inherent treaty rights, but implements their spirit and intent. That is why we will work with commercial fishers and Canadians to ensure this is done fairly. I understand this is challenging. This is not an inconvenience, but an obligation. If we are truly to be the country we like to think of ourselves as, then this is the road we must walk together.I am glad we can be here tonight to participate in this emergency debate to address these issues with dialogue together, just like Canadians elected us to do. As we are still facing the health and economic threats of a global pandemic, the House should remain focused on the issues that directly impact the safety of our citizens and their livelihoods. As always, our government is here to find solutions, to resolve conflicts and to build a better Canada that works for everyone.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersFisheries policyIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesPublic consultationRacial equalityRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceSplitting speaking time6290296629029762902986290299629030062903016290302629030362903046290305629030662903076290308JagmeetSinghBurnaby SouthErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1950)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks on a very important debate, but I am disappointed. In his remarks he said that the real work of reconciliation should be driving a solution here. I agree, but the trouble is that he has been Prime Minister for five years and he has violated the duty to consult indigenous Canadians on two separate occasions, with the cancellation of northern gateway and the Arctic exploration treaty with the United States. Not a single Inuit or indigenous community was consulted on that.Now the Prime Minister has had five years. He talks about real work, but it has been five years. For four of those years, every member of Parliament in Atlantic Canada was a Liberal MP. There has been five years of inaction. My question for the Prime Minister is this. When is the real work going to begin? I mentioned to the Prime Minister a month ago, before Parliament reconvened, that tensions were rising. The Liberals ignored it then. The minister from the province ignored it for a year. Therefore, why has there not been substantive mediation between the Mi'kmaq and the commercial fishermen? At its heart, all Canadians, all fishers in Nova Scotia, indigenous and non-indigenous, want a moderate livelihood and well-being for their family to be focused on here tonight. When is the real work actually going to start?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290309629031062903116290312JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: (1950)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to hear from the leader of the official opposition. I just wish he had actually gotten his facts straight. Over the past 21 years, since the Marshall decision, governments of all stripes, including the former Conservative government, have made progress on the question of resolving the moderate livelihood. Licences and tags have been transferred from commercial fishers to indigenous Mi'kmaq fishers. Much work has been done. Over the past five years, we have significantly accelerated that work and moved forward even further on reconciliation, as we did in many other areas of the country. We will continue to do so.It is interesting that yet again the examples the Leader of the Opposition brought up were focused squarely on the oil and gas issue, which is an important issue, but only one of many issues facing Canadians right now. We will continue to work in partnership with indigenous people. We will continue to put the nation-to-nation relationship first and foremost in our engagement with indigenous peoples. We will continue to build this path forward that all Canadians of every background expect this government and all governments to walk together. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62903136290314629031562903166290317ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (1955)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, there has been talk about a five-year period and how nothing has been done during that time. I would like us to look back 21 years to the Marshall decision. It is really the prerogative of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to define what a “moderate livelihood” means.What is happening right now in Nova Scotia, and I think the opposition leader said it very well, is that both indigenous and non-indigenous people want answers. There has been a conceptual void for 21 years, and I want something to be done about it.How can the government explain its failure to take action?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290318629031962903206290321JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: (1955)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, here in the House, we debate facts. It is disappointing to see the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP continue to claim that nothing has been done over the past 21 years.On the contrary, a huge amount of work has been done over the past 21 years, especially in the past five. We were directly involved, as was the former minister of fisheries and oceans and member for Beauséjour, as treaties were signed and progress was made. I completely agree that there is still a lot of work to be done. That is what we committed to doing today and have been committing to for weeks, and that is what we will continue to work on in partnership with indigenous people across the country.We are not trying to find quick and easy solutions, because they do not exist. We are trying to find solutions that will work for all Canadians, particularly indigenous Canadians.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290322629032362903246290325MarilèneGillManicouaganBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1955)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am joining the House from Mi’kma’ki, the traditional and unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq people. Today, we are discussing very important issues: the escalating violence in Nova Scotia and the Mi'kmaq treaty rights to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.I am here not only as the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, but as a Nova Scotian and as a lifelong member of the rural coastal community. I know how important the fishery is to families and communities, to our neighbours and our friends who head out on the waters to make a living. It is a way of life here. It is part of our culture as Nova Scotians. We have all witnessed the terrible rise of tensions and violence on the east coast. The events that have occurred over the past week with the violence, the fires, the racism are disgusting. I know that Canadians across the country feel this way too and that the current situation in Nova Scotia cannot continue. There is no place for the threats, for the intimidation or for the vandalism that we have witnessed. I wholeheartedly condemn these actions.The escalating tensions in southwest Nova Scotia highlight the issues around the implementation of the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Peskotomuhkati historical treaty rights to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. They are a stark reminder that we must continue to do more and to work together. I cannot emphasize more the need for respectful dialogue and respect for treaty rights as we work toward a peaceful resolution. I would also note that procedurally we are all partaking in an emergency debate in the House of Commons.The Mi'kmaq have a right to fish, a Supreme Court-affirmed treaty right. I want to be clear that we are not here to debate that tonight. We are here because our country operated for centuries without considerations of first nations' rights. We built up whole systems, institutions and structures without considering them. I want all parliamentarians who participate in this discussion and those at home watching and listening to know that we have an opportunity to change this. There are people out there who are committing criminal acts, and that is deplorable, but today's discussion is not even about them. It is about how we can all be part of the solution and work to help support a sustainable and productive fishery for all harvesters, first nations and commercial fishers alike. I truly believe that a fully realized, fully implemented right to fish for a moderate livelihood will only serve to strengthen our fishery.We must also continue our efforts to de-escalate the situation by engaging all parties in constructive dialogue. On that front, my hon. colleagues and I have met regularly with both indigenous leadership and the fishing industry. We will continue to do so even once this crisis has passed. During these discussions we have heard from both parties. We have heard frustration that the negotiations have taken too long and that there is a lack of real progress to implement this right. From non-indigenous harvesters, we have heard their concerns about the future of the fishery and their livelihood. Over the past few months, we have, without a doubt, all been dealing with an unprecedented health crisis on top of this. Many of the fishers have had a very challenging season. I know harvesters are worried, particularly when the opposition continues to try to pit them against others, making this a “them versus us”, saying that they should be concerned about the future of our stocks. Therefore, let me be clear. The conservation underpins everything we do. Lobster stocks are healthy and DFO will continue to monitor stocks and will never move forward with a plan that threatens the health of this species. I know that this approach is shared with many first nations leaders with whom I speak on a regular basis. I will continue to make every effort with the industry to increase transparency, formalize the lines of communication and ensure that the industry has meaningful opportunities to share its concerns and to express its views.This government unequivocally recognizes the right of the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet and the Peskotomuhkati to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. This right stems from the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1760 and 1761, and was confirmed over 20 years ago through the landmark Supreme Court Marshall decision in 1999. Since then, successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have launched programs and initiatives in an effort to accommodate what the court found to be a communal right to pursue a moderate livelihood from hunting, gathering and fishing. Programs over the past 20 years have provided support to purchase licences, vessels and gear and training in order to increase and diversify the participation in the commercial fishery and to contribute to the pursuit of a moderate livelihood for members. While there has been progress, more definitely needs to be done. We recognize that there are still income gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous communities in Atlantic Canada. The violence that we have seen over the past week is a reminder that there is still more work to be done, work that we can do together as part of reconciliation.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersFisheries stocksIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPublic consultation62903266290327629032862903296290330629033162903326290333629033462903356290336JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (2000)[English]Indeed, it is under the leadership of the Prime Minister who made reconciliation a top priority for our government. We have multiple ministers and departments working on this matter. Reconciliation is a whole-of-government mandate for us, and that work is led by the Prime Minister. Myself, my department and the government remain committed to working with first nations leaders to implement their treaty right.I want to stress, once again, that our government's priority remains, first and foremost, the safety of everyone involved. This has to be a common objective for all. RCMP presence in southwestern Nova Scotia has been increased, and investigations are under way related to the events over the last few days.As minister and as a government, we have the responsibility to ensure the safety of all Canadians and to see that those living in Canada are protected. This past September marked 21 years since the anniversary of the Marshall decision. It is time we made real progress forward on implementing the Mi'kmaq treaty right, and I am committed to making sure that we get this right.We can all agree that reconciliation is a Canadian imperative. Each and every one of us has a role to play. It is only by working together that we can achieve that goal. We are here. We have an opportunity to bridge the divisions in our community, to have first nations and commercial harvesters fishing alongside each other, and this is achievable. This will strengthen our fishery.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety6290337629033862903396290340BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (2000)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to clarify something.Earlier today, I was at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I was talking to one of my Nova Scotia colleagues about the communities affected by the Marshall decision, the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet. She mentioned another band, and someone from her government who was attending the meeting said that band was not part of the discussion. The minister immediately intervened to set the record straight and said that the community was indeed part of the discussion.I would just like her to clarify the situation. I think this proves that there are communication problems and that we need more information so we can make informed, thoughtful decisions about actions that will help our communities.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova Scotia629034162903426290343BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her work on the fisheries committee.I will say that the Marshall decision was a decision that affirmed the treaty right of the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet and the Peskotomuhkati. We recognize this is something that needs to be implemented. We are working diligently right now to make sure that we are implementing that treaty right. We have been very active on this file since we were elected. We have seen agreements signed with some communities, and with others there have been ongoing discussions for quite some time now. With regard to the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, particularly the band in Sipekne'katik, we are working with them diligently right now through the negotiation process to make sure that we implement their treaty right.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova Scotia629034462903456290346MarilèneGillManicouaganJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (2005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I note the debate is entitled “Fisheries in Nova Scotia”, but, of course, this issue is gripping all of Atlantic Canada. The fisheries are important, not just in one part of Nova Scotia, but throughout the region. All eyes are fixed on this.The minister talked about law enforcement. Where is DFO? DFO has been virtually absent on this. The minister will say her department is negotiating with first nations, and that is well and good, but what about also negotiating with traditional fishing families who have been fishing in these waters, in some cases since before Canada was founded?Department of Fisheries and OceansEmergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementMi'kmaqNova Scotia62903476290348BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2005)[English]Mr. Speaker, DFO has been actively engaged with a number of commercial harvesters and commercial harvester groups. I have met with them directly myself over the past number of weeks, actually over the past number of years since before I was the Minister of Fisheries. We recognize that the commercial harvesters have had a very challenging season this year. We know that they are concerned with “moderate livelihood”. We want to make sure that we are listening to them, that we are listening to their concerns. That is one of the things we are absolutely very well apprised of, but we recognize also that the negotiations we are having right now with the Mi'kmaq are on a nation-to-nation basis, and that means they are the people at the table. We will make sure that we continue to discuss with the commercial harvesters what their concerns are. We will make sure that we are listening to all sides in this, but we are looking forward to making sure that we implement the rights that were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada to the Mi'kmaq people.Department of Fisheries and OceansEmergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementMi'kmaqNova Scotia629034962903506290351JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (2005)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has been three weeks since Chief Sack identified that he did not feel safe, nor did the fishers in his community. There have been assaults and intimidation. They have been calling for more support and it took a lobster pound to burn down and an assault to take place and more and more intimidation. Why is it taking so long for the minister to call on the federal government and Ottawa to get involved and help support the Nova Scotia RCMP? Who is responsible? We are still trying to get clarity. Andrew Joyce, the public information officer for the RCMP in Nova Scotia, stated that the RCMP is responsible for a presence in the community, but DFO is more appropriate on the water. DFO is saying that it is the RCMP that is responsible for public safety on the water. Will you clarify and give assurance and certainty to the community that they will have protection while they are out on the water exercising their right? They need—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementMi'kmaqNova Scotia62903526290353BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan: (2010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will say we are all very much condemning the violence, intimidation and threats we have seen coming out of south-west Nova Scotia. Nobody wants to see this happening. Nobody wants to feel unsafe as they go to work. That is one of the reasons that we have agreed to increase resources to the province of Nova Scotia in order to make sure there are more resources available to the RCMP so they can bring more members from other provinces to help deal with this situation.We recognize it needs to be addressed. I will say the DFO has been engaged primarily since the very beginning of this, both on the water and on land. We will continue to—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementMi'kmaqNova Scotia62903566290357AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (2010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for West Nova who has been thoughtfully raising this issue for months. It could have helped avoid an emergency debate if we had had a government that was more seized with this issue.Let me be clear off the top about two distinct issues. Burning down buildings is always a crime. Destroying property is always a crime. Whoever commits crimes should be held accountable under the law.There is a second point I would like to make. The very fact that the government joined an opposition party that was going to raise this emergency debate is a sign. They are calling for an emergency after five years of their own inaction on this issue. It is quite unusual for a government to call for an emergency debate on a domestic issue that it has had carriage of for five years. In fact, we tried to get research done on this point and I think, but I cannot be sure, it has never happened. Usually emergency debates would be called with respect to international issues the government is not able to lead on. However, with the Liberal government, there is rarely leadership.There are two Marshall decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada, but many Canadians may not know that and many members of this House may not know that. The decisions affirmed the right of first nations communities to earn a moderate livelihood from the fishery, but they also affirmed the Canadian rules related to conservation and the system around regulation were to be respected, as well.The aboriginal right is paramount. In our Constitution, in our duty to reconciliation, it is critical. In the 21 years since Marshall, there have been governments of many stripes that have not been able to get this right. When fishing is happening out of season or when we do not have a properly regulated season and regulatory process for a fishery, that can deteriorate the stocks and deteriorate the economic potential of the region, non-indigenous and indigenous.What is interesting right now is that the sides of this debate, the indigenous community and non-indigenous community, both agree on one thing: The inaction of the Liberal government is unacceptable. We have had some suggesting that a peacekeeping operation is needed and that should tell members that the situation is troubling. Everyone involved in this issue deserves the respect and attention of the government and it is the Liberals' inaction on this that has led to escalating tension and violence.[Translation]Unfortunately, the tensions in Nova Scotia illustrate the danger of a government that is afraid of making decisions, a government that hopes problems will solve themselves, a government that waits. However, the conflict between the Mi'kmaq community and commercial fishers in Nova Scotia is not new. This conflict will not go away on its own.This debate calls for the courage to bring both communities to the table because finding a way to compromise is a Canadian value.[English]Before Parliament even met, before I had the honour of taking my seat as the leader of Canada's founding party, over a month ago, on September 18, I raised this issue personally with the Prime Minister, because for months my colleague from West Nova, other Canadians, indigenous leaders, the commercial fishery, and union leaders have been raising concerns about rising tensions. That is why I raised this directly with the Prime Minister.I asked the fisheries minister to mediate and exercise political courage. Tonight, she asked for an emergency debate for a dispute that is happening in her own province under her watch that she has done nothing about for a year. No wonder there is frustration in all of Canada, but particularly in Atlantic Canada.(2015)For weeks, members on this side of the House have been sounding notice and caution, asking the Liberal government to act. We have asked questions more than seven times in the House and dozens of times in the media. We had to do that because for months the government has preferred to sit back and wait, hoping the problem might go away by itself. Sadly, much as we are seeing now with the second wave of the pandemic, these things do not go away. They require leadership, and we have a government that prefers photo ops over follow-ups, hashtags over real work. Hoping that problems will go away is not leadership.The Minister of Fisheries let this situation escalate, and that has led to the tensions we have seen in recent days. Today, her inaction led to a press conference where not one but two of four ministers were present to acknowledge that they let the situation spiral out of control. Rather than getting people to the table, they were agreeing with another opposition party that there is an emergency they helped create, a sad expression of leadership by a government.As we heard from the Prime Minister tonight, the Liberals have also preferred to brand this dispute as an entirely racial conflict. The truth is that there are some unacceptable examples of racism, but there are also unresolved negotiations because of a personal debate over livelihood: indigenous livelihood and the well-being of those Canadians and their families, and the livelihood of many commercial fishers. As the minister herself said, in her province of Nova Scotia it is part of the culture. She seems to have allowed this to drag on to a point where we are now seeing violence, and Canadians are concerned about that. This is less about the way they are described and more about a failure to mediate and come to an agreement.That is where leadership is needed. It is hard, but that is what the Conservatives have been asking for months. It is made worse by the fact than in this pandemic, all families, indigenous and non-indigenous, are worried about providing for their family. The government should have known that these tensions were rising. It could have shown leadership, but instead it framed this as tension brought on purely by racial elements. That is not truly the case.This is a dispute where constitutional fishery rights must be upheld for our indigenous Canadians. However, there is also concern from commercial fishers, their union leaders and their community and civic leaders that if this is not done right and conservation is not respected, then the fishery that has been taking place for centuries, which is, as the minister said, part of the culture, could disappear, along with the well-being and livelihoods of many people.That is why we need to find a solution. That is why I raised this with the Prime Minister. That is why the member for West Nova has been raising it time and time again. We need both sides to negotiate to find common ground, with a mediated solution and long-term plan for the well-being of all Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous. Rather than recognizing the impacts of inaction, the minister prefers to throw up her hands and agree with another political party that it is an emergency happening under her watch. The Liberals would rather have a debate here than to have brought people to the table months ago. That is why Nova Scotians are watching, including my own family, which is from Fall River, Nova Scotia. This has gripped the entire region and country.It is harder to show leadership by showing a path to a mediated long-term outcome, so instead the government prefers more talk, press conferences with ministers and calling this an emergency when it had five years. For four of those years, every single MP in that region was a Liberal MP. Instead of making this a priority, the Liberals were taking away the Atlantic Supreme Court justice, for example, until we stood up to that.(2020)Let us go back in our history. As I have said to the Prime Minister before, who shows condescension every time I raise the issue of reconciliation, all governments in our history have not lived up to what we owe our Constitution and indigenous Canadians. We are here to work on a solution if we can. We need less talk, fewer photo ops and fewer hashtags. We need real leadership that brings all communities together to find a solution. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSplitting speaking time629035962903606290361629036262903636290364629036562903666290367629036862903696290370629037162903726290373629037462903756290376AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (2020)[English]Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition went to law school and graduated in 2003. I graduated in 2004 from the same law school. While I was there, I was taught that there are three laws in Canada: the English common law, the French civil law and indigenous law.I have heard some say that there cannot be more than one law in Canada in the fisheries. I am wondering if the Leader of the Opposition believes in legal pluralism or whether there can be more than one law in the fisheries.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62903776290378ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (2020)[English]Mr. Speaker, I did not know that the member for Sydney—Victoria went to Dalhousie law school. I am very proud to have gone there and to be a graduate.It is interesting that Donald Marshall himself, a victim of a miscarriage of our justice system, was failed by lawyers, judges and the attorney general at the time in Nova Scotia, all of them Dalhousie law graduates. I know the member knows that. It is why we study not only the Marshall wrongful conviction but the two Marshall decisions related afterwards.Donald Marshall was caught fishing eels, doing so for a moderate livelihood. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The first decision of the Supreme Court was with respect to the aboriginal right, a constitutional treaty in origin. It said we must respect that; it is important. The second decision said that the government can regulate for conservation and for regulatory structure. That is why for five years the government could have been finding a solution that would have respected our Constitution, would have respected the indigenous right, would have respected the local community and impact on the long-term viability on the fishery, and would have respected the legacy of Donald Marshall, which all Atlantic Canadians and all Dalhousie law graduates certainly know and remember.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629037962903806290381JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (2020)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will not remind the hon. leader of the official opposition that the Marshall decision was not handed down five years ago, but 21 years ago. It is worth noting that the Harper government was in office for much of that time.Approximately 15% of the people in my riding are indigenous. There are also many Innu and Naskapi communities back home, and they are very interested in what is happening at present. They have a host of questions, including one that Martial Pinette of Kawawachikamach and Arnaud Mckenzie-Volant of Uashat mak Mani-utenam asked me to answer: Why would the minister want to send the RCMP to Nova Scotia instead of just simply going there and negotiating? The first nations themselves are asking this question. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on this.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62903826290383ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (2025)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Manicouagan for her question.Twenty-one years have passed since the Marshall decision was handed down. As I stated in my speech, a number of Liberal and Conservative government made mistakes in the past. Now, five years later, we still do not have a solution to offer to the indigenous peoples and rural communities of Nova Scotia.We must show leadership to find a solution and present a plan for the indigenous and non-indigenous communities of Nova Scotia. Five years have passed and we are still waiting. That is also the case for all the important issues. The government still waits, and that is unacceptable.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629038462903856290386MarilèneGillManicouaganChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (2025)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to start by denouncing the violence happening in my region, in southwestern Nova Scotia, in the Clare and St. Marys Bay areas. [English]Everything we have been seeing to date is happening in the riding of West Nova. I wish I were not here talking about this tonight. I wish there were a solution at hand that was brought forward days, months or years ago to solve the issue of moderate livelihood for indigenous people. During that process, I would have thought there would have been some consultation along the way with the people of West Nova whose lobster fishery is being affected by this. This has been happening for weeks. This has been happening for months. At least two months ago, I wrote my first letter to the minister underlining the issue that is before us. I have asked questions in the House. I brought it up in my debate to the address in reply. Finally, now that these threats have been thrown around and the violence has become too much, people seem interested in what is happening in West Nova. Where were the other MPs? One would have thought that at some point I would have received a phone call from someone asking what the situation really means. What is causing the problem we are seeing in West Nova? I can tell the House that the people I represent are scared and worried about what is happening in their communities. They are wondering what is going to happen next in their communities.Before I get to the current situation, I want to ask the minister and the people who are speaking here today to please not paint my area as racist. There are probably a few, as in many of our ridings. It is true there is systemic racism in Canada, but my area is not racist by default. That does not represent the majority of my citizens. Let us talk about where this starts. I know I do not have enough time to talk about all the things I really want to talk about regarding where the current situation is going, but the concern of an illegal fishery in St. Marys Bay has been known by the DFO for many years, with some natives and non-natives involved. We just need to look at the recent case of Sheng Ren Zheng of China, who was charged in Nova Scotia back in August for selling indigenous lobsters. Residents in the community of Clare tell me that this is still going on. The DFO and the RCMP need to continue these investigations and make public the information from them. That extra illegal activity has been affecting the local lobster stock by about 60%. The people of Clare are very worried about retaliation. To date they have been very quiet about this, but it is one of many points of discussion that is not about the current situation of moderate livelihood.The Marshall decision and the treaty rights are accepted by local fishers in the area, but, as it will affect their livelihood, they should be consulted, and it should be discussed with them at the base. Marshall 2 and subsequent fisheries committee, the FOPO committee, led by the member for Malpeque at the time, was very expressive in including all participants in discussions to define what a moderate livelihood fishery actually is. I guess the DFO needs to learn that consultation requires listening, not just talking, which is all it seems to do. I have heard it from the minister a number of times already. I have talked to fishers. She has made a couple of phone calls. She does not really understand what their concerns are, or at least it has not been shown that she knows what the core of this discussion really is.(2030)I made a number of points in my letter about the Marshall decision, what the Marshall decision is and what it is not. I thought I raised probably the one point that is in here, but the letter is available on my website. First and foremost, the court claims that it did not hold that the Mi'kmaq treaty right could not be regulated, nor that the Mi'kmaq were guaranteed an open season in the fisheries. That is paragraph two of the Marshall decision. The court emphasized that the treaty right had always been subject to regulation, and the government's power to regulate the treaty right had been repeatedly affirmed in the September 17, 1999, majority judgment. That is paragraph 24 of the Marshall decision.There are a number of suggestions of what the Marshall decision is and what it is not. Most fishers and most associations that I have talked to accept the decision of Marshall 2. They look forward to negotiation, discussion and consultation when it comes to this issue.I also hear from the minister about the nation-to-nation negotiation, and that there is no seat for commercial fishers at the table. I am okay with that. Commercial fishermen are okay with that as well, but in most negotiations there is always a second consultation table where experts sit so they can go back and confirm what they are thinking and what they are not thinking. As a matter of fact, in the recent negotiation with the United States, nation-to-nation, on NAFTA, we know that Jerry Dias was sitting at the table with the negotiators representing workers. The workers in the fishing community, which is the base of all of our economic activity in West Nova, just want to be able to sit at the table, to be part of that negotiation and to be able to provide a moderate livelihood for their families as well.There are tensions on all sides. Not everyone is subject to this, but I have seen threats from all sides. Tensions need to be brought down. I spend my days talking to fishermen and telling them to stand down while negotiations are ongoing, and quite honestly, I am getting very tired of it. I ask for everyone's help to continue to bring down this pressure.This morning at a rally in Barrington, the previous minister of fisheries in Nova Scotia Sterling Belliveau said something important that worries me. He said, “If you're not at the table, you're probably on the menu” and today my fishers are really worried that, because they are not being consulted and they are not at the table talking about things, their industry is on the menu.I am looking forward to getting calls from all my colleagues wondering what is going on in the fishery in Nova Scotia, but I need the minister to step up. I need her to be here on the ground. I need her to meet with fishermen, both indigenous and non-indigenous as well. As a matter of fact, I have a truck and I am more than happy to pick her up, drive her down and keep her safe while we have these discussions.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIllegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activitiesIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPublic consultationRacial equality629038762903886290389629039062903916290392629039362903946290395629039662903976290398629039962904006290401629040262904036290404ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamKodyBloisKings—Hants//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104555KodyBloisKody-BloisKings—HantsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BloisKody_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.): (2035)[English]Mr. Speaker, before I get to my question, I want to highlight the fact that, although we would never condone what we have seen in terms of the violence, I would join those who have already condemned that type of behaviour. I do not think it is reflective of the entire industry, and those were important remarks to be made.The member opposite referenced an illegal fishery. As parliamentarians may know, I represent the community of Sipekne'katik, the first nation at the heart of this issue. I do not see this as an illegal fishery. It may be unauthorized, but the Supreme Court says that the right exists. Will the member from West Nova acknowledge that the fishing activities that Sipekne'katik is conducting right now is not illegal?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIllegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activitiesIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62904056290406Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont: (2035)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that it is an unauthorized fishery that is going on with Sipekne'katik, but there is an illegal fishery going on in St. Mary's Bay. In the background, underneath the ocean, there are thousands of traps. There are lots of lobsters being sold for cash. This is a well-known issue in the area of Clare, and something that DFO needs to seriously look into and rectify. The community, I think, would be more at ease if it knew that was being taken care of.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIllegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activitiesIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290407KodyBloisKings—HantsMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (2035)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from West Nova for his speech. I have a question for him. He spoke about the notion of moderate livelihood a number of times. I must admit that I was surprised to hear him mention it, not because this is not at the very heart of what is going on right now in Nova Scotia, at the heart of all of this tension that needs to be defused and resolved. I was surprised because, as I mentioned, today I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We try not to play politics and say that Fisheries and Oceans Canada should have defined the notion of “moderate livelihood” 21 years ago, or even back in 1761. Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not exist in 1761, and neither did Canada. People claim to want to talk about it now, but when I moved a motion on this topic, no one agreed. No one would even tell me who was responsible. If it is not up to the Supreme Court, legislators, the government or committees, then who is responsible?I would like to hear my hon. colleague's thoughts on why they voted against my motion. Who is supposed to define “moderate livelihood”?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290408629040962904106290411Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont: (2035)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.As I was not at the committee meeting, I cannot answer on behalf of my colleagues who were there. It is the government that has to negotiate and define “moderate livelihood”. A Fisheries and Oceans Canada negotiator is already working on that. Mr. Jim Jones is responsible for negotiations. The government has to define this concept.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62904126290413MarilèneGillManicouaganNikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook Aski//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/36037NikiAshtonNiki-AshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AshtonNiki_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP): (2035)[English]Mr. Speaker, in a statement issued on October 17, a Conservative called on the Prime Minister to keep all Nova Scotians safe and to “include commercial fish harvesters in discussions” regarding their livelihoods. This sounds like all lives matter logic, and it is unacceptable. Let us also be clear that the negotiations are between the Mi'kmaq fishers and the federal government. The federal government has a role to play in protecting their constitutional and treaty right.Will the member not agree that the first step to ending racially motivated violence is to call out the racism that is driving it and to defend the indigenous community that is the target of this violence?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaRacial equality62904146290415Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont: (2040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to come visit West Nova, to visit the beautiful Acadian communities that have existed since coming back from deportation when the British kicked them out of Nova Scotia. Does the member want to talk about racism? Let us talk about some of those very things. They are not a racist people. They are very concerned about the livelihoods of their families. Shame on her for calling them racists.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaRacial equality62904166290417NikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (2040)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise this evening to speak to this emergency debate on the escalating violence against indigenous fishers. I want to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I cannot begin my speech without first strongly condemning the criminal acts that have been committed in Nova Scotia, and the hatred and racism levelled at the Mi'kmaq people that we have seen lately. Absolutely nothing justifies this.On September 17, as we already know, indigenous fishers launched their lobster fishing season in St. Mary's Bay, Nova Scotia. Ever since, there has been a growing number of confrontations, acts of vandalism, assaults, fires and much more. Fishers from the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet nations have treaty rights that were confirmed by a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 1999. The Marshall decision recognized the right of indigenous peoples to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood, while abiding by federal regulations. However, the Supreme Court never defined the limits of livelihood fishing, which continues to be a source of contention with non-indigenous fishers to this day.It is rather unfortunate that this government's and its predecessors' negligence has caused the situation to deteriorate to the point of the present crisis. If governments had not dragged their heels on this matter, things would not have gotten this bad and we would not be here talking about it. It is deplorable that one fisheries and oceans minister after another, including the current one, has failed to act on the Marshall decision by implementing a regulatory framework negotiated nation to nation that respects constitutional treaty rights and the need to conserve the resource.In the Marshall decision, the Supreme Court recognized the Mi'kmaq people's commercial fishing rights arising from a 1760 treaty with the British. Previous rulings affirmed that this right terminated in the 1780s, but the Supreme Court determined that the Mi'kmaq right to subsistence fishing remained a treaty right within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In its second decision, which was rendered in November 1999, the Supreme Court set out the terms of its first decision and found that the federal and provincial governments have the authority, within their respective legislative fields, to regulate the exercise of a treaty right where justified on conservation or other grounds.The Marshall judgment referred to the Supreme Court's principal pronouncements on the various grounds on which the exercise of treaty rights may be regulated. The paramount regulatory objective is the conservation of the resource, and responsibility for it is placed squarely on the minister responsible and not on the indigenous or non-indigenous users of the resource. The regulatory authority extends to other compelling public objectives, which may include economic and regional fairness, and recognition of the historical reliance upon, and participation in, the fishery by non-indigenous groups.Indigenous people are entitled to be consulted about limitations on the exercise of treaty and indigenous rights. In other words, it is up to the federal government, more specifically the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, to implement regulations to ensure the prosperity and conservation of the resource in consultation with indigenous peoples.The Liberals have now been in power for five years, not counting the other years they have been in power since 1999, of course. Why have they not yet created regulations? That is their responsibility. As a result of the government's inaction, we now find ourselves once again faced with a conflict between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Despite a Supreme Court of Canada decision, the federal government has been unable to come up with a framework for implementing it in the more than 20 years since it was handed down.I read an interesting Radio-Canada article this morning that quoted Martin Papillon, director of the Research Centre on Public Policy and Social Development at the University of Montreal. He corroborated what I just said when he stated: Although the Supreme Court established the key principles, it cannot tell us what to do every time. It is up to the government, with indigenous nations, to find common ground for the implementation of the Marshall decision.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPublic consultationRacial equalitySplitting speaking time629041862904196290420629042162904226290423629042462904256290426629042762904286290429Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (2045)[Translation]He added:The implementation of indigenous rights will not happen on its own, as if by magic. Governments must intervene [and] negotiate in good faith with indigenous nations to find solutions. This is not the only issue on which the federal government is dragging its feet. We also saw this with the rail blockades, for instance, just before the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than coming up with a comprehensive, long-term strategy, the government has a habit of not intervening until tensions peak. This results in the kind of unfortunate events we have seen.The article I cited earlier also quotes Jean Leclair, a professor at the University of Montreal's faculty of law, who said:Once again, the government failed to take any action that would have prevented this kind of explosion. It always takes a piecemeal approach, acting only when a crisis erupts. Of course this was fertile ground for violence and racism.It is important to establish a structure for the negotiations, rather than proceeding on a case-by-case basis. As we all know, every issue that sets the government and first nations at odds has its own unique features. We need to adopt some general principles to govern the negotiations.I know that I will be repeating myself, but it is important to do so. I strongly condemn the crimes committed in Nova Scotia, as well as the hatred and racism we have seen against the Mi'kmaq people.It is unfortunate that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, successive governments and the current government have been unable to uphold the Marshall decision and create a regulatory framework through nation-to-nation negotiations, while respecting constitutional treaty rights and conservation of the resource. Why did Fisheries and Oceans Canada wait until 2017, 18 years after the Marshall decision, to start negotiations with the various Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces? Why has this crisis gone on for two months? What has the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard done throughout this crisis to ease tensions and resolve the situation? A number of representatives from the Mi'kmaq community have even expressed doubts about whether the RCMP truly wants to protect them. How will the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness work to maintain the trust of the public, especially indigenous people, in the police?Earlier today, the Minister of Indigenous Services stated that Mi'kmaq fishers were only operating in indigenous fisheries, which represent a mere fraction of the fisheries sector. Is he correct? If he is, why is it so difficult to come to an agreement with the Mi'kmaq communities? Is the government afraid of sowing discontent in the commercial fishery?I condemn the inaction of successive governments, including this one, which has led to the deterioration of the situation and resulted in this current crisis. All of this could have been prevented by taking action a long time ago. The government must do its job and stop dragging its feet on this file and on many others. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police629043062904316290432629043362904346290435629043662904376290438629043962904406290441SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouLaurelCollinsVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105908LaurelCollinsLaurel-CollinsVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CollinsLaurel_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): (2045)[English]Mr. Speaker, over two decades ago, the Mi'kmaq people fought in court, and the courts ruled that they have the constitutionally upheld right to fish for a moderate livelihood. However, this is not only about their right to fish for lobster. It is about their basic human right to be free from violence. It is about justice in the face of violence and systemic racism. The Liberal government, for all its words, has not fulfilled its obligations to uphold the treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq people. Its inaction has led to this situation, but the government has also failed to address the lack of action from the RCMP and DFO, the lack of action and the lack of justice.When does the member think the Liberal government will stop paying lip service and actually take action to stand up for the rights of the Mi'kmaq people?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629044262904436290444SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé: (2050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.It is regrettable that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under this and previous governments was incapable of implementing the Marshall decision and establishing regulations based on good nation-to-nation relations. I find it really unfortunate that it has taken the violence we are seeing in Nova Scotia to bring about action. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62904456290446LaurelCollinsVictoriaElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (2050)[English]Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to participate in this emergency debate, I want to thank the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni and others for bringing this to the House.There are other contextual elements here. One is that, over the last number of years, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has given very large monopolistic licences for lobster harvesting to a large harvesting company, Clearwater Seafoods, which has multiple conservation violations, yet we are told that the concern of the fishery is that the indigenous people would hurt conservation. The evidence is to the contrary.We are also told that the RCMP stood by and watched the violence, but there are other credible reports that the RCMP aided and abetted in violence. I would like to ask the hon. member if we should investigate both of these aspects.