SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 138 - Nov/30/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Nov/30/22 4:09:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition that highlights the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. The petitioners note various reports that have identified this persecution, and that the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners includes organ harvesting, killing people for their organs and transplanting those to others, obviously without the consent of the person being killed. The petitioners call on the Canadian Parliament and the government to seek to stop the mass murder of innocent people for their organs, including but not limited to Canadian legislation to ban organ tourism, also to take additional steps to call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, and to urge that those who participate in this persecution be brought to justice.

123 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/22 4:09:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 869, 871 and 873.

14 words

Nov/30/22 4:10:05 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 869—

Questioner: Raquel Dancho

With regard to the illegal border crossing at Roxham Road: does the government have any plans to shut down the border crossing, and, if so, when?

Question No. 871—

Questioner: Robert Kitchen

With regard to Order in Council P.C. 2020-903 and the coming into force of Section 292 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1 (S.C. 2019, c. 29): (a) on what date did Section 292 of the act come into effect; (b) who, in the Office of the Prime Minister, signed the order fixing the date for the coming into force of Section 292 of the act, which was published on December 9, 2020; and (c) what are the details of any government website entries related to the coming into force of the Order in Council, which have been modified in any way since January 1, 2021, including, for each, (i) the website which was modified (ii) the date it was modified, (iii) what was modified, (iv) the manner in which the information was modified, (v) the reason for the modification, (vi) who ordered the modification?

Question No. 873—

Questioner: Rachel Blaney

With regard to the Pacific Salmon Strategic Initiative (PSSI), since its inception: (a) what initiatives, programs, and projects have been created or received funding, broken down by key area, namely (i) conservation and stewardship, (ii) salmon enhancement, (iii) harvest transformation, (iv) integration and collaboration; and (b) what is the total amount of funding spent to date through the PSSI?

1235 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/22 4:10:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 865 to 868, 870 and 872 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

38 words

Nov/30/22 4:10:22 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 865—

Questioner: Bonita Zarrillo

With regard to the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI), broken down by round, province and units: (a) how many RHI applications received federal funding; (b) how many RHI applications were denied federal funding; (c) of the units in (a), how many (i) have been completed, (ii) are still being built; and (d) of the units in (a), how many were not completed and the applications collapsed, and what were the reasons?

Question No. 866—

Questioner: Rick Perkins

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the southern resident killer whales at the Pender Island bluffs, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how many southern resident killer whales have travelled to the Pender Island bluffs; (b) on what date were they first spotted; (c) on what date did they leave the zone; (d) when did they travel, (e) what did they feed on; (f) how many (i) were struck or entangled, (ii) died; (g) how many boats were fined for entering the zone; (h) what was the yearly cost of enforcement; and (i) how often did DFO patrol the transit zone?

Question No. 867—

Questioner: Rick Perkins

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), broken down by year since 2015: (a) what was the DFO's budget and expenditures in view of enacting their willing buyer-willing seller policy, for all licence buy-backs; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by license type and species; and (c) how many licenses have been acquired, broken down by license type and species, and what is the average cost by species?

Question No. 868—

Questioner: Rick Perkins

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the spawning biomass of North Atlantic mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, broken down by year since 2015: (a) what was the size of biomass, broken down by the date of data collected; and (b) what are the details of how the data in (a) was collected, including the location of data collected, the methodology used and what vessel was used to collect the data?

Question No. 870—

Questioner: Robert Kitchen

With regard to reports that some files related to requests made under the Access to Information and Privacy Act (ATIP), which have received lengthy extensions and are not being worked on, broken down by government entity subject to the ATIP: (a) how many outstanding ATIP requests have received an extension in excess of five years; (b) for each request in (a), what are the details, including the (i) date received, (ii) length of extension, (iii) anticipated completion date, (iv) subject matter; and (c) for each request in (a), what specific work was conducted on the file, broken down by year since the request was received?

Question No. 872—

Questioner: Don Davies

With regard to the federal tobacco control strategy for fiscal years 2020-21 and 2021-22: (a) what was the budget for the strategy; (b) how much of that budget was spent within each fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each component of the strategy, specifically (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the strategy, and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control, and, if so, how much was reallocated?