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police629044762904486290449SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé: (2050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. Let's negotiate and let's stop the repression. That is important. When we were talking about nation to nation earlier, we were talking about equality, but that is not the case here. Inequality is still a reality for indigenous peoples across Quebec and Canada. We must act. This government needs to do something.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police6290450ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104786AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeAlexis-Brunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Brunelle-DuceppeAlexis_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): (2050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech, which I listened to very carefully.At the end of the day, from one debate to the next, from one emergency debate to the next—because we always need to have emergency debates with this government—it has become clear that this government is good at apologizing 50 or 100 years too late. It never seems to do the right thing at the right time.At the end of the day, listening to my hon. colleague, I have to wonder if we are in this situation today because Ottawa dragged its feet on this file for decades.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629045162904526290453SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé: (2050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.This once again proves that the current government is dragging its feet. The government needs to pull up its socks and move forward.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62904546290455AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC): (2050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country think that DFO is not directing its operations properly. Could the Bloc Québécois member give us an example of how the government could do better and find a middle ground for indigenous and non-indigenous fishers in Nova Scotia?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290456SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé: (2050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have a one-word answer: negotiation. It is through negotiation that an agreement will be reached with indigenous communities. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290457BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (2050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to participate in emergency debates, even though an urgent need to act does not usually signal good news. This is the second time that the members of the House have come together to talk about violent disputes and the federal government's failures when it comes to first nations. The first time was the rail crisis. Today, it is the uncertainty surrounding livelihood fisheries.It is rather ironic that the Liberals were the ones who requested this emergency debate and yet there is only one Liberal on the other side of the House. If this is so important to the Liberals, I hope that many of them are participating in the debate virtually. I really hope that is the case.To begin—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290458629045962904606290461SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud: (2050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate that the Bloc Québécois strongly condemns the crimes committed in Nova Scotia and the acts of hatred and racism against the Mi'kmaq that we have witnessed recently. In particular, my colleagues and I feel it is deplorable that DFO and successive governments, including the current one, have failed to uphold the Marshall decision by implementing a regulatory framework negotiated nation to nation that respects constitutional treaty rights and the need to conserve the fisheries. We also condemn the inaction of successive governments, including this one, which has caused the situation to deteriorate and led to the present crisis. Many things could have been accomplished long before now. I sent the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard a letter about this, urging her to finally define a moderate livelihood fishery. That could provide a concrete solution to the current conflict raging both in Nova Scotia and in various indigenous communities elsewhere in Quebec and Canada.Despite what we are hearing from the ministers concerned about police inaction regarding the acts perpetrated, it is not just about what the police did or did not adequately do in the current situation. There has been tension between indigenous and non-indigenous fishers for more than 20 years. Yes, I recognize that the escalating violence has led to an emergency debate, but the issue of the regulation of fishing rights arising from the Marshall decision did not seem to be one of the government's most urgent concerns in its last throne speech, nor even last year or in the previous four years. Resolving this issue was not even included in the mandate letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard in the last parliamentary session.Must we wait for acts of violence such as those we have seen in Nova Scotia to take action? In my riding of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia there is also tension between indigenous and non-indigenous fishers, and I believe that is the case in many other places. Fortunately, there has been no violence in my riding, but we must take action now to prevent these types of incidents.The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard tweeted this past weekend that her government would continue to work with the Mi'kmaq to implement their treaty rights. However, this crisis has been going on for over a month, and as my colleague from Manicouagan rightly pointed out, it goes back much further than that. Where has the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard been all along? What has she done to ease tensions? This problem did not begin with the violent outbursts we have seen in southwestern Nova Scotia since the lobster fishery opened on September 17. The government is clearly having a hard time finding solutions in collaboration with the first nations, given that, as I mentioned, it has been 21 years since the Marshall decision and the situation is still not resolved. In a press conference this morning, four Liberal ministers denounced the lack of a police response to the intimidation and violence being perpetrated by non-indigenous fishers against Mi'kmaq fishers in Nova Scotia.Rather, I think we need to take a closer look at Ottawa's tendency to drag its feet, as we have heard over the last few minutes, when it comes to first nations claims in general. Yes, the Prime Minister himself condemned the violence in Nova Scotia and added that he and his government would continue to work towards reconciliation with first nations, but essentially, we know that no real progress is being made.Now is the time for concrete action and clarity on the regulations. I think that is what we are really talking about here tonight. The federal government's unwillingness to resolve the matter and take responsibility for its decisions is what is preventing harmonious relations in the fishing areas shared by the indigenous and non-indigenous fishers.This reminds me of a situation very similar to that of Nova Scotia. The lobster fishery in the community of Listigouche in the riding I represent, and where Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not been very clear on first nations' rights, remains a very contentious issue. Tensions are mounting among non-indigenous fishers because negotiations continue but nothing ever comes of them, either on the band council side or the fishers' association side. By deciding to manage its own fishing activities, the Mi'kmaq community is firmly reminding us of the impasse that indigenous and commercial fishers have been stuck in for 21 years.I would also like to look back on recent and not-so-recent history. This evening, several parliamentarians mentioned the right of indigenous peoples to fish for a moderate livelihood. This right was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, but it is still surrounded by uncertainty, creating a lot of tension.In 1999, a little more than 21 years ago, the Supreme Court made a decision in the Marshall case. It ruled that Donald Marshall, who was charged with illegally fishing eel outside the fishing season as set out by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, had the right to fish in accordance with the Peace and Friendship Treaties signed by indigenous peoples in the 18th century. The Supreme Court affirmed the right of indigenous peoples to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. (2055)However, the concept of moderate livelihood was never defined.A few months later, in November 1999, following protests by commercial fishers, the Supreme Court issued a clarification, known as Marshall II. It states that the federal and provincial governments have the power to regulate the fishery that indigenous people have the right to practise where justified on conservation or other grounds.Ever since, the first nations and DFO have been unable to agree on the definition of moderate livelihood. That is why the Mi'kmaq decided they would fish and sell their catch according to the regulations enforced by compliance officers. That is what happens when the government fails to put measures in place. The communities themselves define the measures that apply to them.Is it not the responsibility of the federal government, more specifically the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to put regulations in place to ensure the prosperity and conservation of the resource, in consultation with indigenous and non-indigenous peoples? Again, my colleague from Manicouagan asked this question earlier. Why is no one able to answer? Whose responsibility is this?Last year, Listuguj fishers also defied the federal government by going out to sea in September to fish for lobster that they planned to sell rather than just distribute in their communities. The Mi'kmaq claimed they were within their rights because of the Marshall decision, but Fisheries and Oceans Canada considered their activities to be unauthorized commercial fishing. The Listuguj band council confirmed that DFO had refused to grant it a commercial licence for the fall fishery but had not explained why. That is often what people hear when they try to contact the department. They get little in the way of explanation, and sometimes no response at all.The first nation finally signed an agreement with the federal government last November, and that led to official negotiations on fishing rights, which are ongoing but are not actually making any headway.If you try to please everyone, you will please no one. That is what is happening with a number of first nations issues. Just look at what is happening with moose hunting in the La Vérendrye wildlife reserve. The same is true in fishing zones in the Gaspé: Non-indigenous commercial fishers in the southern Gaspé are also angry because they feel unheard. For the past eight years, they have been calling on Fisheries and Oceans Canada to listen to them about the management of stocks, which necessarily involves the treaties negotiated with the first nations.The Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie has been denied or simply ignored by the department. It has complained about being left out of negotiations, even though the changes made to the fishing plans affect all users of the same zone, including indigenous and non-indigenous fishers. The organization has also been critical of the agreements regarding independent fishing plans for the different communities, which it feels create inequalities. It says that two parallel fishing systems are being created.According to the association, the government's actions go against its own lobster conservation laws, or efforts to reduce fishing to increase stocks, by increasing the number of traps allowed in certain areas and increasing the number of fishing licences, some of which are issued for the same areas fished by Gaspé fishers, in Chaleur Bay.Indigenous and non-indigenous fishers likely do not agree, and it is the federal government's responsibility to draw the line. The government needs to clearly define livelihood fishing, invite all parties involved in managing the fishery to the table, come up with a licensing system and set out clear and transparent rules.Once again, we find ourselves caught in a conflict with the first nations because the government did not fulfill its responsibilities. When it comes right down to it, everyone wants the same thing: clear directives. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for enforcing the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. It must therefore have the necessary political courage to take a stand and put an end to 21 years of uncertainty and tension between indigenous and non-indigenous fishers. That is what this government is missing on several issues: political will.A collaborative approach is critical to formulate a comprehensive agreement like the 2002 peace of the braves agreement between Quebec and the James Bay Cree. That could be a solution.My time is up so I will finish my remarks in my answers to my colleagues' questions, if they do not mind.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290463629046462904656290466629046762904686290469629047062904716290472629047362904746290475629047662904776290478629047962904806290481629048262904836290484629048562904866290487AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/43WayneEasterHon.Wayne-EasterMalpequeLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/EasterWayne_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): (2100)[English]Madam Speaker, I am somewhat concerned by most of the remarks I heard tonight. They have all be on the moderate livelihood side, and yes, that does need to be addressed. However, there was also another key point in terms of the Marshall decision, and that relates to conservation.The court stressed the priority of conservation and the responsibility of the minister. I would like to quote the Marshall decision, which states, “The paramount regulatory objective is conservation and responsibility for it is placed squarely on the minister responsible and not on the aboriginal or non-aboriginal users of the resource.” That is a point that is not talked about in the media and has not really been talked about tonight.Both those issues have to be addressed: the right for a moderate livelihood and the conservation of the resource for both commercial fishermen and aboriginal fishermen. Would the member agree with that?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629048862904896290490KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud: (2105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I think those two issues go hand in hand.What we want is for the federal government to issue clear guidelines. We saw the indigenous fishers' side and the non-indigenous fishers' side. We can understand the current tensions. The federal government is dragging its feet on defining the terms in relation to fishing in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.We need the government to negotiate with all parties involved, to draw the line and to define moderate livelihood. That might be a solution to the current dispute.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629049162904926290493WayneEasterHon.MalpequeEricMelilloKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105186EricMelilloEric-MelilloKenoraConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MelilloEric_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC): (2105)[English]Madam Speaker, we have heard from the government and from this Prime Minister many times that no relationship is more important to the current government, supposedly, that its relationship with indigenous peoples. However, the Liberals have had an opportunity to show that, by addressing some of these long-standing issues and they have failed to do so. Now the minister has failed to take appropriate action to help keep everyone safe and to go to Nova Scotia and meet with all parties involved and have those negotiations. I would like to hear from my colleague from the Bloc Québécois to know whether she agrees that, if the minister were to go to Nova Scotia and have those negotiations and conversations, it would go a long way in easing the tensions.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62904946290495KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud: (2105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I think the minister absolutely needs to go to Nova Scotia and sit down with the stakeholders to negotiate an agreement. That is long overdue. The problem is that the government always waits for something really serious to happen before taking action.As parliamentarians, we are always brought back to reality by the news showing us the atrocities happening in our own communities. As a result, we have to hold emergency debates and we are slow to act.This time we have a chance to do something before this happens in other communities where tensions are rising, such as in Listuguj. This is the perfect opportunity for the government to take action and be more proactive in the future with respect to these kinds of negotiations.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290496629049762904986290499EricMelilloKenoraJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (2105)[English]Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot about a nation-to-nation relationship. We are hearing a lot about constitutionally enshrined rights from treaty negotiations. It is important to understand that a treaty is between sovereign nation and sovereign nation. I would like to ask what the member thinks about the idea of sovereignty, and whether it should be the indigenous fishers who have the right to determine their own moderate livelihood. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290500KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud: (2105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.When it comes to sovereignty, whether it is Quebec's sovereignty, environmental sovereignty or the territorial sovereignty of indigenous peoples, I like to take a rather positive approach.Of course, in an ideal world, everyone would decide for themselves. Clear guidelines and benchmarks are needed. In this case, the federal government has a duty to set clear guidelines. In fact, this should have been done 21 years ago. It is time to act.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629050162905026290503JenicaAtwinFrederictonCarolynBennettHon.Toronto—St. Paul's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/992CarolynBennettHon.Carolyn-BennettToronto—St. Paul'sLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BennettCarolyn_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (2105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria.I am speaking to the House from my Toronto home, which is located on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. We honour all indigenous peoples who paddled these waters and whose moccasins walked this land.To begin, I would like to thank the Mi'kmaq communities that have worked very hard to keep their members safe despite the escalation of violence. All Canadians were horrified by the violence inflicted on the Mi'kmaq people in recent weeks. They have been attacked and intimidated because they exercised their right.(2110)[English]With the destruction of property and attacks on people's attempt to obtain a moderate livelihood, unfortunately this escalation of tension has exacerbated divisions. No dispute can be settled through violence, and no durable solutions are found through threats and intimidation. It has to stop. Human rights and the treaty and inherent rights of indigenous peoples must be respected. That commitment is at the very heart of our country's very identity and enshrined in our Constitution.We have much more work to do to forward the unfinished business of Confederation. We need to accelerate the progress and we need all Canadians with us on this journey. Racist colonial policies have resulted in denied opportunity, sustained harassment and a justifiable mistrust in all of our institutions and civil society. Systemic racism is evident in all of our institutions and all Canadians need to know that it is their responsibility to end it. The Government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with indigenous people in Canada, nation to nation, Inuit to Crown, and government to government, built on the affirmation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.It has been over 20 years since the Marshall decision reaffirmed the right of the Mi'kmaq to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. The court upheld the treaty right of Donald Marshall to fish. The court found that his treaty right was protected by the section 35 of the Constitution. The Mi'kmaq people have the right to exercise their rights, free from violence, threats and racism.Canada has reaffirmed our commitment to working in partnership with the Mi'kmaq to implement their treaty rights on the path to self-determination. Over the weekend, in our conversations with Chief Sack and the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs, we reassured them that we agree with them, that the safety of their communities is the priority, the violence is unacceptable and the perpetrators will be brought to justice. We heard their frustration with respect to the implementation of their right to a moderate livelihood. The Marshall decision was a long time ago, but it is not where this story starts. In 1760-61 the Crown signed peace and friendship treaties with the Mi'kmaq people, treaties that guarantee hunting, fishing and land-use rights for the descendants of these communities. These treaties are the foundation of our relationship and remain in place today. Canada, and all Canadians, have a responsibility to understand this and ensure that these treaties are upheld and implemented. To achieve this, Canada is currently engaged in discussions on aboriginal treaty rights and self-government with 10 of the 13 Mi'kmaq nations in Nova Scotia. We are also pursuing discussions with the remaining three communities, which are not involved at the self-determination table.Implementing the historic treaty rights recognized in the Marshall decision is a critical component of these discussions and a priority for the Government of Canada. For millennia, indigenous people have held conservation and sustainability as a core value. The Mi'kmaq nation has been working hard on its plans to exercise and implement its rights in a sustainable fishery based upon science.I am proud of the progress we are making together to affirm the treaty and inherent rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis on their path to self-determination. Together, we and our partners have transformed how government engages with indigenous people and how we work together. The renewed relationship has been furthered by the establishment of the recognition of indigenous rights and self-determination discussion tables, which represent a new flexible way to have the discussion of how to affirm the unique rights, needs and interests that matter most to indigenous communities. Since 2015, we have created over 90 new negotiation tables. There are currently over 150 active negotiation tables across the country to help advance the relationship with indigenous people and to support their version of self-determination. We are making significant progress at these tables, but we cannot move forward as a country without the understanding and support of all Canadians. Part of the path forward was highlighted in the Speech from the Throne and that is the introduction and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP is not scary. Implementation of the inherent and treaty rights of indigenous peoples is the way forward to a much stronger and fairer Canada.The great challenges we have already endured in 2020 have presented us with a world that is in need of renewal. For Canadians, that renewal must begin with our longest lasting partnership. Our government is as determined to address historical injustice and racism born of colonialism, as we are determined to root out and expose racism today. Canadians have seen all too clearly during this difficult, tense time that racism, both systemic and societal, continues to be all too present in our country. The death of Joyce Echaquan has shown us this horrible truth.Once we know the truth, we cannot unknow it. June Callwood said that if someone is an observer of an injustice, that person is indeed a participant. All of us need to identify racism in all its forms and then speak up, call it out and be part of the concrete changes that will stop it. It must not and will not be tolerated.The Government of Canada remains fully committed to supporting the Mi'kmaq right to fish and to maintain a moderate livelihood. We will continue to engage in constructive dialogues with the Nova Scotia chiefs to implement these rights. I am working closely with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, toward a peaceful resolution and the advancement of Mi'kmaq rights.The Mi'kmaq leadership is inspiring. I am confident that we will be able to find a path forward together that affirms their right to fish and creates certainty so that the Mi'kmaq people are able to live with dignity and security, free from violence. A timely and peaceful resolution will make Nova Scotia and Canada stronger and fairer. Wela'lin.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaRacial equalitySplitting speaking time6290504629050562905066290507629050862905096290510629051162905126290513629051462905156290516629051762905186290519KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (2115)[English]Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the minister is forgetting that the government has the responsibility and the ability to be out there resolving this issue. I know in past crises, ministers have hopped on planes and put their energy and focus into getting a negotiated solution, and getting it done now.Therefore, why is the minister sitting in her home talking to Parliament tonight instead of being in Nova Scotia, saying they are not going to leave and will go through sleepless nights until they have a resolution and have de-escalated the situation?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62905206290521CarolynBennettHon.Toronto—St. Paul'sCarolynBennettHon.Toronto—St. Paul's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/992CarolynBennettHon.Carolyn-BennettToronto—St. Paul'sLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BennettCarolyn_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Carolyn Bennett: (2115)[English]I would like to advise the hon. member that we are in the midst of a pandemic. I have not been on a plane since March. I have been conducting my business from here and from Ottawa throughout this time. We have had very successful negotiations, including the signing of the agreement with the Wet’suwet’en, here from my home.The member needs to understand about the Atlantic bubble and its 14 days of self-isolation. It is really ridiculous, actually, for the member to speak like that in the middle of a pandemic, when we are trying to be able to do real work at a distance, together while apart, as we fight the pandemic, put Canadians first and only do the kinds of urgent visits that do not put ourselves, our families and our communities at risk.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62905226290523CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (2120)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her presentation.I will paint a picture because there has been a lot of talk about reconciliation and we are getting lost in the details. We agree on the fact that we are at least 150 years behind and I am not even talking about the Indian Act, which sets us back even further. That legislation is absolutely racist and when we talk about systemic racism, we are talking about the Indian Act.That being said, I would like to ask the minister a question while we are talking about lagging behind.Today, at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, we were talking about the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet peoples. I agree that this is urgent, but there are 634 first nations in Canada and we are negotiating fishing rights on a case-by-case basis.I would like to know what the minister's timeline is when it comes to all these urgent requests for all the indigenous communities in Canada.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62905246290525629052662905276290528CarolynBennettHon.Toronto—St. Paul'sCarolynBennettHon.Toronto—St. Paul's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/992CarolynBennettHon.Carolyn-BennettToronto—St. Paul'sLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BennettCarolyn_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Carolyn Bennett: (2120)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her extremely important question.The Indian Act is truly a vestige of colonial policies. It is very important to me and our government that every indigenous community is freed from the Indian Act. Currently, half of the communities are at the table and are part of the discussions on their self-determination, with their priorities, in a more flexible—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62905296290530MarilèneGillManicouaganLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (2120)[English]Madam Speaker, the member across the way spoke a lot about systemic racism. Unfortunately we have yet another example of the government's systemic racism: its failure to uphold its constitutional duty to ensure the rule of law was applied and to take the necessary actions to protect the Mi'kmaq fishers from experiencing acts of domestic racism.The Mi'kmaq are experiencing their constitutionally recognized right to fish being violated, and the federal government continues to watch. The violence is a direct result of the government's failure to negotiate a definition of “moderate livelihood”, which has led to the Mi'kmaq having to self-regulate a fishery that in fact honours and supports the practice of conservation. They currently have less than 1% of the traps being used to date.Instead of talking about this nation-to-nation relationship that the current government claims is so important to it, when will it stop stalling and immediately begin to negotiate with the Mi'kmaq, give clear directions to the RCMP and Department of Fisheries and Oceans to support a swift end to these acts of violence and—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629053162905326290533CarolynBennettHon.Toronto—St. Paul'sAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/992CarolynBennettHon.Carolyn-BennettToronto—St. Paul'sLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BennettCarolyn_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Carolyn Bennett: (2120)[English]Madam Speaker, I really do think the member knows the government does not direct the RCMP to do anything. This is about protecting populations and maintaining the law as peace officers, hopefully. I want to reassure the member that the fish plants being put forward are based on science and conservation. I believe the Mi'kmaq people really do want to be able to regulate a fishery in a way that is in keeping with their customs and that they have the right to do that. The conversations going on with the assembly of Mi'kmaq chiefs is—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62905356290536AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (2120)[English]Madam Speaker, I am joining the House today from the Eskasoni community, the Mi'kmaq community, the largest Mi'kmaq first nation in the heart of Mi'kma'ki, on the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq. I rise today as the lone Mi'kmaq MP in the House, the only MP of Mi'kmaq descent this House has ever known, but also as someone who is part of a large fishing community. I told constituents that I would always look for collaborative solutions to the challenges we face in Canada. I have spoken to many stakeholders over the past month: Mi'kmaq fishermen, Mi'kmaq leaders and fishing associations, and the RCMP. I believe in my heart that there is room for all of us, and that we, together, can move forward.Before I address the solutions that I would like to put forward, I would like to share a little about how we have come to this escalation.Mi'kmaq values are ingrained in our language. Netukulimk tells us that in the Mi'kmaq world view, we are connected to our environment, not above it. Chief Seattle, who is not a Mi'kmaq, said it best: “Man did not weave the web of life—he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”With this in mind, I want to give a little treaty history. In 1605, our grand chief of the Mi'kmaq grand council, Henri Membertou, on the shores of Port-Royal in the southwest Nova Scotia area, welcomed French newcomers, took them under his wing and showed them how to survive in the area. This created a great friendship between the Mi'kmaq and the French. It was so great that in 1755, when the Acadians were being expelled, the Mi'kmaq hid them. The Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, Arthur LeBlanc, told me a beautiful story about how his family was saved by the Mi'kmaq.The Covenant Chain of Treaties within the Mi'kma'ki, from 1725 to 1778, began a process whereby the British Crown began negotiating with the Mi'kmaq. Early treaties between the Mi'kmaq and the Crown were based on peace, friendship and trade. The common misconception is that the Mi'kmaq gave away resources or surrendered resources. The Mi'kmaq were a fighting force. I want to quote a part of Donald Marshall's case, from 1999. It said, “It should be pointed out that the Mi’kmaq were a considerable fighting force in the 18th century. Not only were their raiding parties effective on land, Mi’kmaq were accomplished sailors.”Subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, says:(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.That, together with the section 52 supremacy clause, means that aboriginal and treaty rights are the supreme law of Canada once recognized.In 1985, the 1752 treaty was recognized in the Simon case, where it is said, “The Treaty was an exchange to solemn promises between the Micmacs and the King's representative entered into to achieve and guarantee peace. It is an enforceable obligation between the Indians and the white man”. That is their language, not mine. Then we have the Marshall decision in 1999. I have heard members of the opposition quote one section of the clarification, instead of looking at all of the Mi'kmaq case law combined, and all of the case law in Canada. It is true that the Mi'kmaq were granted a moderate livelihood, not once but twice, in 1999. Today, the Mi'kmaq are asking for a right that they have always had. It was not created in 1999. In 1999, the court said that the right had existed the whole time. Mi'kmaq are not looking for reparations or revenge, but rather reconciliation, and this shows our commitment to the country and our allies. I want to remind people that the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that moderate livelihood not once but twice.l have also heard a conversation about regulation in the fisheries. I want to be very clear that the Mi'kmaq right is constitutional in nature. That means it is the supreme law of Canada. The only way to infringe a treaty right is through conservation or safety. The 2005 Mikisew Cree First Nation case stated that before going to conservation or safety, we have to show that the honour of the Crown has been met in a negotiation or in any infringement that takes place. Any infringement must be compensated, and that has never happened to this day.(2125)Where are we today? What have we learned since 1999? Have we learned anything from the Burnt Church crisis? I remember watching the Burnt Church crisis as a young man, and I never thought that today we would have two Mi'kmaq senators appointed in the past five years, as well as a Mi'kmaq MP.During this first escalation, which did not happen last week but in mid-September, I went to Saulnierville with the Grand Keptin of the Mi'kmaq Nation, Andrew Denny, the political spokesman of the Mi'kmaq Grand Council, which represents the seven districts of Mi'kma'ki. We talked to the Mi'kmaq fishermen, we talked to the RCMP and we talked to the community. What we saw was a perfect storm of frustration that has led us to where we are today.We have seen 20 years of frustration through the non-implementation of the Marshall decision for sure, but we have also seen a really bad fishing season as a result of COVID, during which fishermen did not make what they usually make. Also, the Mi'kmaq who had traditionally gone down to the United States to be part of the blueberry harvest in Maine were not given the opportunity to make money there this year.I reached out to the Mi'kmaq senators and said that I believe we have the ability, as Mi'kmaq, to talk and figure out how we can move forward to find solutions. In a thorough discussion with not only ministers of our government but also people within the fisheries association and Mi'kmaq fishermen, we heard loud and clear from the chiefs that this is not a dispute about money and jobs and it is not a right they want to sell. It is a right they want to pass down to generations. It is about culture; it is about knowledge. What we heard is that the rights are not for sale and extinguishment, at any price, is not acceptable.Therefore, what is the way forward? The Mi'kmaq have created great success, national success in fact. They have the highest graduation rate of any nation out there, at 90%, despite having a deplorable rate of children in poverty. The reason is that they have the ability to control their own jurisdiction in education. When Mi'kmaq hold each other accountable and Mi'kmaq have jurisdiction, they succeed. When we were looking at ways forward, the senators and I said that we needed to come up with principles moving forward. The first is sustainability for the future, or Netukulimk, which I talked about. We also need to look at implementation, not infringement or extinguishment of any right. We heard from the fisheries industry that there is fear out there, so we need to look at total transparency of the fisheries and work on a model that creates economic growth for Mi'kmaq and Maliseet in fisheries within the Atlantic. To me, it is hard to look those in my community in the eye when the rate of children in poverty is 75% in my community despite their having a right to earn a moderate livelihood.We feel that these solutions are the best way forward, but I have heard questions in a lot of conversations so far: Why has this government not done more in five years? Why has this government not done it in 20 years? One of the biggest reasons is that people are not aware of the treaty rights. People are not aware of the treaty litigation that has been taking place. I was a treaty education lead for Nova Scotia before I ran for election. I remember something Nelson Mandela stated. He said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Creating awareness of treaties and indigenous history is key to moving forward. I believed this in my prior role in treaty education lead in Nova Scotia and I believe it today, but I also believe that the failures of one generation are the opportunities of the next. I am really proud to be standing here tonight, for the first time hearing debates about the Mi'kmaq fisheries, to join members as a Mi'kmaq member of Parliament. I am proud and thankful that members are taking part in this debate. I wanted to not only give them a chance to share in the history, but also give them opportunities to talk solutions. I know we all, at times, curse in the darkness, but I want to be the MP who tries to light the candle.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290539629054062905416290542629054362905446290545629054662905476290548629054962905506290551629055262905536290554629055562905566290557AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertEricMelilloKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105186EricMelilloEric-MelilloKenoraConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MelilloEric_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC): (2130)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important insight.We have witnessed recently the terrible acts of violence in Nova Scotia and the RCMP has been involvement. Now people are asking the military to get involved. Many members on this side of the House want to know what it is going to take for the government to get involved to ensure there is a peaceful solution right now and in the longer term as well.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety62905586290559JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (2135)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the things we have to understand is that the Mi'kmaq have been governing and policing themselves for a very long time. I have talked to the minister about this. We said that we would increase the police presence there. We have had this conversation.With respect to the military, one of the things that Mi'kmaq leaders are quite afraid of is having an increased presence of military in that area. One of them jokingly said to me, “When they call in the cavalry, it is not usually good news for the Indians” or indigenous people. We have to understand that there is systemic racism in all levels of government and while we want the RCMP and police keepers, what we really want to see is more Mi'kmaq police keepers, peacekeepers and RCMP people to help protect.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety629056062905616290562EricMelilloKenoraMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (2135)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I have a great deal of respect for the work he does and I am also pleased that he represents the Mi'kmaq community.I have a question for the member. After talking about Nelson Mandela, he mentioned that he wanted to be positive and light the candle for first nations. I would like to hear his thoughts on the scope of the debate we are having right now. This is an emergency debate on fishing rights, but in my humble opinion, it is about much more than that. Earlier I talked about the Indian Act and the systemic racism that is inherent in the colonial system. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.The issue we are addressing here is perhaps a tiny part of what we should be working on, that is, all federal laws that oppress first nations to one degree or another. Of course I will leave it up to first nations to express this in their own words.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629056362905646290565JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (2135)[English]Madam Speaker, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was really clear. It said that what had happened in Canada had been cultural genocide. While we can say that the federal government is to blame, there is plenty of blame in Canada to go around for all levels of government in denying indigenous people their rights in Canada.I am proud to stand with our government. It has said that that it will take the steps forward to implement UNDRIP and ensure that legislation is brought in before the end of the year. As my father was one of the co-writers of UNDRIP, I look forward to that being a building block in moving forward, instead of the colonial policies of the past.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62905666290567MarilèneGillManicouaganGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (2135)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work at committee. In light of what we have seen, the assaults, the attack on property, the intimidation, the dangers that the Mi'kmaq fishers have endured and the Sipekne'katik First Nation and its people have endured, was the member horrified by the delay in the response from the federal government and its inaction? We knew weeks ago that this could happen. I am surprised that a life has not been lost due to the lack of immediate support from Ottawa. Does the member agree that the Government of Canada needs to step in and do much more, not just in the immediate but when the fishery opens on November 1 in that area, and delivering a mandate to negotiate properly so they can assert their right? Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629056862905696290570JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste: (2135)[English]Madam Speaker, I was absolutely horrified by what I was seeing there, but as a member of Parliament who had the ability to travel there, I wanted to see it for myself and talk to the people themselves. I have always said that I would be the one who would go there to listen and hear them. While the member can talk about federal inaction, I am a part of that federal government, the Liberal government. I was there looking for solutions and talking with my ministers the whole way. A lot of the discussions that most people are not privy to have been ongoing with our government. I know I have not quite been a member of Parliament a year, but this is important to me. I want all my colleagues to be allies in moving forward on how we can solve years and years, if not centuries, of reconciliation on which we need to move forward. I ask colleagues to help me as a Mi'kmaq and to help us by ensuring they are part of the solution as well. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62905716290572GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (2140)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.Like many, I have become increasingly concerned over the last couple of weeks as we watched the escalating dispute and violence in Nova Scotia. As members may be aware, the Crown signed peace and friendship treaties in 1760 and 1761, and this of course included a right to fish, hunt and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. These rights were affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Marshall decision of 1999, and there was further clarification on November 17, 1999, that this right was not unlimited and regulations could be introduced if it was justified for conservation or other important objectives.It is important to note that history, and I know many have repeated it. This is a right that has been around for many long years and has been reaffirmed. The Sipekne’katik fishers in southwestern Nova Scotia launched a moderate livelihood fishery last month and protestors were concerned about this. Protests have become increasingly violent, with tensions rising. We have all been witness to some very dramatic footage over the last few days in particular, and of course we are very concerned.This current dispute is a failure of the Crown, and in this case the Liberal government, which had promised to do better. Five years ago the Liberals were elected and had a majority government. They promised to do better. I have been in conversation with the member for West Nova for many weeks, knowing he has been very concerned and has been calling for serious action.What do we have instead of serious action? We have four ministers taking the unprecedented step of calling for an emergency debate. Do they not realize that they are government? They have the ability to resolve this crisis and they have the responsibility to be on plane, rather than being in the House. Lives and livelihoods are at risk and they matter. The minister has said there is a pandemic. The intergovernmental affairs minister can have an exemption to do a meet-and-greet with the new Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would suggest this is much more important. Not everything can be done by Zoom. Sometimes people have to be there and put that energy and time into saying that this is going to be resolved. They have to put some urgency to it. Let us not just talk about it in the House. The government is asking for a domestic debate on an issue it has the ability to resolve.Canada must fulfill its obligation under the Marshall decision and a negotiation around what a moderate livelihood means is probably one of the important steps. The Minister of Public Safety must ensure Nova Scotia has the resources it requests to effectively manage the escalating tensions, fully investigate criminal activity and keep everyone safe.We all know Canadians have a right to peacefully demonstrate or protest. That is constitutionally protected. However, we are also a country of rule of law and those laws must be respected. Anyone who has crossed the boundary from peaceful protest to criminal activity must be held to full account.Failed policies and unfinished business of successive generations truly is our shame and the results for indigenous people across Canada have been catastrophic for too many. We must do better. With realizations and court decisions, there is an understanding from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we have much work to do toward reconciliation. Since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I have seen a real understanding from Canadians that we must do better.As we are working toward reconciliation and correcting the injustices of the past, we cannot create new injustices. The government needs to have a process that includes third parties in the conversation. (2145)I will go back to the treaty process in British Columbia in the 1990s. It was a very flawed process, but one of the things they did right was that they had five tables of people who had a special interest. Whether it was hunting and fishing or other areas, they had a special interest in terms of what was at the table. They created a win-win as opposed to a win-lose. That is certainly something that the government has not done. The Liberals go out to meet with the Wet'suwet'en and they do not bother to include the elected chiefs in the conversation. There are many examples where their failure to have a conversation with third parties, to let them know what was happening, why it was happening and perhaps seek some advice, has been to the detriment of communities that have worked and lived side-by-side for generations. Certainly I am very concerned with the current government's failure. In the past, there was a Liberal government that had a better process.The conversation tonight is very difficult and is very concerning. As I go about my work, there is something that I am very proud of and that I reflect upon often. It was that some of the first nations communities, when I was first elected, had me read something called the “Memorial to Sir Wilfrid Laurier”. This was in the early 1900s, but the sentiment is something that we all need to look at. In B.C., we did not have treaties. There were many unresolved issues and they went to the government at the time. Some of the words that stand out in my memory are to the effect that:We have no grudge against...the settlers, but we want to have an equal chance with them of making a living.... It is not in most cases their fault.They have taken up and improved and paid for their lands in good faith. There was very clearly a recognition that it was not the people living side-by-side in communities; it was the government that had been the failure. The other piece that stands out very importantly in these comments is that, when the white settlers arrived, it was said:...These people wish to be partners with us in our country. We must, therefore, be the same as brothers to them, and live as one family.... What is ours will be theirs, and what is theirs will be ours. We will help each other to be great and good.If we look at those sentiments, we know that government has important work that it must do. We need to be great and good together, and that is only going to be through sitting down at the table, having those difficult conversations and coming to a resolution.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPublic consultationSplitting speaking time629057362905746290575629057662905776290578629057962905806290581629058262905836290584629058562905866290587629058862905896290590JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (2145)[English]Madam Speaker, it is 9:47 p.m. in Toronto and there is not a large fishing community here, but I am participating because my constituents have rightfully expressed that they are horrified at the violence they have seen and the systemic racism displayed.I have two clarification points to put to the member opposite. First, as a government, we have participated in other emergency debates, such as climate action, which we initiated. Second, the intergovernmental affairs minister is a member of the Atlantic bubble.However, that aside, what I wanted to ask the member, based on her experience in indigenous relations, is whether she believes a top-down method would be appropriate here. Clearly, on our side of the House, we think it would not be.The member for Sydney—Victoria eloquently raised the idea that we need an indigenous-oriented solution. The education example was raised by him and is one that has very readily prospered in Nova Scotia. When indigenous people took control of their own education, it showed great results.Would the same apply here in the context of policing, in terms of keeping the peace and law and order and having more indigenous involvement in policing, so that we can rectify some of the scenes that we have seen that have rightfully disturbed so many of us?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice services62905916290592629059362905946290595CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod: (2145)[English]Madam Speaker, a top-down approach is absolutely not negotiation. Negotiation is a conversation. It is being at the table. I am someone from British Columbia who has travelled back and forth to Ottawa a number of times. Yes, we have a pandemic, but we also have critical work that we have to get done. My colleague from West Nova just finished his isolation period after spending time. Yes, there is a bubble, but sometimes we have to be there. We have to have the hard conversations face to face. We have to say we are going to get this job done.No, it is not top-down, but it is negotiation and it is conversation. It is making sure that we have found a way for everyone to contribute to the discussion, so we get to the win-win-win instead of the win-lose.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice services62905966290597ArifViraniParkdale—High ParkMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104773MarioSimardMario-SimardJonquièreBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SimardMario_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): (2150)[Translation]Madam Speaker, many people tonight have noted that successive governments have dragged their feet. The Marshall decision dates back to 1999.Maintaining a dialogue with indigenous peoples is a good thing, a necessary one. However, the solution here, and what indigenous nations have been asking for, is recognition. This recognition is achieved through self-government. No Liberal or Conservative government has ever wanted to give indigenous peoples this autonomy. Why is that?It often feels as though Canada has a hard time recognizing the political autonomy of nations, and this includes the Quebec nation. What does my colleague think about that?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629059862905996290600CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod: (2150)[English]Madam Speaker, I would suggest, and I did make comments in my remarks, that there have been successive failures, since Confederation, of governments in terms of doing the right thing. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which a Conservative government spearheaded, was an important step. The awareness of Canadians across the country is only increasing, in terms of what the unfinished business is and what the tragic impacts have been of not doing the right thing. Therefore, I think certainly there is more positive movement in the last number of years than there has been in a long time.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290601MarioSimardJonquièreHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (2150)[English]Madam Speaker, I will say that I agree with the member. Do the Liberals not understand that they can actually fix this, that they are the government and that they can make these changes? The one thing that I have found in my one year of being a member of Parliament is that I come to the House and I listen to the Conservatives blame the Liberals and the Liberals blame the Conservatives. Frankly it has been 21 years that we have been waiting for there to be action on this.Could the member please tell me why indigenous people should trust anything that the Conservatives say any more than what the Liberals say?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62906026290603CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod: (2150)[English]Madam Speaker, within my remarks I talked about a history that no one should be proud of, in terms of the unfinished business. There were certainly some really positive examples in the last Parliament of great goodwill as we worked in partnership, in terms of the child welfare legislation and the indigenous language legislation. Certainly, when we were government, there were matrimonial real property rights. There is example after example. When I said, “in the last number of years”, I want to remain optimistic. I want to look at those words that I quoted at the end of my speech and hope that we are headed in the right direction.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290604HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (2150)[English]Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that the indigenous right to fish is without question and has been firmly established. As a member previously mentioned, all acts of violence and arson are wrong. They are a crime and must be dealt with by the proper authorities. The safety of all Canadians must be the priority of any government. I also concur with the hon. member for West Nova when he clearly stated that these violent acts were wrong, as we have seen. They do not reflect in any way on the overwhelming majority of the good people of West Nova, who are hard-working, good members of their communities, residents and citizens of Canada.We find ourselves here today debating this issue because of the inaction of the minister and the Liberal government. For weeks and months now, they have failed to act as tensions continue to rise in southwestern Nova Scotia. I have personally witnessed the hon. member for West Nova plead on behalf of the residents of southwest Nova and ask the government to intervene, be part of a solution and take action. It is because of the minister's and the government's lack of action and their failure to take the necessary steps to find a peaceful resolution that we find ourselves in a place where neighbour has been pitted against neighbour and tensions have been rising.When government should be stepping in and meeting with all stakeholders and community groups that have a part in this to come to a resolution and lower the temperature, the government has chosen the path of the politics of inaction, delay, defer and sometimes dither. This instead has added fuel to an ever-growing flame. The Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, just the other day said he was extremely disappointed by the federal response. He also added that this is only going to get more entrenched, and they need to be in the same room so everyone knows what each other is saying. The rights of indigenous people are without question and firmly established. What is lacking is proper clarity from the government and proper consultation that incorporates representatives from all interested parties, including both indigenous and non-indigenous fish harvesters, local community leaders, union representatives and local authorities. There will be no true reconciliation until there is meaningful dialogue and understanding among all affected parties. True reconciliation cannot be achieved if whole communities and interested parties are isolated from the process. It is time that we sat down together. There is no path forward until we first sit together.I echo the comments of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. She pointed out quite clearly that there has not been a sense of urgency around this. When government ministers should have been getting to the scene, engaging all of those who are directly affected and making sure we come to a peaceful solution, they delayed. They waited. They held back and there has been limited consultation and limited discussions. The dialogue has been far less than what any of us would have anticipated at this point.Any decision regarding this, as the hon. member for Malpeque pointed out earlier in the discussion this evening, must have conservation top of mind and as a key part of this discussion. We need to make sure that there is going to be plenty of stock, lots of lobster and fish, in the sea for all to enjoy, both indigenous and non-indigenous, for many generations to come. The minister and her Liberal colleagues have repeated tonight, and throughout the last few days, how important conservation is in many of their discussions, yet we had the opportunity to discuss this today at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.(2155)Even in those deliberations, when we brought forward an amendment to study the fisheries crisis and the issues that we are facing today, all of us on the opposition side voted for it to make sure that conservation was part of that consideration, but members on the governing side opposed that amendment and stood in the way of it. I do not think we can have a meaningful discussion about this without obviously making sure that conservation is part of that discussion and study.Even though these are heavy times, and we are in the midst of facing a crisis that none of us want to see, all Canadians want to come together, find reconciliation and get to the future. I think it comes down to whether or not we are going to have a proactive type of leadership or reactive style of leadership. Right now, we find ourselves in a reactive place or state of leadership, rather than being proactive from the beginning, recognizing that tensions were escalating long ago and now working towards a solution. There is so much potential within the fisheries. There is so much potential within the blue economy for Canada. We can realize that potential for both indigenous and non-indigenous fishers if we will sit at the table, come to a solution and work towards true reconciliation at this moment.Just this past week, I had the privilege of being in Prince Edward Island. I met with some local fish harvesters and heard about the potential of the blue economy, of what it could be if there were some strategic investment in marine infrastructure, and of what it would mean to the local communities and to our region here in Atlantic Canada. Instead, we find ourselves in crisis mode with all the emphasis, understandably, on this situation to find a resolution. I have been reflecting a lot on this. As I heard very compelling testimony from all sides of the House, I found myself reflecting on an old story, an ancient one that goes back many years, and I am sure this story is familiar to some. This is the story of a wise old fisherman, the master fisherman as it were, who stood on the seashore one day. There were some fishermen who had fished all night out in a boat but had not caught any fish. The master fisherman looked at them and said, “Why don't you try again and let down your nets?” Of course, the fishermen said, “We fished all night and caught nothing. Nevertheless, you are the master fisherman, and at your word, we will do it.” So they went out and threw their nets out again, and they caught a tremendous amount of fish. In fact, they caught so many fish that their nets began to break and they had to call other fishermen and other boats to come over and help with the great harvest. What stood out to me as I reflected on that story is that the challenge that the master fisherman gave to those seasoned, experienced fishermen who had been trying all night but had caught nothing was to try where they just had failed. He knew that they had fished all night and did not get results, but he told them to go once again and try where they had once failed. Of course, when they did that, they got a great harvest. Perhaps there is a lesson here. I know for generations we have not done well with reconciliation. We have not gotten it right, and various governments of various stripes all have ownership of that, but we have an opportunity in this moment to get it right. Perhaps we need to listen to the words of the master teacher, the master fisherman who said, “Try again one more time.” If we try again one more time with the right heart, the right motive, and with all key stakeholders at the table, I have a feeling that just maybe we can get it right this time. We can embrace a blue economy, which has tremendous potential for Canada, for both the non-indigenous and indigenous fishers and harvesters who are out there. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPublic consultation629060562906066290607629060862906096290610629061162906126290613629061462906156290616629061762906186290619CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (2200)[English]Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague brought up the fisheries committee today, but it appears as though he framed it as government members were not supporting conservation. However, within that same motion, which I introduced and amended, we stated that we would be talking to indigenous knowledge holders and scientists, both Mi'kmaq and non-Mi'kmaq. I wonder if, by his statement, he is saying that indigenous knowledge holders and Mi'kmaq scientists do not understand or do not believe in conservation and are unfit to address it. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62906206290621RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (2205)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciated hearing the hon. member's insights throughout this discussion. I want to assure my colleagues that, absolutely, indigenous people have much to offer and care very much about the conservation of the species and the industry, as well as making sure there are lobster and fish in our oceans and plenty of support for all fishers and fish harvesters, whether they be indigenous or non-indigenous. In fact, we felt it was important that that word be a part of the motion that was brought forward today. We included it and are thankful to have had support from other opposition parties. What is important to realize is that we are once again at this place because there has not been a proactive approach by the current government to get to a resolution and make sure that all interested parties are at the table. There has not been a sense of urgency until now. We need to make sure that all stakeholders are part of this. Conservation is a part of that discussion.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629062262906236290624JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104786AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeAlexis-Brunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Brunelle-DuceppeAlexis_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): (2205)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac. I really enjoyed his speech.Two things caught my attention. The first was his story. I love stories, and I thought it was a really good story that put things in perspective. I also noted that he used the terms “reactive” and “proactive” and stated that the government is reactive rather than proactive. I could not agree more.This was evident during the rail crisis in January and February, when we saw how the government acted when dealing with the Wet'suwet'en people. The government took its time before meeting with them. Once again, I am wondering if this is part of the culture of the federal government. People in the federal government are not used to dealing with first nations on a nation-to-nation basis.I would like to give a short history lesson. On March 17, 1985, René Lévesque was the very first premier in Canada to recognize the first nations. It took a sovereignist to do this. He officially and expressly recognized the first nations.We are still facing the same problem. I think that the problem is cultural. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that. Earlier, his Conservative leader was lecturing the Liberals and saying that they have been in office for the past five years and that they have not done anything. However, the government that was in power just before the Liberals was there for 10 years and it was a Conservative government.Is it possible that the problem is with federal government culture?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629062562906266290627629062862906296290630RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (2205)[English]Madam Speaker, I concur that successive governments of various stripes and at all levels have not gotten it right many, many times as it pertains to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We all bear responsibility for that.I think what is important is that, although we cannot undo the mistakes or errors of the past, we can make a difference going forward. Part of making that difference going forward is being proactive, as I discussed in my speech. Right now we can start not only talking to the peril we face currently, but also speaking to the potential that the fishing and marine sector has within Canada for both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. I believe that we can experience tremendous opportunities for growth and financial prosperity for many, many Canadians, regardless of whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous.We need to start speaking to that potential and get beyond this crisis. The way to get beyond this crisis is to make sure that all key stakeholders and all interested communities are at the table.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629063162906326290633AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanLenoreZannCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104544LenoreZannLenore-ZannCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ZannLenore_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Lenore Zann (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): (2205)[English]Madam Speaker, sitting here in the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq in Truro, Nova Scotia, I have to say my heart is heavy, yet I have hope that through discussions, we are going to move forward and help the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia get their treaty rights upheld without all the issues happening now, without the racist attacks and without any of the hurt that is being done to them.As a member of Parliament and as a friend to many Mi'kmaq people, it has hurt me to the quick to watch the videos from last Tuesday. I have stayed up all night talking with friends who are on the ground and witnessing it. They are showing videos, seeing people screaming, hurdling obscenities at the first nations peoples telling them to pack up their tents and go back to where they came from. These are not productive ways to work together with anybody.Sadly, here in Nova Scotia, racism is very old and the roots are very deep. It is not just the Mi'kmaq people, but also the Black people in Nova Scotia have also suffered greatly. To be honest, the Acadians have suffered, as well. Indigenous peoples here have faced systemic racism and discrimination. We need to change this and that is what our government is determined to do.The Crown, we have to say, has previously prevented a true equal partnership from developing with indigenous people and instead, imposing a relationship based on colonial ways of thinking and doing on paternalism, control and dominance. This has to change.The current situation in Nova Scotia is very, very difficult for everyone. Canadians have watched with growing horror what I have been watching and what my friend from Sydney—Victoria has also been watching. We are horrified. Some people call it a lobster fishery dispute, but the Mi'kmaq call it the survival of a nation. We are all concerned for the safety of the Mi'kmaq, the fishermen and for all Nova Scotians.It has also been said, and I think it is important to repeat, that there is no place for the threats, intimidation, violence or vandalism that we have witnessed in south-west Nova Scotia. Respectful and constructive dialogue is essential to the path forward. There was a wonderful—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaRacial equality629063462906356290636629063762906386290639RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (2210)[English]Madam Speaker, it is getting a little late, but if you canvass the member, I believe she meant to split her time.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPoints of orderSplitting speaking time6290642AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLenoreZannCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104544LenoreZannLenore-ZannCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ZannLenore_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Lenore Zann: (2210)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Kings—Hants. Chief Terrance Paul stated, in September of this year, “We are not taking anything away from others. We're just trying to get back what was taken from us.” I think this is at the crux of what is going on now. Twenty years ago, the Marshall decision reaffirmed the treaty right of the Mi'kmaq people to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood, and dialogue has been part of how we are working toward its implementation and we must continue the dialogue. That dialogue, I know, has been ongoing for the last several weeks because I have been in meetings with the chiefs and I am aware of what is going on. It is time. It should have happened a long time ago, but there is no better time than the present to redress the wrongs of the past and the time is now.Our commitment to redefine the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples was underscored in the Speech from the Throne. One of the core pillars of the new legislative agenda is walking the road of reconciliation, and that means combatting discrimination and working toward a better relationship and partnership with indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples across this country. We have a chance to create an environment that supports self-determination, self-governance and economic growth, and it must include the ceremonial and spiritual relationship that the Mi'kmaq have with fishing, hunting and gathering. Like most indigenous peoples around the world, we colonialists have much to learn from them about conservation and how to protect mother earth and her creatures.The first nations in the Atlantic have proven time and again the power of partnership through a number of initiatives. When I say that, I am thinking about the Atlantic first nations health partnership. I am really encouraged by the strong first nations engagement in this co-management structure that is enabling them to improve first nations communities' health, and there is still much more to do.I am equally excited by the framework agreement signed last June for an indigenous-led water authority in Atlantic Canada, the first in this country. This framework agreement is an important step toward a fully autonomous first nation-led operation of water and wastewater services. Another great example is the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq education system. In 1997, the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia signed an agreement with nine Mi'kmaq communities, restoring their control over their education system. At the time, fewer than a third of youth from those communities finished high school, and today more than 90% of Mi'kmaq students graduate, which is higher than the average in most provinces. This is what is born of self-governance and self-determination. We must build on this renewed relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples and address past wrongs.A recent example is the recognition of the Shubenacadie residential school site in Nova Scotia as a national historic site. Recognizing these schools and the experiences of former students and survivors of residential schools across Canada is important to the journey of self-healing. There was an elder here in Millbrook First Nation, Nora Bernard, who helped indigenous peoples receive recompense for this injustice, and I would like to pay my respects to her tonight.Environmental racism is a huge problem across Canada, and I am very proud that I was able to introduce my private member's bill about that. It should be coming up for second reading soon.Tonight, we all think of what is going on in southwest Nova Scotia, but we must remember that this is about nation-to-nation talking, dialogue. It is time. It has taken too long to happen. I am glad that it has begun and we need to get it finished. We need to have peace on the water and peace on the land, so that this dialogue can be accomplished between the Mi'kmaq and the Crown. I am glad to be part of a government that is actually, finally doing that.(2215)Mi'kmaq treaties and treaty rights across Canada are so important. The indigenous peoples of Canada have been lied to and deceived so many times, and my heart breaks for what they have lived through and for all of the years of abuse, ever since colonials came to this country. I am from Australia originally, and the same thing happened there, sadly.Sadly, if people had listened to the indigenous peoples in the beginning, they would have looked after the land much better. That is why first nations people do not take too much from one place; they take some and they give back. They honour the land, they honour the creatures and they honour nature and the seasons of nature. They honour mother earth and Turtle Island. It is our time to listen to them and learn from them how best to look after the small reserves we have, which will get fewer and fewer if we are not careful. All we have to do is look across the world and see all the wildfires that are happening because man has not heeded the way things should be and looked after the land and the water the way that we should.The Government of Canada hopes to achieve what we began along the path of reconciliation, and we plan to introduce UNDRIP. I am looking forward to that. We committed to a renewed nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown, government-to-government process with indigenous peoples across Canada to make real progress on the issues that are most important to them. We have already started down this path and we will keep walking together. It is in my heart and it is in my mind, and I pledge that I will do everything that I can as a member of Parliament to make sure that this happens. Wela'lioq. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSplitting speaking time6290643629064462906456290646629064762906486290649629065062906516290652629065362906546290655ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2215)[English]Madam Speaker, I know that the member has genuine passion for this topic, but at the same time I got the sense listening to her as if she was not a member of the government, because she was speaking about all sorts of things that the government should be doing about reconciliation. The Liberals have been in power for five years. They have been missing in action on the situation in Nova Scotia for months, but this year has been a year of multiple flashpoints, in terms of Crown-indigenous relations. Five years into the current government, we have had issues across the country, in terms of people being frustrated and increasing divisions, and we have seen the government put in place policies that have blocked indigenous people's desire to develop their own natural resources in the west, in the north and in eastern Canada.I wonder if the member could speak frankly to the record and the failures of her own government, when it comes to delivering on the positive and high-minded rhetoric that we heard during the speech.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62906566290657LenoreZannCumberland—ColchesterLenoreZannCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104544LenoreZannLenore-ZannCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ZannLenore_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Lenore Zann: (2220)[English]Madam Speaker, first of all, I would not call it rhetoric. I appreciate the member's first statement, that it comes from the heart and that it is a passion of mine, which it is. I was the indigenous affairs critic here in Nova Scotia in the legislature for six years before running federally, so I am very well aware of what is happening and what is not happening. I have to say that multiple governments have failed the indigenous peoples of Canada. That is why I say I am very proud to be part of this government, which is now actually about to redress, and is trying to redress, the issues that have been caused for a couple of centuries in the rest of Canada and 400 years in Nova Scotia.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290658GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (2220)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague knows the Sipekne'katik people have a management plan that has regulations. This is an assertion of their section 35 constitutional right to self-govern. We know there has been no progress on the definition or support to assert their right. Top-down answers from the government have not worked. Federally imposed studies and regulations have not worked. We have a history across Canada of continued failures and now it is time to allow indigenous peoples to exercise self-determination. I want to hear the member's plan and I hope she is joining me in respecting the autonomy of first nations and their ability to self-determine and self-govern what a “moderate livelihood” means. These nations want to exercise their rights. They want to feed their families, and it is time to provide them with a safe space to do that without fear and to let them do the work they need to do, an unfettered right, through their strict conservation plan. Does my colleague support that and their section 35 constitutional right, which allows them to exercise self-governance?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMi'kmaqNova Scotia629065962906606290661LenoreZannCumberland—ColchesterLenoreZannCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104544LenoreZannLenore-ZannCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ZannLenore_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Lenore Zann: (2220)[English]Madam Speaker, I definitely agree with my hon. colleague. He would understand that part of providing a moderate livelihood is pride in being able to provide for one's family, being able to provide a good livelihood, food, clothing and shelter. For years the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia and many indigenous peoples across Canada have been living in poverty. It is a disgrace and that is why I am pleased that this government is trying now to make recompense and move forward with a new agreement in place, nation to nation. Yes, I do think self-governance is important and the Sipekne'katik people and Chief Sack are fighting for that. They are drawing a line in the sand and I stand with them. I think it is about time. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMi'kmaqNova Scotia62906626290663GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (2220)[English]Madam Speaker, I know my friend from Cumberland—Colchester like many of us were very disturbed by how the RCMP handled and mishandled the shootings in April 2020 that started in Portapique and extended to Wentworth Valley and killed 22 people. After watching the RCMP fail to protect people in this latest controversy, I wonder if the hon. member can share if others in Nova Scotia wonder who the RCMP does protect.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police6290664LenoreZannCumberland—ColchesterLenoreZannCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104544LenoreZannLenore-ZannCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ZannLenore_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Lenore Zann: (2220)[English]Madam Speaker, it has been very difficult here in Cumberland—Colchester ever since the shootings. It is hard to get straight answers out of anybody.Policing is a provincial affair. The RCMP are paid by the province. In some areas they are also paid by municipalities. For instance, here in Cumberland—Colchester they are paid by the municipality, by the county of Colchester. It is hard sometimes to find out who is telling who what to do and who is in charge—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police62906656290666ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104555KodyBloisKody-BloisKings—HantsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BloisKody_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.): (2225)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to join all my colleagues here today to discuss what is a very important topic for all Canadians but indeed for my constituents in Kings—Hants. I have said it before but I will say it again. I have the privilege of representing three indigenous communities in Kings—Hants: Sipekne'katik, the community at the heart of the issue we are discussing here tonight, in Saulnierville, but also Annapolis Valley First Nation and Glooscap First Nation.Before I get too deep into my remarks, I want to start by giving some context to my colleagues, and indeed all Canadians, about my relationship and my history with the community of Sipekne'katik. I grew up in Lantz, which is about 10 minutes down the road. I know Chief Mike Sack personally. I coached his son in hockey. We had a lot of very successful years with the East Hants Penguins hockey association. I grew up with members from the Sipekne'katik community going to Hants East Rural High. I have seen the challenges, having been to the community a number of times, on socio-economic grounds, and I know the moderate livelihood treaty right is something that is very important to this community. That is obviously well demonstrated in our conversations here tonight, but also Chief Sack and council explained to me early in my mandate of last year that this was something they wanted to be able to move forward on.I will go next to joining those who have already condemned the violence, destruction of property, intimidation and frankly the racism we have seen. The member for West Nova, in his remarks this evening, really wanted to highlight that his community as a whole is not represented in those actions. That is an important point to make. I had conversations with Chief Mike Sack. I had conversations with commercial fishers in my community. Many exist of course in West Nova, but I do have a commercial fishery in my riding as well. It is important to note the actions of the individuals in question do not represent the whole industry; they do not speak for the industry. It is important we focus on and denounce those who have been part of that, but also recognize that it is not necessarily indicative of the entire industry or the communities they represent.I want to begin by also highlighting the history of where we find ourselves and why we are here tonight. It has been well canvassed of course, but the Marshall decision of September 1999 from the Supreme Court of Canada established the moderate livelihood treaty right. It said it was communal in nature but that it was provided to Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities. Two months later, as the member for Sydney—Victoria explained, the court not only reaffirmed the moderate livelihood treaty right but provided a clarification that the Government of Canada has the ability to introduce a minimally impairing regulatory framework. Of course that has not yet been done 21 years later, and I would assert that this is at least a contributing factor to some of the tensions we have seen over the past two decades.The aspect around minimally impairing goes back to the Badger case. The Supreme Court of Canada established in the mid-1990s that if the Government of Canada even considered impugning a constitutionally protected treaty right, it had to be minimally impairing in nature. It had to be proportional to the substantive public policy objective being achieved. The court provided conservation as one example, but left the door open for other substantive public policy objectives that the government saw as important.After that decision, the governments from Chrétien and Martin really focused on ensuring Mi'kmaq communities had access to the commercial fishery. It is well established that there were hundreds of millions of dollars spent. I think at one point in 1999 the value of the commercial fishery for Mi'kmaq communities was about $3 million. It now is well over $150 million because of that initiative.The commercial licences that were provided to Mi'kmaq communities did not impugn or infringe any of the existing treaty rights, so the moderate livelihood issue was not resolved or dealt with in those initiatives. We had the Harper government from 2006 to 2015, which had a program to provide additional capital to indigenous communities. We are partisan in the House, but I think it is objective to say that this was not a priority for that government.From 2015 to now, we have had a government that has been very focused on trying to make reconciliation a pillar of its work. There is more to be done, as has been mentioned by other members in this House tonight.(2230)In speaking with Chief Sack this morning, I would like to highlight the fact that, although there were Marshall initiative commercial licences provided to many Mi'kmaq communities across Atlantic Canada, Sipekne'katik had not signed on to those. Also, they were not part of any subsequent commercial funding to help support their community.The question is not whether or not the moderate livelihood right exists. The key reason we are here tonight is to ask and examine how we go about implementing that right. We are 21 years past the Marshall decision and, despite the work I mentioned that has advanced the interests of indigenous communities as it relates to the fishery, we have not come any closer to understanding the clarity and context needed for indigenous communities to go about exercising that right.I have put public statements out to try to address this issue, given the fact that indigenous communities I represent are involved in this. The clarity we are seeking is not only important for indigenous leaders in my riding of Kings—Hants, and indeed across Atlantic Canada. It is also important for commercial fishers who are trying to understand how the moderate livelihood right is going to be exercised, what types of parameters will be set and how that co-exists with the current commercial fishing industry. That clarity is important for all those involved. When we get to that point, it is going to help reduce the tensions.There has been a lot of context and conversations about having commercial fishers at the table. I would reiterate and support the position our government has taken that this is the Government of Canada dealing directly with indigenous communities, and that those negotiations have to be direct in nature. However, I would support the idea, and I think it is important, to make sure we have commercial fishers and their representatives in the industry able to have a side table or another aspect for dialogue, to make sure we can bring parties together to try to reduce the tension we are seeing.Simply put, last week was ugly. It was terrible to see and I know it drew the attention of Nova Scotians and Canadians, but we need to be able to find dialogue to bring down that tension. Certainly, some members in the House have discussed that tonight. That is extremely important.The member for Sydney—Victoria also talked about options or solutions. I will highlight some of the ones I have heard, by first talking about the indigenous communities I have had the chance to speak to. I spoke to Chief Mike Sack, Chief Sid Peters and Chief Gerald Toney in the three indigenous communities I represent. There is clearly a desire to want to implement this right by using the commercial plans the communities have developed in terms of self-management plans. They have made it clear to me that this is something they desire. They understand there has to be co-operation with DFO and oversight, so the word “codevelopment” has been mentioned.Other individuals have mentioned the ability to provide commercial licences to Mi'kmaq communities but to have those commercial licences with an autonomy for indigenous communities to sublicense those how they see fit to their community members, so that they would have the autonomy of how that resource is shared within the community. If it got to the point that the community could justify that there are more members who need the ability to access their moderate livelihood right, additional commercial licences could be provided. We heard from two Mi'kmaq senators and the member for Sydney—Victoria about the aspect of creating a separate indigenous fishing authority. That is also another option that the government could look at.At the end of the day, the Government of Canada does have the ability to implement a regulatory framework that is minimally impairing, and I would agree with the members who have already said we do not want to promote a top-down approach. In fact, the court in Marshall made it very clear that collaboration and negotiation is the preferred approach. However, I have been asked my position on this outside of the House and the important piece is that 21 years from now, we do not want to still be discussing this issue. We need to find a framework to move forward. If that means, worst-case scenario, that the Government of Canada was to introduce a minimally impairing regulatory framework in order to be able to implement that right, that is something I support. I want to make sure that is on the record.(2235)I am hopeful. Although this has been 21 years in the making, at the end of the day, I believe this is the watershed moment where the attention is on this issue. We have a government that is focused on wanting to implement the right and make something very positive happen. I know that will take dialogue. I have heard a lot of comments in the House that this work needs to begin. This work has been ongoing. Sometimes it is not always visible in the public, but I know our minister has been working—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLegal casesMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova Scotia62906696290670629067162906726290673629067462906756290676629067762906786290679629068062906816290682629068362906846290685629068662906876290688AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the things we often hear in questioning is an impugning of the RCMP. I find this a challenge. The RCMP on the ground is working very hard. One of the challenges the RCMP has is how severely undermanned it is. The numbers are in the double digits across the country. I know an officer in my constituency has been waiting five years to transfer into a particular riding. We have some challenges in the sense that this is federal. I wonder what the member would say to making indigenous police services guaranteed, not yearly ongoing funding but making them an essential service, and not blame the RCMP. It has challenges with respect to a manpower shortage.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police62906916290692BruceStantonSimcoe NorthKodyBloisKings—Hants//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104555KodyBloisKody-BloisKings—HantsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BloisKody_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Kody Blois: (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of the RCMP. One of the findings that could come out of the public inquiry in Nova Scotia would be some of the challenges with respect to staffing and resource levels for the RCMP and police services in rural communities. Chief Sack spoke to me last week about his concern on the issue. I spoke to Minister Mark Furey, the attorney general of Nova Scotia, about measures that could be taken. I know he has confirmed with our federal Minister of Public Safety and additional resources are being provided. It is a very nuanced situation. I do not pretend to understand the operational complexities of the policing on the ground, but I know those additional resources are available. I will continue to work with Chief Sack to ensure those measures are in place.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police62906936290694MartinShieldsBow RiverKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (2235)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.He and I have already talked about the situation in both his riding and mine. I commend him for his courage in speaking out for the communities that he represents, despite his government's inaction to date.Earlier, I said that the government has not bothered to clearly define livelihood fishing and so the communities have come up with their own definition. I know that my colleague has a background in law.I would like to know whether, from what he understands, he believes that it is legitimate for the communities to legislate on the issue under the law and the Marshall decision since the government has failed to clearly define the rules.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290695629069662906976290698KodyBloisKings—HantsKodyBloisKings—Hants//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104555KodyBloisKody-BloisKings—HantsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BloisKody_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Kody Blois: (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before in the House, sometimes the words that are used are that this is an illegal fisher or that it is unauthorized. The fact is that the court has established the right exists. The Sipekne'katik in moving forward with its fishing rights is not doing anything unlawful. The parameters or any type of limitation had never been set by the Government of Canada. I am not suggesting that necessarily should happen, but we do need a framework to create certainty so the indigenous communities that I represent have the ability and understanding of how they go about exercising their right and, at the same time, commercial fishermen understand how that right coexists within the existing system.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62906996290700KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague and I would like a very straightforward answer if I could.Will the Liberal government approach to the reconciliation of Mi'kmaq rights-based fishery be recognized as an indigenous regulated self-governance system that is parallel with the Government of Canada system?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907016290702KodyBloisKings—HantsKodyBloisKings—Hants//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104555KodyBloisKody-BloisKings—HantsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BloisKody_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Kody Blois: (2240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prejudice the work of the minister in terms of her negotiations with Mi'kmaq communities. I know the conversations have been beneficial and positive from what I have heard from the indigenous leaders in my riding. Right now, all options are on the table on the best way to move forward. I know indigenous communities have developed their own self-management plans. I do not have a fishing management background and I do not have the benefit of DFO providing context. However, I do know our government is open to find a pathway forward to create the certainty that everyone is seeking.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907036290704HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/43WayneEasterHon.Wayne-EasterMalpequeLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/EasterWayne_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): (2240)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Kings—Hants said that he would support a side table for the commercial fishermen to have their say, and I agree with that.I will give a bit of history. Previously, when we were talking about commercial allocations under Marshall, the commercial fishermen were at the table and they broke the impasse by suggesting one in and one out; in other words, buy a licence to give a licence in the fishery. Does the member see that as a possibility moving forward to find solutions, whether it is a side table but at least involving the commercial fishermen?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPublic consultation629070562907066290707KodyBloisKings—HantsKodyBloisKings—Hants//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104555KodyBloisKody-BloisKings—HantsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BloisKody_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Kody Blois: (2240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have said before in my remarks that it is important that commercial fishers have some role in trying to not only bring down the tension that we have seen, but also to be constructive with respect to partners collectively in the fishery on how we move forward. We do not want them to be isolated and it is important they have the ability to at least provide input.The negotiation has to be direct between the Government of Canada and indigenous communities, but there is room for other collaboration outside of that.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPublic consultation62907086290709WayneEasterHon.MalpequeJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (2240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate. Many of my colleagues who had the opportunity to visit Atlantic Canada, in particular, New Brunswick Southwest, know of our traditional fishing communities. All members from my region, even those who represent ridings that do not border the ocean, understand that at the core of Atlantic Canada is a sustainable fishing industry. Quotas, licences, zones and enforcement form a complex set of rules and regulations that ensure our waters can be fished for another generation and another generation after that, long into the future.This emergency debate is entitled “Fisheries in Nova Scotia”, but in fact it impacts all of Atlantic Canada. Therefore, what is being contested here in Parliament and down east? It is not the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings. I do not believe I have heard anyone back home dispute the legitimacy of the Marshall decisions. The violence Canadians have witnessed is to be condemned. That too is agreed. However, make no mistake, the ongoing pressure cooker we are witnessing on our east coast could have been de-escalated by Canada's fisheries minister and the federal government, specifically by adhering to the Marshall decisions and bringing affected fishing families to the table. This did not happen. Instead, fishing is happening out of season.Fishing seasons are normally rigorously enforced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. However, not now, just as the regulated season is set to begin. People are confused and worried. I do not condone the destruction of property and indigenous communities have the constitutional rights that have been spelled out by the courts. Moreover, they have the right to live safely like every other Canadian in the country, which is why we can understand both how indigenous peoples are anxious to exercise rights and how non-indigenous fisheries throughout Atlantic Canada are asking how decisions, made in a faraway capital, could impact them, their communities and their way of life. They have not received a reply.Economist and social theorist, Thomas Sowell, once said, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.” As we know, the first lesson of politics is too often to disregard the first lesson of economics. Too many fishing communities worry the federal government is biased against them and their way of life and will make them pay the bill for Canada's neglect of indigenous peoples.Canada's opposition leader raised the deteriorating situation with the Prime Minister on September 18 and urged the federal government to de-escalate tensions and find a solution. Maritime MPs could hear and see what was happening. This was true in Nova Scotia, this was true in P.E.I. and it was true in New Brunswick. Many of us raised these concerns in our caucuses and in the House, but time and time again the federal fisheries minister failed to respond. Today, after violence, confusion and uncertainty, we have this emergency debate. This is a record of failure, not leadership. What must we do moving forward? My Liberal colleague from Malpeque touched on this. A necessary first step is for all members to understand the two Marshall decisions, those rights as well as responsibilities. The Supreme Court of Canada was clear that treaty rights were subject to federal regulations. The court stressed the priority of conservation and the responsibility to administer them belonged to the minister, not on indigenous or non-indigenous fishing communities.Nova Scotia Liberal premier Stephen McNeil is also calling on the federal government to do its job. He said, “The quickest way and the best way to reduce tension is to have the federal minister and the department at the table with both sides at the same time.” He is correct. First nations are entitled to be consulted about management on the exercise of their treaty rights, as laid out in Marshall. Similarly, Canada's fisheries minister should be discussing her vision with Canadians, including our fishing communities. (2245)The fisheries minister said that she is in discussion with fishing associations. I do not believe that this is true, unless she thinks that one-way communication is dialogue, but that is not real dialogue, and it is not fair play. The minister has hired a retired DFO employee as a negotiator with 34 indigenous bands, yet no similar outreach has been made with commercial fishers. Importantly, Canada's fisheries minister must stop relinquishing her duty of enforcement. DFO officers are highly trained and capable peace officers. The RCMP is no replacement. In fact, I believe once disputes are off the water and on the land, we have already missed the boat on solving the problem peacefully. Atlantic Canada needs unbiased federal leadership. The government must offer that leadership while still recognizing the obligation that Canada has toward the two groups. These groups are different. Their expectations are different, but they both need to be respected.Finally, I want to close my remarks by identifying a clear point to the government: Indigenous communities are already a part of Canada's traditionally regulated fishing communities. It started small. It is growing, but it is happening. They hold licences. They adhere to DFO guidelines, and they follow the rules. When the government works in silos to change the rules of the game, it is working to undermine the progress that has already been made.