563 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/30/22 4:10:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

22 words

Stand
Deputy

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/22 4:10:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand at this time. The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

31 words

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Nov/30/22 4:10:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-29 at third reading. This is quite critical legislation and I will start with some preparatory comments. Our government is committed wholeheartedly to pursuing all avenues possible in the advancement of reconciliation in this country. It goes without saying that when we speak about reconciliation, a cornerstone of this concept is the idea about accountability, that the government, the country, needs to be held accountable for historical wrongs that have been perpetrated against indigenous peoples for literally centuries on this land. Residents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto have spoken to me regularly over the past seven years about the importance of reconciliation, the need to advance it and to address the TRC calls to actions. I am very pleased to note that the TRC calls to action, five of them in particular, are really at the heart of this legislation. What my constituents and people around the country have told me is that we need to ensure we are doing everything in our power as a government and as a Parliament to remedy the wrongs that were inflicted upon generations of indigenous people, particularly indigenous children who, through the residential schools program, were robbed of their families, their culture, oftentimes their language and, indeed, their history. Going back seven years to 2015 before we came into power as government, we campaigned on a platform that called for a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, one that would be based on the recognition of rights based on respect, co-operation and partnership. An important cornerstone of any nation-to-nation relationship as it is being advanced is basic respect for the autonomy and self-determination of the various indigenous peoples that we engage with, being first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This is important on the international stage, but it is also important right here in Canada. The reconciliation process that I am speaking of has to be guided by the active participation and leadership of indigenous peoples. I will digress for a moment. We had an example of that in the legislation I was privileged to work on, which, if memory serves, was either Bill C-91 or Bill C-92 two Parliaments ago. However, the important piece is not the number of the bill that we advanced at the time, but the indigenous languages legislation that we advanced and passed in this Parliament, which is now firmly part of Canadian law. In that context, we co-developed the legislation in that spirit of reconciliation, in terms of giving full participation and leadership in the development role to indigenous communities, first nations, Inuit and Métis. That is an important aspect of reconciliation and how it manifests, but so too is this bill. With this bill, we would put in place institutional mechanisms that are called for in the TRC calls to action for indigenous peoples, so they can hold Canada and the Canadian government to account for meeting goals on the path toward reconciliation. What is Bill C-29 about? It is called “an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation” and, like the indigenous languages bill that I was privileged to work on two Parliaments ago, it has been driven by the active participation of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, organizations and individuals right across the country. What it would do is establish a permanent, indigenous-led, independent council with a mandate to monitor and support the progress of reconciliation in this country, including progress toward the full implementation of the TRC calls to action. Let us talk about those calls to action. I mentioned them at the outset of my comments. The calls to action call on the government to create a non-partisan body that would hold the Government of Canada to account on the journey toward reconciliation. Specifically, calls to action 53 and 54 call for the establishment of this national council for reconciliation and for permanence of funding, which is very critical. We need to not only create the body, but adequately resource it. Call to action 55 calls on the government to provide relevant information to the council in support of its mandate, providing it with the tools so it can execute its functions. Call to action 56 calls on the government to publish an annual report in response to the national council's annual report covering what the government is doing in terms of advancing reconciliation, another key component. I will digress for a moment. I know there were some very useful amendments proposed at the committee stage, which I believe were universally adopted and it was unanimous coming out of committee. One of the components was for the government's response to be led by the Prime Minister himself, which is really critical in terms of emphasizing the prioritization and importance of