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLaw enforcementMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSplitting speaking time6290710629071162907126290713629071462907156290716629071762907186290719629072062907216290722629072362907246290725629072662907276290728KodyBloisKings—HantsBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC): (2245)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very important speech and the insight he has provided as an Atlantic Canadian to tonight's discourse.What does the member think the minister of fisheries and oceans could do right now to get over the severe lack of leadership and the sad debate we are forced to have in this House of Commons tonight when she should be meeting with the people already?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907296290730JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. John Williamson: (2245)[English]Mr. Speaker, the most important thing the federal fisheries minister could do would be to reach out and sit down with the fishing communities throughout Atlantic Canada. It is as simple as that. Many of these families invest considerable amounts of their savings every year into the fishing industry. Those seasons are set to open, yet they are not sure how the season is going to operateThe minister should sit down with individuals and families to assure them that the federal government has their welfare as its focus as well as that of first nations.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907316290732BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonRachelBendayanOutremont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88567RachelBendayanRachel-BendayanOutremontLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BendayanRachel_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, Lib.): (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how wonderful it is to also have as part of this debate my colleague from Sydney—Victoria, who spoke earlier and is, of course, a member of the Mi'kmaq community. How important it is to have a member of the Mi'kmaq community as part of the House, expressing the views of his people. I do have a question for my hon. colleague, who just gave a very eloquent speech. He alluded to the fact that several indigenous fishermen are using licences, and I wonder if he is implying that, because of this, we should not be respecting the treaty rights the Supreme Court has recognized.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907336290734JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. John Williamson: (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, no, not at all. In fact, it was the Prime Minister who earlier tonight pointed out that the steps taken by previous governments were in line with the Marshall decision. In fact, in the Marshall decision, the second ruling from the courts stipulated that the federal government, when it came to a moderate living, had an obligation to be involved to set the parameters, particularly on conservation.The member can ask the member for Malpeque about this. He did a report on it in the 1990s about the federal government having a duty to be involved to safeguard the industry, and the Supreme Court upheld that duty in the Marshall decisions.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907356290736RachelBendayanOutremontGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, for decades we have seen Supreme Court decisions that favour indigenous rights, and we see the government ignore these rights-based decisions in the courts, which are enshrined in the constitution, or they take years to implement. As soon as a nation loses in court or its right gets diminished, there is a regulation or policy in place in weeks, but when it is a nation that wins, the government drags its feet. Does my colleague not see this as a problem? The Conservatives spent millions of dollars fighting indigenous fishing rights. In the Ahousaht case, it was tens of millions of dollars. Does he not respect that indigenous fishing rights are different, that they are an inherent right and privilege, and they are not the same as commercial fishing rights? I hope he will recognize that.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907376290738JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. John Williamson: (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, in fact, I do recognize that, but I have also read both Marshall decisions, and I recognize there are limitations set on both parties. Neither side has a carte blanche to behave or to act as they would wish. It has to be done through negotiations. I cannot speak to what has happened on the west coast, but I can speak to what has happened on the east coast, and the federal government has spent millions of dollars to bring first nations into the regulated fishing industry. It has not been easy, but that is the work that has been done, and today we see fishing families from different communities working side by side under the rules every year.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907396290740GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, in looking at the lobster fishery, which, of course, is a very significant industry for the region, that the large monopolistic holdings by Clearwater are a giant against a very small mouse of what first nations are allowed to fish. I know some of the fishing is in partnership between Clearwater and Mi'kmaq fishers, but the question is this. Of the clear violation of conservation rules, the largest violations ignoring DFO restrictions to protect the lobster fishery have been those of Clearwater, and I do not see non-indigenous fishermen protesting Clearwater. I only see them protesting indigenous fishermen. I wonder if my friend from New Brunswick Southwest has any comments on how this is allowed and how this has developed, because I know most non-indigenous fishermen are welcoming to indigenous fishermen. They want to work in partnership.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629074162907426290743JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. John Williamson: (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree that there is room for a lot of partnership. I do take exception that the non-indigenous fishing communities want the rules maintained on owner-operator, which means the owner of the licence is the person who fishes, and this runs against the idea of a large corporate fishery. I would urge the member to come out, after our bubble opens up, and visit us. We will take her around to meet some of the traditional fisheries from the communities. They want to hold those licences and fish them. They do not want to give them up to commercial interests.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907446290745ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): (2255)[English] Mr. Speaker, the reports of and the video showing conflict, including the burning of trucks and buildings, coming from Nova Scotia are indeed very disturbing. First nations people across Canada are justifiably angry at the actions or inaction from the Liberal government and its lack of leadership in directing the RCMP.Let me be clear. While the government has, without question, failed to handle this crisis appropriately, violence, vandalism, assault, threats and intimidation tactics are wrong and are never justified. The safety of all Canadians must be the government's top priority. The Prime Minister and his government are not taking the concrete actions necessary to keep all Nova Scotians safe in their communities and to peacefully resolve this situation.Senator Murray Sinclair, the former chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, had this to say yesterday, “I'm disheartened by the fact that the government's leadership—the leadership of this country—is not stepping up to the plate.”A month ago, the Leader of the Opposition raised this situation directly with the Prime Minister. He told us about that again tonight. He asked the Prime Minister to step in and de-escalate tensions, and find a solution. Chief Sack, who himself has been assaulted during these demonstrations, released a statement that the arson “illustrates the need for greater police presence in the region....I do believe with the proper police presence, however, this could have been avoided”.During Oral Questions earlier today, my colleague from Lakeland, the shadow minister for public safety, asked the minister why it took him so long to act and to ensure the safety of the Mi'kmaq people. Why did it take a very serious act of arson for the government to act? This sort of after-the-fact crisis management seems to be the only way the government deals with issues. Why is it that almost all affected groups can agree that the path forward is open and honest dialogue, yet it is the path that the government seems unwilling to take? I agree that this situation is in fact an emergency, but the fact that the ministers in the government have requested an emergency debate perfectly sums up the government's preference for symbolic measures rather than actions. In my meetings and discussions with indigenous people I deal with, what I am hearing is that they are tired of the government's talk. They need action. Instead of debating this in Ottawa today, participating in press conferences and repeating talking points here in the House, these ministers should be on the ground in Nova Scotia, talking to the people there.Many people have compared this situation to others earlier in the year, however, the similarities begin and end with the lack of proactive leadership. These issues have been allowed to simmer over a long period of time, with groups from all sides calling for action and leadership from the government. Instead of early actions, what consistently happens is that these simmering issues become full-blown fires that result in political talking points, finger-pointing and crisis management, rather than respectful dialogue and peaceful negotiations.What do we see in Nova Scotia at the moment? I know I am a long ways away, but here is what I am seeing. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, who lives in the same province that this emergency is taking place, is now holding press conferences and calling for late-night debates in an attempt to distract from the fact that she and her government have mishandled this issue for months.Canadians are tired of this, and they are not buying it anymore. This is not a new issue. The Liberals have now sat on the government benches for five years. As a result of their failures, we now have seen people injured, property damaged and livelihoods challenged. Tensions between indigenous and non-indigenous fishermen are at an all-time high in this region.I would never pretend to speak for first nations people, however, my experience growing up in northern Saskatchewan showed me that relationship-building is important and valued. It is something that I think all Canadians could learn from. That is why it is counterproductive for the Liberal ministers to be here in Ottawa debating this issue, rather than meeting with people on the ground, and developing real and authentic relationships, working towards actual solutions. The last thing this issue needs is more political debate. It needs actions.In both Marshall decisions in 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly affirmed the right of the Mi'kmaq to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood arising out of the peace and friendship treaties of 1760 and 1761 with Britain. However, there were restrictions outlined by the court, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was to regulate.(2300)First, this is where the term “moderate livelihood” is first introduced. In the Marshall decision, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote:Catch limits that could reasonably be expected to produce a moderate livelihood for individual Mi’kmaq families at present-day standards can be established by regulation and enforced without violating the treaty right.The Premier of Nova Scotia has now joined the call of many others for the government to seek a definition of present-day standards of “moderate livelihood”, and to give guidance to all of the parties. Premier McNeil stated, “This is only getting more entrenched...they need to be in the same room so everyone knows what each other is saying”. Instead of seeking this clarity, the government has decided to hold press conferences and late-night debates. Again, there is talk but little action.Second, the Supreme Court of Canada outlined that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the responsibility of ensuring proper conservation. I quote: The regulatory device of a closed season is at least in part directed at conservation of the resource. Conservation has always been recognized to be a justification of paramount importance to limit the exercise of treaty and aboriginal rights in the decisions of this Court cited in the majority decision of September 17, 1999, including Sparrow, supra, and Badger, supra. As acknowledged by the Native Council of Nova Scotia in opposition to the Coalition’s motion, “[c]onservation is clearly a first priority and the Aboriginal peoples accept this”. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard could have requested that her department undertake a study to determine whether the out-of-season fishing endangers lobster stocks and could have made those results public, but instead she and her colleagues chose to hold press conferences and late-night debates. Again, there is talk but little action.Let me be clear. As I said when I began my comments tonight, while the government has, without question, failed to handle this crisis, violence, vandalism, assault, threats and intimidation tactics are always wrong and they are never justified. The safety of all Canadians must be the government's top priority. The Prime Minister and his government must take the concrete steps necessary to keep everybody in Nova Scotia safe in their communities and to resolve this situation in a peaceful manner. Pitting groups against each other has only led to the current situation. This issue is not about indigenous versus non-indigenous. All Nova Scotians are being let down by a federal government that has failed to take action and has ignored the issue for five years, and now refuses to meet with all of the parties to come to a peaceful resolution. Make no mistake, the Liberal minister's request for an emergency debate is, as Toronto journalist Chris Selley put it, “jaw-droppingly cynical”. It is purely political and, as they have with all of their failures, all criticism by opposition parties will be labelled as petty partisanship.In closing, I would hope that members on all sides of the House can agree that it is time the current Liberal government started showing leadership on this issue. It is time that the Liberals move on from the platitudes and empty promises and do the work that Canadians elected them to do.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMarshall decisionMi'kmaqNova ScotiaSafety62907466290747629074862907496290750629075162907526290753629075462907556290756629075762907586290759629076062907616290762629076362907646290765JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestJaimeBattisteSydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104571JaimeBattisteJaime-BattisteSydney—VictoriaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BattisteJaime_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): (2300)[English]Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk from the Conservatives tonight about the inaction over 21 years, but they forget that they were in power for 11 of those years. In 2013, I was not in Parliament. I was just one of the other protestors on the street with the Idle No More movement, protesting Stephen Harper. I am wondering if the member can talk about what, during those 11 years, the Conservatives can point to where there was action by their party that they can be proud of and that moved things forward on the high-level treaty negotiations that Stephen Harper promised back then.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907666290767GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gary Vidal: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, earlier tonight, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo eloquently stated that there is a history of failure on behalf of many governments on some of these issues, and I think she took ownership of that.Let me point out for the member that it was under the Harper government that the apology for residential schools was enacted. It was under the Harper government that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was founded. The calls to action that come from that, which are now being addressed and being implemented by many governments, are because of that initiative.Let me also just say that we can continue to point to the failures of governments from the past, but the current government has been in power for five years. For the Liberals to simply keep pointing the finger at somebody prior to them is no longer a good excuse.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629076862907696290770JaimeBattisteSydney—VictoriaKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (2305)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.I completely agree with him that, while the government is good at putting on a show, making grand gestures and holding emergency debates, it never really takes concrete action.I sincerely hope that the government will pay heed to everything parliamentarians have said this evening. Even Liberal members have been saying what the government should do, which is pretty ironic. I will echo the question the member for Manicouagan asked the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations earlier.In my colleague's opinion, what timeline or short-term agenda should the government, and, in particular, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, aim for on this file? Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62907716290772629077362907746290775GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gary Vidal: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I obviously agree on a number of elements around this issue.As I think I verbalized quite clearly in my comments, we need to see the ministers on the ground in Nova Scotia talking to people and being part of the solution. My colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo commented earlier on the value of face-to-face discussions, rather than having a Zoom meeting or that kind of thing. The value of those face-to-face discussions is immeasurable.A number of times today members talked about having a side table, including a couple of my Liberal colleagues. This side table would allow the nation-to-nation discussions that need to go on between the government and the first nations communities to go forward. It would also create an opportunity for other parties that are being affected by this issue to be part of the discussion and part of the solution. Out of that we get win-wins rather than win-losses.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629077662907776290778KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have failed indigenous peoples. This matter has been on the books for a long time. It is 21 years in the making, since the Marshall decision, with violations of the basic human rights of indigenous peoples. Our history has shown us what has happened to date. So far, previous governments have either taken an incremental approach to addressing the rights of indigenous peoples or taken no action at all. That is on the Conservatives and that is on the Liberals. Here we are today. If action had been taken following the Marshall decision, back in 1999, I do not believe we would be having this conversation. If all previous governments had honoured the rights of indigenous peoples, we would not be having this discussion today.Will the member support unequivocally the rights of indigenous people as outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Moving forward, let us have no more incrementalism—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629077962907806290781GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gary Vidal: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I spent a number of moments tonight talking about actions versus words. I will take no lessons from the member of the New Democratic Party. For the brief time the New Democratic Party had some power in the history of government, which it believed to be the balance of power, it chose to prop up the Liberal government. Not once have I seen, in any negotiation, the NDP stand up for indigenous people on any matters. All we have seen is rhetoric and talk. It comes back to the same thing: actions and words.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290784BruceStantonSimcoe NorthGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent for the following motion:That the House, (a) affirm the treaty and inherent rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people affirmed in the 1752 treaty and the subsequent treaties of 1760 and 1761, confirmed in the Canadian Constitution and in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the 1999 Marshall case; (b) recognize the Mi'kmaq Nation deserves full and equal protection by the law from the violence and intimidation of domestic terrorism; and (c) recognize the failure of the federal government to respect its nation-to-nation relationship to negotiate with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people to accommodate the moderate livelihood fishery that has led to the crisis we are facing today.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLeave to propose a motionMi'kmaqMotionsNova Scotia62907856290786GaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2310)[English]This being a hybrid sitting of the House, I will ask only whether any members are opposed to the motion for unanimous consent proposed by the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.Any member saying nay, please do so now.Some hon. members: Nay.The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.Decisions of the HouseFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsLeave to propose a motionMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290787629078862907896290790GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniMikeKellowayCape Breton—Canso//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104531MikeKellowayMike-KellowayCape Breton—CansoLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellowayMike_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Mike Kelloway (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.Canadians are saddened by the violence, the threats and racism we have witnessed over the last couple of weeks in my home province of Nova Scotia. I can assure Canadians and the House that this government is focused on this issue and will continue to work with first nations to implement their constitutional treaty right to fish for a moderate livelihood and ensure there is security and safety on the ground.We understand the importance of collaborative dialogue and that is why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in regular communication with the first nations and industry leadership to find a path forward. The only way to do that is through de-escalation and continued dialogue, and we are hearing a lot of that tonight.Recent events surrounding Nova Scotia's fisheries have brought this issue to the forefront. However, let me be clear that our government's priority remains and will always remain the safety of everyone involved. We need and want to lower all the tensions for a calm, productive resolution to this impasse. There is room for everyone's voices to be heard and we can build a safe, productive and sustainable lobster fishery for all harvesters. I, like all Canadians, especially those in my province of Nova Scotia, am saddened by the events in Digby county and West Pubnico. This government condemns the actions of every single individual who destroyed property, committed violence or uttered threats. There is no place for this kind of violence or intimidation in Canada, and I know Canadians across the country share the same feeling.It is especially disturbing to hear reports of racist comments by some and actions made toward first nations people. This is unacceptable. We all have a responsibility, and I believe somebody else said it tonight, to call this kind of behaviour out, and the language. I would be remiss to say that the actions of some of the fishers in West Nova is not reflective of the community I have come to know. They are good people, caring people, industrious people, but the actions by those individuals need to be taken into account.We are committed, as a government, to building nation-to-nation, government-to-government relationships based on the principles of respect, partnership and recognition of rights. Also, this government takes its commitment to reconciliation seriously and acknowledges what we are hearing tonight, that past systems, approaches and methods have not worked. Canada has started on the path to right these wrongs in partnership with indigenous people, provincial governments, territorial governments and all Canadians. We are currently working in collaboration with first nations to implement their treaty rights to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. Since the landmark Supreme Court of Canada Marshall decision of 1999, which affirmed these rights, the path toward implementation has had its successes and its setbacks. Over the years, the department has launched several programs and has made investments to address the rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, beginning with the Marshall response initiative. Then we have subsequent programs like the Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries initiative that continues today to provide funding and support to Marshall communities to build the capacity of the commercial fishing enterprises and strengthen community economic self-sufficiency.We have been negotiating with Marshall groups since 2017 to collaborate on the articulation of their rights to the rights of reconciliation agreements. Last year we signed rights and reconciliation agreements with three first nations communities. This does not mean we are done. We are not done by a long shot. There are still challenges we must work together to address and further implement the treaty. I also want to take this opportunity to talk about the hard-working women and men who make up our fisheries. Their work helps rural and coastal communities like mine and their catches end up on the tables across Canada, providing Canadians with high-quality sustainable seafood year-round. In my riding of Cape Breton—Canso, I think of commercial fishers like Bobby, Herbie, Jeannie, Carla, James, Leonard, Brian, Mike, Gordon, Rocky, Glen and Dwayne. They have been strong leaders in the local fishery and had mentored me about the fishing sector, especially in the past year. These fishers want to be a part of the solution. I think of my extended family, who are fishers as well. They too want to be a part of the solution.(2315)I am especially proud of the LFAs in Cape Breton—Canso that have not resorted to violence, but, rather, have been open to listening and learning about how we can all come together and follow a collective path forward. I thank them for their leadership.Yes, I have been in contact with commercial fishers in my riding and they have been clear. They want to be heard and to be part of the conversation about the future of the fishery. This is the case with commercial harvesters across my entire province. I would like to note that the minister is committed to appointing a ministerial special representative to help foster dialogue and co-operation and this appointment will be informed by consultations with both first nations and industry representatives. I also know that in my travels throughout my riding, many voiced concerns over conservation. I want them and everyone to know that we are listening. Conservation is a priority shared by everyone: DFO, first nations and industry. Every party wants to see this resource conserved for generations to come and I believe we have that in common. I want to assure everyone that DFO will continue to monitor stocks and will only move forward with a plan that ensures the health of the fishery.I think we can all agree that reconciliation is an imperative for Canada. That is why it is important to work in the spirit of respect. We all have a role to play. What is currently happening in Nova Scotia does not advance this goal, nor does it support the implementation of first nations treaty rights or a productive or orderly fishery. Frankly, it is not helping any party involved. More importantly, I know that this is not a true reflection of Nova Scotia, my home province and my home. This is not what it means to be Nova Scotia strong. The current issues surrounding the fishery are long-standing and deeply personal to all involved. The only way to resolve it is through respectful and collaborative dialogue and we must continue to work together, nation to nation, government to government, but also along with industry to support a viable and sustainable fishery for years to come.I appreciate this time to speak on such an important matter, not just for my riding, but for my province and my country.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaRacial equalitySplitting speaking time62907926290793629079462907956290796629079762907986290799629080062908016290802629080362908046290805629080662908076290808629080962908106290811BruceStantonSimcoe NorthDaveEppChatham-Kent—Leamington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC): (2315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I must admit that after four-plus hours into this emergency debate tonight, I am somewhat confused. I am somewhat confused over process because it is my assumption that the purpose of an emergency debate that was called for by four ministers is to draw sufficient attention to a matter. Therefore, I would ask the member opposite whose attention we are trying to get this evening.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290812MikeKellowayCape Breton—CansoMikeKellowayCape Breton—Canso//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104531MikeKellowayMike-KellowayCape Breton—CansoLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellowayMike_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Mike Kelloway: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, good governments, when they are looking at a situation like that we are facing today, want to bring the country together, not to just create awareness about a particular problem, but also to look within as a government for solutions and look to other parties for ideas, suggestions, recommendations and potential solutions that are going to help a problem that, as we heard tonight, is not a five-year issue or a 21-year issue, but an issue that has been going on for centuries and centuries.I would say that in the spirit of the discussion I just brought up, it is important to collaborate, co-operate and get insight from wherever we can get it. We have heard so many great ideas here tonight. That is what good governments do: they listen and they act.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62908136290814DaveEppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104786AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeAlexis-Brunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Brunelle-DuceppeAlexis_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): (2320)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am rather fascinated by what I just heard: We listen, we collaborate and, when the other parties give us advice, we follow it.That is ironic because during the rail crisis with the Wet'suwet'en in January, we said for weeks that the minister and the Prime Minister should go on site and negotiate instead of sending the RCMP. They did not listen to us. It took weeks and, in the end, they went on site and that is how the crisis was resolved.We are currently experiencing the same thing. They let the situation deteriorate and today we find ourselves having an emergency debate to resolve it. I agree with my colleague that they should listen to us more often. When they do, it works.I would like to ask my colleague the following question: What other situation will have to get out of hand before they take the opposition's advice? Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290815629081662908176290818MikeKellowayCape Breton—CansoMikeKellowayCape Breton—Canso//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104531MikeKellowayMike-KellowayCape Breton—CansoLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellowayMike_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Mike Kelloway: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the premise of the member's question. This government has been working diligently on this file with first nations chiefs in Nova Scotia, and not making just one or two calls to fishing associations, but working hand in glove to find a collaborative solution to this issue. It is one we are going to continue to work on.Do we look toward suggestions from other parties? Beyond the fact it is a minority government, it is the Canadian thing to do to look and see where other solutions and ideas come from. That is what makes this government different from past governments. We are listening and working with others to try to make good things—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62908196290820AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was given a name by the Tsuu T'ina people in Alberta, Gumistiyi, meaning “the one who tries”. I know some people in my province are watching this debate. They are telling me that the Prime Minister and government need to try harder.How can they stand in this House during an emergency debate and say that reconciliation is the most important thing they have, say that they really want to solve this problem and then vote against a unanimous consent motion asking them to support the people of Nova Scotia?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62908236290824BruceStantonSimcoe NorthMikeKellowayCape Breton—Canso//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104531MikeKellowayMike-KellowayCape Breton—CansoLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellowayMike_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Mike Kelloway: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been unequivocal, along with the cabinet and party, in terms of the importance placed on truth and reconciliation, but also making key investments in areas such as education, health and housing. Just over the past year working in my first nations communities, the three I represent proudly, we have made some strategic investments around water, wastewater and housing that have been instrumental and important for first nations communities. We have done that through collaboration and co-operation.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290825HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaDarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole Harbour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88323DarrenFisherDarren-FisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FisherDarren_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Darren Fisher (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that I am here in Mi’kma’ki, on the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq peoples. I am not far from the Shubenacadie waterway that has been used by the Mi'kmaq for thousands of years.Although I know that issues surrounding the Nova Scotia fishery are deeply personal to all involved, I want to be very clear when I say that I am disgusted by the incidents of racism and violence in southwest Nova Scotia. I am deeply ashamed of the perpetrators and those who support racism and violence against the Mi'kmaq people. The violence and the racism must stop.I have received an incredible volume of correspondence and outreach from my constituents in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour on this issue, passionate, thoughtful emails, and so many that I will not be able to respond to everyone individually. Nova Scotians want to know that the Mi'kmaq will be protected from racism and violence, and that their treaty rights will be respected and implemented. I have been just as concerned throughout this unrest. From my many conversations with ministers in our government, I know that they share this concern. I know those are not empty words because they are acting on them.The Mi'kmaq fishermen and the first nations communities have been let down by those whose job it is to protect them. I can tell colleagues that my constituents do not want to hear what jurisdiction is in charge of what. They want to know that all orders of government are working together to keep all people safe.I am grateful that our government approved a request for assistance from the Province of Nova Scotia to enhance the presence of RCMP officers as needed. These disgusting acts of violence must be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators must be held to account. I am glad to see that the RCMP have laid charges, including for the assault against Chief Sack, but I want to make it very clear that more needs to be done. Tensions need to be lowered.In Nova Scotia we are all treaty people. The peace and friendship treaties of 1760 and 1761 are solemn, special agreements and lasting commitments. They affirm a treaty right to hunt, to fish and to gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. The Supreme Court of Canada's September 17, 1999, decision in the Donald Marshall case affirmed this treaty right, and we affirm this treaty right. The decision affected 34 Mi'kmaq and Maliseet first nations in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and the Gaspé region of Quebec. From listening to my Mi'kmaq parliamentary colleagues on this issue, such as my friend, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria, I have learned that this would be the first treaty ruling that would allow indigenous people not just to survive but to thrive financially in Canada.Through the Minister of Fisheries I have learned that, following the Marshall decision, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans launched a series of initiatives and programs to help implement this treaty right. We now know that although some of these initiatives and programs were successful, others were not. Some programs included the Marshall response initiative, which provided first nation communities with licences, vessels and gear in order to increase the diversity of their participation in the commercial fisheries and contribute to the pursuit of a moderate livelihood for first nations members.This was followed by the Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries initiative in 2007, which provided funding and support to Marshall communities to build the capacity of their communal commercial fishing enterprises and to strengthen their communities' economic self-sufficiency.In 2017, DFO began to negotiate time-limited rights reconciliation agreements on fisheries with Mi'kmaq and Maliseet first nations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and the Gaspé region of Quebec.(2330)In 2019, Fisheries and Oceans Canada signed two rights reconciliation agreements on fisheries. However, it is not lost on me that the Marshall decision was made over 20 years ago. We are a government that believes and that knows there is no relationship more important to Canada than our relationship with indigenous peoples, a government that believes in the journey of reconciliation and in the self-determination of indigenous peoples, yet today we struggle to implement this treaty right.We know that first nation members across the Atlantic region have grown frustrated with the progress of negotiations and some communities have launched their own moderate livelihood fisheries and submitted fishery plans to DFO for consideration and discussion. However, the unacceptable acts of violence on water and land only serve to prevent the important constructive dialogue from happening.I have reached out to the Minister of Fisheries on behalf of my constituents and she has assured me that conversations with first nations to implement their treaty rights are ongoing. I know that our government stands ready to work with first nations on a collaborative path forward. The minister has had several conversations with Chief Sack and the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs to ensure that we continue to work collaboratively with their communities to fully implement their treaty rights as well as to ensure their safety.We know that throughout history, and today, indigenous peoples have experienced continuous systemic racism. Colonial institutions like the RCMP or other federal departments were designed with the cards stacked against indigenous peoples. However, it does not have to remain this way. In the true spirit of reconciliation, we know that we must reform these institutions. We must put in the hard work to implement this treaty right. We must remain committed to a nation-to-nation approach moving forward.All eyes are on Mi’kma’ki.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaRacial equality62908266290827629082862908296290830629083162908326290833629083462908356290836629083762908386290839629084062908416290842MikeKellowayCape Breton—CansoMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104773MarioSimardMario-SimardJonquièreBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SimardMario_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): (2330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his enthusiastic and passionate speech.One sentence really struck me. He said that his government believes in the self-determination of indigenous peoples. When I hear the term “self-determination” come out of the mouth of any member of the Liberal Party, I always have my doubts. Nevertheless, I would like my colleague to explain exactly what action the Liberal Party has taken to follow through on this belief in the self-determination of indigenous peoples. In his opinion, what must we do if we are serious about recognizing the political autonomy of indigenous peoples?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMi'kmaqNova Scotia62908436290844DarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourDarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole Harbour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88323DarrenFisherDarren-FisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FisherDarren_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Darren Fisher: (2330)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Cape Breton—Canso spoke before me. He said something that strikes home with me on a regular basis. He said that we had come a long way. We had accomplished a lot. We have probably accomplished more. The member for Sydney—Victoria, who is a Mi'kmaq parliamentarian, said that we had done more for reconciliation than any other government, ever. The member from Cape Breton—Canso asked if we were there yet. Not by a long shot. We have got a long way to go. This is a destination and a journey. We are on that road to reconciliation and there is a long way to go.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentMi'kmaqNova Scotia62908456290846MarioSimardJonquièreLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for speaking about his disdain for what is going on.We just presented a unanimous consent motion affirming the treaty and, in terms of his disdain, recognizing that the Mi'kmaq nation deserves the full and equal protection of the law from violence, intimidation and domestic terrorism, but his party did not vote for it to get the unanimous consent.Does the member opposite believe that what is happening in Mi'kmaq territory can be classified, as many legal experts have, as domestic terrorism?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629084762908486290849DarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourDarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole Harbour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88323DarrenFisherDarren-FisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FisherDarren_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Darren Fisher: (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have heard hours and hours of debate tonight. We take very important comments like that from this particular member and we have to see them side by side with comments all night long from opposition members saying that our government is bad and they are good, or they have done well and we have not done well. What we have not had tonight, in my opinion, is the collaborative spirit that Canadians expect of us in the House. This very important issue that we are talking about tonight demands more. One Conservative member said earlier that we would call it partisan tactics or partisan sniping, but we need to get past this. If we are ever going to truly get on a road to reconciliation, we must all work together in the House, and I have not seen that tonight, I am sad to say. Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62908506290851LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. It is definitely worth staying up until 11:37 at night to hear them and his candour on systemic racism. I want to ask the member about the impact of COVID, because that has come up tonight on economic insecurity. I appreciate that economic insecurity is real, particularly during a pandemic, but when it descends into violence and intimidation, that is never valid or to be condoned, and he spoke forcefully about that. Where does that leave us with respect to indigenous self-determination on other aspects, such as what was raised by the member for Sydney—Victoria when he talked about indigenous control of education and this idea of indigenous control of policing? If policing needs to be there to ensure law and order, can indigenous police, and seeing more of them, be a remedy to that particular situation that is affecting Nova Scotia?COVID-19Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPandemic629085262908536290854DarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourDarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole Harbour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88323DarrenFisherDarren-FisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FisherDarren_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Darren Fisher: (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, as always, there is a lot packed into the member's questions.I will touch on COVID.Canadians are scared, and when Canadians are scared, they respond differently. A lot has been said tonight about the speech and the comments made by the member for Sydney—Victoria. Who better to quote often in a debate like this than a Mi'kmaq parliamentarian from Nova Scotia? The member talked about how indigenous communities would go to Maine to pick blueberries for their livelihood, and that was not an option this year. This is just one of the many contributing factors to some of the tensions in Nova Scotia right now. I want to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for everything that he has taught this MP in the last few months he has been talking about this issue in our caucus. COVID-19Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPandemic6290855629085662908576290858ArifViraniParkdale—High ParkBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC): (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank everyone who participated in this debate tonight. Before I begin, let me state what I do not know. I do not know the Marshall decisions, I have never read them. I do not know the member for Sydney—Victoria, the only Mi'kmaq member of the House of Commons. I do not think I have been in the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq people. I am acknowledging tonight where I am at as an individual and not trying to say things that are beyond my comprehension of this very delicate indigenous-Crown issue that we are seeing happen in Nova Scotia.Second, before I begin, I am very confused because standing here tonight I was reading The Globe and Mail and I saw an article from the Liberal House leader quoted about tomorrow, about facing a confidence vote over the WE Charity. I am confused. Why would the government call an emergency debate if it is calling the bluff on Parliament about whether or not we are going to have a federal election? Do the Liberals care about reconciliation and do they care about all of the thoughtful words that were said tonight, or are they going to throw us into a federal election, shove this issue under the carpet and let it all go away while they seek a majority government? I would like some answers from the Liberal government on that point.Now, getting to why we are here tonight in the first place. Unfortunately, it is a direct result of the actions and inactions of the federal government. One of the most important aspects of being a government, of leadership, is accountability, peace and order. What we have seen here tonight is a sad expression of leadership as aptly stated by the member for Durham in his remarks.In my short time here as an MP, the Liberals have shut down debate, they have filibustered, they tried to hide documents and, if all that failed, we heard a lot tonight that it is Stephen Harper's fault. The government has been in power for five years, in fact, tonight it is celebrating five years of the government. Instead of actually taking action on this crisis, the Liberals have decided to hold an emergency debate 1,000 kilometres away from where it is actually happening.The Liberal minister who requested this debate already had the power to resolve this. The Liberals can protect the Mi'kmaq people and they can protect the sustainability of the fisheries at the same time. That is their job. I am going to ask the Library of Parliament tomorrow whether we have ever had an emergency debate called by four ministers who also acknowledged that they were part of the problem, that the Government of Canada was part of the problem. This might be a new precedent in parliamentary history.On this side of the House we have been asking the government to de-escalate the Nova Scotia fisheries crisis for over a month. The member for West Nova implored the minister this evening that he would get in his truck, pick her up and bring her in good faith to negotiate to find a solution. The indigenous services minister said police are being overwhelmed, but still no action, just tweets. The public safety minister said it was the province's problem. Things literally burned to the ground before the government looked into sending additional police resources to Nova Scotia.Chief Mike Sack said to the government, “Do your job. Protect [us].... Don't just tweet about it.” Colin Sproul of the Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association said the Liberal government is “hiding under a desk”. Here we are, more tweets, more inaction and the Liberals trying to make it look like they are doing something by holding this emergency debate where neither side of the dispute is actually happening and neither where the real work needs to happen as well.Last week, more than 200 people overwhelmed police. Vehicles and boats were lit on fire as early as the week before. This situation did not just suddenly spiral out of control. It has been going on for a while.(2340)As the member for Lakeland mentioned in the House earlier today, livelihoods and decades of relationship building literally went up in flames. The Minister of Public Safety hid behind prepared statements, and the Minister of Fisheries was nowhere to be seen.It seems like the government waits for the situation to get out of control before acknowledging the problem. That is what it did with the rail blockades earlier in the year, and what it did when it came to calling a public inquiry into the Nova Scotia mass shooting. That is what it is doing here today.The government should have anticipated this. Across Canada, rural crime has been a growing issue. It is something we have been talking about for a long time in this House. There is a significant lack of police resources in remote and rural communities.In Lillooet, a community I represent, there are Facebook groups talking about vigilante groups. The mayor implored me to get the provincial minister of public safety to do something, because they only have three RCMP officers for a region the size of a small European country. They just did not know what to do, and they did not know how to respond.Thankfully, to the credit to the St'át'imc people and first nations police forces in my riding, they were able to pick up some of the slack. Thank god they are there. Hopefully Lillooet, tribal council and their police force can serve as good example of what could take place in Nova Scotia, because some of the indigenous police forces are doing really great work.Front-line officers do their best in the RCMP, but they are stretched thin. By not ensuring there are adequate RCMP resources in rural Nova Scotia and across Canada, the Minister of Public Safety is putting these communities, and the people who live within them, at risk. He is putting front-line officers at risk. We have seen these risks escalating, including acts of violence and arson. The indigenous people are also at risk because we do not have enough RCMP officers. It goes both ways, and it is just a bad situation.I cannot help but draw some similarities to my own riding. I represent Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. It is 22,000 square kilometres of rugged British Columbia. The Fraser River runs through my riding from the south end all the way to the north. One thing we have in common with Nova Scotia is that many of the indigenous people I represent, and many of the non-indigenous people I represent, are totally dependent upon a fishery.If one talks to the recreational fishermen, the tour guides and some of the commercial people, they will say they acknowledge the Marshall decision. They may not be happy with it all the time, but they acknowledge it and want to work with it. They say they have frustrations too with some of the indigenous people over some of their fishing techniques, including gillnets, for example.Then, in talking to the indigenous people, I learn they have frustrations with the commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen for not respecting enough of their rights. They wonder why they are not getting a fair deal, and in many cases, they are correct. They are not getting a fair deal. That needs to be worked out.If we talk to both sides, the one thing they have in common, and often they do not even understand this, is that both point to the lack of competency of the department of fisheries and oceans to take meaningful action to resolve these deep-seated disputes between indigenous and non-indigenous fishers.What is happening in Nova Scotia is a broader reflection of what is happening across Canada. We are seeing civil strife. There is a real and clear lack of trust in our institutions. There is growing frustration that, as a member of Parliament, I do not have an answer to. Like I said in the beginning, I have never read the Marshall decisions, and I acknowledge that. However, there is growing animosity.An hon. member: There is a smile on your face though.Mr. Brad Vis: The smile on my face is there because I am trying to reflect the mood. It is not in any way a reflection of—An hon. member: Priceless with a smile.Mr. Brad Vis: Mr. Speaker, I am responding to the issues. What we are seeing here in Nova Scotia is part of a broader societal issue that we are facing. I am concerned that what happened in Nova Scotia is only the beginning of what will start happening in other communities across Canada if Parliament does not get it right, if we do not get reconciliation right and if we do not provide the necessary assurances to the commercial fisheries, the indigenous fisheries and all the people who depend collectively on those two groups to work something out. At the heart of this, we need to see a commitment from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to get on the ground as soon as possible.(2345)I have written the minister and asked her to come to the Fraser River to meet with my indigenous constituents, because they need to hear from her. That has not happened yet, but I am still going to hold her to account and get her out to Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. Tomorrow, she needs to be on the ground negotiating with those people to try to find a peaceful resolution.We live in the greatest country in the world. When things like this happen it is a scar on our country, a scar on what we have done to indigenous people and a scar on all of us here collectively for letting these things happen and letting the diminishment of trust in our institutions get to a point where people resort to violence.There are ways we can solve what is happening. We can improve the local police force and enforcement. We can empower indigenous peoples. We can get to a decision on Marshall.Earlier in tonight's debate, we heard the Prime Minister talk about consecutive governments failing and succeeding. Then we heard the Leader of the Opposition say the same thing. Despite some of the tension between our two sides tonight, there was some agreement that we have collectively, at certain points, not lived up to what we were supposed to, irrespective of who was in power. That is a lesson for all of us. We need to get to the points that matter and really do something that is going to address these livelihood issues for indigenous peoples and other fishermen.As I said in the beginning, I do not have all the answers and I am not an expert on what is going on in Nova Scotia. However, I am afraid that Nova Scotia is a broader reflection of tensions between communities all across Canada. I implore the government to get this right, to work with the member for West Nova on the ground to negotiate and do what is best for indigenous people.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaPolice servicesRoyal Canadian Mounted Police62908596290860629086162908626290863629086462908656290866629086762908686290869629087062908716290872629087362908746290875629087662908776290878629087962908806290881629088262908836290884629088562908866290887DarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1796LarryBagnellHon.Larry-BagnellYukonLiberal CaucusYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BagnellLarry_Lib.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionHon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency), Lib.): (2350)[English]Mr. Speaker, although my riding is the furthest from Nova Scotia, over 100 constituents have contacted me about this serious crisis. I think I would be misrepresenting them if I did not say that they want the Mi'kmaq treaty rights of 1760-61 honoured and upheld; they think the racist comments are disgusting and should be totally rejected; they think the Mi'kmaq, like everyone, should have full protection under the law; and they want a peacefully negotiated settlement to resolve this situation while upholding indigenous treaty rights.Coming from a riding with indigenous fishing rights, what does he think of the suggestion by the Mi'kmaq member for Sydney—Victoria to have an Atlantic first nations fishery authority?Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62908886290889BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Brad Vis: (2350)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, I have not studied the clear complexities that exist in the Nova Scotia fishery, but hopefully tomorrow the minister is going to sit down and start working out some of these questions. Maybe having a Nova Scotian aboriginal authority is the way to go. It is probably something that should be explored in conjunction with protecting the rights of the traditional non-indigenous fishing families.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersFisheries policyIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia6290890LarryBagnellHon.YukonKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (2350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague made several interesting points in his speech, and I thank him for that.Where we may not agree so much is on how the RCMP should intervene in the current context. In light of that, does he not agree that current tensions between the Mi'kmaq and the non-indigenous fishers will not ease until the government sits down at the table with all parties involved, both indigenous and non-indigenous fishers, and draws the line that should have been drawn immediately after the Marshall ruling? It does not matter which police service is sent there. I think that, as he said, the minister is the one who needs to go there.I would like his thoughts on that.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629089162908926290893BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Brad Vis: (2350)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member is right, the minister needs to be the one on the ground, eliminating the conflict and animosity between these two groups, first and foremost.My comments earlier regarding an aboriginal police force and the RCMP were speaking to a broader societal issue that we face in Canada about the lack of proper enforcement of our rules in many rural communities.I would also add that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sorely lacks adequate enforcement in many of the fisheries that exist across this country. One way we could improve some of the tension is to possibly have more boots on the ground. Maybe we need to have more indigenous people working for DFO, people who understand the language and culture of the indigenous fishermen and fisherwomen so that we do not have these disputes moving forward.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629089462908956290896KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (2355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for pointing out how bizarre it is for four ministers to join me, after my letter and my party's letter called for this emergency debate, so they could condemn their own government for their failure to protect those fishers.I have concerns around my colleague's speech, in that his party spent millions of dollars fighting to diminish and restrict indigenous rights, constitutionally protected rights, in the court. I want a commitment from the member that his party will stop the violence that is happening through the courts, will stop the attacks on the indigenous people through the courts, will allow indigenous people to exercise self-determination, and will support and respect the autonomy of first nations and their ability to self-determine and self-govern what is a moderate livelihood, in this case, and all that means.I am looking for the member's commitment. That is what we are here for in an emergency debate, to come together to find a solution, to work together to protect those fishers, and to support them through self-determination and their right to exercise and implement their court-approved and treaty-approved rights.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629089762908986290899BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Brad Vis: (2355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would not speak to the broader treaty rights that my colleague from Vancouver Island raised today. That is a question the minister should be responding to.I will speak to first nations autonomy this evening. My first remarks I ever made in this House of Commons included that I wanted to do right by my first nations constituents. I want to see their autonomy improved. I want to see the Government of Canada get off reserves and give the first nations power over where their children go, get the provincial governments out of the way, and give first nations more autonomy to do the things they need to do to build their own wealth and their own social well-being moving forward.That is my commitment to the first nations, to stand with them, to get the federal government out of the way so that they can truly prosper, and so that they are not bogged down by these unnecessary bureaucratic red-tape processes that govern every aspect of their life in ways that none of us in this House would find acceptable.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629090062909016290902GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (2355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is not lost on the indigenous people in my riding or indigenous people across this country that there is a huge contrast in the way that the peaceful protesters in Wet'suwet'en were treated and how the RCMP stood back in this case and watched an angry mob burning vehicles, attacking and throwing stones. It is not lost on indigenous people across this country that, over 21 years, there has been inaction by Conservative and Liberal governments in dealing with the decision by the Supreme Court to ensure these rights are properly enshrined in the rules around fisheries and DFO.I am sure it is not lost on indigenous people and people watching right now that there was a unanimous consent motion put forward by the member for Courtenay—Alberni, which was perfectly acceptable, that we should be affirming these treaty rights and taking action as a Parliament to make sure that we do right by indigenous people in this country and that we affirm these rights and take action—Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62909036290904BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Brad Vis: (2355)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is not lost on me what happened with the RCMP. That is why it is so unfortunate that the ministers responsible are not in Nova Scotia right now, trying to defuse the situation. Regarding the broader issue of first nations' rights in the fishery and the Marshall decision, I think it would be good for everyone in this country, especially people working in that industry, to have the clarity to move forward. There are a lot of areas where first nations and non-first nations fishers agree that things can be done. Conservation is number one. That is an area where everyone can focus on improving our stocks, especially on the west coast, to ensure the sustainability of our fishery for future generations.Yes, we need to have clarity and some action on the Marshall decision. That is not lost on me, but it is also not lost on me that the collective ministers responsible were not on the ground when they needed to be. We should not be having a debate in the House of Commons. They should be on the ground negotiating right now, seeking the solutions Canada needs.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629090762909086290909BruceStantonSimcoe NorthEricMelilloKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105186EricMelilloEric-MelilloKenoraConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MelilloEric_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC): (2400)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon definitely came at it from a very interesting point of view, being a member from British Columbia and recognizing that he is not an expert on everything happening in Nova Scotia, but also recognizing a bit of a duality and understanding that there are some commonalities with his riding in terms of the industry and the relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous constituents. I would like the member to reflect a little more on the situation in his riding in terms of the importance of strong relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous constituents.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia62909106290911BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateLobster Fishery Dispute in Nova ScotiaInterventionMr. Brad Vis: (2400)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had a really emotional experience a couple of months ago. I asked the Sts'ailes first nation to take me onto its land near the Harrison River to see where their people have fished since they began recording time. They have always fished there. One of the members of the band told me about an experience when he was shot with a BB gun by a non-indigenous fisher over their rights. Again, it speaks to this broader discontent and growing animosity in our society that needs to be addressed by DFO. The first nations are the first ones to point out that DFO has some guy in Ottawa telling them where they should be doing their conservation work, that there is some DFO official in Ottawa telling them how many fish go up the run, but the officials do not understand the fish like they do and the officials need to get out of the way and let the first nations do some of the important work. When I talk to the recreational fishermen and the people who work in tourism, they say the same thing: DFO does not know what it is talking about, it does not know where the fish go and what are those scientists in Ottawa actually saying?There was the Fraser Salmon Collaborative Management Agreement last year that was signed by some of the Sto:lo nations and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. When members of that committee signed that agreement, they thought they were going to be able to work with DFO. They have not even had a meeting yet. They are discontented and their anger only grows. We have to address these broader issues. This is not just a Nova Scotian issue; it is a Canadian issue.Emergency debatesFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova Scotia629091262909136290914EricMelilloKenoraBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has let things escalate to an unacceptable point in Nova Scotia. A problem that was once confined to a few towns along the Fundy coast now impacts fisheries from Saulnierville to Inverness. The government has a responsibility to develop an indigenous fishery alongside the commercial fishery. The government has had five years of talk and no action.When will the minister actually get serious about the problems occurring under her watch in her home province?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62799076279908NavdeepBainsHon.Mississauga—MaltonBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, since day one we have been focused on making sure people stay safe and making sure we lower the tensions on the water. To that end, we have been in conversation with industry representatives as well as first nations, and we are now at the negotiation table with first nations communities.We are looking for a path forward, but we know that this is a very difficult situation. We will continue to have those conversations and meetings with first nations communities to make sure we implement their charter rights.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62799096279910ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister has had weeks to get to western Nova Scotia and resolve this crisis. The ongoing fisheries crisis is a direct result of the minister's and the Liberal government's inaction over the past five years. The minister has been in her position for over a year now and comes from a riding where fisheries are of vital importance. The failure of the Liberal government to act has undone years of reconciliation work. Its inaction has pitted neighbour against neighbour and fanned the flames of this dispute.When will the minister get representatives from all affected fishing communities to the table and resolve this crisis?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62799116279912BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a very complex issue. This is something that is deeply personal to many, many people. We are working with first nations communities right now to make sure we are able to implement their rights that were affirmed under the Supreme Court Marshall decision. We are also in conversations with our commercial harvesters to make sure we are hearing from them as well. This is a situation we are going to be working on a solution for that is long term. I will continue to have those meetings. I will continue to work diligently to make sure we address this situation.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62799136279914RichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88698RubySahotaRuby-SahotaBrampton NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SahotaRuby_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, throughout the pandemic the government has made it a priority to support indigenous communities, which has helped contain the spread of COVID-19 and has kept people safe. Our government has committed to walking the path of reconciliation with indigenous peoples and has been focused on implementing commitments made in 2019.Could the Minister of Justice please update the House on our commitment to introduce the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?Indigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples62754216275422DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Brampton North for her tireless efforts on behalf of indigenous peoples and the reconciliation process.Our government is committed to advancing the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis across the country as we walk the path of reconciliation together. As part of that work, we have committed to introducing legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the end of 2020. We have been working closely with national indigenous organizations on a path forward that is adapted to the new circumstances imposed by the pandemic, while collaborating with indigenous partners and rights holders on the development of the legislation.We look forward to having more to share soon.Indigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples627542362754246275425RubySahotaBrampton NorthRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104544LenoreZannLenore-ZannCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ZannLenore_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMs. Lenore Zann (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries.I sit in the unceded traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia. Each year on October 1, we celebrate Treaty Day to honour the peace and friendship treaties between Nova Scotia's original Mi’kmaq first nations and European settlers.My constituents in Millbrook First Nation, as well as the Mi’kmaq across the province, would appreciate an update on the current nation-to-nation discussions under way between our government and the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs based on their treaty rights to fish for a moderate livelihood, which was upheld in a ruling on the Marshall decision—Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions627437662743776274378BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89236TerryBeechTerry-BeechBurnaby North—SeymourLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BeechTerry_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the excellent work she does in this place on behalf of her constituents. Yesterday was indeed Treaty Day, and it reminds us of the important work that still needs to be done in honouring the Peace and Friendship Treaties signed so many years ago.Under the Marshall decision, first nations have a constitutionally protected right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood, and implementing this decision is critical to the work of reconciliation and is a priority for our government. The minister continues to have conversations with first nations leadership, and will continue to work collaboratively to fully implement their treaty rights.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62743806274381BruceStantonSimcoe NorthNikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook Aski//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to throne speech presented to Canadians last Wednesday.(1330)[Translation]I would also like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.[English]First of all, I want to give a nod to the member for Kings—Hants, and I hope he is still online, who talked about the highest tides in the Bay of Fundy. Let him not forget that he shares the Bay of Fundy with me, as the member for West Nova, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, the member for Fundy Royal and also the ones down around Saint John. When he says that he has the highest tides in the world, of course he has to share that with us.It has been a week since the throne speech was presented to all Canadians. Under the current circumstances, I had wished that I would be welcoming it with relief, but unfortunately, this speech is a collection of previous speeches. It is a leftover potluck of previous Liberal promises that they never delivered on, which leaves me very skeptical regarding Canada's post-COVID recovery.It is absolutely shameful and unacceptable to have prorogued Parliament for six weeks, only to come back with a speech so ill-suited to the health crisis affecting our country from coast to coast to coast. We are all affected by the challenges that we all know about, as well as those specific challenges that are different from one province and one region to another.We know Canadians have been in dire need of support. Folks need to be supported for many months to come, and we, in the opposition, have been recognizing this necessity. However, to ensure the government's future spending is done correctly, it is incumbent upon parliamentarians to ask the government some tough and important questions before it injects substantial sums of money into programs.A responsible and respectful minority government consults opposition parties sooner than 48 hours before a throne speech is printed, especially in the current period, and at a time when national debt has reached an unenviable and worrisome level.With a minority government, the country's economic recovery during a crisis must be done in collaboration with opposition parties for the good of the Canadian population. The Prime Minister should have, for once, worked with the other parties to reinforce the team Canada approach, not only when it suits him, such as when he is trying to defend his throne speech.[Translation]We know that the throne speech shows a lack of backbone and a lack of will. It contains no economic recovery measures.[English]As well, we need the additional health transfers to the provinces and territories to be without condition, rather than with conditions that are a direct intrusion upon provincial jurisdiction. This is certainly not the time to accentuate the deep disagreements the Prime Minister has with his provincial counterparts. Instead, it is the time to help Canadians, small businesses, industries, the elderly and the most vulnerable of our country.I held the minister of health portfolio in Nova Scotia 12 years ago and know very well that the health of my province was not that of Quebec or Alberta. This is even more the case today, as the cases in the Atlantic bubble are still close to zero, unlike here in Ontario and Quebec. It is essential that the Prime Minister let the provinces manage their needs themselves.How is it that Canada, which the Prime Minister has been saying for years is doing better than any other country in the G7, still does not have faster access to COVID testing for individuals, has an unemployment rate that is higher than all others, and has a deficit reaching a catastrophic and unprecedented level?Where is the Prime Minister's real leadership? When it comes to testing, the government made the announcement yesterday that it will be two to six weeks, or even longer, before Canadians have access to the new testing.Back home in West Nova, the heart of our local economy is generated by tourism and the fishing industry. These two local economies were hit hard in the early weeks of the pandemic crisis. They are still being greatly impacted and will certainly remain deeply affected over the next couple of years.I quickly addressed to the ministers my concerns and the challenges West Nova businesses were experiencing early in the pandemic. Then, when the government emergency measures finally arrived, it was too late for many of those businesses, as they did not meet the eligibility criteria.My interventions, I felt, were on time, but the government's slow emergency response for the tourism industry and other small businesses came too late. The tourism season in Atlantic Canada and the survival rate of these businesses has been catastrophic, just like elsewhere in the country.In the throne speech, it was mentioned that additional support for small businesses will eventually be available, but unfortunately, it is too late for many of these businesses. They were expecting, and I was expecting, real change in the throne speech.(1335)[Translation]I still believe that, had the Prime Minister not prorogued Parliament for so long and had he acted like a real government leader who makes the survival of his country a priority, we could have worked together, as respectful parliamentarians, on financial measures and emergency programs that could have been adapted to the country's different realities.[English]I spent the summer travelling in my riding, talking to business owners, especially those in tourism-related businesses. I did my part in supporting them and making the hidden gems of West Nova known to a wider audience. We have a beautiful riding, from the Acadian shores of Clare and Argyle to the mountains and farms of the Annapolis Valley. It was very apparent that they feel completely forgotten by the government, because, for one reason or another, they could not qualify for any of the business programs.Several elements in the throne speech are, as was mentioned earlier, recycled broken promises, such as high-speed Internet access in rural areas like West Nova, the modernization of the Official Languages Act and reconciliation with our first nations.The promises related to reconciliation with first nations have been talked about by the government since 2015, and they are now seen as a bit of a joke. I find it distressing that the Liberals continue to use the promise of reconciliation with indigenous peoples so lightly. It is a real and serious issue, but the Prime Minister opportunistically uses it only when he is in trouble and needs to shine up his image. It is sad to see the failures of his promises to the first nations, such as the response to the report on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and last spring's blockade crisis with the Wet'suwet'en.The best example of this failure is the lobster fishery crisis that has been going for almost a month in my riding. That crisis has been foreseeable for months, almost a year now. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, with her hands-off approach to the crisis, preferred to ignore all the warning signs, believing that the dispute between commercial fishermen and the Mi'kmaq was going to settle itself, just like the Prime Minister thought that a budget would balance itself. However, neither will happen as long as the Liberal government is in office. All of the catastrophic situations that the government causes and ignores will only get worse, and this is causing suffering that can be avoided for many Canadians.For weeks now, tensions between these two groups have been at their peak. Public safety is at stake, both on the sea and on the wharves. Protests are still being planned, with no clear and equitable deal for either party. Weeks ago, the Minister and I engaged in a dialogue in which we agreed that we needed to work together to solve the issue in a reasonable time, and by considering both parties' interests. This situation is a perfect example of how I, as a Conservative, wanted to work with the government, and we could have worked together, but I am still waiting for the regular follow-up and fair closure that the Minister was to provide to me. It is completely unacceptable that the Minister says that she is having discussions with the two groups of fishermen, while the commercial fishermen are still trying to make themselves heard. The Minister has been telling us for weeks that progress is being made, but it is clearly not happening in St. Mary's Bay. She should be ashamed of her lack of leadership and her failure to deal with this urgent situation diligently, as a minister should be doing. It is a time-sensitive situation, and she must act immediately.How can we have lasting reconciliation with our indigenous peoples when the government's mismanagement has set these two peaceful groups against each other, jeopardizing the possibility of reconciliation for another generation? For this, these Liberals should be truly embarrassed.I look forward to working as the shadow minister for intergovernmental affairs and ACOA. I promise the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that I will not abuse his phone number. How much trouble can two Acadians actually get into?This leads me continue my work in keeping the government to account in this chamber, in committee and, of course, back home.[Translation]Nova Scotia and Canada deserve better.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneCanada Health TransferCOVID-19Fisheries and fishersHealth screeningIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqPandemicSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSplitting speaking timeTourism6273106627310762731086273109NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, my riding is located right in the very heart of Hamilton Centre. It is interesting that my Conservative friends down the way are talking about reconciliation. I would agree that this has been, by and large, a series of disappointments and failures on behalf of the government. Processes are in place to settle land claims. These are fundamentally a part of the indigenous genocide that is ongoing. In fact, not far from my home, in the Six Nations, the Haudenosaunee territories, there are still government expansions onto disputed land claims and territories.Within the legal framework of UNDRIP, which the Liberal government talks about, and as a meaningful path forward, what would my Conservative friend suggest we do to ensure indigenous sovereignty in land claims is respected in treaty to treaty, nation-to-nation relationships?Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rights62731146273115Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I cannot get into land claims. Nova Scotia has the peace and friendship treaties of 1752. I think there were two others after that. What we are running into right now is a court decision in Marshall on how fisheries should be managed, along with access to that fishery, for indigenous groups. The department, under the direction of the minister, has been negligent in having that dialogue, ensuring people understand the situation and truly coming up with a definition of “moderate livelihood”. That is at the core of this dispute and discussion. It is up to the minister, the government, Prime Minister and anyone who has an interest in this to sit down with the parties involved to ensure they come up with a solution so this crisis comes to an end. It has to come to an end at some point.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rights627311662731176273118MatthewGreenHamilton CentreKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104648KristinaMichaudKristina-MichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MichaudKristina_BQ.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMs. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.There is a similar situation in my riding. An indigenous community in Listuguj organized the fall fishery. Negotiations were going very well with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. A few months ago, it was said that things were coming along nicely and that the community would probably get a commercial fishing licence. At the last minute, right before the fishing season began, the government changed its mind and did not issue them a licence.I would like my colleague to tell us how the federal government plans to start this reconciliation he so often refers to if it continues to act like this with indigenous communities.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneFisheries and fishersIndigenous rights62731206273121Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont: (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.We often run into this issue when interpreting bills and court rulings. How are we to find solutions for those affected by these rulings? In this case, they have been trying to find a solution for 21 years. I think the department is not showing leadership. It is proposing different solutions for different people in different regions. I think it needs to find a definitive solution, and only the minister can really ask her department to find that solution.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneFisheries and fishersIndigenous rights6273123KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has been over two weeks of questions about the Nova Scotia fisheries crisis without getting great answers.The Prime Minister made reconciliation with our first nations a priority, speaking of understanding, friendship and redressing past digressions. Honest discussions must take place with both sides so they can work together for a better future.In its desire for reconciliation, why is the government knowingly pitting indigenous and non-indigenous against each other in St. Mary's Bay and destroying any friendship that has been maintained for over 300 years?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsNova ScotiaOral questions627339262733936273394DarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, since day one, the priority has been to de-escalate the tensions that we have seen on the water in southwestern Nova Scotia. I am thankful to say that this actually is happening now. Now we work with the first nations community as well as with industry as we go forward. We believe that the best way to do this is through respectful dialogue. We are currently in discussions with first nations communities. They are actually saying that these discussions are positive. Today is an extremely special day in Nova Scotia, happy treaty day.We will continue to do this to ensure we implement these first nations' rights.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsNova ScotiaOral questions627339562733966273397Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaBlaineCalkinsRed Deer—Lacombe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (2000)[English]Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Orange Shirt Day, a day that honours residential school survivors, a day that reflects our attempts as a country to erase indigenous peoples, and for what purpose? It was to have access to the resources of this land unhindered, because our colonial government signed treaties they seemingly had no intention of following. Canada underestimated the strength and resilience of indigenous peoples, and continues to do so. Indigenous peoples have had to fight for their lives, for recognition and for rights. It is a matter of survival. Five of the poorest postal codes in Canada are in New Brunswick first nation communities, and some Nova Scotia communities are not far behind. The livelihood fishery in St. Marys Bay is not a large fishing operation. It is a collection of individuals exercising their right to provide for their families and lift themselves from poverty. I read the article from The Guardian that the Minister of Fisheries shared today, which honours October 1 as Mi'kmaq Treaty Day. I respect the words that she shared, although they do seem to come a bit late considering how long this conflict has been going on. She stated that she grew up in a generation that was never taught about the history of indigenous peoples. It was not until she became a member of Parliament that she came to see the huge, unsettling gaps in her education, including the legal and cultural significance of treaties, and her obligation as a Canadian to uphold them. I commend her for being brave enough to admit that she began to learn about indigenous history so late in her life. This is important, and I truly believe that a severe lack of understanding and education is at the root of the current dispute.In 1760, the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Passamaquoddy signed a peace and friendship treaty with the British Crown. It was recognized as an international treaty between two sovereign nations, and is upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as being legitimate. On September 17, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada acquitted Mi'kmaq Donald Marshall Jr. of three charges relating to federal fishing regulations. Marshall's legal team argued that he had the right to sell fish to make a living under the peace and friendship treaties. Here is where the moderate livelihood comes into the picture. Marshall's ruling stated:The accused’s treaty rights are limited to securing “necessaries” (which should be construed in the modern context as equivalent to a moderate livelihood), and do not extend to the open-ended accumulation of wealth.... Catch limits that could reasonably be expected to produce a moderate livelihood for individual Mi’kmaq families at present-day standards can be established by regulation and enforced without violating the treaty right.This begs the following questions: Did the Supreme Court of Canada mean indigenous peoples have the right to fish with no regulations, under DFO regulations or under their own regulations? What does a “moderate livelihood” look like in 1999 or 2020?I would argue that a treaty right is a designate of a sovereign nation, and to extend the right without the ability to self-govern is not appropriate. Indigenous communities and leaders must take the lead in determining the definition of a livelihood fishery with the support of the federal government rather than the intervention. To begin to set monetary limits on a livelihood fishery, through definition, is problematic. A policy drawn by the Mi'kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Passamaquoddy describes a commitment to conservation as the first priority for the indigenous fishery. The policy also specifies a commitment to education and peaceful coexistence with Canadians. It is as follows: Mi'kmaq [and Wolastoqiyik] people will exercise control of all fisheries resources within traditional tribal territories. Any fisheries policy must protect and promote fishing rights recognized within relevant treaties and laws. Mi'kmaq and [Wolastoqiyik] leaders will not enter into fishing agreements that appear to abrogate or derogate from Treaty or Aboriginal rights, recognized in applicable treaties or are protected by law. Such treaties and laws express Mi'kmaq and [Wolastoqiyik] responsibilities and intentions to assert full control over all fisheries resources within traditional tribal territories. In 2017, Fisheries and Oceans Canada began to negotiate time-limited rights reconciliation agreements on fisheries, signing two such agreements in 2019. While these agreements seem to be in good faith, there is no formal mechanism for negotiation for indigenous peoples. The unfairness on display continues an uneven relationship and ignores self-governance and sovereignty on unceded lands. Indigenous chiefs have the capacity and the knowledge to advocate for their nations and negotiate with the government. I ask that the minister immediately convene a discussion table founded on respect and recognition that allows for these conversations to continue. I would also add that non-indigenous fishermen must be given a voice. As frustrations boil over, the situation in St. Marys Bay will only get worse.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentNova Scotia627395962739606273961627396262739636273964627396562739666273967627396862739696273970627397162739726273973BruceStantonSimcoe NorthTerryBeechBurnaby North—Seymour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89236TerryBeechTerry-BeechBurnaby North—SeymourLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BeechTerry_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (2005)[English]Mr. Speaker, thanks to my hon. colleague for the very thoughtful presentation she just gave. Let me be clear. No relationship is more important to Canada than our relationship with indigenous peoples. Our government is working to build a nation-to-nation, government-to-government relationship based on respect, partnership and recognition of rights. We are fully committed to working in collaboration with first nations to implement their treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.Since the landmark Supreme Court of Canada Marshall decision in 1999, which affirmed these treaty rights, the path toward implementation has had successes and setbacks. Over the years, the department has launched several programs and made investments to address the rights of Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, beginning with the Marshall response initiative.Subsequent programs, like the Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries initiative, continue to this day to provide funding and support to Marshall communities to build the capacity of their commercial fishing enterprises and to strengthen community economic self-sufficiency.Last year we signed rights and reconciliation agreements with three first nation communities, but there are challenges. Recent events surrounding Nova Scotia's fisheries have brought these issues to the forefront. I want to stress, first and foremost, that our government's priority remains the safety of everyone involved and lowering all tensions on the water for a calm resolution to this impasse. This has to be a common objective for all.It is also this government's commitment to work collaboratively and respectfully with first nation communities to fully implement their treaty rights. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans speaks directly and regularly with first nations leadership and industry representatives. I think we can all agree that reconciliation is a Canadian imperative and it is important, especially on this being Treaty Day in Nova Scotia, for each of us to acknowledge that we have a role to play.The issues surrounding this fishery are long-standing and deeply personal to all involved. The only way to resolve them is through a respectful and collaborative dialogue. We know that we need to do things differently and work in partnership with first nations to launch a fishery where members of the community can earn a moderate livelihood. This fishery must be viable, sustainable and have the tools it needs to succeed so that this fishery can be a resource for generations to come.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentNova Scotia627397462739756273976627397762739786273979JenicaAtwinFrederictonJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin: (2010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am sad that this issue has led to blatant displays of racism, threats and intimidation. Traditional ceremony has been mocked. There are social media posts about the need to re-establish residential schools, and signs in the woods of New Brunswick saying, “save a moose, shoot an Indian.”I have heard from fishermen that there is a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, but the majority of people are not racist and they are just fed up over a perceived threat to the sustainability of the fishery. I understand the uncertainty of our economy, the fluctuation of our natural resources and the stressful cycle of fishing season and unemployment.I understand the concern around conservation, but none of this can override the behaviours exhibited throughout this dispute. These are the questions and concerns that must be raised with government. As the lead federal agency for aquaculture development, and consistent with its departmental mandate, DFO must act and discharge its responsibilities in a manner that adheres to the policy principles, including addressing issues of public concern in a fair and transparent manner, communicating with Canadians and respecting constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights.Today is Mi'kmaq Treaty Day. How fitting that we are here to discuss this topic of such historical relevance on a day meant to remind all of Canada that we are all treaty people under the treaty covenant of law among sovereign nations. In Digby there were celebrations at the wharf, cultural displays and ceremonies where the Mi'kmaq and Acadian flags flew together as they should. My work today is to ensure peace and prosperity for all, as the treaty originally intended.Woliwon, we'lalin.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentNova Scotia627398062739816273982627398362739846273985TerryBeechBurnaby North—SeymourTerryBeechBurnaby North—Seymour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89236TerryBeechTerry-BeechBurnaby North—SeymourLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BeechTerry_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Terry Beech: (2010)[English]Mr. Speaker, we as a government are fully committed to working in collaboration with first nations to implement their treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. The Marshall decision was the trigger for many departmental programs and initiatives that have been implemented over the years. These programs have provided fisheries-related training and increased employment in Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities, especially for women. They have also put licences, vessels and gear in the hands of these communities to help build their fisheries.We have been negotiating with Marshall groups since 2017 to collaborate on the articulation of their rights through the Rights and Reconciliation Agreements, but there have been challenges. Recent events surrounding Nova Scotia's fisheries have brought these to the forefront. We remain strongly committed to working collaboratively and respectfully with first nation communities to implement treaty rights.The issues surrounding this fishery are long-standing and deeply personal to everyone involved. The only way to resolve this impasse is through respectful and collaborative dialogue, much like we saw from the hon. member opposite today.Adjournment ProceedingsFisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentNova Scotia627398662739876273988JenicaAtwinFrederictonBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, in Atlantic Canada, October 1 is Treaty Day. Celebrations this year will be centred around the Saulnierville wharf, where livelihood fishers have gathered as they exercise their collective inherent rights. The conflict that has ensued is a direct result of the failure of DFO and successive governments to articulate treaty rights to Canadians, rights that are enshrined in our Constitution and by the rulings of our highest court. The conflicts will continue as long as the government ignores its responsibilities.Does the Minister of Fisheries agree that the path forward was unquestionably established 21 years ago by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall decision?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62702146270215MaryamMonsefHon.Peterborough—KawarthaBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, since day one, our government has been focused on the safety of people in that area who are right now facing extremely challenging times. We have been working collaboratively and respectfully with both the first nations community as well as industry. We know that the path forward is to make sure that we do everything we can to implement the rights that were granted to the Mi'kmaq under the Marshall decision.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6270216JenicaAtwinFrederictonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia fisheries crisis is entering its third week and no agreement seems to be possible in the short term. The Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations had discussions with the Mi'kmaq chiefs, but are leaving the commercial fishermen in the dark. Conflict resolution requires honest and transparent communications with both sides in a dispute. When will the Minister of Fisheries do her job, show some leadership and respect, and open a true dialogue with all parties for a lasting solution?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions62690006269001François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I have said from the beginning of this crisis in Nova Scotia, our main priority is keeping people safe. To that end, I believe the path forward is through honest, respectful and collaborative dialogue. I have met with both first nations and industry partners over the last number of weeks to find that path forward. We are committed to making sure we implement the treaty rights guaranteed to the first nations under the Marshall decision.