this issue about advancing reconciliation. It is critical to not underestimate the impact that this kind of council will have on fostering the type of relationship with indigenous peoples I mentioned at the outset of my comments. Through the annual response report, Canada would be consistently required to account for progress being made and also progress that has not yet been made, including identifying challenges, hurdles and obstacles. It would be the people most impacted by such policies, the first nations, Inuit and Métis people on this land, who would have the power and wield that power to hold the government of the day to account. That is really important. This is not about partisanship. This is not about what the Liberal government will be held to account for. This is what any government in the country would be held to account to do, going forward, with respect to advancing reconciliation, which is very critical in terms of such a pressing matter. It is clearly only the beginning of some of the work we need to be doing. We know that, in Ontario, in my province, the median income of an indigenous household is 80% of that of a non-indigenous household. We know that the life expectancy of an indigenous person is over nine years shorter than a non-indigenous person on this land. We know that while fewer than 5% of Canadians are indigenous, indigenous women represent over half of the inmate population in federal penitentiaries. We know that when we account for male participants, while indigenous men represent 5% of the population, they represent 30% of the prison population. Those are really chilling statistics. I can say, parenthetically, that TRC call to action 55 has several subcategories. Two of the subcategories, and I will just cite from them, talk about the council ensuring that it reports on the progress on “reducing the rate of criminal victimization of Aboriginal people” as well as, in call to action 55, subsection vii, “Progress on reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice and correctional systems.” I think one important facet of what the council will be doing, and also how the government will be responding, is highlighting some of the initiatives we have already started to take. I am very pleased to say that, about two weeks ago, we secured passage and royal assent of Bill C-5. The bill addresses mandatory minimum penalties in the country, which have been in place for far too long, and how those mandatory minimum penalties served to take low-risk, first-time offenders and overly incarcerate them, disproportionately impacting indigenous men and Black men in Canada. That is an important facet, in terms of how we advance this fight for reconciliation and how we advance some of these terms that are specifically itemized in the calls to action. That is exactly the type of thing I would like to see reported on by the council and included in the responses by the Canadian government, as to what further steps we can take to cure such instances, such as overrepresentation. There are lasting effects. All of these statistics I have been citing demonstrate the lasting effects of the intergenerational trauma in Canada that has been inflicted upon first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. They are the result of enduring systemic discrimination and systemic racism in this country. That is critical to underline. It should be an issue that is really incontrovertible in the chamber. We cannot begin to address such serious issues until we put into law a mechanism for holding the government of the day accountable, consistently accountable, for the actions, both past and present, and for what we are doing to remedy these historical injustices. I was quite pleased to see this bill get the support of all parties at second reading. I am very confident that, hopefully, it will get support, once again, of all of the parties in the chamber. I note, again, some of the important amendments that were made. I mentioned one of them right at the start of my comments. Other useful amendments presented by a multi-party group at committee included having elders and residential school survivors and their descendants populate the board of directors for this council. That would be a really critical feature. I will say, somewhat subjectively, that I was quite pleased to see the fact that the importance of revitalizing, restoring and ensuring the non-extinction of indigenous languages also forms part of the amendments that were suggested by the committee, something we have wholeheartedly adopted already in Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, the response to the annual report will be led by the Prime Minister himself. That being said, this bill would do more than place obligations on the government. It would compel the government to continuously hold a mirror to itself, to urge us to never stop striving to do the best job we can vis-à-vis reconciliation. It would urge us to take ownership of the wrongdoings of the past and of the challenges of the present, and to work toward a commitment to do better going forward. I think this type of honesty and accountability has been long sought after, and Bill C-29 is a step in the right direction. I commend the bill and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same and ensure its passage.