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6269002Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Marshall decision was 21 years ago. It is not a new issue. The Liberals have had five years to bring parties together in advance negotiations and the minister knew about this specific issue as it has been boiling around for about a year now. When will the minister resolve the situation?Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6269003BernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have been having good conversations with first nations communities and with industry. I firmly believe that the best path forward, to make sure we are keeping people safe and make sure we are implementing the rights of first nations people, is through respectful and collaborative dialogue. We have been having those conversations. We will continue to do that, because it is imperative that we implement these rights.Fisheries and fishersIndigenous rightsMi'kmaqNova ScotiaOral questions6269004Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, from the Nuu-chah-nulth on the west coast to the Mi'kmaq on the east coast, the Liberals have spent millions on lawyers to fight indigenous fishing rights. Time and time again, the courts have upheld indigenous fishing rights.Now the Liberals are talking out of both sides of their mouths, but by trying to play both sides, they are leaving DFO officials without a clear mandate and they are putting lives at risk. Will the minister finally back up her claims that she supports self-determination by actually upholding inherent and constitutionally protected rights?Indigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentOral questions626793162679326267933AdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanHon.Bernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, right now the government's number one priority is making sure people stay safe in southwest Nova Scotia, where tensions are quite high. We are working with first nations leadership as well as with industry partners in Nova Scotia. We believe that the best way forward is through respectful and collaborative dialogue. We are working to make sure that we uphold those treaty rights.Indigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentOral questions6267934GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniLyneBessetteBrome—Missisquoi//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58858RobertOliphantRobert-OliphantDon Valley WestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OliphantRobert_Lib.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Robert Oliphant: (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, we are going to be doing all of this, including investing in pharmacare and child care, which will create jobs and better communities, while holding onto the values that Canadians want upheld here and abroad.While the health and economic crisis and challenges we face are daunting, this is no time to let up on what makes Canada Canada. Canadians want us to further reconciliation with indigenous peoples, living out our commitment to their better health and mental health care, invest in infrastructure and clean water, and by implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Canadians want us to persevere on dismantling the structures of systemic racism, including better civilian oversight of law enforcement and a shift toward community-led policing. Canadians want us to reach Canada’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and to do that by drawing on the know-how of the energy sectors in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadians want us to ensure women’s safety and to stem the tide of gun violence in our cities, by implementing our firearms policy commitments, giving municipalities the ability to further restrict handguns and control the flow of illegal arms into Canada. Canadians want us to protect our multicultural, bilingual society and continue to welcome newcomers and thank them for joining our country and building it better.Madam Speaker, in case it is not obvious to you, I am pleased to be standing in support of the throne speech and to make sure that we are able to build a better Canada and a more resilient Canada.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneIndigenous rights6268054CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDavidSweetFlamborough—Glanbrook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, the government talks about building back better, but it has forgotten a lot of people: students and veterans. Let us not forget the Canadian human rights tribunal ruling to immediately stop racially discriminating against first nations kids.Cindy Blackstock said that there was an opportunity for Canada to acknowledge its own systemic discrimination toward first nations kids and fix it. It did not. Spending over 13 years fighting a human rights decision shows racism is in Canada's DNA.When will the government start upholding its domestic and international legal obligations and make sure that all people on Turtle Island can live with human rights, in dignity?Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneIndigenous rights626806862680696268070RobertOliphantDon Valley WestRobertOliphantDon Valley West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58858RobertOliphantRobert-OliphantDon Valley WestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OliphantRobert_Lib.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Robert Oliphant: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, the member has raised a very important issue. I was very pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne that we will be introducing legislation before the end of the year to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Also, nothing has stopped. This is a Speech from the Throne that is visionary, lofty and ambitious. We will continue all the programs we have been doing around first nations, Inuit and Métis health. We will continue to work on justice issues, clean water issues, health issues and mental health issues. We will be doing that. We expect and hope that every parliamentarian will share that project with us.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneIndigenous rights62680716268072LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1150)[Translation] Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. opposition members for their comments.First, I would like to state what I believe to be a fundamental fact in this moment in our country's history: COVID-19 is still very much here. We have not yet beaten this pandemic. We are fighting a battle, and this is a battle we must win.I know the fight against this disease in the past six months has been difficult for Canadians. For too many people, especially our seniors, the most vulnerable, it has been a matter of life and death. This ordeal is unlike anything that we, as Canadians, have lived through in modern history. [English]I wish I could stand in this place and say that it is over, that the hard work is behind us, but that is simply not the reality. In the four biggest provinces of Canada the second wave is not just starting, but is already under way. On March 13, when we went into lockdown, there were only 47 new cases of COVID-19. Just yesterday we had well over 1,000 new cases. The fact is this fall could be worse than last spring. That depends on the actions we all take in the coming days and weeks, because we all, collectively, have the power to beat down this second wave. We can and we must. All Canadians need to wear their masks. We need to wash our hands. We need to avoid gatherings, especially indoors, and remember that this is not the time for partying. We need to maintain social distance. We need to download and use the COVID Alert app. Of course, we all need to get our flu shots.As for us parliamentarians, we have a job to do as well, an important job, which is to ensure that Canadians, and the businesses that employ them so they can feed their families, get the support they need to help them pull through this pandemic. We need to do whatever it takes to support people through this crisis. The reality is that the best way to support our economic recovery is by making sure that we are supporting the health and safety of Canadians right now. There are folks, including members on the opposite side of the aisle, who think that we should have moved more quickly to help businesses and more slowly to help individual Canadians. That is simply wrong. We know that supporting hard-working Canadian families, our seniors and young people is the best way to make sure that our economy comes roaring back as quickly as possible. It is disappointing that the Conservative Party has chosen to put politics first. It would rather vote to have an election in the midst of a pandemic than to vote to extend badly needed help to Canadians at a time of unprecedented need.(1155)[Translation]Our sole objective since March has been to help Canadians get through this crisis, to protect their health and their businesses, and to protect workers and their livelihoods.We know that the pandemic has hit some groups more than others. This includes our seniors, working mothers, racialized Canadians, indigenous peoples and youth. We intend to address these inequalities.[English]I listened carefully to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday and the interventions by the two hon. MPs who spoke to the Conservative approach today. I think they are faced first with a fundamental challenge. The deputy leader got up and started by saying that we have no plan, and then proceeded to explain how she disagrees with all the different elements of our plan. Again, the Conservatives cannot have it both ways.We know that the preoccupation of many Canadians, as highlighted by the hon. deputy leader, is with the health and safety of Canadians. That is something we all share, we as elected officials and Canadians. That is why, from the very beginning of this pandemic, we have worked with top scientists, doctors, public health agencies across the country, premiers and municipal governments. We have worked with everyone to focus on keeping Canadians safe and healthy through this challenge. From the very beginning we sat down regularly with the premiers. Indeed, I think we have had close to 20 first ministers meetings just over the past six months to talk about how we need to work together to help Canadians.I will come back to the contention by the Conservatives that we are somehow in a national unity crisis, just to highlight the reality that Canadians across all orders of government and all regions of the country have never been more united in working together to deliver safely for all Canadians. Indeed, as we look around the world and contrast how we have managed through this pandemic with places where the positioning around a pandemic response has been a source of partisan controversy and discourse, we see the fact that Canadians have come together has been very significant in contributing to our well-being. The reality is that from the beginning of our meetings with those premiers, our position as a federal government has been, how can we help?[Translation]We were there to encourage more testing. We were there to give them the tools to do more testing, whether it was money, resources or equipment they needed. From the beginning, we have been encouraging and helping the provinces to expand their testing capacity. Across the country, we are seeing an increase in testing capacity, thanks in part to the $19 billion we gave the provinces for a safe recovery. Since the pandemic started, we have sent the provinces half a billion dollars in health transfers. To support a just recovery, we then transferred another half a billion for health care systems, since we realize that this is an unprecedented public health crisis. We are going to continue making decisions based on science and listening to the experts who are doing everything they can to keep Canadians safe. At the same time, we are also taking action to make sure we have the means to boost testing numbers.(1200)[English]That is why, with our international procurements and the incredible innovative work being done here right here by Canadian scientists and researchers, who are creating new alternatives to testing moving forward with new equipment that we can produce right here in Canada, we have significantly stepped up the federal government's ability to support the provinces in their responsibilities around testing. We will continue to do that.We recognize that big questions around health care are being brought forward by the crisis of this pandemic. That is exactly why we have not only transferred, as I said, a billion dollars to the provinces to help with the immediate, acute supports, on top of the $19 billion we transferred to the provinces through the Safe Restart Agreement, but we have also committed to absolutely sitting down with the provinces this fall to talk about the future of the Canada health transfers, recognizing that our health care systems are changing and that there are new needs. We recognize, for example, that more and more of health care is not going to be delivered in institutional settings but in home settings. That means investing in home care, investing in supports for the delivery of health services, not just to hospitals and institutions, but through a broader range of ways. The federal government will be there to be part of that conversation.We also recognize that increasingly treatment for diseases is not through surgical intervention or institutionalization, but through increasingly sophisticated medications and pharmaceuticals. Of course, as pharmaceuticals becomes more complex and sophisticated, their costs go up. That is why as a federal government we have already stepped up over the past years to drive down the cost of prescription drug prices, to be there to support the provinces with rare disease, high-cost drug strategies. We will continue to do that as we move toward a national universal pharmacare program, working first with the provinces that want to move quickly on it. Those are also parts of the conversations that we need to have about the future of health care in this country. Let me be very, very clear that the federal government continues to have an important role to play in ensuring the safety and security of all Canadians. We will be there with the health care system and with supports for social programs, as we have been from the beginning. As we look forward to a post-pandemic world, which cannot come fast enough for any of us, we know that we have to learn lessons from this pandemic. However, while we are in this pandemic, the federal government will be there every step of the way with a focus on supporting the health of Canadians.[Translation]Of course, we recognize the provinces' responsibilities and jurisdictions when it comes to health. They do great work in their jurisdictions.However, we also recognize that we need to help them when they become overwhelmed or face particularly difficult challenges. That is why, when the Premier of Quebec asked us to send in the army to help in long-term care facilities during this crisis that Quebec could not manage alone, we did not hesitate to help. We are there to help protect our seniors and to support Canadians. That is a promise that we made from the very beginning of this pandemic and we are keeping it.We are showing that, yes, we are there. We sent the Canadian Armed Forces to help our seniors. We are continuing to help thanks to the Canadian Red Cross, which is still working in Quebec's long-term care facilities to help the province regain control of this tragic situation.We will help Canadians in partnership with the provinces. Some people are recommending that we should simply send transfer payments and give the provinces blank cheques for their health care systems, but that would not have helped because we needed people on the ground, soldiers and Canadian Red Cross personnel.This is not just a question of money, although we will certainly continue sending money. We have transferred over $40 billion to the provinces for their health care systems, and we will continue to take action to protect the health of Canadians. However, we will do so as Canadians would expect, in other words, in partnership with the provinces. That is what we will continue to do.Despite everything, the Conservatives continue to suggest that we have not been there for Canadians.(1205)[English]The Conservatives say that our plan has left everyday Canadians behind. When the pandemic struck, the Conservatives were more concerned with austerity than with helping people, and now they have doubled down on that view. When they say we have not been there to help ordinary help, I can say that almost nine million Canadians who received the Canada emergency wage subsidy would disagree with them. We were there to support Canadians right across the country despite the Conservatives saying that we should not be.We were there for the millions of workers who managed to keep their jobs or get hired back to their jobs because of the wage subsidy that supported payroll. Those people needed support through this pandemic.The issue that keeps coming back from the Conservatives is that we are doing too much, we are investing too much in Canadians, we are helping Canadians too much and that it is irresponsible for the future. The reality is, as I said, the best way to recover the economy of the country is to support Canadians through this health crisis. That is what the Conservatives do not understand.In the short term, while we are living with this pandemic, we will continue to invest in Canadians and support them.What we are not hearing from the Conservatives in their response to the Speech from the Throne is specifically what spending measures they disagree with. Do they disagree with the extension of the Canada emergency wage subsidy, because that is in the Speech from the Throne? We are extending it through to next summer. Do they disagree with the $500 a week that people got through CERB, which we are now going to be continuing to deliver through the EI system and with a benefit that is going to support those Canadians who still cannot access EI? We know that supporting Canadians who need the $500 a week through the continuation of this pandemic is essential, yet the Conservatives do not seem to want us to do that. Therefore, my question continues to be this. What do the Conservatives actually disagree with? What is it that they do not think we should be doing for Canadians right now? Where do they leave Canadians aside? Where do they say that we have to recover the economy, so we have to stop spending? If we had not stepped up as a federal government right across the country, in every province and territory, to put money directly in the pockets of people from the beginning of this pandemic, what would Canadians have done? First, they would have had to go further into debt to pay for groceries or to pay their rent. The help we gave was significant, but not only did it prevent them from going deeper into debt, it also prevented many people from having to use food banks and from losing their homes and jobs. The reality is that there were still far too many people who had to go to food banks. That is why we invested hundreds of millions of dollars in food banks, shelters and supports for the most vulnerable across the country. Every step of the way, we had the backs of Canadians. We are committing now, as we approach this second wave, to continue to have the backs of people, and the Conservatives would rather vote for an election right now rather than support people.The Conservatives are asking a lot of questions that Canadians are asking, such as what the path is for our deficit and if we will be fiscally responsible. This is where we have to make a very clear distinction between the short-term measures that are there to support Canadians and the long-term recovery plan in a post-pandemic world. The short-term measures we need to support Canadians will be there for them. We will support Canadians through this pandemic in all the ways we need to, because that is the best way to get us to a strong economy on the other side. Again, what the Conservatives do not understand is doing less to support Canadians will actually hurt our economy in the long run. It will lead to a slower recovery and greater deficits.Absolutely, once we are through this pandemic, it will be extremely important to be fiscally responsible and sustainable. That is where the investments we are proposing in the throne speech on child care, on housing and on pharmacare are not just things that support the social safety net. It actually leads to better growth; more women in the workforce; more families not facing impossible choices when their kids have to stay home; more support for businesses that do not have to pay the same level of prescription drug coverage with a national universal pharmacare program; more people who are not costing us through shelter systems and vulnerabilities, but have their own homes and are able to contribute to our country. These are not simply social measures. They are economic measures as we move forward and they will be done because the pandemic has shown us the cracks in our society that Canadians need to fill.(1210)[Translation]The Conservatives often talk to us about our seniors and the need to support them better in these tough times. We have provided an additional $2.5 billion in support to eligible seniors in the form of one-time, tax-free OAS and GIS payments. We are supporting community-based projects aimed at improving seniors' quality of life and reducing their social isolation. To that end, we invested an additional $20 million in the new horizons for seniors program. The Speech from the Throne lays out the work we will do with the provinces and territories to set national standards for long-term care. We will take action to ensure that seniors are able to stay in their own homes longer. We will work with our colleagues here in Parliament on Criminal Code amendments to hold those who neglect seniors under their care accountable.The Speech from the Throne also states that we will look at new measures to ensure better pay for personal support workers, who do a difficult but essential job. Our society must better value their diligence, their skills and their hard work. We must keep trying to do better by our seniors. If the Conservatives disagree, they can keep saying so and vote against the throne speech, which offers real help for our seniors. If they disagree with these measures, they can tell seniors themselves. That is what they are saying.When it comes to job creation, we know that we have a lot of work to do to get the economy back to where it was before the pandemic and create an even stronger economy. In our first five years in office, we created more than a million jobs for Canadians. During the pandemic, our country saw record job losses, as did every country in the world. The Conservatives keep saying that the CERB and the support we are giving people who have to pay rent and buy groceries are a disincentive to work. The reality is that we are always going to be there to support workers. We know that Canadians want to contribute and work, but there is a job shortage because of the pandemic. Many sectors were hit extremely hard by this pandemic. We will continue to be there to help people who want to work but have no job to go to. The Conservatives claim that if we stop providing support to millions of people, they will find jobs, but that is a totally ridiculous and irresponsible thing to say.Once again, I am asking the Conservatives to list the specific measures in the throne speech that they disagree with. Since they do not like the Liberal Party and its approach, they ought to suggest something else. However, they have nothing to suggest. They know that our priority from the beginning has been to be there for Canadians. Since they have nothing to suggest, they talk about a national unity crisis. In reality, Canadians have never been so united.(1215)[English]That has been the story of this pandemic: Canadians coming together to work together in all orders of government to deliver for people; to work together in communities; to work together in workplaces; to be there for opposite sides of the country; PPE produced in Ontario, making its way across the country; supports in scientific resources developed in the west, in B.C., sharing their impact across the country; seafood harvested on our coasts, feeding the rest of the world; and energy workers in Alberta, who continue to innovate and look forward to a better world where their kids will continue to have jobs and opportunities.The members opposite have asked me about Alberta and are highlighting it. Let me tell them how this government has been there for all Canadians and specifically, because they keep asking, for Alberta. From the very beginning, the Canada emergency response benefit helped thousands upon thousands of Albertans who were already being challenged with a crisis in the oil and gas sector that is global and is particularly acute in Alberta. We were there with the CERB. We were there with the emergency wage subsidy to keep people on. We made investments in cleaning up orphan wells, which was a provincial area of jurisdiction but that we are happy to support because we need to give people opportunities to do the right thing and to have work through this difficult time.On top of that, we sat down and delivered part of $19 billion that we transferred to provinces that has helped Albertans and people across the country with that safe restart. Those transfers to keep people safe were worked out and agreed with all premiers, including the premier of Alberta. Just a few weeks ago, when school boards and parents across the country were worried about kids getting back to school, we signed a $2 billion safe restart agreement with the provinces to make sure, among other things, that school boards in Alberta would have some money to make sure that kids get back to school safely.However, the Conservatives are choosing to create a national unity crisis. All Canadians are challenged by this, with some areas being much harder hit than others: the tourism sector, the oil and gas industry, and certain cultural sectors that are based on performance. There are many sectors that are hurting and we are continuing to look at ways to deliver supports to them right across the country. I know the deputy leader did not mean to mislead the House, so I am hoping she is going to be able to correct herself. She said that the agriculture, the forestry industry and natural resources are not even mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. That is not true and she can check on page 24 if she really wants to, but we took a lot of time to reassure people and talk about the challenges faced by people across the country. If we want to talk about agriculture, we know that the capacity of hard-working farmers and fishers across this country to put food on our tables and contribute to important global supply chains by working hard even through a pandemic is incredibly important. Our farmers have been absolute heroes in making that happen. That is why when we look at the things they are worried about with increasing flooding and increasing droughts because of climate change, we realize that the deputy leader's party and former government did really hurt farmers in the Prairies. They killed the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. The PFRA was there to help manage water in the Prairies in a way that is only becoming more important with the impacts of climate change. However, the previous Conservative government killed it. The reality is that we know that managing our water resources, particularly for our farmers in the Prairies, is essential. That is why this throne speech promises to deliver on a Canadian water agency to replace and continue the good work of the PFRA. For that alone, Conservatives on the Prairies should be voting for this throne speech; but no, the Conservatives killed the PFRA so they would not want to highlight that we are actually bringing it back.We talk about how important our forestry workers are going to be in building good jobs for the future, how important our natural resources industries and miners are going to be in building jobs for the future. We know that we are moving toward a society and a world where more and more high-tech solutions are going to rely on rare minerals, on good-quality and well-extracted products. Look at the fact that Canada's clean aluminum is so important to so many supply chains across the country.(1220)[Translation]Canada's clean aluminum is produced with minimal greenhouse gas emissions and is prized by industries from around the world that want to be able to say their electronic devices do not contribute to climate change. That is good news for aluminum workers. It is also great for workers in our natural resources sector that we can show that electric car batteries are made with minerals extracted here, in Canada, in a responsible, forward-looking way. I was very happy to have a chance to speak to people in the mining sectors, and I know what Canada has to offer in terms of both natural resources and natural resource processing. This will help us secure a place in the economy of the future, which will be more prosperous and more sustainable. That is critical. We spoke about this in the throne speech. We will continue to recognize that the best way to restart the economy is to also look at where the economy is going. A low-carbon economy is the way of the future. However, the reality is that we will not be able to reach net zero by 2050 without the full participation and innovation of workers in our energy and natural resources sectors.There are energy experts in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. These workers are always looking to innovate, plan for a better future and find concrete solutions. We need them to make our economy cleaner, more efficient, and more successful on the global marketplace. This is an integral part of our future, and we will continue to invest in this sector.The Conservatives want to turn this into a national unity crisis. I am sorry, but that is frankly irresponsible. More than anyone else in the world, Canadians showed that they were there for one another during this pandemic. To try to make this into a political attack is simply irresponsible and ridiculous.[English]We will continue to be there for Canadians through this pandemic. We will continue to support the families and the workers who need it right across the country. We will continue to do what is necessary to have Canadians' backs, regardless of what the Conservatives might say. We will continue to recognize the cracks in our systems that the pandemic has revealed: the challenges around homelessness, the challenges around women excluded from the workforce, the challenges around access to health care and pharmacare and the challenges around systemic racism that continue to hold back far too many people across the country. That is why, as we move forward in fighting systemic racism, we move forward first and foremost on economic empowerment for Black entrepreneurs and Black-owned businesses. It is interesting, because I heard a lot of people say that there are so many other things to do. Yes, there are. If one sits down with Black community leaders and talks to Black entrepreneurs, one of the first things they will ask for is better access to capital. That is why we were so glad a few weeks ago to be able to announce that we have worked with Canada's top banks on delivering access to capital to start rebalancing the economic scales and the barriers that exist because of systems that are discriminatory, but there is so much more to do and we talk about that in the throne speech. We need to reform our justice system. We need to improve outcomes for Black communities and young people. These are the things we are going to continue to do not just for Black Canadians but for all racialized Canadians. On the flip side, that pathway toward reconciliation continues to be more important than ever before. All the commitments this government has made over the years on moving forward on reconciliation that we have been steadily working on and living up to now need to be accelerated. We need to continue to protect indigenous brothers and sisters from the impacts of this pandemic, but we also need to be giving them the tools and the ability to thrive and prosper in their communities right across the country. That is where we are going to be accelerating many measures of reconciliation. That is why we will be bringing forward in the House, before the end of this year, legislation to enact the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, despite the fact that the Conservatives are already set to vote against it.(1225)We know that Canada is an incredible country. It is an incredible country, not because of geography, not because of history as much as because of Canadians themselves: people who are there to support each other, to work hard for each other, to build their success and to make sure that their communities feel success as well, to stand up for each others' rights and opportunities and to build a better future. That is what this pandemic has shown, Canadians stepping up to do what really matters. It is unfortunate to see the Conservatives choosing to focus on politics at this time when Canadians are pulling together, trying to create divisions instead of recognizing that Canadians are working together. On this side of the House, we will continue to work not just to support Canadians, but with all members of the House to move forward on meaningful, tangible ways to help Canadians now and into the future.[Translation]This moment in our history is going to make a big difference, not only for the next few years, but for decades to come.This is about how we are going to help the most vulnerable people and rebuild a forward-looking economy with opportunities for everyone across the country. This is about how we are going to ensure that the barriers that exist because of systemic racism are reduced and eliminated. The choices we make today as a country are extremely important to the life of our nation.Our parents and grandparents, who lived through the Great Depression and the Second World War, worked very hard. They laid the foundation of our society and the country we live in today. They faced crises and made changes with the future in mind. They created the world as we know it today. That is what they lived through. That is what they accomplished.There are two things I would add. First of all, we must learn from their example. They successfully created the incredibly prosperous world we enjoyed at the end of the 20th century. We must emulate the way they responded to a crisis by coming together and working hard to build a better future.As we ponder that, we need to learn from their example and understand what we need to do to make things better. We need to acknowledge that the seniors who built the country we love today are now extremely vulnerable, living in long-term care homes across the country. It is our duty to focus on them and do everything we can to protect them. As a country, we will be there to honour their sacrifices and recognize their vulnerability.Together, we will overcome this challenge. I know we can work together. I know we can keep our promises to Canadians. I know the future will be better because of the work we are going to do together.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneAgriculture, environment, fisheries and natural resourcesAlbertaAluminum industryBlack CanadiansBlack Entrepreneurship ProgramBritish ColumbiaCanada Emergency Response BenefitCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyCanada Health TransferCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCaregivers and health care professionalsCompaniesCOVID-19Criminal CodeEducation and trainingEntrepreneurship and entrepreneursEpidemiologyFarming and farmersFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGuaranteed Income SupplementHealth care systemHealth screeningIncome and wagesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsLabour forceLand useLong-term careNational unityNew Horizons for Seniors ProgramNewfoundland and LabradorOil and gasOld Age SecurityPandemicPharmacarePrairie Farm Rehabilitation AdministrationPrescription drugsPublic healthRacial equalityRare and orphan diseasesSafe Restart AgreementSaskatchewanSenior citizensSocial housingSubsidized day careTransfers to provinces and territoriesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWater resources6266346GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I also have Terry Fox behind me in photographs and I hope the hon. member does not think those are props as well.Since March, we have been fighting the pandemic. On yesterday's throne speech, the Prime Minister said that now was “not the time for austerity” and that the government “will have your back, whatever it takes” to keep people safe.Yesterday's Speech from the Throne laid out four broad pillars.The first is “Protecting Canadians from COVID-19”. We recently invested $19 billion in the safe restart agreement as well as $2 billion in a safe return to class fund. We will support provinces to increase their testing capacity. Our government has a vaccine strategy because we know the best way to end this pandemic is with a safe and effective vaccine.The second pillar is “Helping Canadians through the pandemic”. I have talked about some of the measures we took during the first wave of the pandemic. We must continue to support those Canadians who lost their jobs, so we will be reforming the EI system to bring it into the 21st century. The pandemic has been called a “she-cession” because of the disproportionate impact on women. That is why we cannot let the decades-long gains that have been made be rolled back because of the virus. In the last session of Parliament, as vice-chair of the status of women committee, we tabled a report on the economic security of women. The lack of access to high-quality, affordable child care was identified as the number one barrier to women's economic security. Women bear a disproportionate responsibility for the unpaid care of children. If we are to support women coming out of the pandemic, we must recognize the need for a national accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care system. We will be expanding the women's entrepreneurs strategy. We will extend the Canadian emergency wage subsidy to next summer. Certain industries, like travel, hospitality and cultural industries have been devastated and we will be introducing further supports for these hard-hit sectors of the economy.The third pillar is “Building back better”. The pandemic has brought to the forefront gaps in our social systems. We must never again be in a situation where the army needs to care for our seniors. Some time ago, I wrote to the Minister of Seniors, calling for national standards for long-term care, and was pleased to see this commitment in the throne speech. While long-term care falls under provincial jurisdiction, we must take whatever action we can to support seniors. They deserve no less.Canadians living with disability have also been hit hard during the pandemic. We will bring forward a disability inclusion plan, which will include a new Canadian disability benefit and a robust employment strategy. We are fortunate in Canada to have a robust health care system. The missing piece in that system has always been pharmacare. As former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health, I was proud to work on this issue. We remain, as a government, committed to a universal national pharmacare program. Kids are still being diagnosed with cancer and I will continue to work with people like Sick Kids' Dr. David Malkin and survivor Helena Kirk to ensure $30 million is directed to children's cancer research, as promised in our platform.I have heard loud and clear from Oakville North—Burlington residents that they support taking greater action on firearms. We have already banned military-style assault rifles and we will continue to implement our commitment to protect Canadians with red flag laws and strengthening measures to control the flow of illegal guns. I am hopeful that we can treat death by firearms as a public health issue.During the pandemic, Halton Women's Place, SAVIS of Halton and Thrive Counselling stepped up to provide a safety net for those facing gender-based violence. We cannot build back better if all Canadians are not safe. We will accelerate investments in shelters and transitional housing and advance our national action plan on gender-based violence. We will be investing in a vast array of infrastructure, including public transit, energy efficient retrofits and affordable housing. We cannot lose focus on the other crisis we face: the climate crisis. Climate action will be at the cornerstone of our plan to support and create a million jobs across the country. Business owners and investors know that climate action is the key to future success. We will make zero-emission vehicles more affordable. The news coming out of Unifor recently about EV production at Ford Canada in Oakville would indeed be great news for our community. This is an ideal opportunity to also invest in e-assist bikes as we look to support the move to electric vehicles.We will ban single-use plastics next year and we will legislate Canada's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and immediately bring forward a plan to exceed our 2030 climate goal.(1625)The fourth pillar is to stand up for who we are as Canadians. I have been incredibly fortunate to work with the Minister of Indigenous Services and his team to support indigenous communities during the pandemic. Our historic investment in urban indigenous organizations like the Toronto Aboriginal Support Services Council is something of which I am particularly proud. We have remained committed to walk the shared path to reconciliation by accelerating work on the National Action Plan in response to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls' calls for justice, making a number of new investments and implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, including introducing legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the end of the year.During the pandemic, another issue came to the forefront. The violence inflicted on Chief Allan Adam and the deaths of Regis Korchinski-Paquet and Ejaz Choudry motivated many Canadians to demand police reform and an end to systemic racism in Canada.We are at a moment when we can take concrete steps to end systemic racism that indigenous people, Black and racialized Canadians have lived with for too long. We will introduce legislation and make investments in the criminal justice system, from diversion and sentencing to rehabilitation and records. Prior to prorogation, as a member of the public safety committee, we were studying systemic racism and policing and we heard that enhanced civilian oversight of our law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, was required. This, along with standards around the use of force and a shift to community-led policing, as well as declaring first nations policing an essential service, are all things we are committing to in the throne speech.The throne speech sets out an ambitious plan for unprecedented times. Together, we can achieve these goals and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to deliver on this plan.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCancerChildrenClimate change and global warmingCompaniesCOVID-19Electric vehiclesEntrepreneurship and entrepreneursEnvironmental protectionEqual opportunitiesGender-based violenceGun controlIncome and wagesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsLong-term careMedical researchPandemicPersons with disabilitiesPharmacarePolice servicesPrescription drugsRacial equalitySenior citizensSheltersStatus of womenSubsidized day careUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesWomen Entrepreneurship Strategy6267036BruceStantonSimcoe NorthGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgOpening of ParliamentSpeech from the ThroneHansard InsertHonourable Senators, Members of the House of Commons,Ladies and Gentlemen,Every day on our shared planet, millions face hardships that test the human spirit. Extreme weather, wildfires, poverty, conflicts, discrimination and inequalities. Rarely though, has all of humanity faced a single common insidious enemy. An invisible enemy that respects no borders, thrives anywhere, hits anyone. To overcome a pandemic requires the work and resolve of every order of government, every community, and every one of us. We don’t decide when hardship comes, but here in Canada, we have decided how we wanted to address it. We have adapted in remarkable ways. We Canadians did our part. We changed our habits, postponed our plans, switched to teleworking or had to completely reinvent our work, all this, while caring for one another. We owe an immense debt to those who served and still serve on the frontlines, to health care personnel and essential workers, women and men in uniform, volunteers and leaders, everywhere in the country. There has been a lot of suffering and we all mourn those who have passed. We trust science to lead the fight until a safe and effective vaccine becomes available. But until then, we must keep our guard up, using the tools that are available to us now — such as testing, treatments and physical distancing measures. Like a reed in high winds, we might sway but we will not break. Because our roots are firmly in place, our goals clear, and because we have hope — the hope that lifts the soul on dark days and keeps us focused on the future. Canadians have lived through uncertain times before and have always prevailed because determination, concern for others, courage, and common sense define our nation. We must bring all those qualities to bear once again and continue to work for the common good, and for a better, safer and more just society. This is who we are and what will see us through to brighter days. OpeningFor over 150 years, Parliamentarians have worked together to chart Canada’s path forward. Your predecessors met when Confederation was only a few months old, setting the course for a young country. They stood united through Canada’s toughest days, leading the nation through wars and depression. And as they did, each Parliamentarian was called to meet their times. Today, Canadians expect you to do the same. They expect you to work together on their behalf and meet this crucial moment. Less than a year ago, we gathered here for a Throne Speech to open the 43rd Parliament. Since then, our realities have changed. And so must our approach. This pandemic is the most serious public health crisis Canada has ever faced. Over 9,000 Canadians have died in six months. For our neighbours in the United States, this figure is over 200,000. Globally, it’s nearly a million. But these aren’t just numbers. These are friends and family. Neighbours and colleagues. The pandemic is the story of parents who have died alone, without loved ones to hold their hand. It is the story of kids who have gone months without seeing friends. Of workers who have lost their jobs. The last six months have laid bare fundamental gaps in our society, and in societies around the world. This pandemic has been hard for everyone. But for those who were already struggling, the burden has been even heavier. For parents — and especially moms — who are facing impossible choices between kids and career. For racialized Canadians and Indigenous Peoples who are confronted by systemic barriers. For young people who are worried about what their future will hold. For seniors who are isolated, frightened, and most at risk. And for workers who, while earning the lowest wages in the most precarious sectors, have been on the frontlines of the pandemic. We must address these challenges of today. But we also cannot forget about the tests of the future. The world came into this pandemic facing the risks and consequences of climate change. A lesson that COVID-19 has taught us, is that we need to match challenges with decisiveness and determination. On all of these fronts — health and the economy, equality and the environment — we must take bold action. The Government will meet these challenges. The Government’s approach will have four foundations. The first foundation of this plan is to fight the pandemic and save lives. The second foundation of the Government’s plan is supporting people and businesses through this crisis as long as it lasts, whatever it takes. Effectively dealing with the health crisis is the best thing we can do for the economy. Government action has already helped Canadians stay safe, and buffered the worst economic impacts. The third foundation is to build back better to create a stronger, more resilient Canada. To do this, we must keep strengthening the middle class and helping people working hard to join it, and continue creating jobs and building long-term competitiveness with clean growth. We must also keep building safer communities for everyone. The fourth and final foundation of this plan is to stand up for who we are as Canadians. We cannot forget what has made us a country that is welcoming. A country that celebrates two official languages. That achieves progress on gender equality, walks the road of reconciliation, and fights discrimination of every kind. This is our generation’s crossroads. Do we move Canada forward, or let people be left behind? Do we come out of this stronger, or paper over the cracks that the crisis has exposed? This is the time to remember who we are as Canadians. This is the opportunity to contain the global crisis and build back better, together. Protecting Canadians from COVID-19The first foundation of the Government’s approach is protecting Canadians from COVID-19. This is priority number one. It is the job of the federal government to look out for all Canadians and especially our most vulnerable. We need to work together. Beating this virus is a Team Canada effort. Over the last six months, Canadians have stood united and strong. Their actions embody what has always been the purpose of the federal government: bringing Canadians together to achieve common goals. Personal protective equipment has been shipped across the country. Members of the Canadian Forces were there in long-term care homes.Close to 9 million Canadians were helped with the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and over 3.5 million jobs were supported by the wage subsidy. The Government will continue to have people’s backs just like Canadians have each other’s backs. Through the first wave, contact tracing and testing ramped up across the country. The surge this fall further reinforces what we already know — that we must do even more. The federal government will be there to help the provinces increase their testing capacity. Canadians should not be waiting in line for hours to get a test. At the same time, the Government is pursuing every technology and every option for faster tests for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. As soon as tests are approved for safe use in Canada, the Government will do everything it can to see them deployed. The Government will also create a federal Testing Assistance Response Team to quickly meet surge testing needs, including in remote and isolated communities. Local public health authorities are the backbone of our nation’s efforts to stop outbreaks before they start. As members of the communities they protect, they know the devastating economic impact a lockdown order can have. To prevent small clusters from becoming major outbreaks, communities may need to enact short-term closure orders. To make that decision easier for the public health authorities, and to help ease the impact that science- and evidence-based decisions can have on local businesses in the short term, the Government will work to target additional financial support directly to businesses which have to temporarily shut down as a result of a local public health decision. This will ensure that decisions are made with the health of Canadians as the first priority. The Government will also continue to work on what communities need more broadly. The Government has already invested over $19 billion for a Safe Restart Agreement with provinces and territories, to support everything from the capacity of health care systems to securing PPE. To address the challenges faced by provinces and territories as they reopen classrooms, the federal government invested $2 billion in the Safe Return to Class Fund, along with new funding for First Nations communities. This is money to keep kids — and staff — safe in the classroom, whether that’s by helping schools buy cleaning supplies or upgrade ventilation. These commitments build on federal investments to support people who are most at risk and those who care for them, including with the federal wage top-up for personal support workers. People on the frontlines who have been looking after seniors do vital work and the Government will continue to have their backs. At the same time, the Government will continue to support Canadians as they take action to keep