1747 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC)

Nov/30/22 4:20:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Madam Speaker, the process was a very collaborative one at committee and I appreciate that process. The hon. member spoke a couple of times about the amendment that was made to call on the Prime Minister to respond to the annual report, rather than the minister, as was in the original legislation. It was agreed upon at committee that we would do that. I am just curious if the member has a reason why that was not included in the draft legislation in the first place, as that was very specifically a response to call to action 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Nov/30/22 4:21:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his work on the committee. I have reviewed the calls to action myself and I recognize what is in call to action 56. I could simply say, without having in-depth understanding of the genesis of the bill, that I presume it was probably deemed appropriate at that time for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who led off debate yesterday at third reading, to be leading the response. That is the key ministry that was involved in generating the legislation. However, I take at full value what is listed in call to action 56 and also the fact that the government has supported that very useful amendment.

116 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Nov/30/22 4:22:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It really is nice to see everyone rallying around this bill. I am glad all members want to see it pass so we can head in the right direction. This bill refers to all sectors of Canadian society and all governments in Canada. It is not very precise. Will federally regulated private corporations be subject to this legislation? Will an independent aviation company be subject to it? Would the member please clarify some of these things?

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Nov/30/22 4:23:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, the member for Repentigny asked a very good question. This is my personal opinion, but I believe it is everyone's responsibility to fight discrimination against indigenous peoples, including federally regulated private corporations. I think this is a challenge that all companies, even private ones, should take up. However, I cannot provide a specific answer. I will follow up, and we can talk about it later.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Nov/30/22 4:23:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. The fact is that the government was found guilty of wilful and reckless discrimination against first nations children and the broken child welfare system. The government has gone back to court. It spent about $15 million fighting Cindy Blackstock and the children. This is not reconciliation. The opportunity to get this right is before us, but it requires that the government stop putting the threat of the money being taken off the table, sit down and negotiate, make sure that it puts the interests of children first and have a timeline that is reasonable. A deadline of the end of March is not going to make this thing work. We have to end the discrimination and it has to be done right. I am asking if the government is willing to call off the lawyers and sit down and negotiate with the first nations experts to make sure we get a plan in place that leaves no child behind in this country.

173 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Nov/30/22 4:24:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question, and I obviously note his advocacy on behalf of indigenous communities in his riding and generally in Canada. It is an important question. With respect to the litigation, what I would simply say is that obviously any discrimination, whether it is in the child welfare system or not, is something that needs to be rooted out in this country. I think the litigation had various aspects to it. It went through various permutations and combinations, so to speak. What I am very pleased about is the final settlement reached. It is a historic settlement in Canada of $40 billion, $20 billion of which went to the litigants and $20 billion to communities for the entrenchment of programs that would seek to avoid ever having repetition of that kind of discrimination within the child welfare system. As to his specific question about the timing of resolving the payment allocation, I do not have that information at hand, but as I mentioned to the Bloc MP, I am more than happy to follow up on that going forward.

185 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/30/22 4:25:46 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Elections Canada.

48 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Nov/30/22 4:26:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate in this place and address some of the most pressing issues facing our nation. First, I would like to start off by saying how important it is to ensure that, as we have discussions in this place, we do so under the pretext and with the understanding that meaningful reconciliation is so absolutely essential to the conversation we must have within this place and the work we all do as parliamentarians. I find so often we see its importance when it comes to indigenous concerns and the issues faced, whether it be the tragedies that quite often make headlines, the host of other concerns we deal with through our offices with Indigenous and Northern Affairs or Crown-Indigenous Relations, or simply the concerns that come across our desks and come up in conversation as regular Canadians. Indigenous people in this country deserve more than photo ops. They deserve more than just words. They deserve that meaningful reconciliation. As we have talked about Bill C-29, and specifically addressing calls to action 53 through 56, we see how absolutely essential that conversation around meaningful reconciliation is. I am going to repeat a statement shared with me when I addressed this bill at second reading, which is that indigenous peoples in this country deserve to not simply be stakeholders, but shareholders. Whether it is with respect to the specifics around this conversation, and I will get into some examples of that here in a moment, they deserve to be shareholders in the future prosperity of everything that Canada is. I think that meaningfulness in everything we do is so absolutely essential, and I have been concerned as I have watched since being elected first in 2019, but also since the Trudeau Liberals took office with grand platitudes to address so many of the concerns that—

319 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/30/22 4:28:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member, on reflection, realizes what he did wrong. He is not supposed to be using the name of the Prime Minister, but rather his title.

37 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/30/22 4:28:44 p.m.
Watch

I will have to support the hon. parliamentary secretary on that one, so maybe the member could back it up a bit and start again. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

33 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/30/22 4:28:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

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. 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.

1009 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/22 4:36:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, a big part of the reconciliation and the calls for action deal with the issue of incarceration. Part of those calls incorporate the idea that we need to reduce minimum sentencing or reduce the number of times that minimum sentencing is being utilized. Given the Conservative Party's approach to minimum sentences, based on things like Bill C-5, does the Conservative Party support calls for action that deal with the reduction, in any way, of minimum sentences?

80 words

All Topics