each other safe. Already, people are doing their part by wearing masks. That’s important, and we can build on that commitment. Working with private sector partners, the federal government created the COVID Alert app. Canadians living in Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan now have an extra tool to keep themselves and others safe. The Government hopes all the others will sign on so that people in all parts of the country can both do their part and be better protected. The Government will also continue to work on getting Canadians the PPE they need. This spring, the Government issued a call, and thousands of Canadian businesses and manufacturers responded. From shop floors to companies big and small, Canada’s dynamic businesses met the challenge as their workers stepped up. And in less than six months, Canadians are now manufacturing almost all types of PPE. The Government will continue building that domestic capacity, while securing supply chains to keep Canadians safe and create jobs. Canadians are pulling together, whether that’s with PPE manufacturing, through the COVID Alert app, or by wearing a mask. In the same way, Canadian researchers and scientists are pitching in to the Team Canada effort with their knowledge and expertise. Vaccine efforts In the long run, the best way to end this pandemic is with a safe and effective vaccine. Canada’s vaccine strategy is all about ensuring that Canadians will be able to get a vaccine once it is ready. There are many types of potential candidates. Canada is exploring the full range of options. The Government has already secured access to vaccine candidates and therapeutics, while investing in manufacturing here at home. And to get the vaccines out to Canadians once they’re ready, the Government has made further investments in our capacity for vaccine distribution. From the Vaccine Task Force that provides the best advice on vaccine purchasing and roll-out, to the Immunity Task Force looking at how COVID-19 is affecting vulnerable populations, Canada’s top scientific minds are guiding the Government every step of the way. Helping Canadians through the pandemicThe medical and scientific fight against this virus is crucial. And so are the livelihoods of every single Canadian, worker, and family. So the second foundation of the Government’s approach is supporting Canadians through this crisis. The economic impact of COVID-19 on Canadians has already been worse than the 2008 financial crisis. These consequences will not be short-lived. This is not the time for austerity. Canada entered this crisis in the best fiscal position of its peers. And the Government is using that fiscal firepower, on things like the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, so that Canadians, businesses, and our entire economy have the support needed to weather the storm. Canadians should not have to choose between health and their job, just like Canadians should not have to take on debt that their government can better shoulder. Creating jobsPeople losing their jobs is perhaps the clearest consequence of the global economic shock that Canadians — like those in other countries — have faced. The CERB helped people stay healthy at home while being able to keep food on the table. The CEWS helped people keep their jobs, or be rehired if they had been laid off. But there is still more to be done. Unemployment is in the double digits, and underemployment is high. Women, racialized Canadians, and young people have borne the brunt of job losses. Canadians need good jobs they can rely on. To help make that happen, the Government will launch a campaign to create over one million jobs, restoring employment to previous levels. This will be done by using a range of tools, including direct investments in the social sector and infrastructure, immediate training to quickly skill up workers, and incentives for employers to hire and retain workers. One way the Government will create these jobs is by extending the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy right through to next summer. The Government will work with businesses and labour to ensure the program meets the needs of the health and economic situation as it evolves. Another example of how the Government will create jobs is by significantly scaling up the Youth Employment and Skills Strategy, to provide more paid work experiences next year for young Canadians. Now, more than ever, Canadians must work together — including by eliminating remaining barriers between provinces to full, free internal trade — to get the economy back up and running and Canadians back to work. Supporting workers and their familiesWith the job losses that Canadians have faced, it became clear early on that many people would need help until they could find work once again. But existing income support systems were not designed to handle this unprecedented situation. That’s why the Government moved quickly to create the Canada Emergency Response Benefit as a temporary program to help millions of Canadians get through a very difficult time. With the economic restart now well underway, CERB recipients should instead be supported by the Employment Insurance system. For people who would not traditionally qualify for EI, the Government will create the transitional Canada Recovery Benefit. Over the coming months, the EI system will become the sole delivery mechanism for employment benefits, including for Canadians who did not qualify for EI before the pandemic. This pandemic has shown that Canada needs an EI system for the 21st century, including for the self-employed and those in the gig economy. Women in the EconomyWomen — and in particular low-income women — have been hit hardest by COVID-19. This crisis has been described as a She-cession. Many women have bravely served on the frontlines of this crisis, in our communities or by shouldering the burden of unpaid care work at home. We must not let the legacy of the pandemic be one of rolling back the clock on women’s participation in the workforce, nor one of backtracking on the social and political gains women and allies have fought so hard to secure. The Government will create an Action Plan for Women in the Economy to help more women get back into the workforce and to ensure a feminist, intersectional response to this pandemic and recovery. This Plan will be guided by a task force of experts whose diverse voices will power a whole of government approach. It has been nearly 50 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women outlined the necessity of child care services for women’s social and economic equality. We have long understood that Canada cannot succeed if half of the population is held back. Canadians need more accessible, affordable, inclusive, and high quality childcare. Recognizing the urgency of this challenge, the Government will make a significant, long-term, sustained investment to create a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system. The Government will build on previous investments, learn from the model that already exists in Quebec, and work with all provinces and territories to ensure that high-quality care is accessible to all. There is broad consensus from all parts of society, including business and labour leaders, that the time is now. The Government also remains committed to subsidizing before- and after-school program costs. With the way that this pandemic has affected parents and families, flexible care options for primary school children are more important than ever. The Government will also accelerate the Women’s Entrepreneurship Strategy, which has already helped women across Canada grow their businesses. Supporting businessesAs the Government invests in people, it will continue to support job-creating businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood of communities and the backbone of the economy. The Government introduced a range of supports for Canadian businesses, from help with payroll through the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy to assistance with expenses through interest-free loans. COVID-19 has caused businesses across the country, both large and small, to rethink their approaches. Entrepreneurs and owners are looking at more digital options, more creative solutions, and more climate-friendly investments. The Government will help businesses adapt for the future and thrive. This fall, in addition to extending the wage subsidy, the Government will take further steps to bridge vulnerable businesses to the other side of the pandemic by: Expanding the Canada Emergency Business Account to help businesses with fixed costs; Improving the Business Credit Availability Program; And introducing further support for industries that have been the hardest hit, including travel and tourism, hospitality, and cultural industries like the performing arts. Fiscal sustainabilityThis COVID-19 emergency has had huge costs. But Canada would have had a deeper recession and a bigger long-term deficit if the Government had done less. With interest rates so low, central banks can only do so much to help. There is a global consensus that governments must do more. Government can do so while also locking in the low cost of borrowing for decades to come. This Government will preserve Canada’s fiscal advantage and continue to be guided by values of sustainability and prudence. There are two distinct needs. The first is to help Canadians in the short term, to do whatever it takes, using whatever fiscal firepower is needed to support people and businesses during the pandemic. The best way to keep the economy strong is to keep Canadians healthy. The second need is to build back better, with a sustainable approach for future generations. As the Government builds a plan for stimulus and recovery, this must be done responsibly. In the longer term, the Government will focus on targeted investments to strengthen the middle class, build resiliency, and generate growth. The Government will also identify additional ways to tax extreme wealth inequality, including by concluding work to limit the stock option deduction for wealthy individuals at large, established corporations, and addressing corporate tax avoidance by digital giants. Web giants are taking Canadians’ money while imposing their own priorities. Things must change, and will change. The Government will act to ensure their revenue is shared more fairly with our creators and media, and will also require them to contribute to the creation, production, and distribution of our stories, on screen, in lyrics, in music, and in writing. This fall, the Government will release an update to Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan. This will outline the Government’s economic and fiscal position, provide fiscal projections, and set out new measures to implement this Throne Speech. This update will make clear that the strength of the middle class, and the wellbeing of all Canadians, remain Canada’s key measures of success. Building back better — a resiliency agenda for the middle classAs we fight for every Canadian and defend everyone’s ability to succeed, we also need to focus on the future, and on building back better. This forms the third foundation of the Government’s approach. Around the world, advanced economies are realizing that things should not go back to business as usual. COVID-19 has exposed the vulnerabilities in our societies. The Government will create a resiliency agenda for the middle class and people working hard to join it. This will include addressing the gaps in our social systems, investing in health care, and creating jobs. It will also include fighting climate change, and maintaining a commitment to fiscal sustainability and economic growth as the foundation of a strong and vibrant society. Addressing gaps in our social systemsCentral to this is recognizing that one of the greatest tragedies of this pandemic is the lives lost in long-term care homes. Elders deserve to be safe, respected, and live in dignity. Although long-term care falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, the federal government will take any action it can to support seniors while working alongside the provinces and territories. The Government will work with Parliament on Criminal Code amendments to explicitly penalize those who neglect seniors under their care, putting them in danger. The Government will also: Work with the provinces and territories to set new, national standards for long-term care so that seniors get the best support possible; And take additional action to help people stay in their homes longer. The Government remains committed to increasing Old Age Security once a senior turns 75, and boosting the Canada Pension Plan survivor’s benefit. The Government will look at further targeted measures for personal support workers, who do an essential service helping the most vulnerable in our communities. Canada must better value their work and their contributions to our society. COVID-19 has disproportionately affected Canadians with disabilities, and highlighted long-standing challenges. The Government will bring forward a Disability Inclusion Plan, which will have: A new Canadian Disability Benefit modelled after the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors; A robust employment strategy for Canadians with disabilities; And a better process to determine eligibility for Government disability programs and benefits. Over the last six months, it has become clearer than ever why Canadians need a resilient health care system. The Government will ensure that everyone — including in rural and remote areas — has access to a family doctor or primary care team. COVID-19 has also shown that our system needs to be more flexible and able to reach people at home. The Government will continue to expand capacity to deliver virtual health care. The Government will also continue to address the opioid epidemic tearing through communities, which is an ongoing and worsening public health crisis. Additionally, the Government will further increase access to mental health resources. All Canadians should have the care they need, when they need it. We will all be stronger for it. The same goes for access to the medicine that keeps people healthy. Many Canadians who had drug plans through work lost this coverage when they were laid off because of the pandemic. So this is exactly the right moment to ramp up efforts to address that. The Government remains committed to a national, universal pharmacare program and will accelerate steps to achieve this system including: Through a rare-disease strategy to help Canadian families save money on high-cost drugs; Establishing a national formulary to keep drug prices low; And working with provinces and territories willing to move forward without delay. In addition to good health infrastructure, Canadians also need strong, safe communities to call home. The Government has banned assault-style firearms. The Government will also continue implementing firearms policy commitments, including: Giving municipalities the ability to further restrict or ban handguns; And strengthening measures to control the flow of illegal guns into Canada. Women’s safety must be the foundation on which all progress is built. The Government will accelerate investments in shelters and transition housing, and continue to advance with a National Action Plan on Gender-Based Violence. To keep building strong communities, over the next two years the Government will also invest in all types of infrastructure, including public transit, energy efficient retrofits, clean energy, rural broadband, and affordable housing, particularly for Indigenous Peoples and northern communities. In the last six months, many more people have worked from home, done classes from the kitchen table, shopped online, and accessed government services remotely. So it has become more important than ever that all Canadians have access to the internet. The Government will accelerate the connectivity timelines and ambitions of the Universal Broadband Fund to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to high-speed internet. And to further link our communities together, the Government will work with partners to support regional routes for airlines. It is essential that Canadians have access to reliable and affordable regional air services. This is an issue of equity, of jobs, and of economic development. The Government will work to support this. Strong communities are places where everyone has a safe, affordable home. No one should be without a place to stay during a pandemic, or for that matter, a Canadian winter. This week, the Government invested more than $1 billion for people experiencing homelessness, including for this fall. In 2017, the Government announced that it would reduce chronic homelessness by 50 percent. The Government has already helped more than a million people get a safe and affordable place to call home. Given the progress that has been made, and our commitment to do more, the Government is now focused on entirely eliminating chronic homelessness in Canada. At the same time, the Government will also make substantial investments in housing for Canadians. The Government will add to the historic National Housing Strategy announced in 2017 by increasing investments to rapid housing in the short term, and partnering with not-for-profits and co-ops in the mid- to long-term. For the middle class, the Government will also move forward with enhancements to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, including in Canada’s largest cities, so families can afford to buy their first home. Housing is something everyone deserves, and it’s also a key driver of the economy. Construction projects create jobs, and having a home is critical so people can contribute to their communities. Just like everyone deserves a home, everyone deserves to be able to put nutritious food on the table. The pandemic has made that harder for Canadians. The Government will continue to work with partners — including directly with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Nation partners — to address food insecurity in Canada. The Government will also strengthen local food supply chains here in Canada. The Canadian and migrant workers who produce, harvest, and process our food — from people picking fruit to packing seafood — have done an outstanding job getting good food on people’s plates. They deserve the Government’s full support and protection. The Government will also ensure that those in Canada’s supply managed sectors receive full and fair compensation for recent trade agreements. Farmers keep our families fed, and we will continue to help them succeed and grow. A stronger workforceThis pandemic has revealed gaps in health, housing, and food supply. And it has also laid bare inequalities Canadians face in the workforce. We have an opportunity to not just support Canadians, but grow their potential. Working with the provinces and territories, the Government will make the largest investment in Canadian history in training for workers. This will include by: Supporting Canadians as they build new skills in growing sectors; Helping workers receive education and accreditation; And strengthening workers’ futures, by connecting them to employers and good jobs, in order to grow and strengthen the middle class. From researchers developing vaccines, to entrepreneurs building online stores, this pandemic has reminded us of the power of the knowledge economy, and how vital it is for our future. Canadians are leading, and they should have government services that keep up. The Government will make generational investments in updating outdated IT systems to modernize the way that Government serves Canadians, from the elderly to the young, from people looking for work to those living with a disability. The Government will also work to introduce free, automatic tax filing for simple returns to ensure citizens receive the benefits they need. Government must remain agile, and ready for what lies ahead. Taking action on extreme risks from climate changeClimate action will be a cornerstone of our plan to support and create a million jobs across the country. This is where the world is going. Global consumers and investors are demanding and rewarding climate action. Canadians have the determination and ingenuity to rise to this challenge and global market opportunity. We can create good jobs today and a globally competitive economy not just next year, but in 2030, 2040, and beyond. Canadians also know climate change threatens our health, way of life, and planet. They want climate action now, and that is what the Government will continue to deliver. The Government will immediately bring forward a plan to exceed Canada’s 2030 climate goal. The Government will also legislate Canada’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. As part of its plan, the Government will: Create thousands of jobs retrofitting homes and buildings, cutting energy costs for Canadian families and businesses; Invest in reducing the impact of climate-related disasters, like floods and wildfires, to make communities safer and more resilient; Help deliver more transit and active transit options; And make zero-emissions vehicles more affordable while investing in more charging stations across the country. A good example of adapting to a carbon-neutral future is building zero-emissions vehicles and batteries. Canada has the resources — from nickel to copper — needed for these clean technologies. This — combined with Canadian expertise — is Canada’s competitive edge. The Government will launch a new fund to attract investments in making zero-emissions products and cut the corporate tax rate in half for these companies to create jobs and make Canada a world leader in clean technology. The Government will ensure Canada is the most competitive jurisdiction in the world for clean technology companies. Additionally, the Government will: Transform how we power our economy and communities by moving forward with the Clean Power Fund, including with projects like the Atlantic Loop that will connect surplus clean power to regions transitioning away from coal; And support investments in renewable energy and next-generation clean energy and technology solutions. Canada cannot reach net zero without the know-how of the energy sector, and the innovative ideas of all Canadians, including people in places like British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The Government will: Support manufacturing, natural resource, and energy sectors as they work to transform to meet a net zero future, creating good-paying and long-lasting jobs; And recognize farmers, foresters, and ranchers as key partners in the fight against climate change, supporting their efforts to reduce emissions and build resilience. The Government will continue its policy of putting a price on pollution, while putting that money back in the pockets of Canadians. It cannot be free to pollute. This pandemic has reminded Canadians of the importance of nature. The Government will work with municipalities as part of a new commitment to expand urban parks, so that everyone has access to green space. This will be done while protecting a quarter of Canada’s land and a quarter of Canada’s oceans in five years, and using nature-based solutions to fight climate change, including by planting two billion trees. The Government will ban harmful single-use plastics next year and ensure more plastic is recycled. And the Government will also modernize Canada’s Environmental Protection Act. When the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration was closed by a previous government, Canada lost an important tool to manage its waters. The Government will create a new Canada Water Agency to keep our water safe, clean, and well-managed. The Government will also identify opportunities to build more resilient water and irrigation infrastructure. At the same time, the Government will look at continuing to grow Canada’s ocean economy to create opportunities for fishers and coastal communities, while advancing reconciliation and conservation objectives. Investing in the Blue Economy will help Canada prosper. The Canada we’re fighting for This is a fight for Canadians today and Canada tomorrow. So we must never forget the values that make us who we are. The fourth and final foundation of the Government’s approach is defending Canadian values and ensuring they are lived experiences for everyone. Canada is a place where we take care of each other. This has helped Canada weather the pandemic better than many other countries. Canada must continue to stand up for the values that define this country, whether that’s welcoming newcomers, celebrating with pride the contributions of LGBTQ2 communities, or embracing two official languages. There is work still to be done, including on the road of reconciliation, and in addressing systemic racism. ReconciliationThroughout the pandemic, the Government has made it a priority to support Indigenous communities, which has helped contain the spread of COVID-19 and kept people safe. That is something the Government will continue to do. The Government will walk the shared path of reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, and remain focused on implementing the commitments made in 2019. However, the pandemic has shown that we need to keep moving forward even faster on a number of fronts including by: Expediting work to co-develop distinctions-based Indigenous health legislation with First Nations, Inuit, and the Métis Nation, and a distinctions-based mental health and wellness strategy; Accelerating work on the National Action Plan in response to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls for Justice, as well as implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action; And continuing to close the infrastructure gap in Indigenous communities, working on a distinctions-basis with First Nations, Inuit, and the Métis Nation to accelerate the government’s 10-year commitment. The Government will also: Make additional resiliency investments to meet the clean drinking water commitment in First Nations communities; And support additional capacity-building for First Nations, Inuit, and the Métis Nation. The Government will move forward to introduce legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples before the end of this year. Addressing systemic racismFor too many Canadians, systemic racism is a lived reality. We know that racism did not take a pause during the pandemic. On the contrary, COVID-19 has hit racialized Canadians especially hard. Many people — especially Indigenous people, and Black and racialized Canadians — have raised their voices and stood up to demand change. They are telling us we must do more. The Government agrees. The Government pledged to address systemic racism, and committed to do so in a way informed by the lived experiences of racialized communities and Indigenous Peoples. The Government has invested in economic empowerment through the Black Entrepreneurship Program, while working to close the gaps in services for Indigenous communities. Important steps were taken with the release of Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy for 2019-2022, the creation of an anti-racism secretariat, and the appointment of the first-ever Minister focused specifically on diversity and inclusion. This is all good, but much more needs to be done for permanent, transformative change to take shape. The Government will redouble its efforts by: Taking action on online hate; Going further on economic empowerment for specific communities, and increasing diversity on procurement; Building a whole-of-federal-government approach around better collection of disaggregated data; Implementing an action plan to increase representation in hiring and appointments, and leadership development within the Public Service; And taking new steps to support the artistic and economic contributions of Black Canadian culture and heritage. Progress must also be made throughout the policing and justice systems. All Canadians must have the confidence that the justice system is there to protect them, not to harm them. Black Canadians and Indigenous Peoples are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. That has to change. The Government will take steps to ensure that the strong hand of criminal justice is used where it is needed to keep people safe, but not where it would be discriminatory or counterproductive. The Government will: Introduce legislation and make investments that take action to address the systemic inequities in all phases of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing, from rehabilitation to records; Move forward on enhanced civilian oversight of our law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP; Modernize training for police and law enforcement, including addressing standards around the use of force; Move forward on RCMP reforms, with a shift toward community-led policing; And accelerate work to co-develop a legislative framework for First Nations policing as an essential service. Protecting two official languagesOur two official languages are woven into the fabric of our country. The defence of the rights of Francophones outside Quebec, and the defence of the rights of the Anglophone minority within Quebec, is a priority for the Government. The Government of Canada must also recognize that the situation of French is unique. There are almost 8 million Francophones in Canada within a region of over 360 million inhabitants who are almost exclusively Anglophone. The Government therefore has the responsibility to protect and promote French not only outside of Quebec, but also within Quebec. In this vein, 51 years after the passage of the Official Languages Act, the Government is committed to strengthening this legislation among other things, taking into consideration the unique reality of French. A welcoming CanadaImmigration remains a driver of Canada’s economic growth. With other countries rejecting global talent that could help their economy, Canada has an opportunity as we recover to become the world’s top destination for talent, capital, and jobs. When people choose Canada, help build Canada, and make sacrifices in support of Canada, we should make it easier for them to formally become Canadian. Earlier this year, the Government announced measures to grant permanent residency to people who, although not Canadian citizens, had cared for the most vulnerable in long-term care homes and other medical facilities. The Government will continue to bring in newcomers and support family reunification. We know that there is an economic and human advantage to having families together. As part of both the short-term economic recovery and a long-term plan for growth, the Government will leverage the advantage we have on immigration to keep Canada competitive on the world stage. Canada in the worldWe must take action on all of these priorities at home. But we must also address the world in which we live. COVID-19 has accelerated the existing trends toward a more fragmented global order. It remains in Canada’s interest to create and maintain bilateral and multilateral relationships to advance peace and economic prosperity. The Government will invest more in international development while supporting developing countries on their economic recoveries and resilience. Canada will also support work to ensure that people around the world have access to a vaccine. We cannot eliminate this pandemic in Canada unless we end it everywhere. The Government will also continue to stand up for human rights and the rule of law. It is unacceptable that any citizen be arbitrarily detained. Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor must be brought home. This is something for which all Canadians stand united. The Government will continue to fight for free trade, including by leading the Ottawa Group to reform the World Trade Organization. Our likeminded allies and partners are investing to make sure their societies emerge stronger. This Government’s plan does that as well. ConclusionTaken together, this is an ambitious plan for an unprecedented reality. The course of events will determine what needs to be done when. But throughout, protecting and supporting Canadians will stay the top priority. And the core values that have driven the Government since day one remain the same. In 2015, Canadians asked their government to deliver real change on everything from middle class jobs to climate change. In 2019, the people chose a Parliament that would keep moving forward on these shared goals. And in 2020, Canadians expect nothing less. It is no small task to build a stronger, more resilient country. It will take hard work. It will require a commitment to finding common ground. Parliamentarians, Canadians have placed a trust in you to guide this country forward. They have placed their faith in you to work together to meet whatever challenges we face. Remember that we are here today because of the generations of Canadians who came before us. We are here because of the women and men — our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents — who had the courage to reach for a better future. Today, it is our turn. Our moment to build a stronger and more resilient Canada for everyone. Members of the House of Commons, you will be asked to appropriate the funds to carry out the services and expenditures authorized by Parliament. Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Commons, may you be equal to the profound trust bestowed on you by Canadians, and may Divine Providence guide you in all your duties.Adult education and trainingAirlinesApplication processApplication softwareArts, recreation and travelBanks and bankingBlack CanadiansBlack Entrepreneurship ProgramBroadband FundBroadband Internet servicesBudgetary policyBuilding a Foundation for Change: Canada's Anti-Racism Strategy 2019-2022Business Credit Availability ProgramCanada Emergency Business AccountCanada Emergency Response BenefitCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyCanada Pension PlanCanada Recovery BenefitCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCanadian ForcesCanadians in foreign countriesCarbon pricingCarbon taxCaregivers and health care professionalsCharging stationsChildrenChinaCities and townsClean Energy Fund ProgramClimate change and global warmingClosing of facilitiesCommunities and collectivitiesCompaniesCompetitionCorporate income taxCostsCOVID-19Crime and criminalityCriminal CodeDeaths and funeralsDigital economyDigital media receiversDistribution and service industriesDrinking waterDrug use and abuseEconomic conditionsEconomic policyEconomic recoveryEconomics and financeEducation and traininge-fileElementary schoolsEmployment insuranceEnergy and fuelEntrepreneurship and entrepreneursEnvironmental protectionEpidemiologyEqual opportunitiesEssential servicesFamily reunificationFarming and farmersFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFirst NationsFirst-Time Home Buyer IncentiveFisheries and fishersFood and beverage manufacturing industryFood supplyForeign workersFree tradeFrenchGender-based violenceGovernment assistanceGovernment contractsGreenhouse gasesGreenspacesGun controlHandgunsHate propagandaHealth care systemHealth emergenciesHealth screeningHealth services accessibilityHome ownershipHomelessness and homelessHomicideHousing repairs and renovationImmigration and immigrantsImmunizationImprisonment and prisonersIncome and wagesIncome tax returnsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous reservesIndigenous rightsInformation collectionInformation technologyInfrastructureInquiries and public inquiriesInterest ratesInternational development and aidInternational relationsInterprovincial relationsJob creationJustice systemLabour forceLabour marketLand useLayoffs and job lossesLinguistic minoritiesLoansLong-term careMental healthMissing personsNational Housing StrategyNational Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and GirlsNatural disastersNew BrunswickNew technologiesNewfoundland and LabradorNorthern CanadaOfficial languages policyOld Age SecurityOntarioOpiates and opioidsPandemicParliamentariansPermanent resident statusPersonal income taxPersonal protective equipmentPersons with disabilitiesPharmacarePlasticsPolice servicesPolitical appointmentsPolitical leadership and leadersPrairie Farm Rehabilitation AdministrationPrescription drugsPublic healthPublic Service and public servantsPublic transitRacial equalityRacial profilingRare and orphan diseasesRecessionRegional developmentRemote communitiesRenewable energy and fuelRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceRural communitiesSafe Restart AgreementSafe Return to Class FundSaskatchewanScientific research and scientistsSenior citizensSheltersSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSmugglingSocial distancingSocial housingSpeech from the ThroneStaffingStatus of womenStocks, shares and shareholdersSubsidized day careSupply managementTelehealthTeleworkingTransfers to provinces and territoriesTree plantingTruth and Reconciliation Commission of CanadaUnemployment and jobseekingUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesUnited States of AmericaUse of forceValues of CanadiansViolence against womenVisible minoritiesWaste recyclingWater resourcesWater treatmentWeb giantsWeb search enginesWomenWomen Entrepreneurship StrategyWork-based trainingWorkersYoung peopleYouth employmentYouth Employment and Skills StrategyZero emission vehicles6265740AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84660EmmanuelDubourgEmmanuel-DubourgBourassaLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DubourgEmmanuel_Lib.jpgSpeech from the ThroneAddress in ReplyInterventionMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): (1635)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Speech from the Throne.At a time when the world is beset by an insidious virus and our government is building the foundations of a response that is strong, bold and responsible, I would like to start by thanking all those who have been on the front lines during the pandemic and who are still working hard as we speak to save the lives of the most vulnerable Canadians.This message is especially important to me, because many of my constituents are front-line workers, and quite a few of them are members of my own community. I honour them for their courage, their sense of duty and their compassion. I am thinking in particular of those working behind the scenes, who get up every morning and jump back into the fray, and who sometimes end up paying the price. My thoughts go out to all the Canadians who are hurting after recently losing a loved one. On behalf of our government, I want to extend our deepest condolences to these people and to their friends and families. I salute all the people of the riding of Bourassa, which I have the great privilege of representing here in the House of Commons of Canada. Like us, they are fighting this pandemic. I would also like to thank community organizations, countless volunteers, the business community and of course elected officials for their efforts. We must continue to be vigilant and follow the guidelines.I hardly need to remind anyone that our reality has changed. We have gone through some tough months, and now the second wave is upon us.Let me paint a picture of the current situation. COVID-19 has killed more than 9,000 Canadians. South of the border, it has taken the lives of more than 200,000 people. Around the world, the death toll will soon surpass one million. Almost nine million Canadians have lost their jobs in the last few months. Some are back at work, but millions of Canadians are still out of a job.Some groups of people are particularly vulnerable. The pandemic has hit racialized people very hard. It has hit parents and mothers, who are often torn between their families and careers; young people who have lost their jobs and are worried about their future; our elderly fathers, mothers, aunts and uncles, who know they are more vulnerable and sometimes live in fear and isolation; and the precarious, low-income workers we depended on in grocery stores, care homes and the service sector in general.We have all been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and over the past few months, our government has been there for Canadians. The Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency student benefit were brought in to quickly help Canadians who had lost their jobs. As we announced recently, those benefits will be gradually transitioned to the EI program in order to help the economic recovery. The Canada recovery sickness benefit will be available to Canadians who are unable to work because they are sick or must self-isolate due to COVID-19. Those last two measures should be implemented in the next few weeks.We have also helped businesses get through this crisis. Our government's goal is to prevent layoffs, encourage businesses to rehire their employees and create new jobs. That is why we created the Canada emergency wage subsidy and why we have been improving it as we go along; it must meet the needs of businesses.Lastly, our government has been there to support agriculture, agri-food, culture, heritage and sports, tourism and many other sectors. Moreover, we have also been there for the provinces during this crisis, providing support in various ways. Our government worked to ensure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment while bolstering the development of domestic production capacity. We also developed the COVID Alert app, which is now available and offers one more tool for curbing the pandemic.(1640)I want to take this opportunity to invite residents of Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan to download the app and use it. Everyone can contribute. We invite the other provinces to follow suit.We have secured access to candidate vaccines and therapeutics and are funding their development here in Canada. At the request of certain provinces, the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed to long-term care facilities to help regain control of the situation.Under the $19-billion safe restart agreement between the federal government and the provinces, we are contributing to all their efforts from supporting the capacity of our health care systems to the procurement of personal protective equipment.The federal government has also invested $2 billion in the safe return to class fund. By all accounts, our government has not hesitated to be there for Canadians, businesses, and the provinces and territories, to ensure the health and safety of all Canadians.Nonetheless, this is not over. We still have a lot to do. Our government is proposing four priorities.The first, obviously, is to protect the health of Canadians. We must continue to ramp up testing and contact tracing across the country. Canadians must be able to access testing quickly. To that end, our government will establish a testing assistance response team to quickly meet urgent needs, including in remote and isolated communities. We will also continue our efforts to ensure that Canadians can get the protective equipment they need. We will keep Canadians safe, and we will create jobs in the process.We will be there to financially support businesses that will have to close their doors to curb transmission on the advice of public health authorities.We will continue to work on securing a vaccine and the therapeutics we need. In the long run, that is how we are going to get through this pandemic.The second part of our government's plan is to continue to support Canadians and businesses. We will continue with what is working well. The Canada emergency wage subsidy will be extended until next summer. We will continue to work with business to ensure that this subsidy meets their needs. We will continue the Canada emergency business account, the business credit availability program and further targeted assistance measures for industries, such as travel and tourism, hospitality, and cultural industries like the performing arts.For young people, we will significantly scale up the youth employment and skills strategy, to provide more paid work experiences next summer for young Canadians. We also believe that Canadians must work together to eliminate the remaining barriers between provinces to full, free internal trade. Our objective is to create one million jobs to restore employment to pre-pandemic levels. We will increase investments in infrastructure and in the social sector. We will provide assistance to help workers skill up and return to work. We will implement measures to encourage employers to hire and retain workers. The pandemic has hit women especially hard. That is why our government will put forward an action plan for women in the economy to help more women get back into the workforce.(1645)Our government is drawing on Quebec's approach to make a significant, sustained, long-term investment in creating a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. We will also support parents and families by subsidizing before- and after-school program costs.We will also identify new ways to tax extreme wealth inequality, such as by limiting stock option deductions and cracking down on tax avoidance by digital giants. Third, we need to think about the future now, in order to build back even better. COVID-19 has exposed a number of vulnerabilities within our societies. What has happened to our seniors is one of the tragedies of the past few months. We will work with the provinces and territories and do everything we can to support seniors. First, we will amend the Criminal Code to explicitly penalize those who neglect or endanger any seniors under their care. We will set new national standards for long-term care. We will take action to help people continue to live in their own homes. We will look at various ways we can help personal support workers.We also remain committed to increasing old age security. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that our seniors are safe and live with respect and dignity.Canadians living with disabilities have also suffered. To rebuild and improve our social safety net, we will create a new benefit specifically for people with disabilities. We will begin setting the foundation for a universal pharmacare program, focusing first on rare diseases. We will work with the provinces and territories willing to move forward without delay.To build back better, we are investing in public transit, energy efficient retrofits, clean energy and affordable housing. We are also making major investments in rural broadband service, as the past several months have shown how important it is for Canadians to have Internet access. We will accelerate the ambitions of the universal broadband fund to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to high-speed Internet. Our government will ensure that those in Canada’s supply-managed sectors receive full and fair compensation for recent trade agreements.Climate change will be central to our building back plan, which seeks to create a million jobs across the country. We plan to exceed Canada's 2030 climate goal and legislate Canada's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. To that end, we will launch a new fund to attract investments in making zero-emissions products and cut the corporate tax rate in half for these companies to create jobs and make Canada a world leader in clean technology. The fourth priority for all our government's actions is to defend Canadian values and ensure that our efforts benefit everyone. It is important to acknowledge that the situation of French is unique. Defending the rights of francophone minorities outside Quebec and anglophone minorities in Quebec are a priority for our government.Furthermore, there is clearly more to be done on reconciliation and the fight against systemic racism, and we acknowledge that.(1650)First, we will accelerate work on the national action plan in response to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls' calls for justice and implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. We will work with first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation partners to develop distinctions-based indigenous health legislation and a distinctions-based mental health and wellness strategy.Finally, we will actively continue our efforts to close the infrastructure gap in indigenous communities. We will also introduce legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples before the end of the year. Systemic racism is a lived reality for many Canadians, and I can attest to that. Our government will combat systemic racism. We will work hard to take action on online hate, go further on economic empowerment for specific communities and increase diversity on procurement. We will build a government approach around better collection of disaggregated data. We will increase representation in hiring and appointments, and in leadership development within the public service. We will take new steps to support the artistic and economic contributions of Black Canadian culture and heritage.That is not all. We will introduce legislation to address the systemic inequities in the criminal justice system. We will enhance civilian oversight of our law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP. We will modernize training for police and law enforcement.I am proud that our government announced in today's throne speech that it will ensure the health and safety of Canadians during the global pandemic. We will be here to keep Canadians healthy, protect their jobs and keep them safe. Yes, I am proud of our government. We will always be here to help our seniors, our young people, our families, and the most vulnerable members of society get through these tough times. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Davenport, that the following address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:Motion To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Julie Payette, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.May it please Your Excellency: We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneBroadband Internet servicesCanada Emergency Business AccountCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyClimate change and global warmingContact tracingCOVID-19Education and trainingElectronic commerceEqual opportunitiesFarming and farmersHealth screeningHomicideImmunizationIncome and wagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsInquiries and public inquiriesInterprovincial tradeJob creationLabour marketLoansMissing personsMotionsNational Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and GirlsOfficial languages policyOld Age SecurityPandemicPersonal protective equipmentPersons with disabilitiesPharmacareRacial equalityRural communitiesSafe Restart AgreementSafe Return to Class FundSenior citizensSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSubsidized day careTaxationTransfers to provinces and territoriesUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesViolence against womenWomenYouth employmentYouth Employment and Skills Strategy6265856AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingEricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a second petition from members in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The petitioners ask that the government commit to uphold the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada by immediately halting all existing and planned construction of the Coastal GasLink project on Wet'suwet'en territory; ordering the RCMP to dismantle its exclusion zone and stand down; schedule nation-to-nation talks between the Wet'suwet'en nation and federal and provincial governments, which I am glad to see has happened; and prioritize the real implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 431-00147Wet'suwet'en First Nation60968146096815PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to present an e-petition that was started by one of my constituents from Galiano Island. I want send a shout-out to Christina Kovacevic for starting the petition, which has accumulated more than 15,000 signatures.It calls on the government, as other petitioners today have mentioned, to observe and respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly in relation to the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and land claims; to halt all existing and planned construction of the Coastal GasLink project on their territory; to ask the RCMP to dismantle its exclusion zone; to have nation-to-nation talks, which, we note with real gratitude to the ministers involved, have happened, and there is an agreement currently under consideration with the Wet'suwet'en; and to make sure that it continues toward real implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 431-00152Wet'suwet'en First Nation60968256096826LaurelCollinsVictoriaLenoreZannCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition. It is similar to other petitions presented today. It calls on the government to uphold the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action by immediately halting existing and planned construction of the Coastal GasLink project on Wet'suwet'en territory; asking the RCMP to dismantle its exclusion zone and stand down; scheduling nation-to-nation talks with the Wet'suwet'en, which has happened; and prioritizing the real implementation of UNDRIP.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 431-00156Wet'suwet'en First Nation6096835JenicaAtwinFrederictonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105221LindsayMathyssenLindsay-MathyssenLondon—FanshaweNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MathyssenLindsay_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActInterventionMs. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-4, the Canada–United States–Mexico agreement implementation act. I would specifically like to thank my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for his work on this file. Through extensive negotiation with the government, I am so proud that my colleague secured more openness and transparency for Canada's trade process.Too often the opposition says that the NDP does not understand trade, but this could not be further from the truth. What we do not support is the neo-liberal trade agenda. New Democrats understand the importance of our trading relationship with the U.S., our largest trading partner, and we believe that a better NAFTA could improve the welfare of all North Americans. We believe that all trade agreements must be transparent, inclusive and forward-looking. They must address important issues, like income inequality, sovereignty and climate change. Above all, they must strengthen human rights. They must be transparent and fair for everyone.Too many trade agreements are approached with the idea of how to make the rich richer. They focus on growing the wealth and power of those who already hold a great deal of wealth and power. They do not consider bettering the lives of all Canadians.Certainly, people in southwestern Ontario, in my riding, know all too well what Liberal- and Conservative-negotiated trade agreements have created for them and their families. We see what were once highly productive manufacturing hubs now boarded up. One only has to drive along Dundas Street in London, Ontario to know the history of these trade agreements, and what it means to workers in my riding.The original NAFTA was negotiated by Conservatives and signed by Liberals in 1994. People were promised jobs, rising productivity and secure access to the largest market in the world. It seemed like we were on the cusp of a dream, and all we had to do was sell our soul to cash in.What happened was far from that dream, and instead Canadian workers faced a nightmare. Canada lost over 400,000 manufacturing jobs and its textile industry. In addition, Canada paid millions of dollars in court fees and penalties when sued by corporations under the ISDS resolution mechanism.Despite some improvements, this NAFTA continues a disturbing trend of giving more enforceable rights to corporations in trade agreements than to the real people involved and the environment. Over the last 25 years, because of NAFTA, our North American auto and manufacturing industry has become highly dependent on the integrated supply chain. In fact, automobiles and parts will often cross our borders hundreds of times before a vehicle is completed. Since 2001, after we lost the Auto Pact, 44,000 Canadian auto jobs were lost. After this devastating announcement at GM in Oshawa a few years ago, Canadians are learning that no amount of language in free trade deals, including the new NAFTA, will stop corporations from leaving Canada and heading to Mexico, where they are taking advantage of a low-wage economy and a country that does not respect the environment. Workers are left to fend for themselves, despite the fact that the Liberals will say that this agreement is good for the automotive sector. In fact, Liberals also ensured that GM Oshawa had no ties to Canada once they provided a multi-million-dollar bailout, and let the corporation off the hook from ever paying Canadians back.The Liberals were nowhere to be found when those GM auto workers were fighting for their jobs in Oshawa. They were certainly not on the front lines, desperately searching for answers about their future or their livelihoods. Interestingly, the Liberals claimed they were working hard for auto workers by signing the new NAFTA last spring. They insisted that the deal was fantastic and no improvements could be made. Funnily enough, the American Democrats proved them wrong. It would seem that the Liberals were not the skilled negotiators they claimed to be.At every step of the process, the Liberals have said the same thing, that this trade agreement is a great deal. First, they said they were happy with the original NAFTA and did not want to renegotiate. Then they said the first version of CUSMA was the best we could get, and now they say this latest version is the best that they can get. Well which one is it? When the NDP called on the government to wait to ratify the first version of CUSMA so the Democrats in the States could improve it, Deputy Prime Minister said: Mr. Speaker, what the NDP needs to understand is that reopening this agreement would be like opening Pandora's box ... It would be naive for the NDP to believe that Canadians would benefit from reopening this agreement. However, the Liberals are now keen to brag about improvements made by Democrats in the United States. Income and wealth inequality in Canada today is at a crisis level with 46% of Canadians $200 away from financial trouble. Working people, like people in London—Fanshawe, are struggling to get by and the wonders of this new NAFTA, like the old NAFTA, will not materialize for the majority of people in my riding. The fact of the matter is that neo-liberal trade agreements do not work for workers.New Democrats have been consistent in our calls for a transparent trade process in Canada that makes the government more accountable and allows Parliament to play a greater role than that of a simple rubber stamp. The Liberals over-promised and under-delivered on holding meaningful public consultations on this agreement. (1540)The NDP believes that in all trade negotiations, the government should consult Canadians and their members of Parliament from all parties in a meaningful, comprehensive and public way.I would like to address some of the concerns that I have about chapter 11, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. We are pleased with the elimination of chapter 11; there is no doubt about that. However, it has been replaced with mandatory regulatory co-operation, and further influence has been given to corporations. While, in principle, international regulatory co-operation has the potential to raise standards, experts argue that under the new terms, corporate influence has increased at the expense of public protections, and it limits government's ability to regulate in areas such as toxic chemicals, food safety, rail safety, workers' health and safety, and the environment.This agreement would give corporations advance notice of new regulations and ensure that they are allowed a consultation process before any regulation goes through a legislative process.Regulatory co-operation is subject to dispute resolution. This means corporations can still directly challenge government actions, which is the highest form of regulatory chill. Regulators have to vigorously defend proposed regulations and are even required to suggest alternatives that do not involve regulating. They have to provide extensive analysis, including cost benefits, to industry. This makes governments accountable to industry, not to people.I would also like to address the gender concerns that I have in this agreement. The Liberals promised an entire chapter to promote gender equality, and this was not delivered in CUSMA. The Liberals appear to have abandoned their promise before it could take root. Their limited language regarding the importance of gender equality does not exist, as there is no gender chapter.Experts testified at the international trade committee that these agreements should not just have a gender chapter, though, but that they must also mainstream gender rights throughout the entirety of an agreement, and that gender equality does not concern only the issues of women entrepreneurs and business owners.The only chapter that addresses the links between gender and trade in any substantive fashion is the labour chapter. Otherwise, the addition of gender equality language is more superficial than substantive. Labour rights must also address injustices to women, like pay inequity, child labour and poor working conditions. The NDP believes that for an agreement to be truly progressive when it comes to gender rights, it must address the systemic inequalities of all women. The NDP believes that both a gender analysis and a gendered impact assessment must be applied to all trade agreements.A professor in my hometown of London, Dr. Erin Hannah, testified to the international trade committee: Overwhelmingly we've put attention on women entrepreneurs in the gender in global trade agenda. That's important.... But the lion's share of women in the developing world work in the informal economy. We don't have very good tools for assessing the impact of all sorts of things in the lives of women working in the informal economy, but particularly trade....[There are no] methodological tools to study the impact of proposed trade deals on women who are not in the formal economy. That raise much bigger questions, though, about whether the objective of these initiatives is to bring women into the formal economy, to transition women out of the informal economy into the formal economy. It raises a whole host of other issues. I think it's important to think about how that would change these women's lives. We have a data problem, but we also have an ideological problem. The NDP believes that, like other socially progressive ideals that can be brought forward in trade agreements, words are not enough. For gender, labour, indigenous, environmental or human rights to be truly advanced, there must be tools in place to achieve that progress. As Dr. Hannah rightfully pointed out, Canada has a lot to do itself on the gender agenda. We do not have pay equity. We do not have universal child care. It is clear that to move forward globally and negotiate progressive trade agreements internationally, nationally we must have domestic tools in place that work effectively.In conclusion, I would like to talk about indigenous rights. My colleague across the way mentioned that again this deal is absent of any mention of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We believe, in the NDP, that the government must abide by article 19 of the UN declaration and obtain free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people before adopting any measures that may affect them. As was noted by Pam Palmater at the international trade committee during the conversations about Mercosur, indigenous rights should be addressed throughout the entirety of a trade agreement, not only related to one chapter. She also noted that throughout the Pacific Alliance nations, there are large numbers of indigenous people who experience a great deal of violence from transnational corporations involved in trade. That is certainly something we see in NAFTA.These are some of the concerns I have about the trade deal, and I appreciate the time that this House has given me to discuss them. I appreciate any questions.Automotive industryC-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican StatesCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous rightsRegulationSexual discriminationThird reading and adoptionTrade agreements60969156096916LarryBagnellHon.YukonMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for putting an emphasis on the investor-state provisions, which we both dislike. We do not support this corporate model that ignores the rights of workers and indigenous rights.Not having climate targets in this deal is of huge concern. I would like the member to talk about what could have been done if we had included climate targets and how trade could become a tool for reducing emissions so we can follow the IPCC report. The report identifies that we will have catastrophic changes if we do not make huge changes to our lifestyle today.Could he also talk a bit more about how important the indigenous rights piece is? He cited the Hupacasath, and I applaud them. They have stood up for indigenous rights. He also cited how the government failed again. It failed to do adequate consultation and implement UNDRIP in this deal. There was an opportunity to do that. In fact, it was the U.S. Democrats that got us most of our gains in this deal, not the Liberal government, which is patting itself on the back. It would have settled on this agreement way before any of these changes were put forward, so we owe appreciation to the U.S. and certainly to the Hupacasath and all the other players who are standing up for really important values.C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican StatesCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementClimate change and global warmingGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreements60969616096962PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, investor-state is a huge problem for dealing with climate change. Given the number of investor-state dispute settlement agreements around the planet that are going to impede climate action, we are going to have to deal with this through article 20 of the WTO to try to solidify something that overrides the investor-state dispute settlements that have been signed in multilateral and bilateral agreements.In terms of the Hupacasath and their challenge, as the previous speaker said, article 19 of UNDRIP should have been taken into consideration and there should have been proper consultation with first nations about this. In the case of the Canada-China FIPA, to have it ratified in the middle of a Federal Court case is egregious.I would agree that we have a lot of things to work on. We have a lot of fights ahead of us to deal with the spiderweb of investor-state that surrounds this planet and deal with the climate crisis to make sure we are able to fight it clearly, without corporate influence and blockage.C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican StatesCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementClimate change and global warmingGovernment billsIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreements609696360969646096965GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105120ChrisLewisChris-LewisEssexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, respect for first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples should underpin all of the discussions in the House. Further, it is also important that all Canadians are equal before the law and enjoy the same rights and freedoms.That being said, is it the Prime Minister's intent to take firearms that are legally owned and bought in good faith away from our law-abiding, indigenous fellow Canadians who require these tools for their hunting and trapping rights?FirearmsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOral questions60717466071747ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89449GaryAnandasangareeGary-AnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandasangareeGary_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his comments with respect to respecting indigenous rights.I want to start by assuring the House that our government is working to renew Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, building one based on the affirmation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership, which is why we will fully implement UNDRIP. We are working collaboratively through constructive rights recognition tables with real co-development of policy as we speak.We are also working to ensure Canada is fully implementing indigenous treaties, agreements and other arrangements. Reconciliation is not only an indigenous issue, it is a Canadian imperative, one I hope our—FirearmsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOral questions607174860717496071750ChrisLewisEssexCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104669Yves-FrançoisBlanchetYves-François-BlanchetBeloeil—ChamblyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlanchetYves-François_BQ.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we calmly broaden the range of possible solutions.In the last Parliament, the government committed to moving forward with the process of adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government does want to see certain files move quickly.For the sake of the nation-to-nation relationship, which is not necessarily a house specialty, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider immediately adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?Indigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples606364860636496063650JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we are working on a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.We were very disappointed when the Conservatives blocked the bill from passing in the last Parliament. We made significant progress on the Indigenous Languages Act, on child and family services, and on the Impact Assessment Act. We remain committed to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we will pass a jointly drafted bill. We see the previous bill as a bare minimum, not the absolute best we can do.Indigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples606365160636526063653Yves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—ChamblyYves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104669Yves-FrançoisBlanchetYves-François-BlanchetBeloeil—ChamblyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlanchetYves-François_BQ.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am sure that even the Conservatives can understand the notion of reconciliation and the fact that it is necessary. It was one of the values touted by the Liberals during two election campaigns. Unfortunately, no one believes it now, and certainly not the first nations. Instead of just repeating a number of principles, could we move forward and immediately—that being the key word—adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? The House will have the co-operation of the Bloc Québécois.Indigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6063654JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as I promised Canadians, we will be bringing forward a bill on the UN declaration. This time we hope that the Conservative Party will not block the passage of this bill or progress and reconciliation.With respect to the hon. member's comments, I can point out that we have taken steps towards reconciliation with the lifting of long-term boil water advisories, with 88% having been lifted to date, the recognition of jurisdiction over child and family services, a new fiscal relationship with communities and many other things we are doing.Indigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples60636556063656Yves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—ChamblyJagmeetSinghBurnaby South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous Affairs InterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, despite all of the emotional words, the government has failed to take any meaningful action to fight the discrimination that indigenous people face in Canada's legal system.Yesterday, I met with Colten Boushie's family. They are still waiting for answers, and they are waiting for action.Will the Prime Minister support first nations, Métis and Inuit people and accept their call to invite the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people to Canada so she can investigate the systemic racism in our justice system?DiscriminationIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsJudiciaryOral questions606373760637386063739JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous Affairs InterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to sit down with family and friends of Colten Boushie last night to talk about exactly this and to remind them that we too continue to share their grief in the tragedy that their family underwent.We have committed to advancing reconciliation and addressing the systemic issues involving indigenous peoples within the criminal justice system. We abolished peremptory challenges for both the Crown and the defence, which gave each party the ability to veto a selected juror without having to give any reasons. This addresses long-standing concerns that racialized Canadians were being unfairly excluded in the jury selection process. We recognize there is more to do and we will do it.DiscriminationIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsJudiciaryOral questions606374060637416063742GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniSukhDhaliwalSurrey—Newton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Indigenous Affairs]InterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, this petition calls upon the government to immediately commit to upholding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada by halting all existing and planned construction of the Coastal GasLink project on Wet'suwet'en territory, ordering the RCMP to dismantle its exclusion zone and stand down, scheduling nation-to-nation talks between the Wet'suwet'en nation and the federal and provincial governments and prioritizing the real implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous rightsPetition 431-00107Wet'suwet'en First Nation6059493RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, the bill amends the citizenship oath to let new Canadians know that they should recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. However, we have a situation today in which the government is clearly not recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples and not respecting section 35 of the Constitution.How can we go forward with this when the government is not actually following its own words?C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading60572926057293MarcoMendicinoHon.Eglinton—LawrenceMarcoMendicinoHon.Eglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoHon.Marco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizenship ActInterventionHon. Marco Mendicino: (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, as I acknowledged, we are indeed in a difficult situation right now. It goes without saying that we all want a peaceful de-escalation when it comes to the blockades. At the same time, however, this government has continued to make efforts to engage in constructive dialogue with indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister and ministers have engaged with our partners right across the country.We also have to bear in mind that there are serious concerns, as long as these blockades continue, with regard to the safety of indigenous peoples and Canadians right across the country, with regard to ensuring we resume shipments of essential resources and, finally, with regard to jobs.I certainly hope that I can count on my colleague to come around to support the bill, as it is one step in creating a space to advance meaningful reconciliation.C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)Citizenship and identityGovernment billsIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOathsSecond reading605729460572956057296JennyKwanVancouver EastPeterKentHon.Thornhill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville, Ind.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, reconciliation requires long overdue and urgent work: fundamental legislative and policy changes, new ways of making decisions, meeting the standards of UNDRIP and supporting indigenous nations as they rebuild.After the immediate crisis is addressed, the need for transformative change will still remain. How will the Prime Minister regain the trust, respect and moral authority to do the true reconciliation work that is so desperately required? Does the Prime Minister have the resolve to do what is right and not what partisan advisers tell him is politically expedient?Indigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples60579956057996JonathanWilkinsonHon.North VancouverDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to receive, in my mandate letter from the Prime Minister, the task of implementing legislation that will implement UNDRIP into Canadian law. That is a priority for our government. We have promised to do it by the end of the year 2020, and we will go ahead with this, engaging with indigenous Canadians and other Canadians, in order to fulfill that mandate promise.Indigenous policyIndigenous rightsOral questionsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6057997JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/992CarolynBennettHon.Carolyn-BennettToronto—St. Paul'sLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BennettCarolyn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project]InterventionHon. Carolyn Bennett: (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, the young indigenous people whom I met with in the office of the Minister of Northern Affairs were not radical activists. They were sensitive, young indigenous people expressing the importance of the land, water and air.One young woman, who had slept in the Minister of Northern Affairs' office for over 10 days, tearfully expressed to me how upsetting it was to see the images and hear from the people being arrested for what they believed in, friendships that began a year ago and then having to witness their new friend being arrested earlier this month.I believe we have learned from the crises at Oka and Ipperwash, in Caledonia and Gustafsen Lake. I believe the police also understand its role in that. Last year, we said that we never wanted to see again the images of police having to use force in an indigenous community in order to keep the peace. Canada is counting on us to work together to create the space for respectful dialogue with the Wet'suwet'en peoples. We all want this dispute resolved in a peaceful and durable manner. The rhetoric and divisive tactics from the other side are irresponsible. We want the Wet'suwet'en peoples to come together and resolve their differences of opinion. We want to work with both the elected chiefs in council and the hereditary chiefs toward a future outside the Indian Act, where, as a nation, they can choose the governance of their choosing, write their own laws and finally be able to have their rights affirmed as they take decisions with respect to their land, water and air in the best interests of their children and seven generations out.We are inspired by the courageous Wet'suwet'en people who took the recognition of their rise to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw case in 1997. However, we need to be clear that the court did not at that time grant title to their lands. It affirmed the rights of the Wet'suwet'en but said the question of title was to be determined at a later time.It has been more than 20 years, through many federal and provincial governments, and the Wet'suwet'en people are understandably impatient for the question of title to be resolved. I look forward to working together on an out-of-court process to determine title.The Wet'suwet'en have worked hard on those next steps within the B.C. treaty process and more recently, since 2018, on specific claims, negotiation preparedness, nation rebuilding, with funding from the government for research.Two years ago I signed an agreement with the hereditary chiefs of the Office of the Wet'suwet'en on asserting their rights on child and family services. At the signing, there was some overlap. Some of the hereditary chiefs also hold or have held office within their communities as chiefs and/or councillors.Across Canada, over half of the Indian Act bands are sitting down at tables to work on their priorities as they assert their jurisdiction. From education to fisheries to child and family services to policing to court systems, we have made important strides forward in the hard work of what Lee Crowchild describes as “deconstructing the effects of colonization.”In British Columbia, we have been inspired by the work of the B.C. summit as they have been able to articulate and sign, with us and the B.C. government, a new policy that will, once and for all, eliminate the concepts of extinguishment, cede and surrender for future treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.This new B.C. policy is transformative. It represents years of hard work that has eliminated so many of the obstacles that impeded the treaty process. It will be an essential tool as we are able to accelerate the progress to self-determination. I believe the B.C. policy can provide a template for nations from coast to coast to coast.We have together agreed that no longer will loans be necessary for first nations to fund their negotiations in Canada. We are forgiving outstanding past loans and, in some cases, paying back nations for loans that had already been repaid.For over two years, we have worked with the already self-governing nations on a collaborative fiscal agreement that will provide stable, predictable funding, which will finally properly fund the running of their governments.(1050)[Translation] This new funding arrangement will provide them with much more money than they would have received under the Indian Act.[English]The conditions are right to move the relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada to one based on the affirmation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. It has been exciting to watch the creativity and innovation presented by the Ktunaxa and Stó:lo nations in their negotiations of modern treaties.We were inspired to see the hereditary chiefs and elected chief and council of the Heiltsuk Nation work together to sign an agreement with Canada on their path to self-government.We are also grateful to the B.C. government for its important work on reconciliation, including the passage of Bill 41, implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.I would like to thank Murray Rankin for his important work for B.C. on lands and title with the Wet'suwet'en nation and Nathan Cullen for his work with all those involved in the current impasse.We have seen that real progress can be made when hereditary and elected leadership come together with a shared vision of nation rebuilding and work together on a clear route to self-determination.I look forward to having these conversations with the Wet'suwet'en nation. We have an obligation to move beyond the good work we are doing on child and family services to a meaningful discussion on reconstituting the Wet'suwet'en nation.It is time to build on the Delgamuukw decision, time to show that issues of rights and title can be solved through meaningful dialogue(1055)[Translation]My job is to ensure that Canada finds out-of-court solutions and to fast-track negotiations and agreements that make real change possible.[English] I hope that shortly we will be able to sit down with the hereditary chiefs of Wet'suwet'en and work together on their short and long-term goals. There are many parts of Canada where title is very difficult to determine. Many nations occupied the land for different generations. There are other areas like Tsilhqot'in's title land and Haida Gwaii where there is clear evidence that the land has been occupied by one nation for millennia. We are at a critical time in Canada. We need to deal effectively with the uncertainty. Canadians want to see indigenous rights honoured. They are impatient for meaningful progress. Canadians are counting on us to implement a set of rules and processes in which section 35 of our Constitution can be honourably implemented.[Translation]Passing legislation and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, is one way to move forward.[English]Canadians acknowledge that there has been a difference of opinion among the Wet'suwet'en peoples. As was said, 20 elected chiefs and councils have agreed to the project in consultation with their people. Women leaders have expressed an opinion that the project can help eliminate poverty or provide meaningful work for their young men and reduce domestic violence and incarceration Crystal Smith, chief councillor for Haisla nation, is in favour of the pipeline. She eloquently said this morning on Ottawa Morning that the solutions would be found within the Wet'suwet'en nation and that the outside voices were not helpful. There needs to be unity and consensus within the community, and today's debate is not helping. Some have expressed that in an indigenous world view providing an energy source that will reduce China's reliance on coal is good for mother earth. We are hoping the Wet'suwet'en people will be able to come together to take these decisions together, decisions that are in the best interests of their children and their children for generations to come.[Translation]We applaud the thousands of young Canadians fighting for climate justice.[English]We know that they need hope. They want to see a real plan to deal with the climate emergency. We believe we have an effective plan in place, from clean tech, renewable energy, public transit and protection of the land and water. We want the young people of Canada and all those who have been warning about climate change for decades to feel heard.[Translation]They need hope, and they need to feel involved in coming up with real solutions.[English]As I mentioned Tuesday night, we have invested in and are inspired by the work of Val Napoleon and John Burrows at the Indigenous Law Lodge at UVIC. They will be able to do the research on the laws of many nations, so they are able to create governance structures and constitutions in keeping with their laws. It is so important to understand the damage done by colonization and residential schools that has led to sometimes different interpretations of traditional legal practices and customs. [Translation]We think that, one day, Canada will be able to integrate indigenous law into Canada's legislative process, just as it did with common law and civil law. [English]We are also striving to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and to increase awareness of our shared history.We need all the indigenous leadership to know that we are serious about rebuilding trust and working with respect, as the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Prime Minister have expressed in such a heartfelt way.Following up on the repeated and public personal commitments by the Prime Minister and the B.C. premier and our letters of February 16 and yesterday, I and the B.C. Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation continue to offer our commitment to a process based upon trust and mutual respect to address the urgent issues of concern to the hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en nation. We wrote to them on February 16, offering an urgent meeting with us, and we were willing to meet in Smithers if that was agreeable to them. In an effort to exemplify our commitment and recognizing the urgency of the situation, both of us travelled to Victoria on Monday to allow for short-notice travel to Smithers if that was their reply.While we have not yet been able to meet in person, we have continued the dialogue through multiple conversations with some of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in order to clarify a path forward. That was an important step, and we thank them for coming to the discussion with the same commitment for a peaceful resolution. We understand that they have urgent issues to resolve and require dedicated attention from both levels of government in working with them to chart a peaceful path forward.We are committed to finding a mutually acceptable process with them and the Wet’suwet’en nation to sit down and address the urgent and long-term issues at hand. We wrote again yesterday to arrange an in-person meeting. We hope that the Wet’suwet’en will be able to express to those in solidarity with them that it is now time for them to stand down and let us get back to work with Wet’suwet’en nation with its own laws and governance and work nation to nation with the Crown. I am hoping to be able to return to British Columbia as soon as possible to continue that work. In closing, I have to say that as a physician, I was trained to first do no harm. I believe today's debate is harmful to the progress we need to make in order to get to a durable solution.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectGovernment assistanceIndigenous land claimsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsIndigenous self-governmentLand managementOil and gasOpposition motionsProtestsWet'suwet'en First Nation605373960537406053765CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project]InterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, as always, I am extremely honoured to stand in this House, the people's House, to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay on unceded Algonquin territory. Let us just reflect on that a moment. This is not just some nice thing we Canadians now say, when we do the land recognition. It is a statement of understanding that there are outstanding historical rights and land issues running across our country, and we need to acknowledge that. That is one of the reasons we are here today.We are at an unprecedented moment in Canada's history, a moment when we can all come together and rise up to meet the challenge, or we can give in to our lazier base motives of political machismo and spite. I believe we are now dealing with a crisis that has moved from Wet'suwet'en territory out across Canada, and it requires leadership. It requires us, as parliamentarians, to recognize it and be honest with each other. This is bigger than all of us, but if we do not rise to the task, the risks to our nation right now are very serious.We can come together and try to untangle this extremely complex Gordian knot, or we can play to the usual base in this House of division. I find this opposition motion from the Conservatives to be very telling of their political tactics. This motion has us standing in this House today to “condemn the radical activists who are exploiting divisions within the Wet’suwet’en community”.It is our job to recognize that there needs to be a conversation not only with the Wet'suwet'en people, but also with indigenous people across this country. It is not for us to say that if they support a gas line, we will support them, and have Parliament come down in the middle of a very tense motion.I point to the other motion the Conservatives brought forward. They were willing to use this national crisis to try to bring down the government and save the opposition leader's political career, who has been rejected by his own party. That is not leadership. That is more of the same kind of joker chaos politics that we do not need at this time. This past weekend, I joined thousands of young people in the streets of Ottawa. People were also marching in Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver. It was extremely inspiring to see these young people, young indigenous leadership, stepping forward at the front of the march. I spoke to many of them and asked where they were from. They were from places such as Kanesatake, Kitigan Zibi, Fort Albany and Barrière Lake.I think of the Leader of the Opposition who told these young indigenous people to check their privilege. I know he was not serious. I know he was just doing it as a dig, a slur, a spite, but that is not leadership. The message it is sending to this young generation is that this Parliament is in opposition to their hopes and dreams, and that is not Canada.I think of the young woman I met from Fort Albany, and the Conservatives would tell her to check her privilege. Her grandparents were at Federal Court this week for the St. Anne's residential school crisis, where some of the worst crimes in history committed against children happened. Her grandparents in Fort Albany are still fighting, and Conservatives would tell this young woman to check her privilege.I think of Kanesatake and the Mohawk people who have been there since long before us and who will be there long after us, and the Leader of the Opposition is telling the woman I met to check her privilege. Of course he has a $900,000 slush fund for treats and perks. That is quite privileged.I also think of the amazing young woman I met who spoke up from Barriere Lake, Quebec. Barriere Lake's territory has been stripped of forestry and has been flooded out time and time again by massive hydro dams, and the people have received nothing. Her parents, grandparents and great-grandparents have fought just to stay on that land. To tell her to check her privilege is not on.(1145)Then there is Kitigan Zibi. There are so many young people from Kitigan Zibi. Kitigan Zibi is not very far from Ottawa. It is an incredible Algonquin community right beside Maniwaki. Maniwaki has clean drinking water, but Kitigan Zibi does not. The Conservatives tell the world that they can drive a bitumen pipeline through the Rocky Mountains, but we cannot get clean water to a community that close to Ottawa. This is why people are marching.What we need to do here today is to not play games with these kinds of motions that the Conservatives are using to divide the Wet'suwet'en people. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Mr. Charlie Angus: We need to say we have a much bigger crisis. We need to start to untangle this and find a way to de-escalate, because—Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOil and gasOpposition motionsProtestsRail transportation and railwaysWet'suwet'en First Nation605389360538946053895605389660538976053898StéphaneBergeronMontarvilleAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project]InterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1255)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks. We have essentially the same point of view.The Conservatives are talking a lot about legality when we know that, historically, with colonialism, legislation has often been used to steal land and violate the rights of indigenous peoples.I would like to know what she thinks of the 1997 Supreme Court ruling that makes hereditary chiefs stewards of the land.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOil and gasOpposition motionsWet'suwet'en First Nation60541116054112PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project]InterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I am not going to pretend to be an expert on decisions, but I do know that Supreme Court decisions must be respected and I do not think any of us in this place should be so presumptuous as to speak for the Wet’suwet’en people. It really does a disservice to walking on this path of reconciliation for anyone in this place to think that he or she can speak for the Wet’suwet’en people.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOil and gasOpposition motionsWet'suwet'en First Nation6054113AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105221LindsayMathyssenLindsay-MathyssenLondon—FanshaweNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MathyssenLindsay_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project]InterventionMs. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, the rail stoppage is affecting people's jobs and livelihoods. People in London—Fanshawe, my community, have certainly commented on that, and they want a clear resolution.However, we need a real, lasting solution. We do not want to just get back to the way that things were. We need to really move forward in positive ways.I need to know, will the government commit to working out a lasting, sustainable and just solution to the issue of title?Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOil and gasOpposition motionsWet'suwet'en First Nation6054603BobBratinaHamilton East—Stoney CreekBobBratinaHamilton East—Stoney Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88775BobBratinaBob-BratinaHamilton East—Stoney CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BratinaBob_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project]InterventionMr. Bob Bratina: (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the comments that are included in that question. The answer is absolutely.That is why we cannot support the opposition day motion which condemns “the radical activists who are exploiting divisions.” We do not need this kind of language, this rhetoric and angry rebuttal to a situation that is being dealt with.On the larger point, which my friend from Windsor West has noted, that is why we are continuing the way we are. This problem did not start two weeks ago, it started 200 years ago.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsOil and gasOpposition motionsWet'suwet'en First Nation605460460546056054606LindsayMathyssenLondon—FanshaweGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project]InterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying I am going to split my time with my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I made a statement in the House yesterday during Question Period that garnered a lot of heckling from the other side. I stated that I, along with my Conservative colleagues, support the Wet'suwet'en people.I suppose to the Liberals and the NDP it was a funny thing for a Conservative to say, and a funny thing that we would support 20 out of 20 of the band councils that approved the Coastal GasLink pipeline, that we would support economic opportunity for first nations communities, that we would support law and order and that we would support indigenous communities raising themselves up.Having said all that, the history of humanity is rife with situations of people not actually understanding each other all the time, their motivations, their values or desires. However, we have persevered and found ways to understand each other. We have built civilizations, we have co-operated and we have accomplished great things together.The key to the complex process of understanding one another, of perceiving others' intentions and their motivations, is empathy. The neuroscience of empathy is quite fascinating. Humanity, meaning all of us without exception, is egocentric. We are inherently ugly people. We are narcissistic and at times preoccupied with fulfilling our own needs and desires. However, somewhere in our ancient past, we recognized the importance of caring for our children. We realized the benefits of co-operation, and our capacity for compassion and tolerance grew.There is a part of the brain that recognizes our self-centredness. The right supramarginal gyrus recognizes the lack of empathy, and it adjusts our thinking accordingly. Researchers actually found that, when we make rash decisions, this part of the cerebral cortex does not work properly. Our ability to understand others is reduced greatly when we do not take the time to hear the views of others.Researchers made another interesting discovery. When we are in a state of comfort or in a pleasant situation, we are less able to empathize with another's pain and suffering. They seized upon and verified an important truth: In order for humanity to make effective and compassionate decisions, we must be able to connect to that part of the brain that allows us to recognize our selfish nature. We do that most effectively by taking the time to hear, see and put ourselves in uncomfortable situations, the same situations as those we are empathizing with.Fortunately for our species, and perhaps a testament to the great accomplishments we have all made together, the human brain is adjustable. Our capacity for empathy and compassion is never fixed. If we put ourselves in someone else's shoes and do unto others as we would have them do unto us, we can reinforce those neural connections and we can move down the road of reconciliation together.The road will not be easy. Thousands of years of history have taught us that, but they have also taught us that together we can achieve amazing things. Here we are asking the House to stand in solidarity with the majority of the Wet'suwet'en people who support the Coastal GasLink project. However, there are two sides. Not everyone supports the decisions of the majority of the Wet'suwet'en people or the 20 democratically elected leaders of the indigenous communities along the proposed pipeline route. While we struggle to put ourselves in other's shoes, we empathize with their concerns.I have to wonder if those activists have put themselves in the shoes of the majority of indigenous peoples who value self-reliance, communication and fiscal accountability, who believe that resources should be sustainable and equitable, and who believe that governance should be based on their collective heritage. The Wet'suwet'en do. Those values are listed in their mission statement along with a powerful vision and purpose declaration stating:We are proud, progressive Wet’suwet’en dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of our culture, traditions and territories; working as one for the betterment of all.“For the betterment of all” is a very empathetic statement to be sure, one that should hang from the very ceiling of this place. Is that not why we are here, for the betterment of Canada and Canadians, one and all?(1535)We also need to take a step back. We need to hear each other. We need to see each other. We need time to sort out these issues and to address them, to reconcile our differences and make agreements. This is why we need to end those blockades. It is not in order to punish, but to ease tension and move forward. Let us demonstrate that here, so we can do it there. We have waited far too long to act.As people in all parts of our country fear shortages of essential goods and as job losses mount, the number of people demanding resolution grows. The Council of the Federation, a group composed of all of Canada's premiers, is calling for an immediate and peaceful end to these protests. Temperatures are rising. Yesterday in Edmonton, counter-protesters showed up and dismantled a barricade. Heated words were exchanged. Threats were made. Out of frustration and fear, people are not listening or looking at each other. We are all better than that.During this upheaval the country is looking for leadership, yet despite calls from the hereditary chiefs for the Prime Minister to get involved, the Liberal government has done everything it could to distance itself from the ongoing conflict. The Prime Minister will now, I hope, start taking this matter very seriously. It is a national crisis that needs the utmost attention.We ask the Prime Minister to act now, to stand with the majority of the Wet'suwet'en people who want to work as one for the betterment of all. Self-reliance fosters self-determination, and this is at the heart of economic reconciliation. The National Aboriginal Economic Development Board produced its 2016 report, “Reconciliation: Growing Canada's Economy by $27.7 Billion”. The board found that: If Indigenous peoples had the same education and training as non-Indigenous peoples, the resulting increase in productivity would mean an additional $8.5 billion in income earned annually by the Indigenous population. It went on: If Indigenous peoples were given the same access to economic opportunities available to other Canadians, the resulting increase in employment would result in an additional $6.9 billion per year in employment income and approximately 135,000 newly employed Indigenous people. If the poverty rates among Indigenous Peoples were reduced, the fiscal costs associated with supporting people living in poverty, would decline by an estimated $8.4 billion annually. Overall, if the gap in opportunities for Indigenous communities across Canada were closed, it would result in an increase in GDP of $27.7 billion annually or a boost of about 1.5% to Canada's economy.If we want to have true reconciliation, we must have economic reconciliation. It is good for indigenous communities. It is good for local municipalities and it is good for the Canadian economy.The $6 billion, 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline, which received approval from the province, the 20 first nations band councils, including five of the six band councils in the Wet'suwet'en nation, is about economic reconciliation. It is ultimately about a shared future, one where government-to-government co-operation benefits all Canadians, both indigenous and non-indigenous. Bonnie George, a Wet'suwet'en woman who has been ridiculed and called a traitor, maintains an enlightened view of the world. When asked about how the police and governments were handling this situation, she said: The authorities, they're just like the rest of us. They have a job to fulfil. They have an injunction in front of them that they have to enforce and they did all possible, you know, to try to de-escalate. She went on: As a Wet'suwet'en person, it is really disheartening to see all of this unravel as it has, because our people—our hereditary chiefs and our elders in the past—they've always had discussions. Let us allow Canadians to get back to work, allow the goods that Canadians need to ensure their health and safety to flow and our railways to go, our borders to be safe, and then, with earnest and swift resolve, meet with the Wet'suwet'en people and take the time to hear and see and to put ourselves in their position.Coastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectHuman and social behaviourIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyIndigenous rightsOil and gasOpposition motionsProtestsRail transportation and railwaysRegional developmentSplitting speaking timeWet'suwet'en First Nation605462460546256054626BobBratinaHamilton East—Stoney CreekKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE